Horus Presents: SLICK FIGHTER 101 "SLICKOLOGY"

A slick white fighter in sparring: http://media.fukung.net/images/9549/0b1f2057bd70b9aefb3512e599c467cc.gif

horus has ducked me many times, fyi. he says he can't answer everyone but he answers fools with like 100 posts or guys that have been banned multiple times, or obvious ballhuggers. Is this a joke?:ugh:

http://tinyurl.com/62ujlxz

BTW, today marks 2 years since this grand spectacle occurred LOL http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236746

http://www.awesomehq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/slick.jpg

LOL when I first saw his description I swear to you my first thoughts ran straight to Tyson's style back in his day. NO ONE calls Tyson slick They call him slippery

you're a ****ing idiot. Pivoting, angles, timing, speed, slipping, ducking, rolling, rhythm of offensive and defensive motion. Any of these that TYSON didn't have? would you call him slick? hahahah dumbass LOL when I first saw his description I swear to you my first thoughts ran straight to Tyson's style back in his day. NO ONE calls Tyson slick

http://planetill.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/slickrick.jpg

SLICK FIGHTER 101: SLICKOLOGY Lesson #1 The Fighter must be able to constantly display various ‘modes’ of movement. 1. Rolling 2. Slipping 3. Pivoting at the waist 4. Feinting 5. Bobbing and weaving The Fighter is generally a counter puncher by Nature. Typically has Good Head Movement Fights within a rhythm 1. Rhythm of offensive motion. (preparing to punch) 2. Rhythm of defensive motion. (waiting to counterpunch) Changes of speed and direction, pivoting and spinning, dipping, rocking, backpedaling, sidestepping, feinting, weaving, sideslipping, angles all are part of a repertoire of constantly shifting balancing mannerisms designed to alter the perspective of the observer, a kind of slick motion. I call these various types of counterbalancing movement techniques ‘modalities of rhythm’. This tradition has always been passed down from master to student mainly through experiencing the ‘feel’ of these modalities as well as using analogy to pass on information. However it is the insights that are gained through these experiences and the ability to execute that creates masters. True Master of this art usually spend the first few rounds of a fight studying their opponenet movement and developing thier timing. Once movement is trace and locked and the pace increases, this is usually when their Slick Skillset kicks in. http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c318/Quntel/Black_Raven-129831.jpg For more information please visit: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235602&highlight=reasons you're a ****ing idiot. Pivoting, angles, timing, speed, slipping, ducking, rolling, rhythm of offensive and defensive motion. Any of these that TYSON didn't have? would you call him slick? hahahah dumbass

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rnCfdjVONm8/SSnsg5GQXSI/AAAAAAAAAOs/i-Cpb4BTzKA/s400/slick.jpg

horus has ducked me many times, fyi. he says he can't answer everyone but he answers fools with like 100 posts or guys that have been banned multiple times, or obvious ballhuggers.

I think you are using what people like to call a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Which means when people’s expectations about the future events lead them to behave in particular ways. Since you already have this notion that I am cherry picking posters for some reason, you try to find edvidence that I am doing it, instead of removing the Prejudice of me that you might have and enjoying the thread. I don't have to do squat my man

Do you consider Mark Too Sharp Johnson a slick boxer? Personally I do Yes, he fits majority of the standards mention. Eaner, You must realised here and now, that I go from this site on and off. When I am on I try and engaged as many people as possible. But I do not sit around and engaged every poster who replies in my threads because I am not on here long enough to do it. I fear no conversation or poster on this site, for what? What do I have to lose or win by avoiding a conversation? no one said every single one but you do often pick the easiest to refute I think that's fairly evident and no one said fear young man how anyone can fear someone from a messageboard is beyond me lol give yourself a break and moving on to Too Sharp you do realize he fought in a more Mexican style than a slick style right? I mean you have seen his body of work beyond the surface level fights right? watch him closely and you will see he implements more of that style than a "slick" style you profess him to be

this right here? exactly what I mean I think we all know this was a thinly veiled attempt to laud once again the style and type of fighters you prefer I mean cmon man at least be upfront and honest you like certain styles and fighters and have prefences just like everyone else only you try to mask it by adding in certain elements (in this case the inclusion of non African American fighters) to try and fortify the perception that your views are balanced the style you are talking about is predominantly used by the type of fighter you prefer simple as that anything else is selling a bill of goods I think you are using what people like to call a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Which means when people’s expectations about the future events lead them to behave in particular ways. Since you already have this notion that I am cherry picking posters for some reason, you try to find edvidence that I am doing it, instead of removing the Prejudice of me that you might have and enjoying the thread.

