Right. Inate potential. Still, not sure I'd agree with you that Mitchell has more than Chambers. Chambers is a very smart guy who seems to be able to absorb and utilise a lot of what he's taught into an effective method of fighting that plays to his advanatages, a large part in what makes a fighter what he is. Mitchell has strength and a more aggressive mindset, but he hasn't displayed anything as yet that convinces me that he's made of far better moulding clay than Chambers. I'm open to be convinced otherwise of course.
This is a curious comment. Were Dempsey and Marciano heavyweights? Would they be unable to compete against modern heavyweights today?
Thing is "raw talent" is really difficult to evaluate. To a large degree (as regards boxing anyway) raw talent is a mental skill, an ability to absorb and assimilate what you learn in the gym and apply to your own strengths and weaknesses, much as Chambers has done. Mitchell might well be physically faster and stronger than Chambers, but that means little if he can't absorb the teachings of his trainers into a winning gameplan. Jermaine Taylor is an excellent example of an athlete who simply couldn't become a really great boxer because he lacked the mental flexibility to adapt himself to the nuances of the sport. He's not the only one, and he at least got a portion of the limelight. But how many didn't? Boxing is littered with great athletes who never reached the top because they lacked in some other fundamental part of the game which other less physically talented men possessed. That's why all this talk of NFL uber-athletes pisses me off so much. Boxing isn't athletics, it's a complex sport in which every aspect of your mental and physical makeup is put to the ultimate test. It's why I love the sport in its raw essence. It's the truthfinder.
This is a curious comment. Were Dempsey and Marciano heavyweights? Would they be unable to compete against modern heavyweights today?
Thing is "raw talent" is really difficult to evaluate. To a large degree (as regards boxing anyway) raw talent is a mental skill, an ability to absorb and assimilate what you learn in the gym and apply to your own strengths and weaknesses, much as Chambers has done. Mitchell might well be physically faster and stronger than Chambers, but that means little if he can't absorb the teachings of his trainers into a winning gameplan. Jermaine Taylor is an excellent example of an athlete who simply couldn't become a really great boxer because he lacked the mental flexibility to adapt himself to the nuances of the sport. He's not the only one, and he at least got a portion of the limelight. But how many didn't? Boxing is littered with great athletes who never reached the top because they lacked in some other fundamental part of the game which other less physically talented men possessed. That's why all this talk of NFL uber-athletes pisses me off so much. Boxing isn't athletics, it's a complex sport in which every aspect of your mental and physical makeup is put to the ultimate test. It's why I love the sport in its raw essence. It's the truthfinder.

Comment