Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

lucas matthysse busted eye vs Vivian harris.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally Posted by kiaba360
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joesaiditstrue

    if lucas is a "limited fighter", so is everyone not named Floyd Mayweather Jr, you guys are just ignorant. it's laughable.
    That's one thing you really notice on this site. Maybe it's because they don't have a big enough frame of reference, but the hardcore Mayweather fanboys (as opposed to fans) are the most myopic of all when it comes to assessing a fighter's ability, especially his technique.

    For these guys, if a fighter doesn't fight like Mayweather, if he's aggressive and hard punching, well then he's a 'face first brawler' and that's all there is to it. Too many people think technique is defined by Mayweather, and while Mayweather is obviously an outstanding technician, that's not the only way a technically sound fighter has to fight.

    A guy can be aggressive, and can take the fight to the opponent and still have excellent technique. Golovkin is a classic example. So many of these guys instantly labelled Golovkin a 'brawler' because he has an aggressive hard hitting style.

    But the guy's technique is exceptional. He has an astonishing amateur record and was probably the best fighter in one of the best Olympic weight classes ever. But so many of these dudes don't see it because he doesn't fight like Floyd. He gets hit! In boxing of all places.

    They have a really narrow understanding of what a great fighter is. They claim that those who like these types of fighters don't understand boxing because these guys aren't elusive and defensive counter-punchers like Mayweather. But it's themselves who don't really understand the sport, they can only see a really narrow sliver of what can make a great fighter. And more pertinent to this thread, they have a really narrow understanding of good technique. Aggression does not necessarily mean crude and limited, it's a pity for their own sake that those guys don't get that.

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by Dr Rumack View Post
      That's one thing you really notice on this site. Maybe it's because they don't have a big enough frame of reference, but the hardcore Mayweather fanboys (as opposed to fans) are the most myopic of all when it comes to assessing a fighter's ability, especially his technique.

      For these guys, if a fighter doesn't fight like Mayweather, if he's aggressive and hard punching, well then he's a 'face first brawler' and that's all there is to it. Too many people think technique is defined by Mayweather, and while Mayweather is obviously an outstanding technician, that's not the only way a technically sound fighter has to fight.

      A guy can be aggressive, and can take the fight to the opponent and still have excellent technique. Golovkin is a classic example. So many of these guys instantly labelled Golovkin a 'brawler' because he has an aggressive hard hitting style.

      But the guy's technique is exceptional. He has an astonishing amateur record and was probably the best fighter in one of the best Olympic weight classes ever. But so many of these dudes don't see it because he doesn't fight like Floyd. He gets hit! In boxing of all places.

      They have a really narrow understanding of what a great fighter is. They claim that those who like these types of fighters don't understand boxing because these guys aren't elusive and defensive counter-punchers like Mayweather. But it's themselves who don't really understand the sport, they can only see a really narrow sliver of what can make a great fighter. And more pertinent to this thread, they have a really narrow understanding of good technique. Aggression does not necessarily mean crude and limited, it's a pity for their own sake that those guys don't get that.
      It's far from just Mayweather fans. Hardcore fans in general seem to favor any reasonably skilled defense first fighter over offensive fighters.

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by Dr Rumack View Post
        That's one thing you really notice on this site. Maybe it's because they don't have a big enough frame of reference, but the hardcore Mayweather fanboys (as opposed to fans) are the most myopic of all when it comes to assessing a fighter's ability, especially his technique.

        For these guys, if a fighter doesn't fight like Mayweather, if he's aggressive and hard punching, well then he's a 'face first brawler' and that's all there is to it. Too many people think technique is defined by Mayweather, and while Mayweather is obviously an outstanding technician, that's not the only way a technically sound fighter has to fight.

        A guy can be aggressive, and can take the fight to the opponent and still have excellent technique. Golovkin is a classic example. So many of these guys instantly labelled Golovkin a 'brawler' because he has an aggressive hard hitting style.

        But the guy's technique is exceptional. He has an astonishing amateur record and was probably the best fighter in one of the best Olympic weight classes ever. But so many of these dudes don't see it because he doesn't fight like Floyd. He gets hit! In boxing of all places.

        They have a really narrow understanding of what a great fighter is. They claim that those who like these types of fighters don't understand boxing because these guys aren't elusive and defensive counter-punchers like Mayweather. But it's themselves who don't really understand the sport, they can only see a really narrow sliver of what can make a great fighter. And more pertinent to this thread, they have a really narrow understanding of good technique. Aggression does not necessarily mean crude and limited, it's a pity for their own sake that those guys don't get that.
        Um,you do know Mayweather was very aggressive in his younger days? He was still a very well tuned technical fighter. In areas he was a lot better then what he is now. His defense is the thing that grew the older he got. I mean, Manny is a brawler at heart but I've never seen anyone outside of trolls say that he didn't have any technical skills that stuck out.

