Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 My point is that the only way Mayweather is good at being offensive is everything he does outside of the ring. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I was gonna mention Calzaghe actually, but I'm biased due to him beating the dogshit out of my old striking coach lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I never painted him off as an offensive powerhouse. I just said that he used to be way more attacking , as you agree with me, but that he has adapted his game and who can blame him? He fights for the title in every single fight and for a lot of money. Why would he take stupid risks if he knows he wins fights pretty easily this way... The same happens with many UFC champions as well, that they start to fight more defensively. It's not because of his 48-0 record that I believe that he is the most skilled fighter. It's because he is a very complete fighter and beyond elite. A boxer close to as good as him comes around perhaps once every 50 years if you are lucky . Look at what a crazy career, business he has created and that while being a boxer that isn't a heavyweight like Ali and Tyson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtieBanks Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 He is the most complete boxer in the history and the highest skilled one . That is what you said, he is the most complete boxer in history. We are just pointing out that how can a guy be the most complete boxer in history when he is almost completely missing an offensive skill set and gave examples of guys who had complete skill sets. We said he used to be offensive, we never said he was very good at it, nor was he fighting very good opponents when he was doing it. When it came to him fighting at the elite level, he has never shown an elite offensive skill set, he has shown a beyond elite defensive skill set, that is no question. He is a fighter who appears every 10-15 years, not every 50. He gets such a big buy rate because he runs his mouth and people want to see him be beaten. Most of the fights he wins people have called him a boring fighter to watch and they have a point, unless you appreciate boxing then it is very, very boring to watch. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Just to be clear, as I stated already in the past, I'm more a fan of the offensive , attacking boxers, but I can really appreciate looking at Mayweather his fights and see him pick apart his opponents. Boxing is like chess and he is the Kasparov of boxing. He is way too smart for his opponents. His shoulder roll, movement and defensive skills are obvious, as you both stated as well, but is countering not part of attacking as well... There have been very few boxers p4p anywhere near Mayweather Jr 's level in the past . and there won't be many to follow either in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Then Gennady Golovkin is the Magnus Carlsen of boxing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 sounds fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 *slams a pile of papers onto the desk* ACTUALLY, my research shows me that Floyd Mayweather jr in fact is the Tiger Woods of boxing. He's aggressively boring, inexplainably rich and popular, is the best in the world at a limited pseudo sport, is a dick to his wife, and -*sweat runs profusely as I readjust my collar*- is colored. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 There are fighters with more offensive skill than him, but not with as much defense, footwork or countering skills. I think what Bjorn is saying is, if you added up a scale of points in every aspect of boxing, his total number would be higher than everyone elses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 There are fighters with more offensive skill than him, but not with as much defense, footwork or countering skills. I think what Bjorn is saying is, if you added up a scale of points in every aspect of boxing, his total number would be higher than everyone elses. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 That's a really dumb way to look at fighters though. They're not numbers on a piece of paper.Also Roberto Duran would've fucked Mayweather up inside 6 rounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 That's a really dumb way to look at fighters though. They're not numbers on a piece of paper. Also Roberto Duran would've fucked Mayweather up inside 6 rounds. Tell me then how you can decide who is the most skilled boxer in the history without attributing a value to every aspect of the boxing game and counting them up and see who has the most 'points' .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtieBanks Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 There are fighters with more offensive skill than him, but not with as much defense, footwork or countering skills. I think what Bjorn is saying is, if you added up a scale of points in every aspect of boxing, his total number would be higher than everyone elses. You have as many points in offensive as you do defense, you have offensive footwork and defensive footwork, the defensive footwork also helps in countering to help explain that countering is a transitional phase but he hardly brings the heat when he counters, it tends to be a few pop off straight shots and circle, rinse and repeat. You look at how RJJ threw his combo's, occasionally he did so with recklessness but that tended to be when the other guy was hurt. RJJ used his jab to set up body shots which then set up his head shots, that is offensive mastery right there. Muhammad Ali also had great defensive skills, his rope-a-dope tactics but then you couple that with the fact he could throw some combo's with speed that was seen at lighter