View Full Version : Joe Gasn vs Floyd Mayweather Jr at 135- In two fights


One more round
01-26-2010, 07:52 AM
One with Floyd's era rules (12 rounds 8oz gloves etc you guys know it)

One in Gan's era (40 round fights 4oz gloves)

Who wins?

One more round
01-26-2010, 08:06 AM
well The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

wmute
01-26-2010, 04:45 PM
well The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

Do they get any amount of training under the other guy's rules. If not it's simple... each wins under the rules under which he became the best.

One more round
01-26-2010, 08:19 PM
Do they get any amount of training under the other guy's rules. If not it's simple... each wins under the rules under which he became the best.

No, just straight up.

I just think Floyd would be too fast, strong and explosive for a guy like Gans, he wouldn't have seen anything like Floyd before and Floyd would have busted him up under any rules.

UKRAINIANGIANTS
01-26-2010, 09:04 PM
Don't know who Gans is, but Floyd is a ***** who would probably lose.

BEEHOP
01-26-2010, 09:05 PM
Floyd easily.

UKRAINIANGIANTS
01-26-2010, 09:25 PM
Floyd easily.

STFU moron, Floyd is a *****

Obama
01-26-2010, 09:39 PM
Who let you kids into the history section? You weren't invited...you're not welcome.

Anyways, each fighter wins under their respective rules most likely.

Ziggy Stardust
01-26-2010, 10:07 PM
No, just straight up.

I just think Floyd would be too fast, strong and explosive for a guy like Gans, he wouldn't have seen anything like Floyd before and Floyd would have busted him up under any rules.

Of course Floyd has never seen anything like Gans before either. Don't write off the old-timers :)


Do they get any amount of training under the other guy's rules. If not it's simple... each wins under the rules under which he became the best.

Push comes to shove I think it would be easier for Gans to adapt to today's rules than it would be for Floyd to adapt to early 20th century rules.

Poet

DeepSleep
01-26-2010, 10:10 PM
I truly think the difference between the athletes of today and the athletes of 1890's is so vast that Floyd Mayweather Jr. would beat Gans regardless. Not to take away from Gans though I just think itís unfair to compare the two given the difference in the sport at the time.

I think it's similar to college football. A good portion of people view the 71' Nebraska team to be the best College football team of all time. Yet unquestionably they would get completely annihilated if they played current Nebraska Cornhusker team who didn't even win their conference this year.

One more round
01-27-2010, 05:28 AM
Of course Floyd has never seen anything like Gans before either. Don't write off the old-timers :)


Well no Floyd hasn't really seen anything like Gans, most of the guys he fought have been stronger, more explosive fighters.

I am watching some more footage of Gans now, he is very good, especially compared to his contemporaries, but I just think Floyd would be that bit stronger, faster, little bigger, and more skilled and refined over all.

I'm just telling it the way it is man, I don't think Floyd storms through everyone in history, I just tend to think even the best guys of the 40 round or so era were just not quite refined and sharp enough to beat the guys that came after them.

BattlingNelson
01-28-2010, 06:01 PM
Do they get any amount of training under the other guy's rules. If not it's simple... each wins under the rules under which he became the best.
The main difference in preparing for fights is not really the training in itself. It's rather the fact that the oldtimes fought all the time so they where always in fighting shape. In fact I would say that they where in better shape on the average than fighters of today. So basically I don't really put much emphasis in so-called modern training.

What we are dealing with is Mayweather fighting at 135 ringside in a 20 round fight with 4 oz horsehair gloves and lots of rough stuff being allowed. 40 rounds as mentioned by the TS wasn't really the norm when Gans was champ but rather 20 or 25.

How well would he do in such conditions? How well will he fight if his hand is broken in say the fifth round with 15 rounds to go? We know that Gans fought several times with broken bones. For example in his famed title winning effort over Nelson he fought 42 rounds despite breaking a hand early in the fight. So we know what Gans is made of. I would say the chances of a Gans win under the old-school format is about 80% at least.

As for a fight under todays rules I would think, as poet indicated as well, that Gans would adapt pretty well. He was a slick technician who could throw every punch in the book and defensively he was the best fighter p4p at the time.They didn't call him the old master for nothing and he might even benefit from stricter refereeing.

