Slick Fighters

This what I had in mind too. I can't name any slick guy who's slow.

 

I never used it out of context because you NEVER placed any context at all except the 2 parameters you wrote. If you want to qualify your original meaning that it REQUIRES that an opponent to be fast, non-mexican - then just say so. Stop beating around the bush or playing the Pac vs PBF game and just lay it out.
That was the whole point of my "BTW - Pac is slick" post - your definition is general enough to include certain boxers. I know for a fact you refuse to categorize Pac as slick- as well as Bradley and other fighters because you have this idea what 'slick' is. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that your definition is

1. Subjective
2. Inconsistent with others here - even those that a "pro-slick" boxing fans.

you guys cannot even agree on Bradley and others.

Second, your definition is quite amorphous when you are pushed to explain it. On one hand it does not require athleticism yet when asked speed, reflexes, mobility and etc are required. Huh????

Make up your mind.

Third, you keep bringing out that Pac never faces slick boxers. Why you keep bringing this up - I don't know. I thought we are discussing if Pac is slick and NOT if his opponents are. If facing slick opponents is a requirement to be a slick boxer then again, you may want to expand your definition and add this requirement along with others I previously discussed.

Based on your definition and such a narrow definition - who is slick that Pac could face other than PBF? James Toney?

 

So speed, vision and reflexes are not athletic qualities?

What is athletic then? Lifting weights?

:/

 

Ofcourse!!!

You must learn how to run, clinch, flop, ***** and quit....And oh, you must be black...:deal

 

Toney isn't "fast". Quintana isn't either. Both are pretty slick. I think it is more with fluidity and timing than speed. A guy who reads the opponent and moves just enough to get away.

One thing common when you see slick fighters is that you think, "just a little closer and... or a bit more this or that and..." Problem is that nobody can do it.

 

Here you go again... Pac is not "slick" nor has he been in his career. So he was a bad example on YOUR part, not mine. (Iron Boy is a good example of being slick using footwork.)

My two parameters still stand. Slick fighters are slick. That is what they do. Pac out speeds slow people. That doesn't make him slick. I have railed against B-hop and Bradley just as I am railing against Pac. But your silly "oppressed" butt keeps wanting to bring this back to having something to do with being "Black", having something to do with FMJ, and/or dissing Pac. No. Being slick happens REGARDLESS of the opponent, because you are "slick". You may look "slicker" against a bum or get KTFO when you aren't "slick enough", but slick is slick.

My definition doesn't include Pac and I only refuse to categorize Pac as "slick" because he isn't. Just like it doesn't include B-Hop, Bradley, Tyson, K2, Hearns, Hagler, Ward, etc... aren't. This ain't about dissing Pac.

1. All adjectives/descriptions of human attributes are subjective. That is a cop out.
2. Please, nobody calls any of those guys slick regardless of what these people are saying.

Because you don't understand a term and want it to fit your hero doesn't make the term amorphous. Boxing requires athleticism. Speed, reflexes, mobility, timing all play a part, but they are not forced into specific ratios. Some fighters use different traits in different ratios. Toney isnt' fast or mobile. Quintana is average all around. Still, they are both slick.

Again "sweet" is no definite amount of sugar just like "too sweet" isn't some specific ratio.

I bring it up because it is relevant. Pac fights slow plodders or come forward brawlers so that makes you say "Look he is slick!" The point is that if a guy is "slick" he is slick no matter who he faces. He is "slick" when he wins, "trying to be slick" when he loses, and "not slick enough" when he gets KTFO. His opponents are relevant because if Pac was "slick" he would be trying to be slick against all of them.

Again, my definition was not meant for you to go all anal over, but I stand behind it and stand behind the fact that Pac isn't slick. Slick does not mean good. Good does not mean Slick. It is just a synergy of traits. RJJ was slick and non-slick Tarver knocked him out.

With Pac's current performance level? There are no top level "slick" fighters in Pac's range at this time other than FMJ. Now if Pac will drug test and we see him work? Maybe we can find some opponents.

 

People need to disassociate "slick" from "good". They are not the same. A Fast Boxer Puncher might eat "fast slick" Pure boxers up for lunch, but have his hands full with a pressure oriented Swarmer with a good punch.

If you are "slick" you keep trying to be "slick" even when that crap keeps getting you KTFO. See RJJ.

 

Slick = rythm + movement + defense

A combination of those 3 elements heavily influences the slickness of a fighter

 

Lots of world class fighters are proficient in that area, but with a slick boxer those elements are usually glaring attributes

 

Again, I would never consider Pac slick. I used because based on your definition he fits.

You eventually try to add on to your definition by saying all other relevant and non relevant material (like how his opponent is not slick??) but by YOUR original definition Pac is slick. Not mine. Not Swarmer. Not anyone but yours.

Yes, you eventually add to your definition but that does not change your original post.

Not sure what standards you use to give definitions but you cant use a word to define the same word. "Sweet is sweet."

Which goes back to my argument that others disagree with you based on the idea that 'slick' is subjective and amarphous. There is no absolute measurement you can use to say some one is slick or not. It is an abstract idea.

Sorry but I thought it was pretty obvious I was being facetious whenever I use the term 'black' to describe slickness. It goes to the point that silly idea of giving the term slick some universally accepted standard definition when all logic refuses.

Again, dont use the same word to define the word. If you can't give a concise definition without using the same word how do you expect others to understand what you are trying to articulate?

That is like asking me what is sweet and I say "It is sweet".

You may better strengthen your argument if you convince others, specifically those 'slick' fans, about that.
In just this thread alone you have people describing Bradley, B-Hop and others as slick.

Yet you continue to argue with absolute conviction that some fighters are slick or not slick.

1. Of course then you can't say that Pac is or is NOT slick with 100% certainty can you?

You are arguing in circles here.

2. Have you read entire thread lately? Especially those you seem to agree with and quoted?

Or do you just quote and agree with them for no reason at all?

No the basic concept of you cannot even clearly define the terminology without using the word and constantly adding to the definition makes it amorphous.

If I removed the word 'slick' in there in attempt to understand your definition, that paragraph would absolutely be empty.

Try rewriting it without using the word slick.

I used your post and definition to illustrate the stupid concept and fixation of this term 'slick'.

No anyone during his career post-MAB I. Since none fits now, I am trying to understand the whole 'slick' and Pac ducking slick fighters concept.

Right now, it is rather vague at best and empty at the very worst.