Well he had better try keeping those mistakes to a minimum against Bernard, because old Bernard is still Bernard of old early in a fight and will capitalize ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Printable View
Well he had better try keeping those mistakes to a minimum against Bernard, because old Bernard is still Bernard of old early in a fight and will capitalize ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
Reach is reach mate....use it properly and you have the advantageQuote:
Originally Posted by DeanrwI don't think Tommy had longer arms than Pavlik, much of his reach total was due to the broadness of his shoulders, which were formidable BTW. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahn
As for Pavlik vs Tommy. Tommy was one of those guys who would get to you quickly, and if not you then had your shot. It is a crapshoot with him. He had good boxing skills but only used them when forced to, usually when he was tired, losing and it was simply too late. He depended on that right hand and it usually got the job done.
Here is an interesting picture regarding reach. Pavlik and Hopkins are both listed as having a 75" reach. If you look at this photo though, you will see a fairly considerable arm length advantage for one of them. Who is it?hehe
http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/war...g.285427_t.jpg
Thats why stats are now given for fingertip to fingertip and armpit tp fingertipQuote:
Originally Posted by Deanrw
I'm a huge Pavlik fan, but think it is too early in his career to start mentioning him in the same breath with names like Hearns and Hagler etc.
I hope to see him earn that right, and in fact even believe he will get there. But for now, he's fighting Bernard Hopkins, a wily but overage fighter. When Kelly's record and career can be spoken in the same breath with legends, we'll have known more of it. At his age and experience, he has a lot more fighting to do. And I can't wait to see it.
Armpit to end of fist would probably be the best measurement. Reach is useless though without the ability to utilize it properly. Pavlik gives that reach up when he steps in to punch. That is where Hopkins has his best chance. He will get to Pavlik, but the question is will he have enough to finish what he started. If he does not, Pavlik will eventually wear him down.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaxxKahnThats why stats are now given for fingertip to fingertip and armpit tp fingertipQuote:
Originally Posted by Deanrw
Im calling phony pic.......Hopkins looks all welted up & mashed,Why does Bernard look lioke a swollen Toney ;D
It's not photoshopped, but he just looks that way because he is standing next to a skeleton!LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli surfs 'Nawlins
kelly looks pissed a lil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusdarkus
Nope Hearns will KO him
Quote:
Originally Posted by jangeorgQuote:
Originally Posted by Markusdarkus
Nope Hearns will KO him
Nothing of watching Tommy at 160lbs leads me to think that.
Yes Miranda who is todays hardest hitting man at 168 hit6s harder than yesterdays man at 147. That like saying Enzo Macrinelli hits harder than Peter . Miranda punches alot harder than Hearns.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HM4mps2QD8
But to the Monzon statement. Miranda is stronger than Pavlik and Pavlik pushed him around. Why could he do the same to Monzon who I think looks like Andrade. Same iron head. Both strong and both come at you in strait lines.
Comparing yesterdays jocks to todays is not for argument. It is evident in every way that todays are much greater. They are stronger , faster , and much better conditioned.
You need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?
He would destroy Benn.
Lose against RJJ.
Too hard to call against Eubank, but he has the edge in power.
Lose to the Calzaghe that schooled Lacy but probably beat him now.
Lose a wide UD to Nunn unless he had another Toney moment.
Lose to Toney.
KO Julian Jackson.
KO G-man.
Lose to Monzon and Hagler.
Lose to a young Hopkins but I think he will beat him next week.
With Hearns I think it is just a case of who hits who clean first. my money would be on Hearns though.
Can't comment on any of the great Lightheavys until he fights at the weight really!
I do like Pavlik but he needs to prove a lot more before I give him W's over some of the ATG's!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjj tszyu
KO G-Man
KO BENN
He has only beat 1 elite fighter that beat only 1 elite fighter!
Cant see how anyone could possibly draw that opinion but its all opinions even those as poor as yours.
Yes but both them Elite fighters would school G-Man and Benn! I mean Benn lost to fucking Malinga.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkusdarkusQuote:
Originally Posted by rjj tszyu
KO G-Man
KO BENN
He has only beat 1 elite fighter that beat only 1 elite fighter!
Cant see how anyone could possibly draw that opinion but its all opinions even those as poor as yours.
Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHYou need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?
Uhh Jesse Owens had crap running shoes and crap running conditions, plus he didn't have the modern training techniques/dietitian etc. I can assure you if Jesse Owens had all the luxury's runners have today, aswell as steroids which majority of them use, he would be easily almost 1 second faster atleast IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHYou need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?
Thomas Hearns was naturally bigger than 147, thats why he moved all the way up to Cruiserweight. Thomas Hearns had more speed which generates power, better punching technique. And was just a much better boxer than Edison Miranda.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Yes Miranda who is todays hardest hitting man at 168 hit6s harder than yesterdays man at 147. That like saying Enzo Macrinelli hits harder than Peter . Miranda punches alot harder than Hearns.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
Your comparison's are ridiculous of course Samuel Peter who is 240+ pounds, hits harder than 190+ pounds Enzo Maccarinelli. But whats that got to do with Thomas Hearns and Edison Miranda :confused:
Because Carlos Monzon is a better boxer than Librado Andrade obviously, he uses his jab/good technical skills he punches very precise with good technqiue. I can't believe your actually comparing Librado Andrade. To one of the best Middleweights of all time are you serious ?Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Carlos Monzon was only knocked down once in 100 fights when he was 35, of course he will but Kelly Pavlik on the backfoot. Exactly how many fights have you seen of Carlos Monzon ? because it doesn't sound like you have seen many if any.
What part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHYou need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?
I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?
So are he would be born around the same times so SRR would be in his prime today and he was born in 1980 or his skills and yesteryears training and he slipped into to a time porthole and here he is in the ring with Pavlik. The sad fukin part is he could ko a bigger Hopkins and kill Abrham and you losers still wont give him a fukin bone . Grow the phuk up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHWhat part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?
Uhhh, what? That's a hell of a first sentence by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314So are he would be born around the same times so SRR would be in his prime today and he was born in 1980 or his skills and yesteryears training and he slipped into to a time porthole and here he is in the ring with Pavlik. The sad fukin part is he could ko a bigger Hopkins and kill Abrham and you losers still wont give him a fukin bone . Grow the phuk up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHWhat part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?
You're the one who said Pavlik would KO SRR, I would assume that they would hypothetically have to fight for that to happen. So what skills does Pavlik possess that places him above all those greats you are so sure he would beat? I love fanboys.
Here are my guys who could beat Pavlik at 168-175
RJJ
Bob Foster
James Toney
Chris Eubank
Michael Spinks
And maybe a couple more but those guys 100% definently beat him
No. What I am saying is todays athletes are way better than 30 -70 years ago. But you have so much crap in your brains you cant wrap you little mind around it. Todays athletes are way better. Sorry I think Pavlik would beat the crap out of any middle weight of 1960 prior. SRR included.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHUhhh, what? That's a hell of a first sentence by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314So are he would be born around the same times so SRR would be in his prime today and he was born in 1980 or his skills and yesteryears training and he slipped into to a time porthole and here he is in the ring with Pavlik. The sad fukin part is he could ko a bigger Hopkins and kill Abrham and you losers still wont give him a fukin bone . Grow the phuk up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
You're the one who said Pavlik would KO SRR, I would assume that they would hypothetically have to fight for that to happen. So what skills does Pavlik possess that places him above all those greats you are so sure he would beat? I love fanboys.
And thanks for the negative rep. Like I care. You still cant figure out todays athletes are better than yesterdays.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314No. What I am saying is todays athletes are way better than 30 -70 years ago. But you have so much crap in your brains you cant wrap you little mind around it. Todays athletes are way better. Sorry I think Pavlik would beat the crap out of any middle weight of 1960 prior. SRR included.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHUhhh, what? That's a hell of a first sentence by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
You're the one who said Pavlik would KO SRR, I would assume that they would hypothetically have to fight for that to happen. So what skills does Pavlik possess that places him above all those greats you are so sure he would beat? I love fanboys.
