Floyd Mayweather vs Thomas Hearns at 147lb

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=r.burgundy;8262554]

like i thought.mechanics are mechanics brother.if youve been on the ring,you should understand the anatomy of a good punch.and you shuld at leasr be able to admit sandy has poor punch mechanics

What do mechanics have to do with punching power and winning? You said "sandler is far from a power puncher", did you not? I have proven he was.

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8266024]

What do mechanics have to do with punching power and winning? You said "sandler is far from a power puncher", did you not? I have proven he was.

the same thing proper mechanics have to do with a good jump shot,or throwing a football.when you do it properly,you get great results.as usual with you,misinterpreting my words,i said there is nothing about sandler to suggest he was a power puncher and you didnt prove anything lol.show me a devastating k.o from sandler like i did with arguello,and chico.then you will have proved something

[r.burgundy]

Stylistically,this is the worst matchup for mayweather...hearns would destroy him,and even hearns himself said in the recent press conference that mayweather would be too small for leonard and hearns.

hearns also said he could beat bernard hopkins presently.and this was about 4 years ago

[paulsinghnl]

i believe Hearns would be able to outbox and KO Mayweather, he had the movement and the jab to do it.. now about Hopkins.. i think that would be a tough fight, but Hearns could win that in close quarters. OK, Hopkins never been KO'ed, but i mean look at the Duran KO.. haha

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=r.burgundy;8267290]

the same thing proper mechanics have to do with a good jump shot,or throwing a football.when you do it properly,you get great results.as usual with you,misinterpreting my words,i said there is nothing about sandler to suggest he was a power puncher and you didnt prove anything lol.show me a devastating k.o from sandler like i did with arguello,and chico.then you will have proved something

Lol, this is why it is so difficult to respect your opinion. Because I am not privy to many of Saddlers great stoppages doesn't mean they didn't occur. Are you saying boxing historians, columnists from "The Ring" magazine" and many others are lying about Saddlers power?

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/espn.html

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_punchers.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Saddler

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/sandy.htm

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/ind...n/saddler.html

Are you saying you're right and everybody else is wrong?

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8267736]

Lol, this is why it is so difficult to respect your opinion. Because I am not privy to many of Saddlers great stoppages doesn't mean they didn't occur. Are you saying boxing historians, columnists from "The Ring" magazine" and many others are lying about Saddlers power?

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/espn.html

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_punchers.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Saddler

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/sandy.htm

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/ind...n/saddler.html

Are you saying you're right and everybody else is wrong?

im saying 3 things and assuming 1 thing.
1st)we both have eyes and can see.we both have watched boxing for a long time.we both should know what a proper power punch looks like.

2)its not and issue of right and wrong,or lying.its an issue of endearment and common sense.sandy fought 162 times before age of 30.i will be extremely generous and say he fought 30 great fighters.he k.od 100 guys.if prince naseem fought 162 fights before 30 i smehow think his #'s would be the same.common sense says your endeared to the athletes you grew up on.and common sense also says that those who write these pieces on these athletes are the endeared 1's and they have a skewed perspective.nobody under 60 could be a credible source on saddler being as how it would be next to impossible to make good judgement.everybody wants to believe the athletes from their era are the best and that they witnessed something amazing.that just aint always the case.

3)video is better than book.books are for imagination.we have video of sandy.the video leads me to believe he's not a monster puncher and he fouled his way to alotta victorys and k.o's.even in the pep fight,he literally threw pep down and the **** was counted as a k.d.he pushed the freakin ref.that should be automatic d.q.

as for my assumption,its that you trust your eyes better than somebody elses,and you know we all see the world through different lenses.i never said his k.o's didnt happen.all i said is from what ive seen,his technique is all wrong to be labeled a puncher.he was tall and rangy and would beat most of his era based off size and toughness alone

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

im saying 3 things and assuming 1 thing.
1st)we both have eyes and can see.we both have watched boxing for a long time.we both should know what a proper power punch looks like.

A proper power punch is the one that is most effective. Have you ever heard the term "I would rather win ugly than lose pretty"? Apply it here.

2)its not and issue of right and wrong.the older we get the more we cling to the athletes who endeared us.for instance,i dont care what lebron does,he'll never be greater than jordan.thing is i can admit my bias,unlike you and others on here.you want to believe everything you read as stone hard fact.that just aint the case buddy.seeing is a believing.

We're not talking about reading just one opinion, but many, many opinions that all agree. How can everybody agree and it not hold any truth? How can you just dismiss people who have seen Saddler fight many more times than what you watch on youtube? Many saw much and believed it. You've seen little and don't believe it. What is a more credible source?

3)video is better than book.books are for imagination.we have video of sandy.the video leads me to believe he's not a monster puncher and he fouled his way to alotta victorys and k.o's.even in the pep fight,he literally threw pep down and the **** was counted as a k.d.he pushed the freakin ref.that should be automatic d.q.

So you've seen a few videos and jumped to a conclusion Saddler wasn't a big puncher, and you've gone ever further and deducted a lot of his victories and ko's were due to fouling even though you have never seen his other fights? With all due respect...that is the ******est thing I've heard today, and mind you I have been talking to Snopkins so you know I've heard some REALLY ****** shit already.

as for my assumption,its that you trust your eyes better than somebody elses,and you know we all see the world through different lenses.i never said his k.o's didnt happen.all i said is from what ive seen,his technique is all wrong to be labeled a puncher.he was tall and rangy and would beat most of his era based off size and toughness alone

And you have come to this determination from watching a total of two of his fights, by your own admission.

[r.burgundy]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;8268316]

And you have come to this determination from watching a total of two of his fights, by your own admission.

its hillarious how you try and side step my whole post.a power punch is the most effective punch lol.get serious dude.regardless,theres a proper way to punch.dont look at acknowledgment of something proven as a loss to your argument.boxing is a technical sport.its called the sweet science for a reason

what difference does it make if everybody has the same endearment lol?again,i will show you the flaws in your opinion with simple ?'s.
1)what age range would you need to be in to give the best assesment of sandy?
what age range are those who write these articles?
what is a better tool of judgement,a video or a book?
how many videos of mike tyson would you need to watch to know he is a murderous puncher,same with tommy hearns,or any really big puncher?

i dismiss these people because they are the same 1's who would have you believe bob cousy is better than jason kidd,and george mikan is better than shaq.boxing in general has to much of a dark ugly history for me to take alot of those so called experts seriously.

what i did is a technique called analyzing.i do it it for a living.im a camera man and i have to edit film.its second nature to me.if you take the vid of sandy,corrales and arguello,and asked somebody who they thought had the most k.os id bet my house sandy would finish last.if somebody had to prepare to fight sandy,what do you think they would do,read a book that doesnt talk objectively,or study the hell out his 3 fights on youtube?stop trying to make somethin simple complex.

[TheGreatA]

Saddler's best punch was his unorthodox left uppercut. He was a converted southpaw I believe. His style may have been crude to watch but he could punch and was especially adept at wearing down opponents over the distance.


4:30


1:20

[TheGreatA]

There isn't a ton of film on Saddler. He flattened Willie Pep in their first fight, the same Pep that would have most likely outboxed Alexis Arguello, much like Ernesto Marcel and Vilomar Fernandez did. Arguello wasn't too great against movers. I'd say that Arguello was more dangerous with one punch, he had perfect technique and accuracy, but Saddler's clubbing blows wore down his opponents more often than not. He didn't score his astonishing 100+ KO's with headbutts.

Pep and Elorde were just great boxers and in the end Saddler got the job done against both.