The all things technical thread.

Yeah, they're tough.

Slip is staunchly against using Muay Thai as a base for a career in conventional pugilism, but it's one of the more potent and formidable forms of hand-to-combat either way, so enjoy the training :good

 

Muay Thai provides a better grounding for pro boxing than the amateurs does currently - though be careful not to square up too much.

They actually fight, which was last seen in the amateurs when I was in nappies, and you'll learn to punch through the target rather than just tap it and hop away.

The only possible issue is the lack of variety in opposition, a lot of MT fighters are a bit samey.

 

I certainly will. Can't wait to start :thumbsup

Yeah what I was thinking, they look quite squared up. But surely that's something you can work on when you make the transition to boxing

Again surely that's something you can work on when you make the transition to boxing

Thanks for the answers to both of you:thumbsup

 

Fair points, but I would still contend the Pacmans rise through the weight has been slightly greater than that of Armstrong. Duran yes is another example of it historically but I would say whilst he was world class he wasnt quite the best in the division, except for the seemingly empty super mid division, once he left welter, now you could say this his down to his contemporaries being all time greats but I think you can only judge things as they are. Since Pacman as moved up he has been the best fighter at every weight class.

On Toney yeah he had a good run at heavy, but I feel had we had the chance to see more of Jones he would have been the better heavyweight.

What has displeased me in this thread has been the total disregard for new school methods without any recognition of benefits. You made a very good case though. You articulate you views very well on matters not related to subliminal messaging in The Simpsons :deal

 

atsch you've always downplayed the benefits of modern S&C and no one has claimed that fighters are unable to do things in the past because of the lack of modern conditioning methods.

Agree with AndrewFFC that there is total ignorance about benefits of modern S&C method

Apparently, you can't question any of the training methods of the fighters of the past because video evidence shows that fighters of the past were in better in condition.

LOL I've also been accused of having an agenda :rofl

 

I don't care about conditioning. I care about the abysmal lack of technique, heart and punching form with the majority of 'modern' fighters.

Pacqiuao's rise through the weights more impressive than Armstrongs?! Come off it. Made possible by 24 hour weigh in's. And Armstrongs opposition takes a massive dump on Pacqiuao's as well (by the way, I rate Pacman VERY highly in my top 100 P4P, and I think he'd be a nightmare for most in any era)

As for Mishima, agenda or not, this is not the thread for you, unless you're just reading. Start a conditioning thread or stop acting butt hurt :tong

 

Fleatard,

If ppl are downplaying conditioning methods in this thread I will debate it:finger

 

Don't get your knickers in a twist..that was directed at fleaman

 

Subjective, but ultimately fair points to hold, but what they are is mutually exclusive to the s&c

 

[yt]_h2J8FywlSU[/yt]

that is all

 

2011 Poster of the Year. Not 'Fleatard' :hi:

 

Got banned for offering nothing.