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by Dr Rumack View Post
          That's one thing you really notice on this site. Maybe it's because they don't have a big enough frame of reference, but the hardcore Mayweather fanboys (as opposed to fans) are the most myopic of all when it comes to assessing a fighter's ability, especially his technique.

          For these guys, if a fighter doesn't fight like Mayweather, if he's aggressive and hard punching, well then he's a 'face first brawler' and that's all there is to it. Too many people think technique is defined by Mayweather, and while Mayweather is obviously an outstanding technician, that's not the only way a technically sound fighter has to fight.

          A guy can be aggressive, and can take the fight to the opponent and still have excellent technique. Golovkin is a classic example. So many of these guys instantly labelled Golovkin a 'brawler' because he has an aggressive hard hitting style.

          But the guy's technique is exceptional. He has an astonishing amateur record and was probably the best fighter in one of the best Olympic weight classes ever. But so many of these dudes don't see it because he doesn't fight like Floyd. He gets hit! In boxing of all places.

          They have a really narrow understanding of what a great fighter is. They claim that those who like these types of fighters don't understand boxing because these guys aren't elusive and defensive counter-punchers like Mayweather. But it's themselves who don't really understand the sport, they can only see a really narrow sliver of what can make a great fighter. And more pertinent to this thread, they have a really narrow understanding of good technique. Aggression does not necessarily mean crude and limited, it's a pity for their own sake that those guys don't get that.
          And this is why you're my favorite poster. I couldn't have said it better myself.

          P.S. Floyd fans love to say, "I can't wait for him to lose/get exposed, so you guys will stop hyping this guy up!"

          Why? Is it that bad to generate buzz around a fighter other than Floyd?

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by Zano-24 View Post
            Um,you do know Mayweather was very aggressive in his younger days? He was still a very well tuned technical fighter. In areas he was a lot better then what he is now. His defense is the thing that grew the older he got. I mean, Manny is a brawler at heart but I've never seen anyone outside of trolls say that he didn't have any technical skills that stuck out.
            Yes, he was aggressive, but he was still fighting behind his guard first, and countering. He wasn't an attack first fighter like you saw he was.

            When he was being abnormally aggressive, that's when he's got the opposition outmatched severely.

            There's no difference in what he was doing back then, except he wasn't fighting world beaters, and he let his hands go more.

            Comment


              #96
              Originally posted by bojangles1987 View Post
              It's far from just Mayweather fans. Hardcore fans in general seem to favor any reasonably skilled defense first fighter over offensive fighters.
              Yeah, the premise being that defensive fighters are more skilled than offensive fighters.

              I don't really think it's true, just because you're willing to cop the odd punch it doesn't mean you lack skill, it often means you have faith in your ability in exchanges and are willing to take the risk.

              Comment


                #97
                Marquez' eye was nearly swollen shut against the B level Terdsak Jandaeng, I guess he'll never be a great fighter since his skin doesn't react well to punches...oh wait.



                It's really pathetic that haters try and look for every little flaw in a fighter just because they can't admit that he's elite and they were wrong about him.
                Last edited by Light_Speed; 05-23-2013, 01:03 PM.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by The Weebler II View Post
                  Yeah, the premise being that defensive fighters are more skilled than offensive fighters.

                  I don't really think it's true, just because you're willing to cop the odd punch it doesn't mean you lack skill, it often means you have faith in your ability in exchanges and are willing to take the risk.
                  I'd argue that it requires more skill to move forward, initiate the action, and win rounds than it does to run like Alexander or Judah do. Yet Alexander is considered skilled, and someone like Golovkin or Matthysse is considered a rough brawler.

                  Peterson was considered to have more skill than Matthysse, yet Matthysse was the more skilled of the two when they were actually in the ring together.

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Been saying this for a while, look at his fight with Soto Judah and Alexander, he didn’t look like some machine. Soto was winning the fight, but Matthysse was to big for him

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by bojangles1987 View Post
                      I'd argue that it requires more skill to move forward, initiate the action, and win rounds than it does to run like Alexander or Judah do. Yet Alexander is considered skilled, and someone like Golovkin or Matthysse is considered a rough brawler.

                      Peterson was considered to have more skill than Matthysse, yet Matthysse was the more skilled of the two when they were actually in the ring together.
                      And that's what people don't understand.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP