Ward/Kovalev 2...who wins?

[TitoFan]

Butterbean #TBE #GOAT #beatsfuckoutoffmayweather #underrated

Exactly. If Butterball beats the f*ck out of Mayweather, it's because he's the better boxer.



"The better boxers in the world are the bigger boxers." ~ Erics44

This thread has been fun

you haven't really contributed very much tho, next time we have a debate can you try and put view points together and construct arguments rather than just posting pictures and repeating opinions you don't agree with please

makes the forum debate a bit more enjoyable

I hate to break this to you, but I'm not really debating you.
I'm actually poking fun at one of the most asinine boxing comments I've ever heard on here.

But you just carry on.
I can't wait for the next nugget of wisdom to come from your keyboard.



Book on famous inspirational quotes: $10

Motivational speaker fee: $1,000

"The better boxers in the world are the bigger boxers." ~ Erics44: Priceless

there you go again

no construct

have a go at disproving it, I dare you

Sometimes a get a little bored and have time on my hands, so I've decided to take you on as my pet project.

Your quote is: "The better boxers in the world are the bigger boxers"

Ok, so let's define a good boxer, shall we?

I went a bit elementary, and got the following quote from wikiHow... I hope you don't mind.


"Do you want to become a good boxer? Boxers must have a combination of endurance, strength, agility, and speed to excel. Becoming a good boxer requires dedication and hard work. You can train on your own, but joining a gym and training with other boxers can take your skills to the next level."



Ok so let's take those characteristics one by one, shall we?


Endurance - Do bigger boxers have more endurance than smaller boxers? Depends. But a lot of the times.... no. Endurance is "size-independent", but for the most part it's the little guys who can run on and on like bunnies with Everready batteries in them. So scratch one characteristic.

Strength - Hey... you'll like this one huh? Bigger guys are by and large stronger than smaller guys. Yet... they face others at the same weight classifications. Strength then becomes relative within your own weight division. But just to show I'm willing to go the extra mile for you, I'll give you that one.

Agility - Oops. Another black mark for the big guys, huh? Too bad. You were probably still celebrating getting "strength." I'm assuming you'll agree with most of the civilized world that smaller boxers are normally more agile than the big lumbering heavyweights.

Speed - Wow... now you really hit the skids. Speed is the quintessential characteristic of the little guy, wouldn't you say?


Then the quote goes on to mention dedication and hard work, which of course is a wash because those are common (or not) to all sizes of boxers.



Ok, Lesson 2. I went to another article on characteristics of being a good/great boxer. This one from Bleacher Report.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...-a-great-boxer


Let's look at what they have to say, shall we?


Quickness - Damn. Not doing very well here, are you. Unless of course you want to claim that the bigger guys are quicker than the little guys. I didn't think so.

Accuracy - This one is not size-dependent either..... but I've seen way too many heavyweights depending on wild bombs to end fights with one punch. That does little for punch accuracy. Most of the most accurate punchers I've seen in my lifetime have been weights other than heavyweight.

Power - Ahhh... again you can rejoice. One for the big guys. But again... power is relative to each weight division. But for the sake of argument, we'll give that one to you, ok?

Still with me, right Eric?

Defense - Again... not size-dependent. But most of the defensive geniuses in the history of boxing have been at the lower weights. Pernell Whitaker, Wilfredo Benitez..... etc, etc.

Conditioning - Damn Eric.... foiled again. Big guys are built for the short haul. They're not looking to go 12 rounds and when they do, they're usually spent by that time. Little guys by and large have the better conditioning.

Discipline, guts and intelligence I'll lump all together and put them with dedication and hard work. They're not size-dependent.



Why have I gone out of my way to say all this to you, Eric? Because I like charity cases. I refuse to let ignorance go on uncorrected. It's the nice guy in me. No need to thank me now. I know you'll do so eventually.

You see.... if you had said: "The bigger boxers will always beat the smaller boxers." That would've been more passable, and would lend itself to a debate. Doesn't mean you'd be right.... but at least we'd have an intelligent debate.

You're problem is your definition of a good boxer. I've already shown you what the entire world considers to be a good boxer. Being a good boxer has nothing to do with size.



No charge for any of this, by the way.