weights. He scored more points in boxing skill than Floyd, if you want to score it that way. Actually any guy with a decent offensive and defense would outscore him, so going by points isn't great for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtieBanks Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Tell me then how you can decide who is the most skilled boxer in the history without attributing a value to every aspect of the boxing game and counting them up and see who has the most 'points' .... The eye test, does Floyd show amazing aspects in both offensive and defensive boxing. Does fighter A show better aspects in both offensive and defensive boxing. Doesn't include points, just includes a ticky box and a count to one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 The eye test, does Floyd show amazing aspects in both offensive and defensive boxing. Does fighter A show better aspects in both offensive and defensive boxing. Doesn't include points, just includes a ticky box and a count to one. seems like a very rational and scientific approach to compare fighters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Tell me then how you can decide who is the most skilled boxer in the history without attributing a value to every aspect of the boxing game and counting them up and see who has the most 'points' .... Well, you can consider how they do at the various aspects of boxing against high level competition, and then consider how said high level competition does at these things against other high level competition. And so on and so forth. seems like a very rational and scientific approach to compare fighters... Oh but assigning arbitrary numbers to boxers like they're fighters in a video game without considering stylistic peculiarities is scientific and rational? How do you expect to evaluate stylistic peculiarities in a one-size-fits-all number system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Well, you can consider how they do at the various aspects of boxing against high level competition, and then consider how said high level competition does at these things against other high level competition. And so on and so forth. Oh but assigning arbitrary numbers to boxers like they're fighters in a video game without considering stylistic peculiarities is scientific and rational? How do you expect to evaluate stylistic peculiarities in a one-size-fits-all number system? How much do they land, how do they land it , etc... Fightmetrics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 How much do they land, how do they land it , etc... Fightmetrics... lmao, that's about as scientific as you claiming Floyd Mayweather is a good offensive boxer after looking at his record at wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtieBanks Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 seems like a very rational and scientific approach to compare fighters... You didn't ask for a scientific or rational approach, you just said another way to figure it out without counting "points". I gave you an example and answered the question, if you want a more detailed answer you should prolly be more specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 lmao, that's about as scientific as you claiming Floyd Mayweather is a good offensive boxer after looking at his record at wikipedia. yeah right, I guess only you know something about boxing and I must be reading it from wikipedia... You don't need to agree with me that he is the highest skilled boxer ever, but just one question. Tell me, how high would you ranked him in the list of your highest skilled boxers ever? Give me a number. If he isn't in the top 3 or lets be friendly , top 5, then I'm afraid I'll have to quote Mayweather sr. "most people don't know shit about boxing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 yeah right, I guess only you know something about boxing and I must be reading it from wikipedia... You don't need to agree with me that he is the highest skilled boxer ever, but just one question. Tell me, how high would you ranked him in the list of your highest skilled boxers ever? Give me a number. If he isn't in the top 3 or lets be friendly , top 5, then I'm afraid I'll have to quote Mayweather sr. "most people don't know shit about boxing" Strawman. I never said that only I knew something about boxing. I just said your ranking method is retarded. How high I would rank him? Top 10 maybe. Top 3? lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjornmma1 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 I suppose you have him ranked at 1 then ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtieBanks Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 yeah right, I guess only you know something about boxing and I must be reading it from wikipedia... You don't need to agree with me that he is the highest skilled boxer ever, but just one question. Tell me, how high would you ranked him in the list of your highest skilled boxers ever? Give me a number. If he isn't in the top 3 or lets be friendly , top 5, then I'm afraid I'll have to quote Mayweather sr. "most people don't know shit about boxing" There have been a lot of very talented boxers to fight through-out the past what 100 years? Some of whom i don't know very much about, so in order to answer that question i would have to give a lot of time and thought into giving an answer. That is a scientific and rational approach to it one would say. I could however name boxers who i would put ahead of Floyd if you want it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Fucks sake lads just agree to disagree. You are all bright lads with good written English skills but know when enough is enough. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.