Emanuel Steward: I think Tommy and Ray are superior fighters than the fighters today"

[Calilloyd]

I like how Hearns would "destroy" both Pac and Floyd....

Yet, "PROBABLY" win a "UD" against Cotto

Yeah I caught that too LOL

[Blue Heffner]

Obviously.

If Ray & Hearns were at 147 right now, Floyd and Pac would be at 140...tops.

Exactly, no way they'd go any higher.

[Steven Adams]

Thank you.

I used to be a bit of an armchair boxing historian but it's been long that I really delved into seriously. It is because of Pacquiao that brought me back again to boxing.

Sure, I've watched the championship fights all these years (decades) but the time wherein boxing has been downgraded was the time also that I stopped watching heads, shoulders and toes, everything including the toenails. hehe

But I am also much of an armchair boxer due to my training. But what is appalling really are the reasoning behind some of the people of this board. If I would scrutinize everything, it would be of no end.

But likewise I am just like everybody else with their own "preferences" (an upgrade from "biases") in terms of "who is better" and "why that style is better"...but we all learn humility when we see our idols get peppered by the very same boxer we abhorred.

The thing is that boxing is synonymous with life. And that is we cannot isolate techniques from emotions/ego. A boxer with superlative skills can also be deterred by his own ego or a boxer can also be warrior-like in his guts and bravado but yet lacking in skills.

But boxing is beyond skills and emotion. Sometimes the most neanderthal-like boxer can upstage the most skillful...or sometimes the one that shows the most "will" can beat the most disciplined of all.

That is why I love this sport. MMA may be grander because it can dazzle one with the arrays of "beating an opponent" but since boxing is an isolation of "punching contest", it has transcended into an art form.

This to me is why a two-fisted person can be as complex and let alone 2 two-fisted fighters can present a multitude of complexities. It's like Yin and Yang and the whole cosmos and the universe within the ring and trying to settle on "who is the better fighter".

As complex as pugilists are, thereby we also see the simplest of reasoning in this board. Thus in effect, is still complex. It adds color to our daily poetry. It affects our daily painting.

Thus I love the poetry within boxing. Because I may not be the most logical of all posters, but I can guarantee you that I can present as much challenges in thinking the ways of boxing though not necessarily "solving" anything.

Just blabbering. And that's why I am here. I blabber with you guys.

We're all blabbers but with a tinge of boxing as our interest. (or scorecard girls!)

Peace.

thats the best spent 3mins ive spent on nsb today.

[qwerty07]

thats the best spent 3mins ive spent on nsb today.

Did you happen to be browsing a **** site while reading that?

[fabie]

thats the best spent 3mins ive spent on nsb today.

Thanks buddy.....boxing is THE sport of humanity for it isn't just about beating the other, but how you respect the other by facing him...without flinching and respecting what the other has for you.

It's the most personal of all sport. And it could be the most brutal likewise.

But it doesn't mean that we can all be hostile to one another. After all, I don't see boxing in its most adrenaline-induced (or steroids these days) sport but to see how one personally challenge the other: Mano y Mano.

One can dance or face to face squared up.

And so le visage pour faire face à - I say unto you. Thank you.

Pardon my French...it's broken. haha!

[AddiX]

Thank you.

I used to be a bit of an armchair boxing historian but it's been long that I really delved into seriously. It is because of Pacquiao that brought me back again to boxing.

Sure, I've watched the championship fights all these years (decades) but the time wherein boxing has been downgraded was the time also that I stopped watching heads, shoulders and toes, everything including the toenails. hehe

But I am also much of an armchair boxer due to my training. But what is appalling really are the reasoning behind some of the people of this board. If I would scrutinize everything, it would be of no end.

But likewise I am just like everybody else with their own "preferences" (an upgrade from "biases") in terms of "who is better" and "why that style is better"...but we all learn humility when we see our idols get peppered by the very same boxer we abhorred.

The thing is that boxing is synonymous with life. And that is we cannot isolate techniques from emotions/ego. A boxer with superlative skills can also be deterred by his own ego or a boxer can also be warrior-like in his guts and bravado but yet lacking in skills.

But boxing is beyond skills and emotion. Sometimes the most neanderthal-like boxer can upstage the most skillful...or sometimes the one that shows the most "will" can beat the most disciplined of all.

That is why I love this sport. MMA may be grander because it can dazzle one with the arrays of "beating an opponent" but since boxing is an isolation of "punching contest", it has transcended into an art form.

This to me is why a two-fisted person can be as complex and let alone 2 two-fisted fighters can present a multitude of complexities. It's like Yin and Yang and the whole cosmos and the universe within the ring and trying to settle on "who is the better fighter".

As complex as pugilists are, thereby we also see the simplest of reasoning in this board. Thus in effect, is still complex. It adds color to our daily poetry. It affects our daily painting.

Thus I love the poetry within boxing. Because I may not be the most logical of all posters, but I can guarantee you that I can present as much challenges in thinking the ways of boxing though not necessarily "solving" anything.

Just blabbering. And that's why I am here. I blabber with you guys.

We're all blabbers but with a tinge of boxing as our interest. (or scorecard girls!)

Peace.

You truly understand the deeper meaning of the sport.

