JaNnO
10-15-2004, 12:52 AM
Which boxing theory is most effective in picking the winner? You can also mention your own.
|
View Full Version : Which Boxing Theory Is More Effective JaNnO 10-15-2004, 12:52 AM Which boxing theory is most effective in picking the winner? You can also mention your own. cple 10-15-2004, 01:38 AM More often than not, it's "styles make fights". Boxers are troubled by swarmers (see Robinson-LaMotta, Ali-Frazier); swarmers are troubled by sluggers (see Frazier-Foreman), and sluggers are troubled by boxers (see Foreman-Ali). In actually, in order to best pick a winner, it's a comibation of all of them: style, physical/mental attributes, talent, training, heart, etc. However, if you were to just go by one theory, it should be that "styles make fights". borikua 10-15-2004, 01:46 AM The most effective to pick a winner?...A Fighter is as Good As His Last Fight :cool: Sir_Jose 10-15-2004, 01:54 AM Which boxing theory is most effective in picking the winner? You can also mention your own. Styles make fights. I dont consider talent a theory. abdiel2k3 10-15-2004, 02:19 AM prolly more often its style makes fights talent is part on ones style the way i see it Sir_Jose 10-15-2004, 02:20 AM prolly more often its style makes fights talent is part on ones style the way i see it I dont. Talent is god given. abdiel2k3 10-15-2004, 02:41 AM I dont. Talent is god given. exactly you use the you god given talent to make your style of fighting without that god given talent you dont have the same style Sir_Jose 10-15-2004, 02:49 AM exactly you use the you god given talent to make your style of fighting without that god given talent you dont have the same style True in some cases but the question is "Which theory is most effective in choosing a winner?" Saying someone should win because they have more talent is not a theory in my opnion its pretty much commen sense. abdiel2k3 10-15-2004, 03:14 AM True in some cases but the question is "Which theory is most effective in choosing a winner?" Saying someone should win because they have more talent is not a theory in my opnion its pretty much commen sense. no its not becuz talent doesnt always get the win plus deres different types of talents=styles liek tarver jones can we all agree jones is the superior allusive boxer but tarver just got that one counter and lites out so talent doenst always win how many countless talented prospects have been derailed by common fighters Sir_Jose 10-15-2004, 03:21 AM no its not becuz talent doesnt always get the win plus deres different types of talents=styles liek tarver jones can we all agree jones is the superior allusive boxer but tarver just got that one counter and lites out so talent doenst always win how many countless talented prospects have been derailed by common fighters Its safe to say Tarver won because Jones was on the downside and dont forget Roy Jones did win the first fight. At the same time how many talented prospect have we seen run through common fighters like they were nothing on there way to the top?. Usually it will be something out of the ring that will cause a blue chip prospect to lose to average fighter. Your missing the point of this question. kevvy1979 10-15-2004, 04:17 AM IF Roy Jones was picking ,it would be Mental Factor.So I say this Jones,go up and fight Ruiz again,and lets put that theory to the test. THRILLAinmanila 10-15-2004, 04:33 AM I'd say God-given talent is it. You can have the best trainer, but if you just don't have it , you ain't got it. |