EPTAnd could you stop hyping pacman. The guy is done.
Mayweather vs Alvarez | Garcia vs Matthysse - Page 8
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
And could you stop hyping pacman. The guy is done. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On September 15 2013 16:12 Itsmedudeman wrote: The thing I'm most impressed by is mayweathers intelligence. For someone who's perceived as a thug he really knows a shit ton about boxing and fights incredibly smart in the ring. Yep, he's just on a different level, ridiculously calm and cool in the ring with incredible ability to coldly assess his opponents. Probably comes from a lifetime of good training and being schooled from a young age with lessons that most boxers take ages to learn or never even learn. Didn't see the fight but was predicting a points win for Money May. He has a crappy attitude much of the time but his ability isn't found wanting when it matters. Now, unfortunately, we have to dissect the effect this has for his legacy. Yes, he beat an unbeaten Mexican star but that star was only 23 and has never looked like the 'finished article', just a person with a certain amount of intensity and guts (as is the par for Mexicans and as was the case with Ortiz). Unfortunately, Money May has never been tested by the same standard of fighters (at least at the top level) as the 4 kings from the 80's. While I think he would make easy work of Duran I can't easily say he would beat Leonard or Hearns (perhaps Hagler is just too heavy to consider) but then again, neither of them ever looked as untouchable as PBF. I really wish he had been able to dance with Pacquiao earlier on but even then, is Pac man really of the caliber of the aforementioned fighters? Unfortunately I think not. Regardless of the dearth that appears to have existed throughout May's career of actually top level legit opponents with legit experience, he has battered everyone who has stepped up and also made an unbelievable amount of money. So he can't ever be considered to have lost out. But I just wonder if you really can rank him above Sugar and the Hitman. Actually you probably can rank him above Hearns but in considering who would win a fight between them I'm not so sure PBF's chin is as strong as Leonard's although he does seem to have a lot of heart like Leonard. The sort of heart that's like 'I am not going to lose to this chump!' rather than the standard Rocky heart lol. On September 15 2013 14:30 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, I find UFC to be more interesting than boxing. The technique in boxing just isn't a replacement for sheer savagery in terms of entertainment value. Been a fan of UFC for years, made a collection of UFCs 1-120. Watched all the Pride too. Three responses to this. Firstly, I think I like a lot of people reach a point where the pure savagery mostly stops being interesting. Secondly, there isn't even much savagery in modern UFC fights, especially from the top guys. Thirdly, most of the technique on display in the UFC is of secondary quality to the pure versions of the sports it's made up of, so it's kind of hard to enjoy from a technical standpoint unless you actually are actively participating in the sport. The messiness, a clear result of the need to mix them all up and of the fact that the sport is still incredibly young, makes the spectacle unappealing. Boxing has had since the 1850's and earlier to be refined and passed down from generation to generation. Unfortunately, MMA really shows how much it lacks this. It's just an impure sport at the moment and lacks the class of boxing when it is practiced at the top levels. Then again, the fact that you see matches like Haye v Fury shows you can't escape the allure of the freak show when it comes knocking. | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
On September 15 2013 16:12 Itsmedudeman wrote: The thing I'm most impressed by is mayweathers intelligence. For someone who's perceived as a thug he really knows a shit ton about boxing and fights incredibly smart in the ring. And could you stop hyping pacman. The guy is done. As pointless as a pacquio vs mayweather is now, it probably the only fight left that stands questioned. I mean seriously...who is there left to fight for mayweather? It pretty sad but it probably for the best that pacquio get spared from this fight, I think it would be pretty one sided unless pacquio lands some good shots but Mayweather defense is just too damn good. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
And, honestly I hear what you are saying sc4k, but the reason that MMA is not "refined" like boxing, is because boxing, from a combat POV, is borderline retarded. Moreover, technical fighters like Floyd and the Klitchkos have mad the sport into the "meh" it is today. Basically, by allowing Mayweather to consistently win on points, without even getting a knockdown, he has been given a loophole in the rules. Its as if the Patriots build a robot that got 3 yards per carry, 100% of the time without fumbling. They would never not get a first down, would score on every drive, but it wouldnt be satisfying in the least bit. | ||
|
s4rk
Philippines137 Posts