When he first won the title he had some 120 wins and only a handful of losses including a suspect loss to ATG Terry McGovern and a loss to ATG Sam Langford.

The abilities and accomplishments that Gans has permits me from giving Floyd more than a 50% chance of winning a 12 rounder. If I have to pick I take Gans.

One more round
01-28-2010, 07:22 PM
The main difference in preparing for fights is not really the training in itself. It's rather the fact that the oldtimes fought all the time so they where always in fighting shape. In fact I would say that they where in better shape on the average than fighters of today. So basically I don't really put much emphasis in so-called modern training.

What we are dealing with is Mayweather fighting at 135 ringside in a 20 round fight with 4 oz horsehair gloves and lots of rough stuff being allowed. 40 rounds as mentioned by the TS wasn't really the norm when Gans was champ but rather 20 or 25.

How well would he do in such conditions? How well will he fight if his hand is broken in say the fifth round with 15 rounds to go? We know that Gans fought several times with broken bones. For example in his famed title winning effort over Nelson he fought 42 rounds despite breaking a hand early in the fight. So we know what Gans is made of. I would say the chances of a Gans win under the old-school format is about 80% at least.

As for a fight under todays rules I would think, as poet indicated as well, that Gans would adapt pretty well. He was a slick technician who could throw every punch in the book and defensively he was the best fighter p4p at the time.They didn't call him the old master for nothing and he might even benefit from stricter refereeing.

When he first won the title he had some 120 wins and only a handful of losses including a suspect loss to ATG Terry McGovern and a loss to ATG Sam Langford.

The abilities and accomplishments that Gans has permits me from giving Floyd more than a 50% chance of winning a 12 rounder. If I have to pick I take Gans.

Do you even train or fight as a boxer? What would you know about the benefits of different types of training?

I have trained first off in a very old school style when I began fighting, lots of long, long roadwork, very old school defensive techniques like the cross arm defence, flat footed shuffling footwork, very slow paced fighting, lots of in close fighting, long periods just hitting the heavybag at a slow pace etc

(eg: how they trained 100 years ago)

And guess what? I got iced by dudes that trained in the new school, lots of sprint training, intense, short rounds on the bag, better schooled technique, faster footwork, etc (eg: how they train nowadays)

Some aspects of old school technique are good, if you combine it with modern day conditioning like a guy like Toney does, but training exclusively old school does not cut it against a well trained modern fighter....

And guess what happened when I started training in the modern school? Yeah that's right, I went on a winning streak and won some titles.

It's on a much smaller scale than guys like Gans and Floyd, but it still applies.

Southpaw16BF
01-28-2010, 07:29 PM
Do you even train or fight as a boxer? What would you know about the benefits of different types of training?

I have trained first off in a very old school style when I began fighting, lots of long, long roadwork, very old school defensive techniques like the cross arm defence, flat footed shuffling footwork, very slow paced fighting, lots of in close fighting, long periods just hitting the heavybag at a slow pace etc

(eg: how they trained 100 years ago)

And guess what? I got iced by dudes that trained in the new school, lots of sprint training, intense, short rounds on the bag, better schooled technique, faster footwork, etc (eg: how they train nowadays)

Some aspects of old school technique are good, if you combine it with modern day conditioning like a guy like Toney does, but training exclusively old school does not cut it against a well trained modern fighter....

And guess what happened when I started training in the modern school? Yeah that's right, I went on a winning streak and won some titles.

It's on a much smaller scale than guys like Gans and Floyd, but it still applies.

No offence. But you have far to much to say. You come on here, and act like because you've boxed you know everything. No offence, I watced you shadowboxing, and you looked like a novice Muay Thai fighter who didnt know what he was doing.

You always call old school fighters and call there training methods etc. But you have no right to, because no offence you have achieved nothing in boxing.

Battling Nelson is a good poster, who knows about the history of the sport. Show him some respect. And stop trying to be a know it all.

One more round
01-28-2010, 07:36 PM
No offence. But you have far to much to say. You come on here, and act like because you've boxed you know everything. No offence, I watced you shadowboxing, and you looked like a novice Muay Thai fighter who didnt know what he was doing.