Have you ever read Body and Soul by Loic Wasquant? He's a french writer and it's one of my favorite books about boxing and about the sociology behind the sport. It's quite good.

Nice post, don't let the idiots on here deter you from sticking around.

[fabie]

You truly understand the deeper meaning of the sport.

Have you ever read Body and Soul by Loic Wasquant? He's a french writer and it's one of my favorite books about boxing and about the sociology behind the sport. It's quite good.

Nice post, don't let the idiots on here deter you from sticking around.

Thanks for your kind remarks. But I would like to think that I do know but I don't. I see the parallels of the art of pugilism via martial arts (and the reason why I love boxing and it's purity) but I am no way a sage in the sport of boxing. hehe..

With regards to Body and Soul by Loic Wasquant, wow, my interest is starting to pique about the sport and the sociology of the sport. Thanks for the tip and would try to read it.

What led you to read this book? Do you have anymore recommendations?

For now, I would love to see Mayweather test himself against Pacquiao and vice versa. All of these affinities and loyalties to both doesn't really mean anything ultimately. What I see is the superficiality of our identification of oneself with either of the boxers' persona, prowess and pugilism. Their charisma are ideals that reverberate to our own being.

But underneath all of these games within the game, it is really ourselves arguing against another person utilizing our love for the boxers and the sport.

We identify with the protagonist and the antagonist, hero and the villain....we need the drama inorder to dramatize this romanticism of ourselves combatting against all the elements that we detest and therefore we tend to personalize this mythical fight superficially.

What I like instead is the art behind the pugislism. Not the drama. Otherwise I would just succumb myself into watching the soaps and see who is the domineering and cruel antagonist that is challenging the very core of an innocent and naive protagonist.

But in the end, with all my love and passion for the art of it, is a futile attempt also in detaching the human from sport. We cannot after all. Due to the fact that for every jab, there's an underlying intention to hurt the other. To dominate and ultimately to defeat the "opponent". But the opponent is faceless, dehumanized, stripped of all what we all deemed as a living and breathing, yet caring person.

For every hooks, also comes our own ego to destroy. For every crosses, also comes to transcend our being in lording over the other. But for every corresponding "attack" comes a hopefully matching defense.

A parry, a block, an evasive movement, a fade, a roll...a demunitive effort towards self-preservation inorder to withstand the tempest. Heroism recalled, we uplift ourselves into this machine of invincibility of hopefully leaving unscathed. Only to resort towards returning the same favor of attack on the other.

Ah yes, this give and take. Yin and Yangs of life. We receive as we give as we both respect ourselves and defeat the other.

And hopefully respecting the other as well.

Peace.

[lefthook2daliva]

Obviously.

If Ray & Hearns were at 147 right now, Floyd and Pac would be at 140...tops.

They wouldn't even get there as they would have to face Duran first. I'm surprised Manny didn't mention 'Manos de Piedra'.

[lefthook2daliva]

Thanks for your kind remarks. But I would like to think that I do know but I don't. I see the parallels of the art of pugilism via martial arts (and the reason why I love boxing and it's purity) but I am no way a sage in the sport of boxing. hehe..

With regards to Body and Soul by Loic Wasquant, wow, my interest is starting to pique about the sport and the sociology of the sport. Thanks for the tip and would try to read it.

What led you to read this book? Do you have anymore recommendations?

For now, I would love to see Mayweather test himself against Pacquiao and vice versa. All of these affinities and loyalties to both doesn't really mean anything ultimately. What I see is the superficiality of our identification of oneself with either of the boxers' persona, prowess and pugilism. Their charisma are ideals that reverberate to our own being.

But underneath all of these games within the game, it is really ourselves arguing against another person utilizing our love for the boxers and the sport.

We identify with the protagonist and the antagonist, hero and the villain....we need the drama inorder to dramatize this romanticism of ourselves combatting against all the elements that we detest and therefore we tend to personalize this mythical fight superficially.

What I like instead is the art behind the pugislism. Not the drama. Otherwise I would just succumb myself into watching the soaps and see who is the domineering and cruel antagonist that is challenging the very core of an innocent and naive protagonist.

But in the end, with all my love and passion for the art of it, is a futile attempt also in detaching the human from sport. We cannot after all. Due to the fact that for every jab, there's an underlying intention to hurt the other. To dominate and ultimately to defeat the "opponent". But the opponent is faceless, dehumanized, stripped of all what we all deemed as a living and breathing, yet caring person.

For every hooks, also comes our own ego to destroy. For every crosses, also comes to transcend our being in lording over the other. But for every corresponding "attack" comes a hopefully matching defense.

A parry, a block, an evasive movement, a fade, a roll...a demunitive effort towards self-preservation inorder to withstand the tempest. Heroism recalled, we uplift ourselves into this machine of invincibility of hopefully leaving unscathed. Only to resort towards returning the same favor of attack on the other.

Ah yes, this give and take. Yin and Yangs of life. We receive as we give as we both respect ourselves and defeat the other.

And hopefully respecting the other as well.

Peace.

Hahahaha... you're drunker than I am....hahahahaha

[fabie]

Hahahaha... you're drunker than I am....hahahahaha

haha