On September 15 2013 17:30 cLutZ wrote: Pacquio has actually gotten old. If they had fought in 2008... And, honestly I hear what you are saying sc4k, but the reason that MMA is not "refined" like boxing, is because boxing, from a combat POV, is borderline retarded. Moreover, technical fighters like Floyd and the Klitchkos have mad the sport into the "meh" it is today. Basically, by allowing Mayweather to consistently win on points, without even getting a knockdown, he has been given a loophole in the rules. Its as if the Patriots build a robot that got 3 yards per carry, 100% of the time without fumbling. They would never not get a first down, would score on every drive, but it wouldnt be satisfying in the least bit. Same as how wrestlers grind out wins in MMA? | ||
|
nicknack
Australia189 Posts
On September 15 2013 20:37 s4rk wrote: Same as how wrestlers grind out wins in MMA? Yer lay'n'pray and points boxing is meh to watch, but there is heaps of skill involved in pinned people down and controlling them as well as not getting hit and counter-punching like mayweather. I wonder how a Mayweather would go in UFC? I couldn't see him beating anyone in the 10 top UFC lightweight Pettis, Henderson, TJ Grant, Maynard, Diaz ,Nurmagomedov ect ect | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On September 15 2013 17:30 cLutZ wrote: Moreover, technical fighters like Floyd and the Klitchkos have mad the sport into the "meh" it is today. Basically, by allowing Mayweather to consistently win on points, without even getting a knockdown, he has been given a loophole in the rules. Its as if the Patriots build a robot that got 3 yards per carry, 100% of the time without fumbling. They would never not get a first down, would score on every drive, but it wouldnt be satisfying in the least bit. Meh, I kind of see what you're saying. But also I disagree...it's more about the fact that PBF has existed in a time where there wasn't a top competitor for him to face. He just outclasses everyone. If he had to fight someone like Sweet Pea or the Hitman, then you would get to see his ability tested to a point of sheer exhilaration and entertainment. A big problem in this match for example is that Saul Alvarez decided to try and win by outboxing Money May which is bizarre and insane. Even at his age. He should have gone balls to the wall like JCC in Thunder and Lightning...if you want to see a match which pretty sums up the amazingness of boxing, it is certainly one of the best around - check it out Julio Cesar Chavez vs Iran Barkley if you want an incredible fight to watch... On September 15 2013 21:34 nicknack wrote: I wonder how a Mayweather would go in UFC? I couldn't see him beating anyone in the 10 top UFC lightweight Pettis, Henderson, TJ Grant, Maynard, Diaz ,Nurmagomedov ect ect If you just put May in the octagon right now...he would be destroyed by most of the fighters in the UFC at his weight. But that's like putting Usain Bolt in the 10,000 metres. | ||
|
KingAce
United States471 Posts
On September 15 2013 21:34 nicknack wrote: Yer lay'n'pray and points boxing is meh to watch, but there is heaps of skill involved in pinned people down and controlling them as well as not getting hit and counter-punching like mayweather. I wonder how a Mayweather would go in UFC? I couldn't see him beating anyone in the 10 top UFC lightweight Pettis, Henderson, TJ Grant, Maynard, Diaz ,Nurmagomedov ect ect He would destroy them in a boxing fight. | ||
|
nicknack
Australia189 Posts
On September 15 2013 21:37 KingAce wrote: He would destroy them in a boxing fight. What about a real fight? | ||
|
romanianthunder
Romania36 Posts
On September 15 2013 21:35 sc4k wrote: Meh, I kind of see what you're saying. But also I disagree...it's more about the fact that PBF has existed in a time where there wasn't a top competitor for him to face. He just outclasses everyone. If he had to fight someone like Sweet Pea or the Hitman, then you would get to see his ability tested to a point of sheer exhilaration and entertainment. A big problem in this match for example is that Saul Alvarez decided to try and win by outboxing Money May which is bizarre and insane. Even at his age. He should have gone balls to the wall like JCC in Thunder and Lightning...if you want to see a match which pretty sums up the amazingness of boxing, it is certainly one of the best around - check it out Julio Cesar Chavez vs Iran Barkley if you want an incredible fight to watch... If you just put May in the octagon right now...he would be destroyed by most of the fighters in the UFC at his weight. But that's like putting Usain Bolt in the 10,000 metres. it takes technique to go balls to the wall as you say.being a fast,efficient knockout artist takes as much skill as being an defensive master.take tyson for example.look at all the arsenal he had in order to get on the inside of people and knock them out:bob and weaves,head movements,8 punch combos,uppercuts and left hooks,body movements.Thr fighters these days can go and try to be more aggresive but they do not have the knowledge to do so.Alvarez can not fight on the inside with mayweather even if he wanted and btw mayweather actually beat him on the inside in exchanges.His best shot would have been the long range punches to the body