I don't think that SRR was THAT great at MW anyway! He was a god at WW and I think he would have beaten any of todays WWs no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314And thanks for the negative rep. Like I care. You still cant figure out todays athletes are better than yesterdays.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314No. What I am saying is todays athletes are way better than 30 -70 years ago. But you have so much crap in your brains you cant wrap you little mind around it. Todays athletes are way better. Sorry I think Pavlik would beat the crap out of any middle weight of 1960 prior. SRR included.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
All the nonsense about the athletes today being better than the 60s and before is exactly that NONSENSE. Especially in boxing, Title fights used to be 15 rounders then and no matter how much I like him I really couldn't see the likes of Oscar De La Hoya going 15, he struggles enough with the 12s. He is not the only one either but he is the best example.
I'll ask you again, explain why. Without using other sports as an example. Why would Pavlik beat Monzon/SRR etc? what skills does he have that would allow him to do so? What specifically makes fighters who competed prior to 1960 worse than fighters today? You can't explain why because you're nothing more than a fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314No. What I am saying is todays athletes are way better than 30 -70 years ago. But you have so much crap in your brains you cant wrap you little mind around it. Todays athletes are way better. Sorry I think Pavlik would beat the crap out of any middle weight of 1960 prior. SRR included.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHUhhh, what? That's a hell of a first sentence by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
You're the one who said Pavlik would KO SRR, I would assume that they would hypothetically have to fight for that to happen. So what skills does Pavlik possess that places him above all those greats you are so sure he would beat? I love fanboys.
Well, you obviously do care. I never said today's athletes were not better than todays, but boxing is a different story. Explain why they are better today.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314And thanks for the negative rep. Like I care. You still cant figure out todays athletes are better than yesterdays.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314No. What I am saying is todays athletes are way better than 30 -70 years ago. But you have so much crap in your brains you cant wrap you little mind around it. Todays athletes are way better. Sorry I think Pavlik would beat the crap out of any middle weight of 1960 prior. SRR included.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Better training , better nutrition , better weight training , Better diets and supplements , better sparring partners , better trainers, They have this neat thing called film and tape to look at. Are you that fukin stupid that your ass cant figure that out. All you are is just a bully trying to compensate for the hard life that you never had and street education that you never got in the rough streets of british columbia "A".Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHWell, you obviously do care. I never said today's athletes were not better than todays, but boxing is a different story. Explain why they are better today.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314And thanks for the negative rep. Like I care. You still cant figure out todays athletes are better than yesterdays.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Who is that fruit cup on your avatar anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI'll ask you again, explain why. Without using other sports as an example. Why would Pavlik beat Monzon/SRR etc? what skills does he have that would allow him to do so? What specifically makes fighters who competed prior to 1960 worse than fighters today? You can't explain why because you're nothing more than a fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314No. What I am saying is todays athletes are way better than 30 -70 years ago. But you have so much crap in your brains you cant wrap you little mind around it. Todays athletes are way better. Sorry I think Pavlik would beat the crap out of any middle weight of 1960 prior. SRR included.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Well go find doc flying Delorean. You are the biggest douche bag ever born. This is a comparision not a fantasy if they trained and fought today the same way. We are comparing . I feel at 160 Pavlik would own a SRR the same stlye 60 years ago. This is a dumb thread . Why would you assume if they trained and fought in modern day. i am comparing time and styles. Not a world of warcraft fantasy what if time warp thing that you are doing. Did you ever box or wrestle , play football , baseball or anything. I did all of those. I am comparing.Thats like saying how would Bill Walton do one on one with Lebron James or Babe Ruth trying to hit off of Cliff Lee. Things are better these days athletes included. If Jesse Owens had todays shoes and tracks Usian Bolt would still smoke him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHWhat part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?
:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Better training , better nutrition , better weight training , Better diets and supplements , better sparring partners , better trainers, They have this neat thing called film and tape to look at. Are you that fukin stupid that your ass cant figure that out. All you are is just a bully trying to compensate for the hard life that you never had and street education that you never got in the rough streets of british columbia "A".Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHWell, you obviously do care. I never said today's athletes were not better than todays, but boxing is a different story. Explain why they are better today.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Education "A" (LMAO @ A)? Education is clearly something which has eluded you. You're right though, I'm quite the bully, attempting to have a rational debate and all... :rolleyes:
How is training better? I acknowledged that nutrition may have improved, but like Daxx said, "You can only move around a 20X20 ring so fast regardless of training methods....muscles and supplements do not make you hit harder..." Tape existed in the 1950's as well...
