kafkod

Boxing or fighting is an innate ability for most people 'tennis, football, basketball are not innate abilities or activities. They have to be taught from the bottom up. They are modern day leisure activities, with in reality very little history within mankind's time on earth'. I think you are way off if you claim 'boxing involves less talent. Because? Fighting is one attribute which as aided in our survival for 1000's of years. In nature being able to play Soccer, Tennis and basketball will not really aid in your survival. Those activities have merely only risen up in society, since humans have become more comfortable and society a lot more civilized'. There is no need to be hysterical about this deathoftheclown 'surely you are not one of those men who get all hysterical watching other men run around a field kicking a ball? Come on. Do you really think men were behaving like this 1000's of years ago? No they were not. Men were ether fighting or being forced to be great athletes. And when I say great athletes, I am not talking about kicking a football, or throwing a ball into a basket'. And the fact of the matter is? The best athletes in the world 'are not in the sports you have mentioned on this thread. To attempt to put down boxing'. The fastest, strongest and most enduring athletes in the world are not soccer, tennis, basketball players. We know this because? Sport such as Track and Field, Cycling, Swimming, Olympic, Power lifting and strong man events. The fundamental basis of all those sports is to measure mankind's pure ability when it comes to speed, endurance, power and strength'. Note: You are obviously most likely a hysterical fan of soccer 'whoever you think if hard man in soccer, is getting absolute pulverized in a boxing ring or street by a top level boxer. Players like Roy Keane, and whoever they are all getting smashed up badly'. Whoever you think is the fastest soccer ever 'would most likely be beaten very easily by country level track and field athlete, I won't even compare them to national level track and field athletes. I have seen semi-professional and professional football players, be annihilated week in and week out on the track. Whatever you want, speed or endurance training sessions'. When it comes to fighting 'we know that boxers, mixed arts fighters, and all the other combats sports. Those are the best athletes in the World at fighting'. And being able to fight, has been a essential skill for mankind 'in order to survive on earth. Playing Soccer, Tennis, and basketball has not been an essential skill. They are modern day leisure activates, entertainment in the similar way to Coronation street, and EastEnders. Those are the facts'. So to say that boxing requires less talent, does not make any sense 'because being able to fight is what has aided mankind's survival'. All of those sports you have brought into this thread, to demean boxing 'what are they actually the best of deathoftheclown? What are we watching here, that has any deep historical relevance? Because as I have just told you? They are not the fastest, strongest, most enduring athletes in the World. They are playing leisure games which takes a great deal of skill and dedication, but I think being a all-time great artist may take even more skill'. Paul Gascoigne was a great football player 'but he was not the best athlete in the world. Do you really think he has the fastest most acute reactions times in sports? No. So was his Spatial Awareness greater than a formula 1, or World Rally Car Driver? No, don't be silly, and sit yourself down with that absolute crap. You have been saying on this thread'. A Formula 1 driver has to make decisions 'in hundredths of a second. And this decision can potentially determine whether they stay on this planet. Because they are moving in a object at over 200 plus miles per hour at times'. And this similar level of jeopardy is also in boxing 'fighters have to make decisions in split seconds. Wrong decision? Or you don't execute a move fast enough? You can be removed from this planet and put into another realm of reality'. To conclude: The point I am trying to make here on this thread deathoftheclown 'you have attempted to put down and demean boxing. By using bunch of modern day leisure activities, that for sure? Are very popularly, but so is Coronation street and EastEnders'. So in my opinion, which is back up by 1000's of years of history. Boxing definitively involves a lot of talent. And the jeopardy involved in the sport, makes it a way more serious sport than many of the sports you are using to demean it'. And I am marginalizing and specifically highlighting Soccer, Tennis, Basketball, and more, the general modern day mainstream leisure activities. Great sports, awesome entertainment, tremendous athletes. But I personally don't put them in the same category as elite level boxers' etc. This is a great post because it highlights something nobody else is talking about. Human males have been physically adapted, by over a million years of evolution, for strike fighting, and especially for delivering powerful strikes with a closed fist, aka boxing. AI Overview: In evolutionary biology and psychology, there is a prominent theory suggesting that male bodies are partially shaped by natural and sexual selection for physical combat. Competition for resources and reproductive success favored males who were physically dominant and adept at fighting. 1, 2] Scientists point to several specific physiological and anatomical features that suggest a historical adaptation for fighting, particularly hand-to-hand combat and punching: 1, 2] Upper-Body Strength: On average, human males have roughly \(75\%\) more upper-body muscle mass than females, which provides a significant advantage in grappling and striking. The Human Fist: Unlike other primates, human hand proportions allow for the formation of a rigid fist, which some researchers argue evolved specifically to deliver blows without breaking the hand. Skull and Facial Structure: Certain features, such as more robust cheekbones, jaws, and brow ridges, correspond to the bones most frequently broken in fights, leading to the theory that early male hominins evolved more "punch-resistant" faces. Shoulder Mechanics: Male shoulder girdles allow for powerful, fast forward-arm motions that are optimized for throwing and striking. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] This is why boxing is known as the oldest competitive sport and "the king of combat sports" it's also the reason why any big, powerful guy will always be in with "a punchers chance" against a boxing champion. Or even a fucking grizzly bear! Because there is at least one documented case of an athletic, 200lb plus guy turning a charging grizzly by catching it coming in with a single huge punch to the head. He broke his hand and wrist doing it, but the grizzly stopped its charge, thought "fuck that .. I'm outa here" and ran away.

