So going by that, guys like Gatti in 2005 @ 140lbs or Arce in 2007 @ bantam are clearly, easily, indisputably world-class, but yeah, it would be a little bit of a stretch maybe to call them elite. ...but not that much of a stretch. We're talking about rounding their ability up, yes, where we could just as easily round them down to 'merely' world-class and not be wrong, but we're not rounding up by orders of magnitude or anything. There's still a huge gap between elite & ATG - bigger than between world-class and elite.
No, you've just decided what it means and now you're trying to push it on the forum. That is literally what is happening. I have never, ever, come across the idea that masterclass has a specific definition vis-a-vis boxing, and i've certainly never encountered this idea that it's "only a masterclass if one of the fighters doesn't get hit." That is, literally, something you have made up. You even say so: Within a page you are foisting this definition upon me like it's inarguably correct Note the different approach by IB: Which was actually your original approach: Now abandoned, within a page, for inexplicable certitude: Here's a different definition: I would go so far as to say a better one! Though of course, that's arguable
You look silly mc grain I'm way too young to have decided what the term masterclass means. I'm glad I was able to teach you the true meaning though. I listed some true masterclasses earlier there are more try to find them Ali vs Williams is another one. You see masterclasses are very rare there are probably only a few a decade. And now you know what a masterclass is Mc grain. We all have to learn it from somebody. You learnt it from me. Oh and it is unarguably correct.
ace A masterclass is any performance that sets about defining the parameters of excellence for that style. Excluding fights where fighters "get hit" excludes a huge range of styles where that simply isn't possible. I'll go further. For some styles (some types of swarmer, most especially the pure slugger) inviting your opponent to hit you is way more important than making you miss. I watched Marvin Johnson box Victor Galindez today, and it was a masterclass in brawling pressure, forcing Galindez to up the activity. Johnson was literally able to win that fight because he forced Galindez to charge, the pressure was too great, he snapped him. Johnson got the **** kicked out of him. Still a masterclass. Want to see a masterclass of infighting? It's not possible according to your definition against world class opposition, probably, because if you're chest to chest avoiding pounches is impossible. Check out Jose Stable v Charley Scott. Both the winner and the loser put on an infighting masterclass but it's nothing to do with how often they get hit. It's to do with consistently making the right choices to maximise victory in a given set of circumstances. And that's my definition of a masterclass. Consistently making the right choices to maximise victory in a given set of circumstances.
To McGrain's point, I'm not the first (and won't be the last) person to name Buchanan vs. Laguna I a "masterclass" - in fact most contemporary publications used that exact language or stronger to describe it - and Buchanan definitely got hit. In fact, it wasn't even all that wide a decision, on the official judges' or I'm sure on any fan's (even Jim Watt's!) scorecard. ...but make no mistake, it was a masterclass (and, tying it back into my other semantic tangent with kirk, a masterclass over a bona fide "elite" ) - especially in the championship rounds.
The art of the martial art that is boxing is to hit without being hit. Only a master boxer can put on a masterclass wether he is an infighter or not. If you won a fight against good opposition without getting hit that's a masterclass. Not many achieve the rank of master in boxing. Not even a lot of long reinging champions manage it. If you don't know or refuse to accept what a masterclass is that's you're problem.
No, that's not true at all. Why would it be? The art of the martial art that is boxing is winning. But, fair enough you've given it some thought and you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Excuse me but I didn't you were the self appointed judge of what a master class exhibition of boxing looks like.:smoke
Another guy who didn't know what a masterclass was looooooooooooooool I didn't decide what it means I have no idea who decided what a masterclass is. I'm just informing those who don't know i.e you
Kalambay-McCallum I comes to mind. McCallum found it pretty impossible to get a sense of timing or distance that night against this master. Eubank-Watson I has to be up there for the first nine rounds. Amazing ring generalship from Eubank, the most subtle head slips. Nunn-Toney for the first nine rounds was smooth, beautiful, flowing domination.
I think it started when people used to say 'what happened in you're fight' and they would reply 'i won it was a real masterclass' and if they had no marks on their face you knew they were telling the truth This is just my theory to the origin of the term hundreds of years ago in the bare knuckle days
MC grain please the aim of boxing (and any martial art) is winning. The ART of boxing is to hit without being hit. I'm a purest when it comes to boxing