Emanuel Steward: I think Tommy and Ray are superior fighters than the fighters today"

[fabie]

Exactly, we go for the probability and the more plausible explanation, which is not a definite as you pointed out. Excellent post though.

lol I don't think you belong in NSB, you shouldn't reduce yourself to this batch of superficiality. I think boxing history is a more suited place for you.

Thank you.

I used to be a bit of an armchair boxing historian but it's been long that I really delved into seriously. It is because of Pacquiao that brought me back again to boxing.

Sure, I've watched the championship fights all these years (decades) but the time wherein boxing has been downgraded was the time also that I stopped watching heads, shoulders and toes, everything including the toenails. hehe

But I am also much of an armchair boxer due to my training. But what is appalling really are the reasoning behind some of the people of this board. If I would scrutinize everything, it would be of no end.

But likewise I am just like everybody else with their own "preferences" (an upgrade from "biases") in terms of "who is better" and "why that style is better"...but we all learn humility when we see our idols get peppered by the very same boxer we abhorred.

The thing is that boxing is synonymous with life. And that is we cannot isolate techniques from emotions/ego. A boxer with superlative skills can also be deterred by his own ego or a boxer can also be warrior-like in his guts and bravado but yet lacking in skills.

But boxing is beyond skills and emotion. Sometimes the most neanderthal-like boxer can upstage the most skillful...or sometimes the one that shows the most "will" can beat the most disciplined of all.

That is why I love this sport. MMA may be grander because it can dazzle one with the arrays of "beating an opponent" but since boxing is an isolation of "punching contest", it has transcended into an art form.

This to me is why a two-fisted person can be as complex and let alone 2 two-fisted fighters can present a multitude of complexities. It's like Yin and Yang and the whole cosmos and the universe within the ring and trying to settle on "who is the better fighter".

As complex as pugilists are, thereby we also see the simplest of reasoning in this board. Thus in effect, is still complex. It adds color to our daily poetry. It affects our daily painting.

Thus I love the poetry within boxing. Because I may not be the most logical of all posters, but I can guarantee you that I can present as much challenges in thinking the ways of boxing though not necessarily "solving" anything.

Just blabbering. And that's why I am here. I blabber with you guys.

We're all blabbers but with a tinge of boxing as our interest. (or scorecard girls!)

Peace.

[Heru]

Thank you.

I used to be a bit of an armchair boxing historian but it's been long that I really delved into seriously. It is because of Pacquiao that brought me back again to boxing.

Sure, I've watched the championship fights all these years (decades) but the time wherein boxing has been downgraded was the time also that I stopped watching heads, shoulders and toes, everything including the toenails. hehe

But I am also much of an armchair boxer due to my training. But what is appalling really are the reasoning behind some of the people of this board. If I would scrutinize everything, it would be of no end.

But likewise I am just like everybody else with their own "preferences" (an upgrade from "biases") in terms of "who is better" and "why that style is better"...but we all learn humility when we see our idols get peppered by the very same boxer we abhorred.

The thing is that boxing is synonymous with life. And that is we cannot isolate techniques from emotions/ego. A boxer with superlative skills can also be deterred by his own ego or a boxer can also be warrior-like in his guts and bravado but yet lacking in skills.

But boxing is beyond skills and emotion. Sometimes the most neanderthal-like boxer can upstage the most skillful...or sometimes the one that shows the most "will" can beat the most disciplined of all.

That is why I love this sport. MMA may be grander because it can dazzle one with the arrays of "beating an opponent" but since boxing is an isolation of "punching contest", it has transcended into an art form.

This to me is why a two-fisted person can be as complex and let alone 2 two-fisted fighters can present a multitude of complexities. It's like Yin and Yang and the whole cosmos and the universe within the ring and trying to settle on "who is the better fighter".

As complex as pugilists are, thereby we also see the simplest of reasoning in this board. Thus in effect, is still complex. It adds color to our daily poetry. It affects our daily painting.

Thus I love the poetry within boxing. Because I may not be the most logical of all posters, but I can guarantee you that I can present as much challenges in thinking the ways of boxing though not necessarily "solving" anything.

Just blabbering. And that's why I am here. I blabber with you guys.

We're all blabbers but with a tinge of boxing as our interest. (or scorecard girls!)

Peace.

Abhorred...?...

Stop using dictionary words in NSB!!!!!!!!!!










.. Seriously though, you captured some of the essence of the sweet science that goes unrecognized and is therefore unappreciated. Excellent post.

[Vadrigar.]

Thank you.

I used to be a bit of an armchair boxing historian but it's been long that I really delved into seriously. It is because of Pacquiao that brought me back again to boxing.

Sure, I've watched the championship fights all these years (decades) but the time wherein boxing has been downgraded was the time also that I stopped watching heads, shoulders and toes, everything including the toenails. hehe

But I am also much of an armchair boxer due to my training. But what is appalling really are the reasoning behind some of the people of this board. If I would scrutinize everything, it would be of no end.