Going to argue about an initially wrong statement with nothing solid behind it is falling into a trap - ok, boxing is the sport that barely requires any talent at all. We like it anyway. :):):)

Going to argue about an initially wrong statement with nothing solid behind it is falling into a trap - ok, boxing is the sport that barely requires any talent at all. We like it anyway. I'm hoping to make the OP realise that by comparing boxing to tennis, he is illustrating exactly why the point he's been trying to prove in this thread is wrong.. If tennis is all about talent, then why couldn't somebody with a natural talent for tennis take it up age 21 and compete with Nadal? Truth is, tennis isn't primarily about talent, it's about taking up a very basic, simple sport at a young age, then spending years and years repetitively practising the same basic moves, in the same situations, over and over again, until they become second nature and you can respond instinctively and instantly without having to think about it, to whatever your opponent does. Obviously,there is an element of natural ability, aka talent, involved, but years of repetitive practice, from childhood on, under the supervision of an experienced professional coach, is the most important factor. And if boxing is all about physical attributes, then how could somebody like Fabio Wardley take up boxing at age 21 and become a world champion in a division full of guys with the same physical attributes as him? Answer: The same reason why Usyk could first set foot in a boxing gym at the of 15 and become world amateur champ and Olympic gold medalist 6 years later. And 6 years after that, he wins his first world title as a pro. Obviously, repetitive training to build up fitness, muscle memory and instinctive reactions is also important in boxing, but talent matters more in boxing than in tennis, which is why naturally talented guys like Fabio and Usyk can progress so much faster in boxing than in tennis.

But nobody could start tennis at 21, put in 10 years of hardwork and start competing with Nadal :lol1: in boxing you can because it takes less talent to get to the top. You are out of your mind. What special talent do you think is required to knock a ball over a net with a bat?

And been on all manner of enhancers very likely. A guy of that mass moving that way for 12 rounds is a huge red flag. That's a good point, because Usyk will have been in the WBC's Clean Boxing Program for years, and Rico was only given permission to fight for the WBC title five minutes ago,

so do most top level kickboxers and MMA fighters - part time. your point? No, they didn't, not to the same extent as Rico. That's my point.

