Differentiating “style” from “skill”

[War Room]

Start posting videos then. And I will too. Who did you spar?

I'm not posting videos nor am I naming names of anybody I worked with wth lol. Like I want some internet trolls hitting them up, running my name through the mud, and losing the ability to stay employed =---> are you out of your dang mind? Dude, I could say I was a paid sparring partner Kelly Pavlik and you would still sound off till the end of time.

You never did shit so stop fronting. You lack basic basic knowledge, this is embarrassing.

[Haka]

He was about 7 or 8 years removed from his prime. Clearly substantially slower in every department, riddled with injuries for about 10 years and had been a pro for 18 years, 17 at world level.

So yes, WAY past his prime at that point.

Combined with Maidana’s size, and gruelling style, he caused an old Mayweather problems.

Not so much to do with skill levels.

Floyd 'out of his prime' at 37 is laughable, Beterbiev is currently 38 and the number one LHW. Fighting better than ever, how does that work ?

[IronDanHamza]

You are toning it down more and more each time. And wording it like I am saying he was dead in his prime.

keep it simple, you basically implied its a shell of his former self. I’m saying he was a shade off his prime. Yeah at 37, Floyd was a shade off his prime. Others slide harder and don’t work as hard. Age is only a number. Hopkins prime was probably 40. Sure he declined physically a bit, but his skills and experience peaked. Same goes for Floyd. At 37 this dude wasn’t way past his best days. He was on a very gradual subtle decline. He had a marquee performance against Canelo

Yes that is what I’m saying, he was a shell of his former self, which he clearly was.

Hopkins prime wasn’t 40 at all, and Hopkins first fight at world level was at age 28, that’s why he reached his peak around 35. Unlike Floyd who started at world level at age 19.

If you’ve been fighting as a professional at world level for 17 years, very high chance you’re well beyond your best days. If you have an example of someone who isn’t, go ahead and name it.

***t if the matter is Floyd was approaching 38 years old and on the verge of retirement from any real boxing then, clearly well beyond his best years which were 10 years prior.

[IronDanHamza]

Floyd 'out of his prime' at 37 is laughable, Beterbiev is currently 38 and the number one LHW. Fighting better than ever, how does that work ?

Beterbiev has been a pro fighter for about 10 years mate. He’s been on world level half of that.

That’s how it works.

The idea that Mayweather was in his prime at 37 years of age as an 18 year pro is what’s LAUGHABLE.

It’s a totally absurd take.

[Haka]

Beterbiev has been a pro fighter for about 10 years mate. He’s been on world level half of that.

That’s how it works.

The idea that Mayweather was in his prime at 37 years of age as an 18 year pro is what’s LAUGHABLE.

It’s a totally absurd take.

Beter was a top amateur very young in his life. They both have that 24/7 boxing lifestyle from early on in their lives.. There is no difference there.

[IronDanHamza]

Beter was a top amateur very young in his life. They both have that 24/7 boxing lifestyle from early on in their lives.. There is no difference there.

There is a gigantic difference.

Beterbiev has been fighting at world level as a pro for 5 years, Mayweather 17.

They are polar opposites.

[them_apples]

I'm not posting videos nor am I naming names of anybody I worked with wth lol. Like I want some internet trolls hitting them up, running my name through the mud, and losing the ability to stay employed =---> are you out of your dang mind? Dude, I could say I was a paid sparring partner Kelly Pavlik and you would still sound off till the end of time.

You never did shit so stop fronting. You lack basic basic knowledge, this is embarrassing.

You can't be argued with though. You quote people and don't understand what they are even saying, make up an argument against what you never understood in the first place - then add words like "laughable" "embarrassing" to it. This is the only way to argue with you. Every post you make is essentially requiring a 30 minute response to something you never understood in the first place. Like that entire post on boxing mechanics. I simply never wrote it in detail enough so you write a whole page about one missing description "cutting an angle". As if that wasn't implied. You wrote an entire damn page about how you can't land a left hook to the sternum as if you were smart or something (basically having an argument with yourself!)