You always call old school fighters and call there training methods etc. But you have no right to, because no offence you have achieved nothing in boxing.

Battling Nelson is a good poster, who knows about the history of the sport. Show him some respect. And stop trying to be a know it all.

A novice Muay Thai fighter :lol1: The video was not my best as I was not training at the time, but I did not look like a Muay Thai fighter, that is ridiculous. An it shows how little you know.

What have you achieved in boxing? I'm an Aussie GG champ, a state champ and have been to national titles x2 with one silver medal. And I'm really only in the infancy of my career. I'm not a top line fighter yet but I know what I'm talking about when it comes to training and fighting.

Just because I'm not obsessed with old school boxing and can see that modern training has improved on many things, doesn't mean you have the right to tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

And on the other hand, I'm not a modern fighter nuthugger either, I look at it all objectively.

GJC
01-28-2010, 08:31 PM
I have trained first off in a very old school style when I began fighting, lots of long, long roadwork, very old school defensive techniques like the cross arm defence, flat footed shuffling footwork, very slow paced fighting, lots of in close fighting, long periods just hitting the heavybag at a slow pace etc

(eg: how they trained 100 years ago)

And guess what? I got iced by dudes that trained in the new school, lots of sprint training, intense, short rounds on the bag, better schooled technique, faster footwork, etc (eg: how they train nowadays)



Did you find you learnt a lot in actual fights?
i.e. One actual round of boxing is = to 50 rounds sparring or something like that?

Obama
01-28-2010, 08:40 PM
Modern training techniques clearly favor shorter fights (which ARE shorter today). This much should be obvious simply due to the logic behind training. You train for the longest possible fight you might partake in. A guy training to go 20 is going to change his tactics if the most he has to go is 12.

Counter right has some good points here. You don't need to be a boxing historian to know this stuff.

One more round
01-28-2010, 08:47 PM
Did you find you learnt a lot in actual fights?
i.e. One actual round of boxing is = to 50 rounds sparring or something like that?

Yeah, definitely. One fight is equal to like 6 months in the gym, maybe more valuable.

GJC
01-28-2010, 08:54 PM
Yeah, definitely. One fight is equal to like 6 months in the gym, maybe more valuable.
Gans had 150 odd fights so that was a lot of his training :)
It is difficult to compare these things it's a bit like trying to compare who out of a 200 metre runner and a marathon runner would win a mile race.

Obama
01-28-2010, 08:57 PM
Yeah, definitely. One fight is equal to like 6 months in the gym, maybe more valuable.

Depends how good your sparring partners are and how intense the sparring is. Definitely learned more in some of my sparring sessions as opposed to competing against a few guys.

Competition adds a different kind of learning imo. Seems like you've got all the time to think in the world when you're sparring. No time to think when it's the real thing.

One is like reading music (which is not necessarily an easy thing to do, depending on the piece). The other is improvisation. You read the music a bunch of times in the past, you pretty much have it remembered, but whatever you forget you just wing and make the best of it.

One more round
01-28-2010, 09:04 PM
Depends how good your sparring partners are and how intense the sparring is. Definitely learned more in some of my sparring sessions as opposed to competing against a few guys.

Competition adds a different kind of learning imo. Seems like you've got all the time to think in the world when you're sparring. No time to think when it's the real thing.

One is like reading music (which is not necessarily an easy thing to do, depending on the piece). The other is improvisation. You read the music a bunch of times in the past, you pretty much have it remembered, but whatever you forget you just wing and make the best of it.

Yeah that's true the quality of the fight and the sparring is a factor too.

But you are right the strength of competition is that you need to think on your feet a lot and are put in some tough situations.

wmute
01-28-2010, 09:28 PM
No, just straight up.

I just think Floyd would be too fast, strong and explosive for a guy like Gans, he wouldn't have seen anything like Floyd before and Floyd would have busted him up under any rules.

Of course Floyd has never seen anything like Gans before either. Don't write off the old-timers :)




Push comes to shove I think it would be easier for Gans to adapt to today's rules than it would be for Floyd to adapt to early 20th century rules.

Poet

The main difference in preparing for fights is not really the training in itself. It's rather the fact that the oldtimes fought all the time so they where always in fighting shape. In fact I would say that they where in better shape on the average than fighters of today. So basically I don't really put much emphasis in so-called modern training.

