Secret to beating mayweather

[Marvellous1]

Look, everyone is beatable but first you need to find the guy who can do it and then have him fight Floyd ..... but since Floyd is selective in who he fights, it makes it kind of hard to do.

It's possible that the post can be written in a way that the poster can't express himself to the fullest and make himself understood. Or maybe, the recipients, such as Floyd fans, just extrapolate what they want and then in turn put down the opinion. Yes, he can also be wrong but you can't paint everyone with the same brush!

I'm not saying that whoever you are commenting on has it right or wrong but the responses by Floyd fans are at times, just as laughable.

The point that I tried to make is that you don't need to be some kind of elite fighter. You don't even need to know how to play to understand, analyse and give your opinion.

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but expressing opinions about the nuances of boxing as if they are facts especially if you haven't thrown or taken a punch yourself leaves you open to this. Even more so when a supposec "scientific analysis" has bias in it.

I agree that everyone is beatable and also that Mayweather is one helluva frustrating character. But I don't subscribe tothe notion that the only reason he hasn't been beaten is because he never fought anyone who could. He's fought a fair that could've but just weren't good enough on the night to get the job done. Am I going to type that he's fought everyone? Hell no! But to say he's fought no one isn't right either. At some point you just have to give credit to a fighter. The TS named Rocky Marciano. Did he fight a host of top opponents in their prime? How many championship fights did he have? You can cut into any top fighter if that's what you're about.

[jas]

Look, everyone is beatable but first you need to find the guy who can do it and then have him fight Floyd ..... but since Floyd is selective in who he fights, it makes it kind of hard to do.

It's possible that the post can be written in a way that the poster can't express himself to the fullest and make himself understood. Or maybe, the recipients, such as Floyd fans, just extrapolate what they want and then in turn put down the opinion. Yes, he can also be wrong but you can't paint everyone with the same brush!

I'm not saying that whoever you are commenting on has it right or wrong but the responses by Floyd fans are at times, just as laughable.

The point that I tried to make is that you don't need to be some kind of elite fighter. You don't even need to know how to play to understand, analyse and give your opinion.

exactly. atg post.

has every elite trainer been an elite fighter? no.

just because i dont box for a living doesnt mean i dont have a valid opinion. hell, i think i know more about boxing than people involved in the sport such as commentators, pundits and trainers particularly in the strategic aspect

[radioraheem]

exactly. atg post.

has every elite trainer been an elite fighter? no.

just because i dont box for a living doesnt mean i dont have a valid opinion. hell, i think i know more about boxing than people involved in the sport such as commentators, pundits and trainers particularly in the strategic aspect

You may have an opinion, but your opinion is not more valid than those who have actual professional experience in the sport. Your opinion is much less valid, and you have to keep in mind that by default, there are many things that you won't take into account in formulating your opinion. Because you just cannot see or understand many things.

Many of the good trainers used to be fighters. The best trainers will always be prior fighters. The best teachers, regardless of subject, sport, profession, are usually those that had prior experience in it. This goes all across the board in life.

[ADP02]

You may 'watch' something for a very long time, but it is absolutely incomparable to someone who has actively and professionally participated at that something for a very long time.

A watcher will a lot of times analyze things incorrectly, and therefore give an opinion that is often not sound. But the one with actual legit experience will see many things inside and out, that will the blind to everyone else a lot of times.

Not comparing the 2 in the way you did it. Just saying that you don't need to be a pro to be able to analyze. For example, when Floyd gets caught in an interview, he always tells the commentator that they don't know anything because they never boxed .... but the truth is that Floyd is WRONG! Same goes for telling people on this site that they are wrong to analyze and give their opinions if they never boxed before.

With today's technology, we have a lot of well educated fans. Some certainly just don't get it but you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

[toooooool]

Hmmmm.

You may have an opinion, but your opinion is not more valid than those who have actual professional experience in the sport. Your opinion is much less valid, and you have to keep in mind that by default, there are many things that you won't take into account in formulating your opinion. Because you just cannot see or understand many things.

Many of the good trainers used to be fighters. The best trainers will always be prior fighters. The best teachers, regardless of subject, sport, profession, are usually those that had prior experience in it. This goes all across the board in life.

So I guess Cus D amato and Angelo Dundee were bad trainers because
neither one was ever a pro boxer.Joe Calzaghes father must be no good
too because he was a musician and he trained Joe who retired undefeated.
So according to your logic,someone who has been a pro boxer can predict
who will win a boxing match 100% of the time more than someone who
only watches boxing?

[ADP02]

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but expressing opinions about the nuances of boxing as if they are facts especially if you haven't thrown or taken a punch yourself leaves you open to this. Even more so when a supposec "scientific analysis" has bias in it.

I agree that everyone is beatable and also that Mayweather is one helluva frustrating character. But I don't subscribe tothe notion that the only reason he hasn't been beaten is because he never fought anyone who could. He's fought a fair that could've but just weren't good enough on the night to get the job done. Am I going to type that he's fought everyone? Hell no! But to say he's fought no one isn't right either. At some point you just have to give credit to a fighter. The TS named Rocky Marciano. Did he fight a host of top opponents in their prime? How many championship fights did he have? You can cut into any top fighter if that's what you're about.

Marciano fought everyone from his time. You can't blame him on that. Floyd on the other hand didn't or did when they were green or way out of prime.
There were plenty of prime fighters that Floyd could have fought and due to his own selective cherry picking preferred to fight guys who just moved up to 147.

[jas]

So I guess Cus D amato and Angelo Dundee were bad trainers because
neither one was ever a pro boxer.Joe Calzaghes father must be no good
too because he was a musician and he trained Joe who retired undefeated.
So according to your logic,someone who has been a pro boxer can predict
who will win a boxing match 100% of the time more than someone who
only watches boxing?

this is an atg post.

[ADP02]

exactly. atg post.

has every elite trainer been an elite fighter? no.

just because i dont box for a living doesnt mean i dont have a valid opinion. hell, i think i know more about boxing than people involved in the sport such as commentators, pundits and trainers particularly in the strategic aspect

That's it, lot's of good trainers out there that were not as good at boxing. Reason is that they know how to analyze fighters and how to explain the game plan.

[radioraheem]

Not comparing the 2 in the way you did it. Just saying that you don't need to be a pro to be able to analyze. For example, when Floyd gets caught in an interview, he always tells the commentator that they don't know anything because they never boxed .... but the truth is that Floyd is WRONG! Same goes for telling people on this site that they are wrong to analyze and give their opinions if they never boxed before.

With today's technology, we have a lot of well educated fans. Some certainly just don't get it but you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

He is right, many of them don't know anything when it comes to his profession.

Anyone can analyze and give an opinion. But you must realize that because you have no prior experience, your analytical take will easily be flawed. There is just so much that you do not know and will never know because you never did it.

Today's technology is meaningless because all it does is give you more access to watch, rather than to actually do. Watching only helps when you're actually doing it at the same time. Not watching and doing nothing -- that's just lots of wasted time.

[toooooool]

He is right, many of them don't know anything when it comes to his profession.

Anyone can analyze and give an opinion. But you must realize that because you have no prior experience, your analytical take will easily be flawed. There is just so much that you do not know and will never know because you never did it.

Today's technology is meaningless because all it does is give you more access to watch, rather than to actually do. Watching only helps when you're actually doing it at the same time. Not watching and doing nothing -- that's just lots of wasted time.

I myself understand what you're saying..I always felt people that only
"watch"things in life are weak,but I still got no answer about my previous post.