So it's almost like I am arguing against claims you put against me that you essentially made up in your head. If you slip a jab to the outside, you pivot or even a subtle sidestep will do giving you a nice crack at his jaw with a right cross and opening up an angle to land a left hook to the sternum. You wrote an entire article about how you can't land a left hook to the sternum because you assumed it just means standing directly in front of someone. That is literally SO obvious to anyone I thought what I described wouldn't have required anymore explanation. Clearly not though, it's like someone educating me on how to shovel food into my mouth because I forgot to mention the process in regards to simply eating. Waste of your time and mine. The fact that you still keep gloating about it means you probably aren't even reading either. Now you have no proof of your boxing days because it somehow jeopardizes your job. I have to argue with you like a child which I'm not used to because most of the other posters on here are smarter than you.

[them_apples]

Beterbiev has been a pro fighter for about 10 years mate. He’s been on world level half of that.

That’s how it works.

The idea that Mayweather was in his prime at 37 years of age as an 18 year pro is what’s LAUGHABLE.

It’s a totally absurd take.

Well nobody said he's in his prime at 37? who said that?

Why are you loading your responses?

The argument is Mayweather was marginally on the slide not WAY past his best, I used the figure 15%.

So if you change the argument then at this point you are arguing with yourself.

My reasons that Mayweather was only marginally past his best (15%):

1.He was always in shape
2.He took very little damage
3.He had a layoff but stayed in shape
4.He had loads of experience compared to everyone else
5. being the A side he called the shots, wouldn't allow Maidana punchers gloves (Mx)
6. He got a rematch, proving it was no fluke
7. He was 36 while beating Canelo, which was probably the best we ever saw Floyd in the higher weights if we combine everything (experience skill athleticism).

This is why the notion of a year later him being totally shot is crazy.

[War Room]

You can't be argued with though. You quote people and don't understand what they are even saying, make up an argument against what you never understood in the first place - then add words like "laughable" "embarrassing" to it. This is the only way to argue with you. Every post you make is essentially requiring a 30 minute response to something you never understood in the first place. Like that entire post on boxing mechanics. I simply never wrote it in detail enough so you write a whole page about one missing description "cutting an angle". As if that wasn't implied. You wrote an entire damn page about how you can't land a left hook to the sternum as if you were smart or something (basically having an argument with yourself!)

You don't even know what you're saying though lol. I'm not here to argue, I know what I know and when I see someone that doesn't understand basic terminology like styles and thinks Robinson and Hagler fight in similar fashion, you paint yourself into a small and dark corner.

So it's almost like I am arguing against claims you put against me that you essentially made up in your head. If you slip a jab to the outside, you pivot or even a subtle sidestep will do giving you a nice crack at his jaw with a right cross and opening up an angle to land a left hook to the sternum. You wrote an entire article about how you can't land a left hook to the sternum because you assumed it just means standing directly in front of someone. That is literally SO obvious to anyone I thought what I described wouldn't have required anymore explanation. Clearly not though, it's like someone educating me on how to shovel food into my mouth because I forgot to mention the process in regards to simply eating. Waste of your time and mine. The fact that you still keep gloating about it means you probably aren't even reading either. Now you have no proof of your boxing days because it somehow jeopardizes your job. I have to argue with you like a child which I'm not used to because most of the other posters on here are smarter than you.

I know all about slipping jabs, while switching your stance into a side-step, right over the top and whatever else. Try that sparring or in a fight and it'll fail. You're acting like this is something common and usable, it's not. It's an exotic move and nobody does it. Show me an example of someone using it in a fight. Even if you side-stepped and landed the jab, you'll never get the hook to land because they'll either moved out of the way or their guard will naturally block it.

Example of skill: slipping a jab and countering with a right cross and left hook hook to the sternum. You can teach the same skill to anyone regardless of their build. for some it may work better than others.

