Film night with Jimmy Jacobs.

[billeau2]

What rubbish...

Hey Bill, i see how you have had a bet on Fury to defeat Wlad. Well how about a wager with me Bill... if your man Fury beats Wlad, i will never again frequent this website. Same goes for you should Wlad win..

Is the bet on Bill?

Hey if you want to come here and get abused go right ahead. I made that bet tongue and cheek and everyone knows that...I like Weltz, I certainly don't mind losing a bet to him, and we have a bit of fun ribbing each other... if Fury is succesful believe me the last thing on my mind would be castigating Weltz...I know that Fury is the underdog and even if he is succesful...and I think he has a chance, im not out to prove anything no what i mean? Now why don't you go to that faaaaabulous film collection of yours...and learn a bit about Dempsey before you get taken out to the wood shed again funny sonny. jack wrote a book, a great book actually about how he came along, he was a good writer also! Take a read some time instead of chasing your whale captian Ahab....It looks like LL might be the death of you funny Sonny! you have become a misrable excuse of a poster indeed...its sad really you used to have something to say occasionally.

[juggernaut666]

One problem comes when you try to pin down a change in boxing via the fighters...in fact one should do as Ray has done and use the trainers to deliniate changes in the sport. But...then things get messy! Fighters in Dempsey's time and before learned a lot of the craft from other fighters. The idea that a trainer could technically improve a fighter was a modern, circa the Louis era, idea. blackburn was a pioneer in this respect.

Of course there were other great trainers in the old days, but for the most part a trainer helped with fitness and logistics. For example, Jack Johnson learned his craft from, among others, Choynski, who was able to beat a young, green Johnson. BTW Choynski and Jem Mace, among others were superb technical fighters, but they were not big men.

Boxing was more of an apprenticeship...Dempsey learned a lot of his craft from other fighters, when he was a young man.

I want to give an analogy when it comes to comparing different types of fight conditions: Kimbo slice developed a way that he could, in very short order, dispose of big men with little skill. What most people do not realize is that Kimbo was quite skilled, and quite well trained, to go into a back yard, run across the yard and attack until the other guy fell. Before this is dismissed, lets realize that by fighting in this fashion Kimbo minimized harm to himself, his opponent, and he minimized risk. In a fight with no gloves, the hand can be broken, someone can break a jaw, etc. So Kimbo was good at what he trained to do: knock an unskilled opponent to the ground quickly.

We all know Kimbo was not nearly as succesful when he changed his fighting discipline. there were many reasons for this, but one of the reasons was, Kimbo was fighting under different conditions. We can certainly say things like the author did such as "Patterson would put Corbett on his ass with the first combination he threw....Corbett never threw a combo!" But, put Patterson in a bigger ring, have him try to unleash a combo on a man fighting off his back leg.

There is no doubt that boxing became more technically sound, but it is good to remember that you cannot compare the performance of the old timers because they were training under different circumstances.

Im not sure I would use Kimbo here as an example of different fighting conditions...the first REAL bare knuckle skilled guy he fought...he lost too ,in a garage against an irish cop who had somewhat trained in fighting.



I would use actual trained skilled fighters with some substance ...a better example is Ray Mercer who fought one fight in kick boxing and was k.od quickly...that is fighting under different curcumstances.


you are correct in different circumstances the rules always change how the fight is fought. But with time in an early sport so does skill levels...just like the early UFC's to now...its no different for boxing...the fighters became sharper/smarter and more prepared.

[billeau2]

Im not sure I would use Kimbo here as an example of different fighting conditions...the first REAL bare knuckle skilled guy he fought...he lost too ,in a garage against an irish cop who had somewhat trained in fighting.



I would use actual trained skilled fighters with some substance ...a better example is Ray Mercer who fought one fight in kick boxing and was k.od quickly...that is fighting under different curcumstances.


you are correct in different circumstances the rules always change how the fight is fought. But with time in an early sport so does skill levels...just like the early UFC's to now...its no different for boxing...the fighters became sharper/smarter and more prepared.

The reason I like kimbo for this example is because he really is, essentially without much ability. He fooled himself into trying to do more...but what he accomplished was the equivalent of what guys used to do in my hood. he speaks to the ability of one to adapt to particulars...everything he does from the moment he jumps out of the van is designed to overwhelm... I thnk his primary skill was controlling that situation and not much else.


Every development has to be appreciatted in its unique context. Kimbo is a great control for this....he has virtually no talent which we know form when he fought a skilled guy. Thats what makes him a great control for the ability to adapt.

The reason this is important in discussing skill versus the fighting environment is because if we look at a guy who depends wholly on going foward because it worked for him in limited circumstances we can get an idea of how much changes in fighters are due to skill, adapting to the fighting environment, etc. You could use Mercer this way, as a guy who has skills and also had to adapt considerably.

