Tweet
"talent" is a nebulous term though really. frankie gavin on paper could be roughly included in a similar talent bracket to degale, yafai, et al, but for various reasons he has not delivered on his promise.
also, i don't understand this notion that timothy bradley is average, or "average in every area - except heart, determination, toughness", as if these attributes don't count as "areas". i mean no educated boxing viewer would fail to take heart, determination and toughness into account when predicting the result of a fight, would they? and is versatility in itself not an important area of boxing technique? and how can timothy bradley, a man who has so far only fallen short to manny pacquiao (decisively beating a living legend in jm marquez in the process), be considered "average"? in what context could bradley's accomplishments possibly be called average? don't above average accomplishments necessarily entail above average talent ("talent" being a term which surely encompasses intangible traits as well as the tangible)?
also, i don't understand this notion that timothy bradley is average, or "average in every area - except heart, determination, toughness", as if these attributes don't count as "areas". i mean no educated boxing viewer would fail to take heart, determination and toughness into account when predicting the result of a fight, would they? and is versatility in itself not an important area of boxing technique? and how can timothy bradley, a man who has so far only fallen short to manny pacquiao (decisively beating a living legend in jm marquez in the process), be considered "average"? in what context could bradley's accomplishments possibly be called average? don't above average accomplishments necessarily entail above average talent ("talent" being a term which surely encompasses intangible traits as well as the tangible)?
Comment