If you're going into detail about slipping, why not talk about getting your feet in the right position too? The fact that you didn't, tells the reader that it's not there. Context needs to be there when transmitting information, facts. You're fault.

Shoveling food in your mouth is a basic innate movement, this combo is not. It's complicated and time consuming enough to the point it's useless or fails on a high percentage.

Well nobody said he's in his prime at 37? who said that?

nor is 37 even an age where you are way past your prime

I don't care who you are, there has never been a boxer in boxing history that wasn't well past his prime at 37. YDKSAB, facts.

The argument is Mayweather was marginally on the slide not WAY past his best, I used the figure 15%.

So if you change the argument then at this point you are arguing with yourself.

My reasons that Mayweather was only marginally past his best (15%):

1.He was always in shape
2.He took very little damage
3.He had a layoff but stayed in shape
4.He had loads of experience compared to everyone else
5. being the A side he called the shots, wouldn't allow Maidana punchers gloves (Mx)
6. He got a rematch, proving it was no fluke
7. He was 36 while beating Canelo, which was probably the best we ever saw Floyd in the higher weights if we combine everything (experience skill athleticism).

This is why the notion of a year later him being totally shot is crazy.

Weird, you're telling me I'm argueing with myself and now telling IronDanHamza that he's argueing with himsel too? Sounds like a YOU problem pal.

You don't even know what past prime or being shot means. Your little list there is redundant, 1 & 3 are the same lol. When you're past your prime you can be in shape, how do you figure that is crazy. When Hopkins was 48 and still winning in 2013, he was in great shape, but he was WELL PAST HIS PRIME and pretty shot.

1. Don't sit there and tell me Hopkins wasn't well past his prime at 48, don't even think about it! He was still in shape and could go 12 easy so let's cancel out your #1 and #3.

2. Floyd took way less damage that his peers, correct. What does that have to do with his reflexes?

4. What does experience have to do with your body deteriotating from age? It doesn't lol, this is a joke man.

5. Being the A-side and picking gloves has a day-to-day effect on your physiology?

6. What does a rematch have to do with physiology?

7. Floyd was 5 months away from turning 38, he was not 36. And it wasn't his best, it's just that Canelo really sucks. This is the same exact illusion Hopkins created during his time. Hopkins was able to beat all those young bucks because the generational talent pool was low. Sure Hopkins is a great fighter, but he's not that great otherwise some old fart back in the 90's would have been beating the likes of Nunn, McCllelan, Julian Jackson, Toney etc.

When you're past your prime and shot your reflexes aren't as sharp, you're mobility is impaired, you take more punches that you should have, lesser opponents look better than they should, etc. All of that is clear with Floyd past 34 year's old. Of course he's a defensive master so it'll be a little harder to see, but Maidana was a poor man's Castillo. Prime Floyd would have danced on his face, facts.

[IronDanHamza]

Well nobody said he's in his prime at 37? who said that?

Why are you loading your responses?

The argument is Mayweather was marginally on the slide not WAY past his best, I used the figure 15%.

So if you change the argument then at this point you are arguing with yourself.

My reasons that Mayweather was only marginally past his best (15%):

1.He was always in shape
2.He took very little damage
3.He had a layoff but stayed in shape
4.He had loads of experience compared to everyone else
5. being the A side he called the shots, wouldn't allow Maidana punchers gloves (Mx)
6. He got a rematch, proving it was no fluke
7. He was 36 while beating Canelo, which was probably the best we ever saw Floyd in the higher weights if we combine everything (experience skill athleticism).

This is why the notion of a year later him being totally shot is crazy.

That poster I replied said he was in his prime. Can you read?

Ok and the point is he was well beyond “15% passed prime”.

He was a year behind retiring, and clearly a shell of his former self.

Im not arguing with myself because it’s a direct response to the point you’re trying to make about Mayweather-Maidana. The main reason that fight was competitive in the first place is because of the fact Floyd was so far beyond his prime, THEN combined with Maidana’s style.

They key component, though, being the fact he was well passed his prime and at the tail end of his 18 year career.