[erics44]

you kind of miss the point @TitoFan don't you?

you could have all the endurance in the world, be the fastest boxer, be agile as you like, be as strong as an ox, as powerful as a steam train, a superb defence, ring IQ of a god, and the best conditioning you can get

but if you would lose to an opponent then that opponent is the better boxer

lb4lb best is not the same as the best

Mayweather was/is lb4lb the best, something to be admired and despite all of his nobness you have you give him huge credit and accolade for what he achieved, and just how good he was in comparison to fighters in and around his weight

he was never the best tho, not even close

[TitoFan]

you kind of miss the point @TitoFan don't you?

you could have all the endurance in the world, be the fastest boxer, be agile as you like, be as strong as an ox, as powerful as a steam train, a superb defence, ring IQ of a god, and the best conditioning you can get

but if you would lose to an opponent then that opponent is the better boxer

lb4lb best is not the same as the best

Mayweather was/is lb4lb the best, something to be admired and despite all of his nobness you have you give him huge credit and accolade for what he achieved, and just how good he was in comparison to fighters in and around his weight

he was never the best tho, not even close

No Eric. It is you that misses the point.

Your quote was "the better boxers in the world are the bigger boxers".


In plain English: Being a good boxer is a matter of skill, and all the characteristics I listed above which you've obviously ignored. But put a good boxer against a much bigger, stronger man..... even if this man has inferior boxing skills..... and the bigger man will more than likely win. That does not make him a better boxer, only a bigger, stronger one.


I'm sorry this isn't getting through to you. I've made a herculean effort trying to get you to understand.

[erics44]

you kind of miss the point @TitoFan don't you?

you could have all the endurance in the world, be the fastest boxer, be agile as you like, be as strong as an ox, as powerful as a steam train, a superb defence, ring IQ of a god, and the best conditioning you can get

but if you would lose to an opponent then that opponent is the better boxer

lb4lb best is not the same as the best

Mayweather was/is lb4lb the best, something to be admired and despite all of his nobness you have you give him huge credit and accolade for what he achieved, and just how good he was in comparison to fighters in and around his weight

he was never the best tho, not even close

No Eric. It is you that misses the point.

Your quote was "the better boxers in the world are the bigger boxers".


In plain English: Being a good boxer is a matter of skill, and all the characteristics I listed above which you've obviously ignored. But put a good boxer against a much bigger, stronger man..... even if this man has inferior boxing skills..... and the bigger man will more than likely win. That does not make him a better boxer, only a bigger, stronger one.


I'm sorry this isn't getting through to you. I've made a herculean effort trying to get you to understand.

nah I stated early on (and several times after) I meant "better boxer" in terms of who would win and who would lose and not in terms of skill

1 nil Eric

so we are cool with the bigger fellas being the better now?

[TitoFan]

you kind of miss the point @TitoFan don't you?

you could have all the endurance in the world, be the fastest boxer, be agile as you like, be as strong as an ox, as powerful as a steam train, a superb defence, ring IQ of a god, and the best conditioning you can get

but if you would lose to an opponent then that opponent is the better boxer

lb4lb best is not the same as the best

Mayweather was/is lb4lb the best, something to be admired and despite all of his nobness you have you give him huge credit and accolade for what he achieved, and just how good he was in comparison to fighters in and around his weight

he was never the best tho, not even close

No Eric. It is you that misses the point.

Your quote was "the better boxers in the world are the bigger boxers".


In plain English: Being a good boxer is a matter of skill, and all the characteristics I listed above which you've obviously ignored. But put a good boxer against a much bigger, stronger man..... even if this man has inferior boxing skills..... and the bigger man will more than likely win. That does not make him a better boxer, only a bigger, stronger one.


I'm sorry this isn't getting through to you. I've made a herculean effort trying to get you to understand.

nah I stated early on (and several times after) I meant "better boxer" in terms of who would win and who would lose and not in terms of skill

1 nil Eric

so we are cool with the bigger fellas being the better now?

Then you're misusing the term "better boxer" and could've worded it correctly. Can't help you there.

[erics44]

AJ would beat mayweather

AJ is better at boxing, he is a better boxer

how do you want me to term it?

[TitoFan]

AJ is not better at boxing. AJ is much bigger and stronger than Mayweather.

But I'll tell you what.

Let's just wrap a big "F*ck It" bow around the whole thing and let it die.

No sense in continuing a fruitless argument.