You have probably heard the expression: "One fights to about 60% of the ability one trains."

So...when tunnel vision happens, when you get that chrome taste in the mouth and everything happens in slow motion and it almost seems like you can watch yourself....thats when fine motor movement becomes course and all that training will either happen...or not. Thats extreme of course, when compared to the ring, but it does give us the understanding that a lot of our effectiveness is tied up with how we adapt. If I have less skill but more training, that is one result in this scenerio, if I have more skill and less trainig another scenerio may result.

This is a long post but the idea is to figure out "why" one group of fighters may be called "better" or "worse." What combination of conditioning, technical excellence and simply adapting, repetative training, makes a fighter better. This is what I try to figure out when I look at martial sports.

[billeau2]

By the way: while it sounds a bit confusing to distinguish categories of skill and training, a great example is the debate about Wilt the Stilt and Ali...not gonna even weigh in on this one but, lets assume that Wilt the stilt has size over Ali...this can be considered a raw skill based on strength and lets say Ali has technique which is self explanatory. People have opinions about this that either emphasize the athletic skill and strength of a Wilt like figure, or the technique of a competant fighter like Foley.

[juggernaut666]

By the way: while it sounds a bit confusing to distinguish categories of skill and training, a great example is the debate about Wilt the Stilt and Ali...not gonna even weigh in on this one but, lets assume that Wilt the stilt has size over Ali...this can be considered a raw skill based on strength and lets say Ali has technique which is self explanatory. People have opinions about this that either emphasize the athletic skill and strength of a Wilt like figure, or the technique of a competant fighter like Foley.

Ali is much bigger than Folley and skilled at the time they fought,folley at average skills really in 67 at 6'0 200 pounds would have his hands full with Wilt regardless of the skills...I would assume and put my money on that Wilts basic jab and punching downward k.os him.....for this reason alone I think he would be one of alis better opponents stylistically.


Ali himself? I don't really judge at all if I have no vid evidence of anyone fighting as its all hearsay....however we all know Wilts athletic abilities so its not far fetched to assume he would be a top guy Ali fought in the 60's.


Kimbo was not a trained fighter before entering MMA....Bas Rutten turned him into a decent fighter...so I don't compare non trained fighters to do any comparisons ,it works but only to an extent.


"If I have less skill but more training, that is one result in this scenerio, if I have more skill and less trainig another scenerio may result. "



The more skilled guy will almost always have the advantage.\, no matter if the other less skilled guy trains more.

[billeau2]

The more skilled guy will almost always have the advantage.\, no matter if the other less skilled guy trains more.[/QUOTE]

So taking "skilled" we can then look at the type of skill. One type is technical application the other is how one adapts to the situation with these applications.

There is interestng work on self defense applications from a guy who actually used classic Jpanese Koryu as a basis for teaching prison guards in a very bad prison... He came to the conclusion that there is a unique context for neutralizing violence in this scenerio and this became the focus of his training which was succesful. In other words...for him? adapting to the situation was the primary means of acquiring skills to be effective...the techniques themselves were secondary. I forgot the book! But he did show through measurable means an increase in effectiveness.

Edit: I should add that the author controlled for "different styles" possibly having an impact on effectiveness because he met with trainers using a variety of martial arts systems for prison guard training... This is important because otherwise maybe his training in the KoRyu could have been a cause of ineffectiveness with the prison guard training.

To me this question has implications for how we think about the "greatness" of fighters when comparing them in times when fighters were very strong, very fit, in modern times, etc. For example, there were a considerable amount of fighters in the 80's who did not look that fit, yet this era, as you have said, is one where fighters showed excellent technical abilities.

[billeau2]

Ali is much bigger than Folley and skilled at the time they fought,folley at average skills really in 67 at 6'0 200 pounds would have his hands full with Wilt regardless of the skills...I would assume and put my money on that Wilts basic jab and punching downward k.os him.....for this reason alone I think he would be one of alis better opponents stylistically.


Ali himself? I don't really judge at all if I have no vid evidence of anyone fighting as its all hearsay....however we all know Wilts athletic abilities so its not far fetched to assume he would be a top guy Ali fought in the 60's.


Kimbo was not a trained fighter before entering MMA....Bas Rutten turned him into a decent fighter...so I don't compare non trained fighters to do any comparisons ,it works but only to an extent.


"If I have less skill but more training, that is one result in this scenerio, if I have more skill and less trainig another scenerio may result. "



The more skilled guy will almost always have the advantage.\, no matter if the other less skilled guy trains more.

Here is Rory Miller! Great read..."Meditations on violence."

Here is a utube featuring him.


Here is his blog

This guy really did some useful research IMO.

Amazon link if anyone wants to buy the book. I owe Amazon a thanks because I reviewed this book for them (for a free copy)!