What we are dealing with is Mayweather fighting at 135 ringside in a 20 round fight with 4 oz horsehair gloves and lots of rough stuff being allowed. 40 rounds as mentioned by the TS wasn't really the norm when Gans was champ but rather 20 or 25.

How well would he do in such conditions? How well will he fight if his hand is broken in say the fifth round with 15 rounds to go? We know that Gans fought several times with broken bones. For example in his famed title winning effort over Nelson he fought 42 rounds despite breaking a hand early in the fight. So we know what Gans is made of. I would say the chances of a Gans win under the old-school format is about 80% at least.

As for a fight under todays rules I would think, as poet indicated as well, that Gans would adapt pretty well. He was a slick technician who could throw every punch in the book and defensively he was the best fighter p4p at the time.They didn't call him the old master for nothing and he might even benefit from stricter refereeing.

When he first won the title he had some 120 wins and only a handful of losses including a suspect loss to ATG Terry McGovern and a loss to ATG Sam Langford.

The abilities and accomplishments that Gans has permits me from giving Floyd more than a 50% chance of winning a 12 rounder. If I have to pick I take Gans.

Oh my oh my. Even while disagreeing, you ppl are a missing a humongous point. They did not train for the same sport.

Take the best marathon runner make him run a 10k against the 100th best 10k runner, he loses. Take the best 10k runner and make him run a marathon with the 100th best marathon runner, he loses. Why? Because the guy practicing the new discipline, does not know how his body will feel when it is pushed to that particular limit. We are talking about pros.


Moreover, we are talking about fighters famous for their accuracy and understanding of their science. Keyword their. If you imagine that you take Floyd and put 4oz on him for the first time and he looks even remotely as smooth as he does with anything 8-16oz, you guys are off. Same for Gans with 8-10oz gloves. It's hard too picture how bad both fighters would look, but they would look bad. All the moves they had perfected in 1000s of rounds of sparring and drills, would all of a sudden be a bit off, and as smart as they are they could not do anything about it. Why? basically muscle memory... their whole body, not just their brain has been trained to do those movements, no changing that in a couple of rounds during a fight!

Then if we want to talk about who can become the better fighter under the other rules while training for them, it's a different story. This is something we can talk about. My take:

While counter right points are legit, he is forgetting something. Floyd's hands. That alone gives a much better chance to Gans under the new rules, than Floyd has under the old ones.

Obama
01-28-2010, 09:40 PM
Oh my oh my. Even while disagreeing, you ppl are a missing a humongous point. They did not train for the same sport.

Take the best marathon runner make him run a 10k against the 100th best 10k runner, he loses. Take the best 10k runner and make him run a marathon with the 100th best marathon runner, he loses. Why? Because the guy practicing the new discipline, does not know how his body will feel when it is pushed to that particular limit. We are talking about pros.


Moreover, we are talking about fighters famous for their accuracy and understanding of their science. Keyword their. If you imagine that you take Floyd and put 4oz on him for the first time and he looks even remotely as smooth as he does with anything 8-16oz, you guys are off. Same for Gans with 8-10oz gloves. It's hard too picture how bad both fighters would look, but they would look bad. All the moves they had perfected in 1000s of rounds of sparring and drills, would all of a sudden be a bit off, and as smart as they are they could not do anything about it. Why? basically muscle memory... their whole body, not just their brain has been trained to do those movements, no changing that in a couple of rounds during a fight!

Then if we want to talk about who can become the better fighter under the other rules while training for them, it's a different story. This is something we can talk about. My take:

While counter right points are legit, he is forgetting something. Floyd's hands. That alone gives a much better chance to Gans under the new rules, than Floyd has under the old ones.

Too extreme. It's not 6.25 miles compared to 26. It's 6.25 compared to 11. So best vs 100th best = loss would be a stretch.

One more round
01-28-2010, 10:08 PM
Oh my oh my. Even while disagreeing, you ppl are a missing a humongous point. They did not train for the same sport.

Take the best marathon runner make him run a 10k against the 100th best 10k runner, he loses. Take the best 10k runner and make him run a marathon with the 100th best marathon runner, he loses. Why? Because the guy practicing the new discipline, does not know how his body will feel when it is pushed to that particular limit. We are talking about pros.


