Say Bob Sapp is put against the featherweight champion of the world. If Bob Sapp wins does that make him a better fighter? Give your answer and explain your reasoning please. I'm interested in seeing how everyone sees this.

Paragon

United States295 Posts

April 28 2006 09:08 GMT

It only makes him a bigger fighter.

It does not determine who is more skilled.

It does not determine who has trained the most.

All it proves is that Bob Sapp is bigger.

He is a "better fighter", but that does not mean he is more talented.

Talent is what we prize in fighting, and that is the reason for the weight classes.

I suppose the only thing he is better at is gaining weight/genetics.

I.E. If I win the lottery am I any luckier than the guy who didn't win?

Sure as hell I am, but it wasn't through any of the things I did.

EDIT: For all of you who don't know who Bob Sapp is:
http://www.icpress.com/Gallery/prtrt/bobsapp1.jpg

DTDominion

United States2148 Posts

April 28 2006 09:21 GMT

It means he's a better fighter.

But considering the low skill level of his opponent it doesn't show how good he is relative to other good fighters.

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

April 28 2006 09:21 GMT

Yes it does.

intrigue

Washington, D.C9934 Posts

April 28 2006 09:27 GMT

i see it as that he is definitely a better fighter

Eniram

Sudan3166 Posts

April 28 2006 09:36 GMT

Whats you're reasoning though? He is more able to reach the goal of beating someones ass, therefore he is a better fighter?

Kaolla

China2999 Posts

April 28 2006 09:41 GMT

well simple things first
if I beat boxer doesnt mean im better than him
so therefor no in 1 fight it never means hes better...
rest no clue -_-

zobz

Canada2175 Posts

April 28 2006 09:56 GMT

isn't the weight class system as much for safety and such as for anything else? like so that if the little guy just happened to lose he'd be losing to someone not twice his size and thus less likely to die or get horribly injured by the deciding blows? but without knowing much about fighting really, i'm not so sure the little guy would necessarilly lose. and if he would lose i would say that the big guy is the better fighter, because if the weight class system does exist to create different leagues of ability, the little guy only is the best fighter in his league, and in general the bigger guy has more ability to win a fight.

Rekrul

Korea (South)17174 Posts

April 28 2006 10:08 GMT

Who is a better fighter

you or a grizzly bear

?

Painbringer

Norway446 Posts

April 28 2006 10:14 GMT

#10

In my opinon a win is win. How can you be a better figher than the guy who beats you up? Yes there are alot of aspects but you win by being good.

boongee

United States967 Posts

April 28 2006 10:32 GMT

#11

On April 28 2006 18:36 Eniram wrote:
He is more able to reach the goal of beating someones ass, therefore he is a better fighter?

yep that pretty much sums it up

KOFgokuon

United States14899 Posts

April 28 2006 10:33 GMT

#12

you have to take everything into account when u say who is a better fighter
not just skill or speed
it includes size, strength, etc

DarK]N[exuS

China1441 Posts

April 28 2006 11:22 GMT

#13

Do you think your average 130 pounder can take down a huge muscle-bound dude without doing something like breaking his kneecaps/collarbones or whatever? Just through boxing stuff? I doubt it, it proves nothing if Bob Sapp can do this IMO. I don't really know much about boxing though, I might be comepletely wrong.

poppa

United States329 Posts

April 28 2006 11:53 GMT

#14

If you put Bruce Lee against Bob Sapp in a fight.
Who would u think will win?
I strongly believe that Bruce will... By the fact that he is a martial art master.
In fighting, when everything is valid (except hitting on the nuts of course), mass is not really that important... as Bruce said, mass will only make parts of ur body slower, therefore he trained to endure his muscles, not to make them big.

cuteFayth

Canada1167 Posts

April 28 2006 12:02 GMT

#15

holy fuck he's huge

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

April 28 2006 12:07 GMT

#16

vs. someone like Bruce if it was a closed space Bruce would lose, if not maybe he could tire him out? Hm, it seems wrong to say under any circumstances Bob Sapp > Bruce Lee, so I'm going to reevaluate my original answer. Also, from what I've read from Bruce, I'm pretty sure he'd have no problem tearing out Sapp's nuts if he was in a fight to the death.

You know the saying, the wolf gets the fox, the lion gets the wolf, and the fox gets the lion? Everyone has their mismatches as BW players well know. A wraith will beat a ultralisk one on one, but the ultra is the better fighter :o

Eniram

Sudan3166 Posts

April 28 2006 12:09 GMT

#17

The question was actually geared more towards who was a better fighter more than who would win. Serv has it right with his bw analogy.

MaZza[KIS]

Australia2110 Posts

April 28 2006 12:18 GMT

#18

Quinton Jackson making fun of bob sapp: http://www.rampagestreetsoldier.com/videos/quijnton_tard.mpg

Paragon

United States295 Posts

April 28 2006 12:54 GMT

#19

Who is a better fighter

you or a grizzly bear

?

Rek, that strongly depends on your definition of "fighter". If we are talking survival of the fittest fighter, we know the answer. But in the context of boxing, fighting is as much skill as it is brute force.