Indeed.. but the point is one of those kids could go onto be world champ and then end up losing to guys that had never put on gloves until they were an adult That could never happen in pretty much any other sport because the talent required to get to the top is simply unattainable for someone picking it up as an adult I'm not saying boxing requires NO talent to be a topguy, just much less than many other sports What you are saying here is not true. There are late bloomers in any sport you care to mention and I don't know a single example of a guy who took up boxing as an adult and became a world champion without years of hard work and dedication, working his way up through the levels. Fabio Wardley is rightly revered for his freakishly fast progress after taking up boxing at age 21, but even he took 10 years to become a world champion after first lacing on the gloves. On average, even elite amateurs take around 5 years to become elite level pros after turning over, which is probably about the same amount of time it takes a gifted footballer to go from Sunday League to international level.

No. The first available opportunity was when Rico went down with his head between the ropes. The ref let him spit the mouthpiece to chew time instead of calling time out. He let Rico get up and saw that he was defenceless in the follow up. The minute in the corner wouldnt have saved him. Usyk would.....if not knocking him out...would have at least dropped him more than once in the final round. Fury said it best when he said Rico put up a great fight but just ran out of energy. So the referee did make a poor decision with the mouthpiece, but didn't make one with stopping the fight after the end of the round? :rolleyes: It's impossible to explain to people simple boxing rules: Rico got knocked down. The referee must and did so - start counting. After Rico beat the count, he had to go to the next corner, his corner, to have the mouthpiece washed and back into his mouth. You can't do that while being counted, nor can the referee count and save you time by doing it himself at the same time. Now imagine the same situation if both fighters switch roles... Some people are fine with corruption only when it serves Usyk. No one defended, let's say Canelo, as he is the number one in that aspect (followed by Usyk). Check out this video. It shows the interaction between the ref and Rico after the KD. Rico is laying against the ropes in a corner. The ref finishes the 8 count and beckons for him step forward, but Rico stays in the corner and bares his teeth to show the ref his mouth guard is out. The ref then picks up the mouth guard and leads Rico to his own corner to have it replaced. What isn't shown there is Rico on unsteady legs as he crosses the ring and the ref not spotting that because he's focused on the mouth guard. If the ref had been looking for an excuse to stop the fight, which is the narrative that some people are pushing, all he had to do was apply the rules correctly and it would have been over right there, when Rico stayed against the ropes in the corner after being told to to step forward. That was exactly what happened when AJ got stopped in the first Ruiz fight. AJ also spat his mouth guard when he went down, and he also stayed in a corner when the ref told him to step foward. AJ said he stayed in the corner because he thought the ref was going to replace his mouth guard. The ref said he needed to see if AJ had his legs back before doing anything else, and he stopped the fight because AJ didn't show him that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTTLhl92nJg

No, we are not. Taking criticism is a must just as when you take praising and decisions in rigged fights. Rico is 37, with a large number of fights and punishment throughout. That's the thing: Rico is not a boxer. He's been training in boxing gyms and sparring elite level HW boxers for over 10 years.

Tennis requires all those things except punching power and chin. That's why two kids can go to the same tennis coach and be completely different levels. I.e Andy Murray and his brother. It's just as possible for 2 kids to go to the same boxing coach and end up on different levels. It happens all the time.

So we can both agree that contact sports take way less talent to compete at the top than contact sports Proves my point We can agree that you need a talent for playing tennis to become an elite level tennis player. Exactly the same thing applies to boxing. But boxing being a full contact sport means that boxing talent can take different forms, while tennis is a more tightly structured, formulaic game. In other words, there are more ways to skin a cat in boxing than there are in tennis.

I think the referee realised he messed up, but it was too late, and he compensated in the worst way possible. I am half glad he stopped the fight when he did, as it would be a brutal KO, but on the other hand, it is annoying having people focusing only on that. Rico was gone either way. He wouldn’t survive 20 secs in the 12th. Rico and Peter Fury will be glad he stopped it too. He didn't only save Rico from a damaging KO, he more or less guaranteed him a lucrative rematch

:bottle: :nono: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTTLhl92nJg Ok, so it's only the shorts you can't post. Thanks for finding the full video version, Ive added it to my post

The referee made a total mess out of that last sequence. Rico was out and Usyk should have got an opportunity to finish it properly in the 11th round. Now, he did finish it, but in an ugly way where the referee stopped it when it should have not been stopped. The referee messed it up, and try to fix mistake by messing it up again. I was surprised the ref didn't stop it when Rico got up and slumped against the ropes in the corner like that. He was clearly in no condition to defend himself and there was still 20 seconds left in the round.

