Slick Fighters

No.... that the best slick fighters have these qualities. slickness is not defined by these athletic qualities.

 

He doesn't move around enough and try and outsmart or confuse guys enough. He's still got that mexican standup boxerpuncher in him, it's the basis of his style even if he's countering a lot and it keeps me from calling him a slick fighter.

 

No they are not athletic qualities or no they are not necessary?

If they are not necessary then, is JMM slick?
If not why?

 

Marquez is not slick. If Marquez had any defense what so ever, he would already have two wins over Manny, and they would probably not be disputed, cause he would of won more clearly. Marquez does not move after countering, he stays in the same place.

Calzaghe? Eubank, Reid both nailed him with big rights, Mitchell had him over, as did Jones and Hopkins. Take a look at the Mitchell fight, Joe gets up after being knocked down, squares both feet up, and starts swinging for the fences.

 

No, he NEVER fit. You keep trying to ram him in. Opponents are relevant because determining if "slick" is a core quality of a guy is BEST measured when being "slick" is NOT an advantage. Pac is NOT slick because if you are fast enough to bounce around over matched opponents it doesn't mean you are slick. I am sure Margarito looks like Ali with the right guy if he so chooses.

My original post was not meant to be some scientific definition of a term. In your silly attempt to appear intelligent you constantly attempt to use it as such.

Jeez... "Sweet is sweet" can be defined in the sense that looking at a molecules structure a chemist can tell you if it will register as "sweet". Is it too sweet? Saccharin sweet? Lingering sweet? These are things that are subjective, but even still quantifiable. You keep getting caught in the minutia trying to be "smart".

Is "beauty" measurable? Yes. Does that mean that all "beautiful" women are equally "beautiful" to all men? No. Does that now disqualify the term "beautiful"? No. To pretend it does is ignorant. To pretend I was using an absolute measurement is ignorant. I gave MULTIPLE examples of MULTIPLE "flavors" of slick. You just keep being anal, because it suits you.

No. You are being the BS "victim" because you do it constantly. All of you guys somehow make "slick" equal "good" due to some inferiority complex due to it being a more common trait in Midwestern/Northeastern Black fighters. It isn't. It can get you a stylish win or KTFO due to an over/under-estimation. Slick is universally understood. It also isn't confined to one group.

You couldn't describe it because it is an interpretation of a physical chemical structure by a sense organ. Unless you are a chemist you can't describe sweet and then it makes no sense!

Unfortunately, probably because YDKSAB, you don't know what slick is so have no idea what it is when you see it. What is fast? What is powerful? Slick is a synergy of different traits in varying ratios that manifests itself in a generally accepted visual presentation when fighting. Because you lack understanding of the elements of Boxing you can't understand what I am talking about. If you can't add, a mathematician can't "articulate" quadratic equations to you.

I don't need to convince them. They think what they think. Bradley is fit and determined, not slick. B-hop is crafty, not slick. Slick fighters are born.

Because slick is easily identifiable and known when seen. Doesn't make it effective.

1. Pac isn't slick and will never be. Regardless of the opponent, but I understand how the argument is made verses the plodders he has fought.
2. Oh so agreeing with one post requires agreement with all posts? Ignorance.

No it is as "amorphous" as the term "food". It comes in many forms and ratios, but at the end of the day the synergy results in one output... It sustains life. My quick stab at defining slick was never meant to be some scientific definition, but I can easily disqualify guys who aren't slick.

You can use the same BS standard to crush ANY definition of a human attribute. Fast. Good looking. Good timing. Hard punching. Sweet. Tasty. Salty. All terms when used to quantify qualities as measured by the brain are GENERAL rules. Because you are too ignorant to understand this concept and strangely feel it lends favor to a group you seem to detest, you decide not to accept it.

MAB was long on the tooth by the time Pac faced him and I don't really believe he was "slick". Zahir Raheem was ducked. Many of the guys in Pac's era at lower weights were excellent bangers/punchers not slick.

It is those things because you want it to be. You are like a child that argues the invalidity of a universal concept because you found an "exception". It makes you feel good, but you are still wrong.

 

Wow - that is a long definition that absolutely means nothing.
It says nothing. You can describe that to almost anything. That is so generic. WTF!

Varying ratios? WTF!

Yet in the same post you..

The rest of your post is just an attempt to dig yourself out of the vague hole you created.

You write paragraphs that are inconsistent and conflicted at times. Probably because even the concept is vague in your own head. And it shows in your writing. You leap from one idea to another. You back pedal and forward pedal and repeat. You add things when it is necessary and subtract the same idea when needed later.

Seriously. Sit down and explain it to yourself what 'slick' is without using the word slick.

Try it. I bet you will get a headache.

So does that mean "Slick is in the eye of the beholder"?

So it is subjective and arguing Pac is slick or not is dumb....

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdcgzuAbVJ0[/ame]

 

:happy Im thoroughly impressed!

 

Slick also means payback.
You miss, you pay. The more you miss the more you pay.

 

Sung-Kil Moon. End thread.

 

Koki Kameda

 

Calzaghe is definitely not slick. He's not defensively cute in any way. He's there to throw a lot of leather, as fast as he can.