that actually brought him the most points in the game. Look at all the fighters that tried to bully mayweather on the inside and failed:hatton,de la hoya,ortz,cotto(he actually succeded a bit).They do not have any offensive technique.They just rush mayweather and he just backs off,side steps,shoulder rolls,and clinches them.They can land anything on the inside.Look on the other hand how frazier beat ali,one of the fastest fighters ever.Left hooks,fast body movements,staying out of hand range.Look at how the dudes these days tackle inside fighting:"Imma rush the head on your chest like we are in the nfl and push you around the ring without actually doing anything".Floyd is a tactical defense master and unless he meets a tactical offensive master he can fight the klitcos and still win. @nicknack There is no concept of real fight.If you are referring to a street fight the only rule is gangbang and guns>knife>any fighting style.Bring the mma heavyweight champ against me and give me a gun see how many seconds he lasts.Boxing and mma are different sports with different rules none of which are efficient on the streets. "And, honestly I hear what you are saying sc4k, but the reason that MMA is not "refined" like boxing, is because boxing, from a combat POV, is borderline retarded." Neah its just mma is grocely overhyped.The reason why boxing has such strict rules is because compared to mma and wrestling boxing is actually dangerous and people die or are left with permanent brain damage compared to mma where not that many people have died.The accumulation of hundreds of punches although not spectacular leads to permanent damage where in mma most of the fighting is on the gorund and far less strikes are thrown.If you wanna see what going in the boxing ring does just look at ali who developed parkinson after the first part of his career or meldrick taylor who was permanently brain damaged after the chavez fight.Since the 1980 more than 200 boxers died in the ring mostly because people hit very hard and referees tend to let the fight go on.In mma a chokehold or pyramid or ground fighting technique although painfull doesnt cause severe internal injuries and the number of actual strikes per match is far lower and far less powerful than in actual strike sports.In mma you do not even have time to land a combo the other guy just straight takes you to the ground and prevents you form hitting. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On September 15 2013 21:54 romanianthunder wrote: it takes technique to go balls to the wall as you say.being a fast,efficient knockout artist takes as much skill as being an defensive master.take tyson for example.look at all the arsenal he had in order to get on the inside of people and knock them out:bob and weaves,head movements,8 punch combos,uppercuts and left hooks,body movements.Thr fighters these days can go and try to be more aggresive but they do not have the knowledge to do so.Alvarez can not fight on the inside with mayweather even if he wanted and btw mayweather actually beat him on the inside in exchanges.His best shot would have been the long range punches to the body that actually brought him the most points in the game. Look at all the fighters that tried to bully mayweather on the inside and failed:hatton,de la hoya,ortz,cotto(he actually succeded a bit).They do not have any offensive technique.They just rush mayweather and he just backs off,side steps,shoulder rolls,and clinches them.They can land anything on the inside.Look on the other hand how frazier beat ali,one of the fastest fighters ever.Left hooks,fast body movements,staying out of hand range.Look at how the dudes these days tackle inside fighting:"Imma rush the head on your chest like we are in the nfl and push you around the ring without actually doing anything".Floyd is a tactical defense master and unless he meets a tactical offensive master he can fight the klitcos and still win. I take your points to a certain extent but I'm just saying Alvarez would have had a much better time trying to abuse his weight advantage and cutting off the ring more. Simply put, he may have had a tough time doing it, but he would have stood way more of a chance of winning than fighting the way he did, which was 0% chance. Also I was referring more to the spirit of JCC rather than the actual style because Saul has the physical stature to be able to fight more at mid range (also btw JCC was pretty good at fighting mid range). And just because those people you mentioned failed doesn't mean that their strategy was 'wrong' to beat PBF. Money May is competent against all styles, just like Leonard. The only way to stand with him is to be amazing and fight true to your ability. Unfortunately Canelo was probably not amazing enough and didn't do a strategy that allowed him to express as much as he might have been able to. But still, regardless of strategy I would only have given him a 15% chance of winning on account of his inferior skill, physical ability and lack of experience. Pretty much the same goes for Leonard or Hearns. Trying to work out how to beat them would drive you insane, you just have to go out there and try your best. Unfortunately Floyd has never had or has never had the opportunity to have a fight like Hearns Leonard I. Just about the talent who has been around at the time. | ||