[sonnyboyx2]

Hey if you want to come here and get abused go right ahead. I made that bet tongue and cheek and everyone knows that...I like Weltz, I certainly don't mind losing a bet to him, and we have a bit of fun ribbing each other... if Fury is succesful believe me the last thing on my mind would be castigating Weltz...I know that Fury is the underdog and even if he is succesful...and I think he has a chance, im not out to prove anything no what i mean? Now why don't you go to that faaaaabulous film collection of yours...and learn a bit about Dempsey before you get taken out to the wood shed again funny sonny. jack wrote a book, a great book actually about how he came along, he was a good writer also! Take a read some time instead of chasing your whale captian Ahab....It looks like LL might be the death of you funny Sonny! you have become a misrable excuse of a poster indeed...its sad really you used to have something to say occasionally.

HaHaHa... what is it that Tyson Fury calls David Haye?... coz that is what came to mind as i read your reply LOL

Shi thouse lol yes thats you shi thouse

[sonnyboyx2]

Ali is much bigger than Folley and skilled at the time they fought,folley at average skills really in 67 at 6'0 200 pounds would have his hands full with Wilt regardless of the skills...I would assume and put my money on that Wilts basic jab and punching downward k.os him.....for this reason alone I think he would be one of alis better opponents stylistically.


Ali himself? I don't really judge at all if I have no vid evidence of anyone fighting as its all hearsay....however we all know Wilts athletic abilities so its not far fetched to assume he would be a top guy Ali fought in the 60's.


Kimbo was not a trained fighter before entering MMA....Bas Rutten turned him into a decent fighter...so I don't compare non trained fighters to do any comparisons ,it works but only to an extent.


"If I have less skill but more training, that is one result in this scenerio, if I have more skill and less trainig another scenerio may result. "



The more skilled guy will almost always have the advantage.\, no matter if the other less skilled guy trains more.

you aint ever seen zora folley.. you know nothing whatsoever about zora folley. You only look at Boxrec, see the guys record and his height & weight. Then you do your size matters theory.. HaHa Lennox would be too big

Yet Lennox was not too Big for bums Rahman & McCall

Muhammad Ali said, "If he was never a boxer, Zora Folley would have been champion in the 1960s"...But what the fluck does Muhammad Ali know?.. He is too small at 6''4' & 220lbs for Lennox Lewis who is half an inch taller LOL.

I laugh when you fools claim Lennox had so much "SKILL" well for the hundredth time, "Which of his fights, can i watch to see those SKILLS?" LOL

You keep saying Manny Steward said this, Manny Steward said that. Yet when i put up a video of Manny Steward, talking about Lewis & Wlad back in 2011. You rubbish the guy LOL

You have come out with some howlers jugger. Lionel Butler is another Prime Mike Tyson LOL

Donavon Ruddock the greatest contender never to win the title LOL

Tommy Morrison the greatest left-hook in history LOL

Lennox Lewis top 3 All Time LOL

Lennox Lewis fought everyone in the 90s there was to fight LOL

They get better by the day jugger. You and Bill, are like Laurel & Hardy.. my sides ache laughing at you both.

[juggernaut666]

you aint ever seen zora folley.. you know nothing whatsoever about zora folley. You only look at Boxrec, see the guys record and his height & weight. Then you do your size matters theory.. HaHa Lennox would be too big

Yet Lennox was not too Big for bums Rahman & McCall

Muhammad Ali said, "If he was never a boxer, Zora Folley would have been champion in the 1960s"...But what the fluck does Muhammad Ali know?.. He is too small at 6''4' & 220lbs for Lennox Lewis who is half an inch taller LOL.

I laugh when you fools claim Lennox had so much "SKILL" well for the hundredth time, "Which of his fights, can i watch to see those SKILLS?" LOL

You keep saying Manny Steward said this, Manny Steward said that. Yet when i put up a video of Manny Steward, talking about Lewis & Wlad back in 2011. You rubbish the guy LOL

You have come out with some howlers jugger. Lionel Butler is another Prime Mike Tyson LOL

Donavon Ruddock the greatest contender never to win the title LOL

Tommy Morrison the greatest left-hook in history LOL

Lennox Lewis top 3 All Time LOL

Lennox Lewis fought everyone in the 90s there was to fight LOL

They get better by the day jugger. You and Bill, are like Laurel & Hardy.. my sides ache laughing at you both.

The problem is Ali fought Folley of 1967 and Patterson would all likelyhood be the champ put Zorra in with the top fighters of other eras post 60's and he would get flattened , you claim Carnera would beat Lewis which makes you top of the list for class clown ,right next to ray.

Everyother remark you posted was pure ******ity since they are true or arguably true.except your lie of butler ,when all what was said was his power and style along with tall tales of Stewards claiming Wlad as the greatest ever,FUNNY sonny..