Not that I can think of.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
is there any fighter in today's era who....
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Scott9945 View PostRay Robinson, Jim Brown, and Wilt Chamberlain would all be superstars if they played/fought now. Go ahead and match up Brown with Tomlinson physically, then let me know what you come up with. The fighters from Robinson's era were fundamentally stronger because they fought more often. Most of todays stars couldn't even fight in their divisions if they had to weigh in the same day.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by boxing_prospect View Posti already told him that, and he calls it evolution, and compares boxing to football, and track lol
I wasn't comparing football and track to boxing as a sport.
I was using examples to prove that Robinson, if he fought today, would not seem to be nearly as fast or strong as he was, when he fought in the 40's, which is absolutely true.
I never said once, that he would be thrown around like a ragdoll in the ring. All that I'm implying is that, he would not have the same advantages over fighters today than when he had in the 40's. Which would make him a lot more beatable today than when he was back then.Last edited by deliveryman; 04-25-2008, 07:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deliveryman View PostPerhaps you should use a little logic when analyzing my posts.
I wasn't comparing football and track to boxing as a sport.
I was using examples to prove that Robinson, if he fought today, would not be seem to be nearly as fast or strong as he was, when he fought in the 40's, which is absolutely true.
I never said once, that he would be thrown around like a ragdoll in the ring. All that I'm implying is that, he would not have the same advantages over fighters today than when he had in the 40's. Which would make him a lot more beatable today than when he was back then.
Comment
-
Originally posted by boxing_prospect View Postyour opinion......but you should really get to know the sport first
And instead of just saying "oh that's your opinion, you don't know boxing", why don't you actually give a rebuttal to the argument I just made?
So here it is again:
I was using examples to prove that Robinson, if he fought today, would not be seem to be nearly as fast or strong as he was, when he fought in the 40's, which is absolutely true.
I never said once, that he would be thrown around like a ragdoll in the ring. All that I'm implying is that, he would not have the same advantages over fighters today than when he had in the 40's. Which would make him a lot more beatable today than when he was back then.Last edited by deliveryman; 04-25-2008, 07:24 PM.
Comment
-
im not gonna re-write what's already written above. i see that it's pointless, and it's a complete waste of my time. you can think whatever you want, cuz quite frankly i dont really care, just as much as you dont about what i think. so lets go our separate ways.
i enjoy having a discussion or debate with someone who knows this sport and can provide legit arguements and points which i dont think you can do either.
bye
Comment
-
Originally posted by boxing_prospect View Postim not gonna re-write what's already written above. i see that it's pointless, and it's a complete waste of my time. you can think whatever you want, cuz quite frankly i dont really care, just as much as you dont about what i think. so lets go our separate ways.
i enjoy having a discussion or debate with someone who knows this sport and can provide legit arguements and points which i dont think you can do either.
bye
What exactly in your previous posts directly addresses my argument? There is no rebuttal, hell there isn't even an argument from your end. All there is, is a bunch fallacious attacks and borderline name-calling.
bye.
Comment
Comment