|
hoemuffin
United States72 Posts
On September 15 2013 17:30 cLutZ wrote: Pacquio has actually gotten old. If they had fought in 2008... And, honestly I hear what you are saying sc4k, but the reason that MMA is not "refined" like boxing, is because boxing, from a combat POV, is borderline retarded. Moreover, technical fighters like Floyd and the Klitchkos have mad the sport into the "meh" it is today. Basically, by allowing Mayweather to consistently win on points, without even getting a knockdown, he has been given a loophole in the rules. Its as if the Patriots build a robot that got 3 yards per carry, 100% of the time without fumbling. They would never not get a first down, would score on every drive, but it wouldnt be satisfying in the least bit. I've been a boxing fan most of my life, and been boxing for quite a while too. I do watch MMA occasionally, but I just don't appreciate the ground game, and most of the time I find myself cringing at how terrible their punches are - I get that its because they have to focus on other things, but it still makes it look ugly for me. Its just not for me. Any combat sport is pretty borderline retarded, if you want realism, you'd probably have a 3 on 1, or maybe give one guy a knife. I mean if I wanted brutality, I can watch all sorts of violence porn on the internet, I'm much more interested in skill and technique. I never understood the rationale behind learning MMA (or boxing) to defend yourself, it makes more sense to pack heat, a knife, or some non-lethal device and a good sense of awareness. If you do want a self defense martial art, something like Krav Maga that focuses on eye/groin attacks and permanent, crippling damage seems to make more sense to me, and replicate what "real life" combat probably looks like (i.e. multiple attackers, armed attackers, and not a direct confrontation). I love technical fighters, watching Sweet Pea and Willie Pep fights are my favorite things in the world. The sheer body control and precision to do that is nuts. Sure, your Hagler-Hearns/Gatti-Ward fights are fun to watch, but mind-games and technical skill are what make boxing fun. Just the way Mayweather throws that lead right of his is worth the price of admission, such great body control and technique. | ||
|
hoemuffin
United States72 Posts
On September 15 2013 21:34 nicknack wrote: Yer lay'n'pray and points boxing is meh to watch, but there is heaps of skill involved in pinned people down and controlling them as well as not getting hit and counter-punching like mayweather. I wonder how a Mayweather would go in UFC? I couldn't see him beating anyone in the 10 top UFC lightweight Pettis, Henderson, TJ Grant, Maynard, Diaz ,Nurmagomedov ect ect I don't know that that's a meaningful comparison. Just like I doubt any of those UFC guys could hang with Mayweather in the boxing ring, they're training for two different sports, with different skill sets. You take a LT, stick him in a Rugby league, he'll probably do OK just due to physical talent and some similarities, but he's probably not going to be the top. But I'm pretty sure that if Mayweather had started off as a kid in MMA (he started boxing around 8?) he'd be one of the best in MMA as well. He's just a crazy athlete with incredible ring IQ. | ||
|
romanianthunder
Romania36 Posts
On September 15 2013 22:08 sc4k wrote: I take your points to a certain extent but I'm just saying Alvarez would have had a much better time trying to abuse his weight advantage and cutting off the ring more. Simply put, he may have had a tough time doing it, but he would have stood way more of a chance of winning than fighting the way he did, which was 0% chance. Also I was referring more to the spirit of JCC rather than the actual style because Saul has the physical stature to be able to fight more at mid range (also btw JCC was pretty good at fighting mid range). And just because those people you mentioned failed doesn't mean that their strategy was 'wrong' to beat PBF. Money May is competent against all styles, just like Leonard. The only way to stand with him is to be amazing and fight true to your ability. Unfortunately Canelo was probably not amazing enough and didn't do a strategy that allowed him to express as much as he might have been able to. But still, regardless of strategy I would only have given him a 15% chance of winning on account of his inferior skill, physical ability and lack of experience. Pretty much the same goes for Leonard or Hearns. Trying to work out how to beat them would drive you insane, you just have to go out there and try your best. Unfortunately Floyd has never had or has never had the opportunity to have a fight like Hearns Leonard I. Just about the talent who has been around at the time. .It takes technique and knowledge to abuse your weight something than alvarez doesn't have.he is lacking to many technical elements to abuse his weight.But in terms of mentality i was actually impressde.he was one of the few fighters who didn't crumble psychologicaly to mayweather,When mayweather illegally hit him in the ring he low blowed him back.he didn't shake hands,had no repsect