Moreover, we are talking about fighters famous for their accuracy and understanding of their science. Keyword their. If you imagine that you take Floyd and put 4oz on him for the first time and he looks even remotely as smooth as he does with anything 8-16oz, you guys are off. Same for Gans with 8-10oz gloves. It's hard too picture how bad both fighters would look, but they would look bad. All the moves they had perfected in 1000s of rounds of sparring and drills, would all of a sudden be a bit off, and as smart as they are they could not do anything about it. Why? basically muscle memory... their whole body, not just their brain has been trained to do those movements, no changing that in a couple of rounds during a fight!

Then if we want to talk about who can become the better fighter under the other rules while training for them, it's a different story. This is something we can talk about. My take:

While counter right points are legit, he is forgetting something. Floyd's hands. That alone gives a much better chance to Gans under the new rules, than Floyd has under the old ones.

That is a pretty good point.

Jim Jeffries
01-28-2010, 10:10 PM
Can someone explain the difference to me between the third and fourth options?

One more round
01-28-2010, 10:11 PM
Gans had 150 odd fights so that was a lot of his training :)
It is difficult to compare these things it's a bit like trying to compare who out of a 200 metre runner and a marathon runner would win a mile race.

True, Gans has the experience advantage in professional competition, but Floyd had a 90 fight amateur career, much of it at a high level, so that evens the score up somewhat. (I don't think there was an extensive amateur program in Gan's youth)

You are right there, but I just think Floyd would take Gans out relatively early. Just way faster and more explosive than anything Gans had ever seen, and Gans would be fighting his equal skillwise.

One more round
01-28-2010, 10:12 PM
Can someone explain the difference to me between the third and fourth options?

What do you mean?

Floyd wins under his rules (modern day rules) but loses in an old school fight (Gans' rules)

Gans' wins under his old school rules, but loses under Floyd's modern rules

Jim Jeffries
01-28-2010, 10:14 PM
What do you mean?

Floyd wins under his rules (modern day rules) but loses in an old school fight (Gans' rules)

Gans' wins under his old school rules, but loses under Floyd's modern rules

And you don't get that those are the same thing?:thinking1:

One more round
01-28-2010, 10:21 PM
And you don't get that those are the same thing?:thinking1:

How are they the same thing?

EDIT: wait sorry lol, yeah you are right, not at my sharpest today :lol1:

BattlingNelson
01-29-2010, 02:27 AM
Do you even train or fight as a boxer? What would you know about the benefits of different types of training?

I have trained first off in a very old school style when I began fighting, lots of long, long roadwork, very old school defensive techniques like the cross arm defence, flat footed shuffling footwork, very slow paced fighting, lots of in close fighting, long periods just hitting the heavybag at a slow pace etc

(eg: how they trained 100 years ago)

And guess what? I got iced by dudes that trained in the new school, lots of sprint training, intense, short rounds on the bag, better schooled technique, faster footwork, etc (eg: how they train nowadays)

Some aspects of old school technique are good, if you combine it with modern day conditioning like a guy like Toney does, but training exclusively old school does not cut it against a well trained modern fighter....

And guess what happened when I started training in the modern school? Yeah that's right, I went on a winning streak and won some titles.

It's on a much smaller scale than guys like Gans and Floyd, but it still applies.
As I said a lot of the old school training consisted of actual fighting. I'm sure that bit wasn't part in your old school drills.

BattlingNelson
01-29-2010, 02:29 AM
That is a pretty good point.
I made the exact same point about Floyds hands. I even said that Gans' bones was also brittle. So you giving wmute love and me hate just shows your true agenda.

You are a ****poster. This is your 4 or 5 account. You'll probably be banned yet again in less than a month.

DeepSleep
01-29-2010, 03:11 AM
A novice Muay Thai fighter :lol1: The video was not my best as I was not training at the time, but I did not look like a Muay Thai fighter, that is ridiculous. An it shows how little you know.

What have you achieved in boxing? I'm an Aussie GG champ, a state champ and have been to national titles x2 with one silver medal. And I'm really only in the infancy of my career. I'm not a top line fighter yet but I know what I'm talking about when it comes to training and fighting.

