Did Bob Arum send home Figueroa because he wants Pacquiao to win?

[Anak ni Hudas]

figueroa KTFO cotto in sparring.....period

[JAB5239]

I arleady know what old man hearsay you are gonna throw at me.

"Well if oldschool athletes had modern athletes training methods they would be better"

Cant have it both ways. You think the prime wilt chamberlain that averaged 50 per game the whole season can do that now in the nba?

Athletic evolution.

Oldschool is behind it.

Good nite now.

See how you are? Always making assumptions.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

[MIP4P1]

See how you are? Always making assumptions.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

Good stuff!

[JAB5239]

See how you are? Always making assumptions.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

Anybody want to to argue this? Am I right, wrong.....opinions?

[JAB5239]

See how you are? Always making assumptions.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

Bump.

Where you at Brah?

[DonTaseMeBrah]

See how you are? Always making assumptions.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

Bump.

Where you at Brah?

Size & Speed. Athletes nowadays are just bigger & faster than athletes back then. Almost every position in every sport athletes are bigger, faster, & stronger.

Modern training methods, modern techniques, modern medicine, gives the edge to modern athletes. Isnt that what we are arguing about?

So if i took a great modern let say 80s & up; hockey team, baseball team, basketball team, & football team matched them up against teams in the 40s,50s, & 60s, who would win?

Steroids, technology, bigger size of athletes nowadays make them better.
Wouldnt that be an advantage that athletes now have that athletes back then didnt?

Lets look at basketball & athleticism. How many 6 feet under point guards can dunk in the 40s,50s, & 60s? How many of them can catch an alley oop & dunk it? From post up moves of george mikan, as time went by it was upgraded by wilt chamberlain then kareem abdul jabar upgraded it with the sky hook, then kevin mchale upgraded it with his post moves, then hakeem olajuwon upgraded it with his complex post up moves. Wouldnt that be a example of athletic evolution?

Lets look at ball dribbling. Could bob cousy dribble effectively with his style now? From his primitive dribbling style, it was upgraded by jerry west, then walt clyde frazier & earl monroe upgraded it, then the tim hardaway crossover came along, then the allen iverson era to now with their complex dribbling to where we are at now.

Wouldnt you say skills wise that dribbling & dunking now has evolved from back then & it is significantly better?

Football. Again size & speed. Linebackers now are the size of linemen back then. Not only that but modern supplements & weight training have made them stronger & faster. Offensive linemen & defensive tackles sheer sizes now werent available back then.

Wouldnt all those advantages make them better than football teams back then? If you took a great old football team in its prime vs a now great team, match them up in some unparalleled univerese, wouldnt you think that the sheer size & speed of todays nfl would overwhelm the much smaller old great nfl team?

[DonTaseMeBrah]

Complex blitz packages, defensive schemes, video strategy would be an advantage modern nfl team vs a old nfl team. The way an nfl team prepares now is completely different to the way they prepared back then.

Wouldnt that be an advantage that modern teams have that old teams didnt?

Track & field. You can say all you want about shoes & all, but Usain Bolt has revolutionized track & field. He is only the beginning. There will be more & more sprinters that are gonna be 6'5, 6'6, 6'7 range.

Baseball & Babe Ruth's dead ball era where there no latin,japanese, & colored players. Could those teams compete with a modern team now that uses advanced scouting, advanced pitch counts, pitch history, pitch propensity on certain counts?

Take a team now & a team in the dead ball era, match them up prime vs prime who has the advantages?

That's all im trying to get at. Humans back then are still humans now. But humans now are just bigger & faster. Add the modern advancement in medicine, supplements, steroids, strategy, & information that the present has now over information that the past didnt have....

means modern athletes are superior now than athletes back then.

[TheSurgeonMDMPH]

This is the 1st weekend of the super 6!

[JAB5239]

Size & Speed. Athletes nowadays are just bigger & faster than athletes back then. Almost every position in every sport athletes are bigger, faster, & stronger.

Why are the bigger faster and stronger? Its a combination of better equipment, better fields, steroids and the advancement of sports medicine. This doesn't make a better athlete, it only gives advantages that were no available before.

Modern training methods, modern techniques, modern medicine, gives the edge to modern athletes. Isnt that what we are arguing about?

I personally don't see any advantage to modern training methods. Fighters today actually fight less rounds and gas out earlier. The also fight less often and hardly ever injured. If the training methods were so superior, why is this a fact in boxing?

So if i took a great modern let say 80s & up; hockey team, baseball team, basketball team, & football team matched them up against teams in the 40s,50s, & 60s, who would win?

With nobody using steroids and playing on the same surface with the same pads? 50/50. How much more effective would modern players be if they had to play in the mud, with equipment that weighed up to 7 or 8lbs more? Could you imagine Gayle Sayers playing on todays surfaces with todays equiptment? Good God!! Could you imagine Mickey Mantle or Joe DiMaggio playing all juiced up with fields that are 10, 20, and 30 feet shorter with balls that were juiced for distance?

Steroids, technology, bigger size of athletes nowadays make them better.
Wouldnt that be an advantage that athletes now have that athletes back then didnt?

It does not make them a better athletes, only athletes that have advantages that were not available before. Put everybody on an even playing field with without these things and I see no really big difference between past and modern athletes.

Lets look at basketball & athleticism. How many 6 feet under point guards can dunk in the 40s,50s, & 60s? How many of them can catch an alley oop & dunk it? From post up moves of george mikan, as time went by it was upgraded by wilt chamberlain then kareem abdul jabar upgraded it with the sky hook, then kevin mchale upgraded it with his post moves, then hakeem olajuwon upgraded it with his complex post up moves. Wouldnt that be a example of athletic evolution?

Lets look at ball dribbling. Could bob cousy dribble effectively with his style now? From his primitive dribbling style, it was upgraded by jerry west, then walt clyde frazier & earl monroe upgraded it, then the tim hardaway crossover came along, then the allen iverson era to now with their complex dribbling to where we are at now.

As I've already said, when basketballs popularity skyrocketed the competition became more dense. More competition breed better player. This is also the reason I think boxing was better as a whole during the 30's 40's 50's compared to today's watered down crop of fighters with 18 titles in 42 weight classes.

Wouldnt you say skills wise that dribbling & dunking now has evolved from back then & it is significantly better?

For the reason I just mentioned.

Football. Again size & speed. Linebackers now are the size of linemen back then. Not only that but modern supplements & weight training have made them stronger & faster. Offensive linemen & defensive tackles sheer sizes now werent available back then.

Wouldnt all those advantages make them better than football teams back then? If you took a great old football team in its prime vs a now great team, match them up in some unparalleled univerese, wouldnt you think that the sheer size & speed of todays nfl would overwhelm the much smaller old great nfl team?

All of this doesn't mean you have a better athlete, only an athlete with advantages. If things are level, one is no better than the other.

Why is it that the evolution of life takes millions of years.........unless you're a modern athlete?.

Not a bad post tho Brah. Glad you took the time to write it.

[RightCross94]

Arum has no say in who Cotto works with in camp.