I'll try to ignore how ironic it is of someone who lives in fucking Ohio trying to deride one of the internationally acknowledged best places on earth to live.
Between the two of us, I'm clearly the stupid one. ;D
Jello Biafra.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Who is that fruit cup on your avatar anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHI'll ask you again, explain why. Without using other sports as an example. Why would Pavlik beat Monzon/SRR etc? what skills does he have that would allow him to do so? What specifically makes fighters who competed prior to 1960 worse than fighters today? You can't explain why because you're nothing more than a fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
I have boxed a bit, nothing serious. As for wrestling, I have no desire to get oiled up and mount a sweaty man, but if that's your thing by all means go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Well go find doc flying Delorean. You are the biggest douche bag ever born. This is a comparision not a fantasy if they trained and fought today the same way. We are comparing . I feel at 160 Pavlik would own a SRR the same stlye 60 years ago. This is a dumb thread . Why would you assume if they trained and fought in modern day. i am comparing time and styles. Not a world of warcraft fantasy what if time warp thing that you are doing. Did you ever box or wrestle , play football , baseball or anything. I did all of those. I am comparing.Thats like saying how would Bill Walton do one on one with Lebron James or Babe Ruth trying to hit off of Cliff Lee. Things are better these days athletes included. If Jesse Owens had todays shoes and tracks Usian Bolt would still smoke him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHWhat part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?
Again, for the fourth time, I said to explain it without using other sports as an example, they are not relevant to boxing.
How are Pavlik's SKILLS superior to those of any of the fighters you mentioned?
Pavlik at 160 I will always give him a punchers chance. I think one of the only old schoolers that would beat him id Hagler. I feel he would destroy SRR. Another thing other sports have athlete like boxing in which today are better and better every year. Film today can be broken down way better than 7mm reel to reel. It makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Better training , better nutrition , better weight training , Better diets and supplements , better sparring partners , better trainers, They have this neat thing called film and tape to look at. Are you that fukin stupid that your ass cant figure that out. All you are is just a bully trying to compensate for the hard life that you never had and street education that you never got in the rough streets of british columbia "A".Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Education "A" (LMAO @ A)? Education is clearly something which has eluded you. You're right though, I'm quite the bully, attempting to have a rational debate and all... :rolleyes:
How is training better? I acknowledged that nutrition may have improved, but like Daxx said, "You can only move around a 20X20 ring so fast regardless of training methods....muscles and supplements do not make you hit harder..." Tape existed in the 1950's as well...
I'll try to ignore how ironic it is of someone who lives in fucking Ohio trying to deride one of the internationally acknowledged best places on earth to live.
Between the two of us, I'm clearly the stupid one. ;D
Jello Biafra.
I have boxed a bit, nothing serious. As for wrestling, I have no desire to get oiled up and mount a sweaty man, but if that's your thing by all means go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Well go find doc flying Delorean. You are the biggest douche bag ever born. This is a comparision not a fantasy if they trained and fought today the same way. We are comparing . I feel at 160 Pavlik would own a SRR the same stlye 60 years ago. This is a dumb thread . Why would you assume if they trained and fought in modern day. i am comparing time and styles. Not a world of warcraft fantasy what if time warp thing that you are doing. Did you ever box or wrestle , play football , baseball or anything. I did all of those. I am comparing.Thats like saying how would Bill Walton do one on one with Lebron James or Babe Ruth trying to hit off of Cliff Lee. Things are better these days athletes included. If Jesse Owens had todays shoes and tracks Usian Bolt would still smoke him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Again, for the fourth time, I said to explain it without using other sports as an example, they are not relevant to boxing.
How are Pavlik's SKILLS superior to those of any of the fighters you mentioned?
All Pavlik would have against any of the fighters you named is a punchers chance, and he's more of a accumulative puncher than a one-punch artist.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Pavlik at 160 I will always give him a punchers chance. I think one of the only old schoolers that would beat him id Hagler. I feel he would destroy SRR. Another thing other sports have athlete like boxing in which today are better and better every year. Film today can be broken down way better than 7mm reel to reel. It makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Education "A" (LMAO @ A)? Education is clearly something which has eluded you. You're right though, I'm quite the bully, attempting to have a rational debate and all... :rolleyes:
How is training better? I acknowledged that nutrition may have improved, but like Daxx said, "You can only move around a 20X20 ring so fast regardless of training methods....muscles and supplements do not make you hit harder..." Tape existed in the 1950's as well...