Just because I'm not obsessed with old school boxing and can see that modern training has improved on many things, doesn't mean you have the right to tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

And on the other hand, I'm not a modern fighter nuthugger either, I look at it all objectively.

I didn't know Australia had Golden Gloves tournaments, I thought Golden Gloves Franchises are only located in the USA. Learn something new everyday.

JAB5239
01-29-2010, 03:54 AM
Modern training techniques clearly favor shorter fights (which ARE shorter today). This much should be obvious simply due to the logic behind training. You train for the longest possible fight you might partake in. A guy training to go 20 is going to change his tactics if the most he has to go is 12.

Counter right has some good points here. You don't need to be a boxing historian to know this stuff.

Another excellent post. Im petitioning for green k for Obama. If you got it throw in. I wouldn't ask this if he was a crap poster, he deserves to be green.

One more round
01-29-2010, 03:59 AM
I didn't know Australia had Golden Gloves tournaments, I thought Golden Gloves Franchises are only located in the USA. Learn something new everyday.

Yeah, we got one, just one, not like in every big city like in the USA.

One more round
01-29-2010, 04:02 AM
I made the exact same point about Floyds hands. I even said that Gans' bones was also brittle. So you giving wmute love and me hate just shows your true agenda.

You are a ****poster. This is your 4 or 5 account. You'll probably be banned yet again in less than a month.

Fine, I didn't acknowledge it when you said it, you were right.

You trying to attack me as a poster instead of my arguments shows that you know you are wrong, I've been banned before, so what? My last account was banned because I made a parody thread in NSB making fun of the half wits in there, does that indicate I'm a bad poster? Other posters do the same, but because they are more well known on here they only get temp bans or no bans at all.

BattlingNelson
01-29-2010, 04:17 AM
Somebody explain to me the difference between poll option no. 3 and 4 BTW.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

wmute
01-29-2010, 08:28 AM
Another excellent post. Im petitioning for green k for Obama. If you got it throw in. I wouldn't ask this if he was a crap poster, he deserves to be green.

I am in, green k on the way

One more round
01-29-2010, 08:33 AM
Somebody explain to me the difference between poll option no. 3 and 4 BTW.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yeah, keep ducking my posts now and just try and score cheap points like a 6 year old.

Although yeah I should have just written "each wins under their respective rules" as a third option, but the poll is automatically 4 options and i was quickly making the thread etc

but whatever, it's not a big deal, just vote for one of them

wmute
01-29-2010, 08:35 AM
Too extreme. It's not 6.25 miles compared to 26. It's 6.25 compared to 11. So best vs 100th best = loss would be a stretch.

Let me disagree, provided that what I recall on the rules is correct. Not just the number of rounds is different. The length of the rounds varies. The duration of a fight could extend a lot fruther than 36 minutes, I think 2 hours is heard of. A round could last 20 minutes. Fighters would occasionally almost stop the action. They had to be prepared for that kind of fight. At the highest level, they would be training for different sports. I don't think #1 vs #100 is off (also thinks that the difference between #1 and #100 is not big by any standards).

One more round
01-29-2010, 08:39 AM
I can't believe people think Gans wins both fights. I can maybe see Floyd breaking his hands at some point if he can't get Gans out early in the old school fight, and then having a rough time, but in a 12 round modern day fight, there is pretty much no chance I give to Gans, he would get torn apart.

wmute
01-29-2010, 08:40 AM
I made the exact same point about Floyds hands. I even said that Gans' bones was also brittle. So you giving wmute love and me hate just shows your true agenda.

You are a ****poster. This is your 4 or 5 account. You'll probably be banned yet again in less than a month.

Bat, your signature suggesting that comparing one businessman to the other is ludicrous might indicate bias and hence diminish in the eye of the reader the value of posts including either of the two businessmen as topic.

BattlingNelson
01-29-2010, 08:44 AM
Yeah, keep ducking my posts now and just try and score cheap points like a 6 year old.

Although yeah I should have just written "each wins under their respective rules" as a third option, but the poll is automatically 4 options and i was quickly making the thread etc

but whatever, it's not a big deal, just vote for one of them
I DID vote and I DIDN'T duck your post. I in fact answered your question by more than just 'so and so wins because he is better than the other guy'.

