|05-03-2012, 11:55 AM||#1|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quoted: 1 Post(s)Rep Power: 11
Total Points: 281,835.10
Which is worse for a fighter... Is it a long stretch of inactivity or a tough fight??
There are many differences of opinion about this topic..
|05-03-2012, 11:56 AM||#2|
#1 Floyd Hater
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Miami Beach, Fl
Quoted: 1114 Post(s)Rep Power: 396
Total Points: 646,172,355,052,524,142,592.00
A long stretch of inactivity can be a tough a fight. So id say both.
|05-03-2012, 11:58 AM||#3|
Paul Williams beat Lara
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quoted: 40 Post(s)Rep Power: 13
Total Points: 2,626,115,446,430,551.50
Depends on a fighter probably and how tough is fight that you consider tough. Morales - Barrera I, Gatti - Robinson, Bowe - Holyfield, Adamek - Briggs like?
But genereally I'd say inactivity tends to affect fighter more.
|05-03-2012, 01:40 PM||#5|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quoted: 232 Post(s)Rep Power: 20
Total Points: 4,634,713,934,567.53
depends how tough the fight is, a tough fight ala gatti ward or corrales castillo is one thing but obviously a REALLY tough fight/beatdown is worse than a long break .. ie margarito after pacquiao or cotto after margarito.
|05-03-2012, 02:20 PM||#6|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Les Darcy Country N.S.W.
Quoted: 104 Post(s)Rep Power: 14
Total Points: 1,050,591,292.36
I think inactivity is a big mistake, rarely does a fighter come back well from a long stretch of inactivity, same for most sports really (think swimmer Ian Thorpe for instance),, I think it destroyed Kostya Tszyu as a fighter more than all those Hatton blows to the beauliccas (bollocks) did,,, but yeah,, they didnt help either...................... Also I believe one thing that can lead to a tough fight is a long stretch of inactivity,,, and vice versa also.
|05-03-2012, 05:10 PM||#7|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Statesville, NC
Quoted: 350 Post(s)Rep Power: 77
Total Points: 6,693,808,630,831,310,848.00
|05-04-2012, 06:39 AM||#8|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quoted: 2 Post(s)Rep Power: 21
Total Points: 10,030,083,782.59
I've said it before......boxers are not like machines or computer game characters. They are human beings and subsequently what works for one person might be radically different for another:
A long layoff can help to prolong a career and recharge the batteries (lets face it, theres no way that George Foreman would have still been fighting in 1998 if he had fought through the rest of the 70s as well as the entire 80s. I've got a feeling that the careers of Muhammed Ali, Joe Louis, Mike Tyson and Sugar Ray Leonard might have been shorter without their layoffs.
Some guys can survive the beating of a lifetime and show no perceivable signs of damage. It can serve as a motivator to actually improve.
Some guys can be noticeably affected by one fight. Ali was never quite the same after Thrilla in Manilla for example.
Some can be severely braindamaged or killed in one fight. McClellan/Watson/Ingle.
As to what is most damaging overall, I'd struggle to pick between inactivity and a tough fight. Sadly inactivity can often lead to a tough fight! But boxing and human beings will forever surprise you.....
|05-04-2012, 06:47 AM||#9|
The Great John L.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quoted: 2 Post(s)Rep Power: 32
Total Points: 59,233,979,422.89
worse? tough fight. though it depends on what you do during the inactivity.
louis was inactive for almost 2 years, but during the time he fought hundreds of expos for the army.
ali was inactive for 3 years and with out it its leikly his career would have ended much sooner.
|05-04-2012, 10:10 AM||#10|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quoted: 2694 Post(s)Rep Power: 134
Total Points: 10,130,437,146,821,859,328.00
obviously it depends.
what are you doing in your layoff?
staying in the gym or getting shitfaced and banging hookers and using drugs?
floyd mayweather fights rarely and look at how sharp the kid (35 year old grown man,) is
a tough fight can end a life
inactivity usually doesnt do that
|Share This With Friends|
|fight??, fighter..., inactivity, long, stretch, tough, worse|