for mayweather.good job.Far better than than ortiz.he has a good mindset. but I totally disagree with you regarding the hagler-hearns leaonard generation.That was probably the most technical and full of mind games generation of the middleweight division. Every fighter used to study their oppenent hard in order to counter their weaknesses,I remember seeing the hbo documentary where leonard described how it took him years to develop a gameplan for hagler.He stayed away the entire match,clinched hagle on he came on the inside and then immediatelly give a voley of shots just to score points.Also doing a volley of shots in the last 10 seconds of each round was brilliant. Also hearns eventually got leonards number in their second fight.He studied leonard perfectly and used his right hand and positionuing to kd leonard twice in one match.The corrupt judges gave it to leonard but hearns relistically won the second match and it was all due to good planning and studying the opponent perfectly.Hearns was leonards kriptonite Also hagler beat hearns quite good. Unfortunately there is no hearns or hagler to challenge floydie,The technique and mind games would be awsome | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On September 15 2013 22:18 hoemuffin wrote: I love technical fighters, watching Sweet Pea and Willie Pep fights are my favorite things in the world. The sheer body control and precision to do that is nuts. Sure, your Hagler-Hearns/Gatti-Ward fights are fun to watch, but mind-games and technical skill are what make boxing fun. Dude I totally agree but Hearns is not an untechnical fighter!!! Probably the most impressive and devastatingly precise offensive fighter of all time...but totally agree about whitaker and pep...damn that's awesome to watch. PBF's defensive skills are so unbelievable to watch. | ||
|
romanianthunder
Romania36 Posts
On September 15 2013 22:30 sc4k wrote: Dude I totally agree but Hearns is not an untechnical fighter!!! Probably the most impressive and devastatingly precise offensive fighter of all time...but totally agree about whitaker and pep...damn that's awesome to watch. PBF's defensive skills are so unbelievable to watch. hearns has always been underrated since people only know him from losing to hagler and leonard.they do not know he is actually one of the most precise and powerful punchers in the history of boxing,i saw a tyson interview where he said that hearns was a middleweight hitting with more power than some heavyweights. | ||
|
hoemuffin
United States72 Posts
On September 15 2013 22:30 sc4k wrote: Dude I totally agree but Hearns is not an untechnical fighter!!! Probably the most impressive and devastatingly precise offensive fighter of all time...but totally agree about whitaker and pep...damn that's awesome to watch. PBF's defensive skills are so unbelievable to watch. Oh yeah, Hearn's was definitely technically sound, but Hagler-Hearns was a straight up beat-em up brawl and so unexpected, which I think is what makes it so great. I don't think anyone expected Hagler to bring it to Hearns that hard and fast at the opening bell! That chin on Hagler.... Of course, for every magnificent fight out there, there's also one of these. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On September 15 2013 22:42 romanianthunder wrote: hearns has always been underrated since people only know him from losing to hagler and leonard.they do not know he is actually one of the most precise and powerful punchers in the history of boxing,i saw a tyson interview where he said that hearns was a middleweight hitting with more power than some heavyweights. Oh yes. Anyone who has watched these fights and knows the story will know that Leonard was pretty much on his way to lose by decision in the first match and that the hagler bout, while being one of the biggest barnstormers in history, was also ridiculously balanced on a knife edge and could easily have been hearns' night. And that hearns completely wrecked everyone else in his prime. And would have pretty easily beaten everyone PBF has fought and probably done it with something like a 90% KO percentage. For anyone who doesn't know about this golden period of boxing, please watch this documentary: On September 15 2013 22:52 hoemuffin wrote: Oh yeah, Hearn's was definitely technically sound, but Hagler-Hearns was a straight up beat-em up brawl and so unexpected, which I think is what makes it so great. I don't think anyone expected Hagler to bring it to Hearns that hard and fast at the opening bell! That chin on Hagler.... Of course, for every magnificent fight out there, there's also one of these. Haha definitely. The fact that this guy is going to be fighting in one of the most anticipated matches of recent English boxing history just shows you all you need to know  | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
He'd destroy Aldo, GSP, Weidman/Silva, Jones, or Cain in a real fight too. He'd have his bodyguards shoot them. If you don't want to limit the skillset to boxing, I won't let you limit the skillset to cheesy martial arts you only see in the movies. Real fights don't work that way. Boxers would destroy MMA fighters in Boxing and vice versa. | ||
|
yeabuddy
41 Posts
| ||
| ||