I'll try to ignore how ironic it is of someone who lives in fucking Ohio trying to deride one of the internationally acknowledged best places on earth to live.
Between the two of us, I'm clearly the stupid one. ;D
Jello Biafra.
I have boxed a bit, nothing serious. As for wrestling, I have no desire to get oiled up and mount a sweaty man, but if that's your thing by all means go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Again, for the fourth time, I said to explain it without using other sports as an example, they are not relevant to boxing.
How are Pavlik's SKILLS superior to those of any of the fighters you mentioned?
This is going nowhere, so I'm done with it. But please keep sending me PM's telling me what a moron I am and making fun of Canada (as if that would somehow offend me), I'm enjoying them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314No. What I am saying is todays athletes are way better than 30 -70 years ago. But you have so much crap in your brains you cant wrap you little mind around it. Todays athletes are way better. Sorry I think Pavlik would beat the crap out of any middle weight of 1960 prior. SRR included.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHUhhh, what? That's a hell of a first sentence by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
You're the one who said Pavlik would KO SRR, I would assume that they would hypothetically have to fight for that to happen. So what skills does Pavlik possess that places him above all those greats you are so sure he would beat? I love fanboys.
dude i understand u like kelly, i like kelly too hes a good fighter, but too say he will ko SRR thats just wrong hes never been stopped in his life by guys who were better than pavlik.
:lolhaha: CFH you just owned him big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Better training , better nutrition , better weight training , Better diets and supplements , better sparring partners , better trainers, They have this neat thing called film and tape to look at. Are you that fukin stupid that your ass cant figure that out. All you are is just a bully trying to compensate for the hard life that you never had and street education that you never got in the rough streets of british columbia "A".Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Education "A" (LMAO @ A)? Education is clearly something which has eluded you. You're right though, I'm quite the bully, attempting to have a rational debate and all... :rolleyes:
How is training better? I acknowledged that nutrition may have improved, but like Daxx said, "You can only move around a 20X20 ring so fast regardless of training methods....muscles and supplements do not make you hit harder..." Tape existed in the 1950's as well...
I'll try to ignore how ironic it is of someone who lives in fucking Ohio trying to deride one of the internationally acknowledged best places on earth to live.
Between the two of us, I'm clearly the stupid one. ;D
Jello Biafra.
I have boxed a bit, nothing serious. As for wrestling, I have no desire to get oiled up and mount a sweaty man, but if that's your thing by all means go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314Well go find doc flying Delorean. You are the biggest douche bag ever born. This is a comparision not a fantasy if they trained and fought today the same way. We are comparing . I feel at 160 Pavlik would own a SRR the same stlye 60 years ago. This is a dumb thread . Why would you assume if they trained and fought in modern day. i am comparing time and styles. Not a world of warcraft fantasy what if time warp thing that you are doing. Did you ever box or wrestle , play football , baseball or anything. I did all of those. I am comparing.Thats like saying how would Bill Walton do one on one with Lebron James or Babe Ruth trying to hit off of Cliff Lee. Things are better these days athletes included. If Jesse Owens had todays shoes and tracks Usian Bolt would still smoke him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Again, for the fourth time, I said to explain it without using other sports as an example, they are not relevant to boxing.
How are Pavlik's SKILLS superior to those of any of the fighters you mentioned?
People are bigger and maybe even stronger these days due to better healthcare and nutrition etc HOWEVER if we hold such fights in the vaccume of time and space just based on skill and results from both fighters respective eras we will see that Pavlik would lose his fair share of fights vs the past greats.
And my FAVORITE question to people who think today's fighters are so much bigger and stronger is "Who would beat Ali?"....Lennox, Bowe, Wlad, Vitali ???? All bigger and stronger than a prime Ali.....oh but all of a sudden the arguement changes doesn't it? Either Ali was just faaaaar too talented or someone would just belittle all the other fighters I just mentioned.