BattlingNelson
01-29-2010, 08:47 AM
Bat, your signature suggesting that comparing one businessman to the other is ludicrous might indicate bias and hence diminish in the eye of the reader the value of posts including either of the two businessmen as topic.
Well I just found a comparison between Marquez and Duran to be sigworthy material in all it's nuthugging glory.

wmute
01-29-2010, 09:00 AM
Well I just found a comparison between Marquez and Duran to be sigworthy material in all it's nuthugging glory.

Comparing 2009 JMM and 1980 Duran is ludicrous (comparing their prime versions is not ludicrous, but still wrong IMO), it goes in fact beyond nuthugging, I am a bit shocked that even Horus went as far as that. But comparing Mayweather to Leonard seems fine (I do it all the time, but not for the good things they did, more the bad ones). The last line of your sig can make ppl think that you will be negatively biased whenever it comes to Mayweather, and positively when it comes to Leonard. I am thinking that this is why your post on Mayweather brittle hands went unnoticed.

ernes
01-29-2010, 09:10 AM
no comment

BattlingNelson
01-29-2010, 09:15 AM
Comparing 2009 JMM and 1980 Duran is ludicrous (comparing their prime versions is not ludicrous, but still wrong IMO), it goes in fact beyond nuthugging, I am a bit shocked that even Horus went as far as that. But comparing Mayweather to Leonard seems fine (I do it all the time, but not for the good things they did, more the bad ones). The last line of your sig can make ppl think that you will be negatively biased whenever it comes to Mayweather, and positively when it comes to Leonard. I am thinking that this is why your post on Mayweather brittle hands went unnoticed.
A comparison between Leonard and Mayweather is an excellent topic. The thing that really separates them are BALLS.

Comparing what Marquez is to Floyd to what Duran was to Leonard is like comparing a new Ferrarri with an old Volkswagen on flat tires.

wmute
01-29-2010, 09:23 AM
A comparison between Leonard and Mayweather is an excellent topic. The thing that really separates them are BALLS.

Comparing what Marquez is to Floyd to what Duran was to Leonard is like comparing a new Ferrarri with an old Volkswagen on flat tires.

see? I disagree completely on the balls argument, and I don't think it is interesting to debate. I think you need to look at Leonard with pink goggles to find any amount of balls that you cannot find on Mayweather.

For the record I think they both have balls, but they both like their money more than anything, and rightfully so, if I may add. I think their only difference is the image with which they sell.

I can spend a long time putting down Leonard, because he piled up a considerable number of evidence which makes that easy. But, just like with Mayweather or any other great fighter, I would rather talk about the fighting, not the politics, negotiations, ducking and so on.

BennyST
01-29-2010, 09:27 AM
Too extreme. It's not 6.25 miles compared to 26. It's 6.25 compared to 11. So best vs 100th best = loss would be a stretch.

I think you'd be surprised. As you should know with your training, any little deviation from what you have done a thousand times can really mess things up. At the highest level that is compounded ten fold because the margin for error is so much smaller. It's why Pac refuses to give blood so close to a fight. The tiniest thing for the very, very best makes all the difference. Well, that is supposedly why Pac refuses to give blood but that is altogether a different topic.

What is not different is that at the very elite levels of any sport, each athlete has spent so many hours doing the same thing every day that it all becomes second nature. They don't have to think any more. They just do. When Mayweather sees a left hook coming at his body, he instinctively reacts by dropping and tucking his right elbow and then shooting a right uppercut, or straight right counter. It has developed over his whole life and can't be changed. It is the same with what Gans does.

Mayweather would really struggle to go more than fifteen rounds and he would struggle with that even in a real fight. That number one guy that was used to 10K would be done by the 15th in a real race. His legs just wouldn't have the same understanding after those ten. His whole body would be in a different zone that what it has been used to for his whole career.

Both guys win under their own rules.

ernes
01-29-2010, 09:31 AM
i vote for Gans... I don't like floyd

GameGod
01-29-2010, 12:34 PM
Options 3 and 4 mean exactly the same. Take away the 2nd one (Option 4) and replace it with "Gans wins under Floyd's rules and Floyd wins under Gans' rules".