But likewise I am just like everybody else with their own "preferences" (an upgrade from "biases") in terms of "who is better" and "why that style is better"...but we all learn humility when we see our idols get peppered by the very same boxer we abhorred.

The thing is that boxing is synonymous with life. And that is we cannot isolate techniques from emotions/ego. A boxer with superlative skills can also be deterred by his own ego or a boxer can also be warrior-like in his guts and bravado but yet lacking in skills.

But boxing is beyond skills and emotion. Sometimes the most neanderthal-like boxer can upstage the most skillful...or sometimes the one that shows the most "will" can beat the most disciplined of all.

That is why I love this sport. MMA may be grander because it can dazzle one with the arrays of "beating an opponent" but since boxing is an isolation of "punching contest", it has transcended into an art form.

This to me is why a two-fisted person can be as complex and let alone 2 two-fisted fighters can present a multitude of complexities. It's like Yin and Yang and the whole cosmos and the universe within the ring and trying to settle on "who is the better fighter".

As complex as pugilists are, thereby we also see the simplest of reasoning in this board. Thus in effect, is still complex. It adds color to our daily poetry. It affects our daily painting.

Thus I love the poetry within boxing. Because I may not be the most logical of all posters, but I can guarantee you that I can present as much challenges in thinking the ways of boxing though not necessarily "solving" anything.

Just blabbering. And that's why I am here. I blabber with you guys.

We're all blabbers but with a tinge of boxing as our interest. (or scorecard girls!)

Peace.

I'm sorry but your knowledge is on another level. We need more posters like you, who understand boxing very well

[M.I.C.]

He's knocking safety first but doesn't he train Wlad Klitscho, Mr. Safety First in the flesh. I see nothing Hearnsian about WK.

[southcentralcar]

I'm proud to be a ******, Pac has represented me good. When it's all said and done, Pac will be ranked as a better ATG then those guys.

fixed it for u mr *******. I think Steward is nostalgic and we will never know how these fights would go. Ever seen anyone solving Mayweather ?

[1 HitterQuitter]

LOL...what a pile of crap. If Ray or Hearns is 5'6 Pac would steam-roll them. To even mention Pac in the same ring with Ray or Hearns mean that he's already greater than them...PAC is a boy fighting among men at 147.

steam roll??

[GoogleMe]

I agree. Ray and Tommy > floyd and Manny.

But we have to remember, that both Floyd and Pacquiao are small welters. Though I could see both make some trouble with these big guys. I really think, that Floyd could make Hearns look like a fool, and Pacquiao could K.O him. But I think Ray would be a bit too much...

[fabie]

But we have to remember, that both Floyd and Pacquiao are small welters. Though I could see both make some trouble with these big guys. I really think, that Floyd could make Hearns look like a fool, and Pacquiao could K.O him. But I think Ray would be a bit too much...

I like your reasoning....very possible and plausible!

[Real King Kong]

I'll put it this way...

Does anyone here think Pacquiao or Mayweather would be able to do what they've done (Pacquiao 20+ wins, 1 loss, 1 draw, from 122 and Mayweather undefeated from 130), if this were any where from the 1970s to 1980s?

The David Diaz' and Carlos Baldomir's of the world wouldn't have titles mind you (there were only 2).

Would Pacquiao have gotten the lineal titles at 126, 130, and 140? It would be different depending on when in the 70s or 80s, but he would've had to beat a combination of Aaron Pryor, Alexis Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, Azumah Nelson, Wilfredo Gomez, JCC, Danny Lopez, Eusebio Pedroza, Jeff Fenech, Samuel Serrano, Ben Villaflor, Antonio Cervantes, Niccolino Loche, Wilfredo Benitez?

Would Mayweather have gotten lineal titles at 135 and 147, and be undefeated facing a combination of Roberto Duran, SRL, Hearns, Arguello, Ken Buchannan, JCC, Pernell Whitaker, Jose Napoles, Carlos Palomino, Donald Curry?

Pacquiao and Mayweather would be elite in any era, but they wouldn't be doing what they're doing if it was in those eras.

if pac had made it to 126lbs and got KOd by sanchez i doubt he would have gotten the push he did in this era. makes me wonder if he would have made the vast improvements we saw from 130 and beyond. or would freddie roach push him to the side like he did to conception to work with more successful fighters. just a thought.

[Real King Kong]

But we have to remember, that both Floyd and Pacquiao are small welters. Though I could see both make some trouble with these big guys. I really think, that Floyd could make Hearns look like a fool, and Pacquiao could K.O him. But I think Ray would be a bit too much...

how so? its not like tommy couldn't box. the guy had the reach power and boxing skills to give anyone a hard time. he was a bit chinny but floyd isn't hagler...or leonard for that matter when it comes to punching power.