but when the majority of what's being talked isn't the topic but rather you then do you really call that mission accomlpished? again not to crap on you but you seem to be about this supposed eye opening or knowledge sharing but it's rare that I really see true knowledge coming from what you output on here. for example your definition of what slick boxing has holes as witnessed by those who decided to mock it a bit yet instead of engaging debate and actual learning of the sport you play coy, engage those who rather talk about you than the topic and largely ignore those who try to debate this topic in other words you take the easy route every time. You select those people who make outlandish claims because it's obvious you select those who mock you because then you can state that you try and bring relevant topics only to have people hate on you it's wack and once again what I told you before still applies you pass off your diatribes as knowledge when there really isn't anything in there but surface level observations from a supposed hard core fan who can do nothing more but speak upon one style one fighter and one topic. sorry but that's the gospel in this thread not your definition of what slick boxing is about here is a question for you. Do you consider Mark Too Sharp Johnson a slick boxer? Do you consider Mark Too Sharp Johnson a slick boxer? Personally I do Yes, he fits majority of the standards mention. Eaner, You must realised here and now, that I go from this site on and off. When I am on I try and engaged as many people as possible. But I do not sit around and engaged every poster who replies in my threads because I am not on here long enough to do it. I fear no conversation or poster on this site, for what? What do I have to lose or win by avoiding a conversation?

Are you saying he is a cherrypicker ala Pacweather? yeah in a way I mean rather than debate those who will take his topic serious he falls into the same pattern of pointing at himself when people mock him saying some type of ish like "I exsist because of their hate" or some other wack ass emo diatribe those who he knows he can refute easily he will acknowledge but take him outside his comfort zone and he mutes faster than the moans of a felt up high school girl when she hears the front door opening

On the First Page. Cant be a racist and have those two n the list Dude this is a thread about Slick Fighters! How do you get racism from it?this right here? exactly what I mean I think we all know this was a thinly veiled attempt to laud once again the style and type of fighters you prefer I mean cmon man at least be upfront and honest you like certain styles and fighters and have prefences just like everyone else only you try to mask it by adding in certain elements (in this case the inclusion of non African American fighters) to try and fortify the perception that your views are balanced the style you are talking about is predominantly used by the type of fighter you prefer simple as that anything else is selling a bill of goods

but when the majority of what's being talked isn't the topic but rather you then do you really call that mission accomlpished? again not to crap on you but you seem to be about this supposed eye opening or knowledge sharing but it's rare that I really see true knowledge coming from what you output on here. for example your definition of what slick boxing has holes as witnessed by those who decided to mock it a bit yet instead of engaging debate and actual learning of the sport you play coy, engage those who rather talk about you than the topic and largely ignore those who try to debate this topic in other words you take the easy route every time. You select those people who make outlandish claims because it's obvious you select those who mock you because then you can state that you try and bring relevant topics only to have people hate on you it's wack and once again what I told you before still applies you pass off your diatribes as knowledge when there really isn't anything in there but surface level observations from a supposed hard core fan who can do nothing more but speak upon one style one fighter and one topic. sorry but that's the gospel in this thread not your definition of what slick boxing is about here is a question for you. Do you consider Mark Too Sharp Johnson a slick boxer? Are you saying he is a cherrypicker ala Pacweather?

Man Eaner, The posters, and repliers make the threads, I just facilitate the conversation. Real talk. but when the majority of what's being talked isn't the topic but rather you then do you really call that mission accomlpished? again not to crap on you but you seem to be about this supposed eye opening or knowledge sharing but it's rare that I really see true knowledge coming from what you output on here. for example your definition of what slick boxing has holes as witnessed by those who decided to mock it a bit yet instead of engaging debate and actual learning of the sport you play coy, engage those who rather talk about you than the topic and largely ignore those who try to debate this topic in other words you take the easy route every time. You select those people who make outlandish claims because it's obvious you select those who mock you because then you can state that you try and bring relevant topics only to have people hate on you it's wack and once again what I told you before still applies you pass off your diatribes as knowledge when there really isn't anything in there but surface level observations from a supposed hard core fan who can do nothing more but speak upon one style one fighter and one topic. sorry but that's the gospel in this thread not your definition of what slick boxing is about here is a question for you. Do you consider Mark Too Sharp Johnson a slick boxer?

There are few meaning of slick like smooth or slippery. They can stand in front of you and you can't hit him with your punches not running away pot shooting your opponent. Whitaker and Pep for example. The rest are just wannabe and wearing skating shoes. What about Locche and Mayweather?