Looks like you are not allowed to post YT videos in this forum any more. Great.

The boxing equivalent of that is never put on a glove and deliver a punch which Rico has clearly done since being a kid. He has also been training with Peter Fury and sparring world class boxers for over 10 years.

But I bet they played Football before their 20s. Maybe not pro but in school or with friends growing up. I doubt they'd never touched a football In boxing you get people walking into the gym for the first time and adult and winning world titles lol. It's bad Frank Warren voice: Do me a favour .. nobody ever walked into a boxing gym as an adult then won a world title without years of hard work and dedication, training, living the life of an athlete, and moving gradually up through the levels with multiple leaning fights. Not even Moses, and he's the most naturally talented athlete in the history of sport. Not just boxing .,. SPORT!!!

Which kind of proves my point that sports like Tennis require a higher level of ability to be at the top. Doesn't matter how athletic you are, now much of freak of nature you are, you're never getting to beat Federer unless you're a highly gifted player. That's a real apples to oranges comparison. Tennis, unlike boxing, is a non-contact sport. I reckon I would have a decent chance of beating Federer if the rules of tennis allowed me to jump over the net and tackle him to the ground or punch him in the mouth when he was getting ready to serve.

The answer is NO. Wardley did NOT dramatically knock Huni out. He dropped him on a lucky punch cos Huni got loose. Huni was then given a quick count and on his feet before the ref stopped it And why no mention of Joseph Parker's egregious early stoppage to Wardley by said Howard Foster when Parker had not been dropped ? Parker was nowhere near the state Wardley was in from round 7 vs Dubois... I was asking myself that same question. The glaring inconsistency of Foster's actions in 2 HW title fights, less than 6 months apart, both featuring Fabio Wardley, leaves a very bad taste and I'm astonished it wasn't mentioned in this article.

Yes and no, because the first one was a victory for Dubois to many, so he would have been the champ, and both would have gone differently. Anyway... The first one wasn't a victory to anybody with eyes and a functional brain in their head. Whether you agree with the ref's call or not, he DID call a low blow as soon as DDD's punch landed and he DIDN'T start a count when Usyk went down. What would have happened if the ref had started counting instead of calling the foul is something we will never know. Personally, I believe that Usyk would have gotten up before the count reached 10, got on his bike for the rest of the round, then gone on to dominate the rest of the fight for as long as it lasted. But that's all just conjecture. The reality is that Usyk wasn't counted out and there is no such thing as an unofficial KO in the sport of boxing. I don't want to see a third Usyk vs Dubois fight because we already know that Usyk has Daniel's number. What would be the point of seeing him prove it again?

Not impossible if they brought back 15 round fights. Skill and conditioning would level the playing field against the big fatties and muscle heads. Just look at Usyk. Usyk was coming into the ring around 210 lbs as a cruiserweight. He has the same physical stats as Ali ... 6' 3" tall, 78" reach, much bigger than Charles, Patterson and Marciano.

I thought all parties are to be informed of a failed drug test? Either way, that's how it should be. AI Overview: When a boxer fails a UKAD (UK Anti-Doping) test, a formal, confidential process is initiated to notify relevant parties of an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF). Key parties notified by UKAD: The Boxer: The athlete is directly notified in writing, typically via a "Notification Letter," detailing the alleged Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), the substance found, and their rights (e.g., to request B sample analysis). The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC): As the National Governing Body (NGB), the BBBofC is informed, as they hold responsibility for issuing licenses and managing boxing events in the UK. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA): WADA is notified as part of the mandatory reporting requirements under the World Anti-Doping Code. International Federations: If the boxer is competing at a high level or on an international stage, their respective international federation is also informed. Other parties often involved: Managers/Promoters: While UKAD sends official notifications to the boxer, they often notify their legal representation, manager, or team to assist with the process. Opponents/Event Organisers: If a fight is pending, the promoters or opponents may be made aware, particularly if a "Provisional Suspension" is triggered, which often leads to the cancellation or postponement of a fight. Confidentiality and Public Disclosure: UKAD typically does not immediately announce a failed test publicly. Following a change in policy in 2021, UKAD generally keeps charges and suspensions confidential until the case is resolved. Exceptions are made in "exceptional circumstances" or if the athlete makes the information public first. If the B sample confirms the finding, or if the boxer accepts the violation, the case is handled by the independent National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP), and the findings are formally reported. Obviously, if the test happens pre-fight and it has to be called off, then the opponent has to be notified. If it happens post-fight, it might be months or even years before the opponent finds out. After David Price got stopped by Erkan Teper it was 2 years before he was told that Teper failed a post-fight test. In Dillian Whyte's case, he was exonerated in time for the fight to go ahead.

