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

[peyk-peyk]

I'll be the judge...

[Webber676]

I will tell you this and you can bet on it. Something was wrong with Cotto and Gato sparring sessions. Think about this if the problem was Gato their is no shame in just reporting that they werent receiving what they expected, that the mimic of Pacquiao wasnt all right all right, etc. and nobody fans and media need to complain, however if Gato was beating Cotto to the punch dont ever expect this will go public, but who knows, if the problem was Gato he deserved an explanation.

[DonTaseMeBrah]

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.

jab,

Of course it means they are better athletes than the old ones. They have the advantages now that past athletes didnt. Under what category would that fall under?

If one athlete has better & advanced training methods, equipment, medicine, & strategy than the other wouldnt you come to a conclusion that makes that athlete superior?

What have we been arguing all along?

You said it yourself, they are 50/50 in terms of athletic ability. But if one group has the modern amenities that the other group doesnt who will be better?

If a soldier back then vs a soldier now is on even terms physically, but the modern soldier had the better gun & equipment, if they ever fought who would win?

Wouldnt the better gun & equipment make that modern soldier a better soldier than the other soldier that doesnt have that advantage?

[JAB5239]

jab,

Of course it means they are better athletes than the old ones. They have the advantages now that past athletes didnt. Under what category would that fall under?

If one athlete has better & advanced training methods, equipment, medicine, & strategy than the other wouldnt you come to a conclusion that makes that athlete superior?

What have we been arguing all along?

You said it yourself, they are 50/50 in terms of athletic ability. But if one group has the modern amenities that the other group doesnt who will be better?

If a soldier back then vs a soldier now is on even terms physically, but the modern soldier had the better gun & equipment, if they ever fought who would win?

Wouldnt the better gun & equipment make that modern soldier a better soldier than the other soldier that doesnt have that advantage?

Athletic ability comes from within. Its a talent. Better equipment, fields, etc. don't make the athlete better, it just gives them an advantage. There is no advantage when the playing field is level. Athletes who were great then would be great now, and vice versa.

[WhoreUs]

i heard he was sleeping with cotto.

some trainers think sex is a big no no before a fight.