Prime Shane Mosley vs. Miguel Cotto at 147?

I think he would outland Mosley by a pretty wide margin just becuase Mosley tends to get hit often and doesn't have a top notch defense.

 

No and no.

First, on Wright. Thats apples and oranges. Wright was a tank at that weight with a size advantage, a southpaw stance, and a piston jab. Lets not just boild that down to "a defensive fighter" in our analysis.

Second, on DLH. He was at or near his prime in the first fight. I always thought DLH's prime was around the Quartay or Trinidad fight, and the Mosely scrap was shortly thereafter. Mosely was always too athletic and fast, and with too good of a chin for DLH to KO.

 

Experience means nothing if you've lost your raw talents. Is RJJ his best ever right now because he has more experience than in 2003? Or is Hopkins his best ever because of his intelligence right now versus 2002? Please. Mosley was obviously past his prime when he fought Cotto and he still made it very competitive.

 

How so?

Many posters here are equating throwing more punches with Cotto having more openings, and doing so is a false pretense.

Mosely being faster and more active could just as easily make Cotto hesitant to throw, and could also have him hurt.

Fellas this is not brain science. Mosely landed an equal amount of power punches as a 35 year old fighter against Cotto at a weight north of what his optimal weight was (135lbs).

The best arguement for Cotto was the one I mentioned early in the thread- that Cotto hasnt yet hit his prime, so we should revisit the subject a few years from now.

 

Dude, Hopkins is one in a million in terms of when a fighter normally peaks.

Are you really saying that the best ever Mosley we have seen is the one that fought Cotto?atsch :nut

 

He was most dominant at 135lbs, thats difficult to dispute.

And as far as technique becoming better and better, I disagree. If you lose the athleticism or physical ability- what we could call the delivery system of technique- you also lose technique.

Are you saying that Tyson and Holmes had better technique at the end of their careers than in their respective primes? I wouldn't think so, and that applies to Mosley too.

 

Not to mention that Bernard was a late bloomer, and spent years of his life in prison.

And could it really be argued that his technique against Winky was better than his technique against Trinidad?

 

I agree.

Signed, RJJ.

 

Is PBF going to get better when he starts to lose some of his reflexes and hand speed? I mean technique only takes you so far. It's talent that is necessary to execute the technique. A fighter can have the best technique in the world but not do squat without some raw talent to back it up.

 

I notice you seem to make a huge fuss over Mosely's defense, almost as if it's non-existant.

 

Ok, then apply it to any boxer. I simply don't believe its true, because the degree of athleticism/ youth/ conditioning needed to execute technique slips with age, and so technique does too.

I would argue that the prime of a fighters career (or any athlete) is the melding between their peak physical state with a seasoned mental maturity. A young athlete posseses the physical aspect, but not the mental. An old athlete posseses the mental aspect but not the physical.

A fighter like Shane is no doubt more mentaly seasoned and able to recognize openings, but is beggining to lose the physical ability to do so. So his cognitive recognition of his sport begins to exceed his physical ability to exploit them.

 

Well said. :happy

 

That's why athletes in most sports are considered to be in their prime from the ages of about 27-30. That's when the mental and physical aspect comes together.

 

Technique is more in the style in which you do something. How you do it or how long you can sustain it depends on your physical attributes.

You can have the best technique but if you can't throw like you used to because you are too old, well, that's boxing for you.

 

Yes, don't bother trying that card on me- and I dont think you are following my reasoning at all.

Simply put: Technique is dependent on athleticism. Therefore, when athleticism slips techniqe slips too.