off setting it to a panel who then make the decision does not change the nature of whats happening, they do the test the guy ends up getting exonorated is what happens at the end of the day even tho hes admitting to having a ped in his body and if there was strict liability he would be banned just for that no excuses but there is not He didn't admit to it. Has anybody ever admitted to it when they got caught? If they did, I missed it! Edit: I just remembered this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drRojSDpaGo

All that tells me is he was masking what he was using and either mis timed it, or got unlucky. It happens. From what I remember, the NAPD said that Dianabol takes longer than 3 days to break down into metabolites, so he couldn't have taken it between the VADA and UKAD tests, and if he'd taken it before, VADA would have detected it. But from what I've heard, there are new masking agents being developed all the time by PED doctors. If the testers don't know about them, they can't test for them. And if they detect something suspicious that isn't on their banned list, there's nothing they can do about it.

yeah but thats how testing works, they almost always only fail one test and there must be a reason for this, maybe microdosing is being used, some say this doesnt work very well but some say it does work well, maybe a residule amount of the ped was detected for some unknown bodily reason on the day of that test and indicated that he was at one point cheating, where did this contamination come from? yeah its always some dodgy supplement i consumed the day before but its never produced or no evidence is ever gathered to prove it Nearly all of them fail only 1 test and pass other tests in and around that fail, thats not strict liability or anything like it, its letting a guy who failed off scott free no consequences at all They have to abide by the NAPD ruling. That's fair, whether we agree with it or not. Everybody gets a hearing with an independent panel.

To not inform Rivas about this is criminal. They weren't allowed to inform him because of confidentiality laws. The only people they are allowed to inform before it goes public are the fighter, the sanctioning bodies and the lead promoter. And they have to keep it to themselves.

the bbboc didnt apply their strict liability policy to dillian whyte who tested positive for dianabol before the rivas fight and correct me if im wrong actually allowed that fight to go ahead incredibly and then even tho he had tested positive for it they accepted his explanation of contaminated supplement even tho he has a history of getting caught with peds before that and after that as well What happened with Whyte was very unusual. I checked up on it at the time because I was confused about what was going on, as were many other people. A month before the fight, Whyte passed a VADA test, then 3 days later got flagged by a UKAD test for trace amounts of Dianabol metabolites. He was then tested again by VADA, and again, he passed the VADA test. Anybody who fails a UKAD test has the right to request an immediate hearing by an independent panel, the National Anti Doping Panel, without waiting for their B sample to be opened. Whyte did that and the NAPD examined all 3 tests results, and cleared him to fight based on the 2 VADA tests, which he had passed. The NAPD ruling was that he had no case to answer and the BBBoC had to accept that.

No chance he get's 2 year ban. He'll claim he wasn't aware of it, get a doctors note to confirm it (whether real or not), get a 6 month ban, year max. After the Conor Benn fiasco, BBBoC altered their rules to allow them to sanction UK licensed fighters for failing VADA tests. Before that, they could only act on UKAD test results. If the BBBoC sanction him, it will be a 2 year ban, I reckon. Unlike the WBC, the BBBoC follow a strict liability policy, so mitigating circumstances won't be considered by them.

So that's why they call him "the sauce"