Michael Grant v Pianeta,Wach,Mormeck,Leapai?

Since when are boxers required to be athletes outside of their athletic prowess as boxers?

Outside of boxing, Ali, Frazier and Tyson would have never been known. Their abilities in the conventional US sports were notoriously wretched.

Boxing is not a game. "Athletes" that wander into the discipline mostly soon wander on the hell out. The concepts of fighter and athlete are at the best complimentary not exclusive.

 

Slight puncher's chance for Wach. Grant beats the rest easily, maybe even all by KO.

 

Wach certainly isn't getting KO'd by Guinn… And I doubt Pianeta would be either.

 

How many times do we have to go through this ... seems like I've been here before ... let's not take this beyond one post each as you've proven in the past an unwillingness to address the points I make that don't suit your view (claiming work and blah blah blah) and I no longer have any interest in affording you my time ...

Just read my prior posts - shake your head if it helps - and be satisfied that I have never agreed with your contentions or "beliefs" on this subject.

The tired and pathetic "you don't play boxing" theme has never resonated or been the least bit convincing as there is no distinction between what a great athlete or talent brings or can bring to any physical endeavor (i.e., boxing).

Here's how it works ...

If you are a LOUSY athlete you have an awful lot to overcome to be much of a fighter. It is then in such an athlete's best interest if boxing's participation rates are low and few talented ATHLETES are taking up the SPORT. Being in a horrible era in which few want to be boxers is going to help you do a lot better and actually give the impression that you are unique or special. But, there are differences between being relatively unique/special as well as a participant in a declining era or sport. If you face bums in the great proportion you could even seem a terror on wheels. That doesn't mean there can't periodically be someone special in the sport - it does mean that when the quality is inconsistent or low overall, that someone can be the beneficiary of those lean times.

The reality is that with high participation rates you are going to have an abundance of large-sized athletes with talent, speed, quickness, power, conditioning, commitment, etc. rather than a bunch of C-level no-talents. The road is going to much MUCH more difficult to traverse and you won't be achieving what you were able to achieve when fighting a bunch out of shape second-rate athletes (i.e., those boxers possessing minimal athletic talent) with few exceptions over a career.

I would reiterate my thoughts regarding the other US sports but you can just go back and read my posts if you want to rehash it. Better yet, let it go. You are familiar enough to remember I don't have much if any agreement with your contentions on the differences between boxing and other sports. The depth, quality, and numbers all bear out that the other sports have grown or expanded, drawn more athletes, and out of these higher participation rates produced more fervent high-end competition - consistently - with and between more apex athletes. You learn more, you have to be better, the competition pushes you harder. It is much more difficult to rise to the very top when more people want to do anything. Limited athletes practicing with bums and fighting professionally against other C-level athletes do not have the same starting point nor the same progression.

Great athleticism is not a secret code word for "lack of heart". We know that not every athlete would make a great boxer/fighter. But that goes without saying about ANYTHING.

When predicting which is more likely to produce exceptional and/or extraordinary performances we don't look for examples of poor athleticism, lack of speed, poor vision, lack of coordination, etc., and suggest that merely "having heart" is all that is required.

I assume "heart" on every athlete in such an exercise. It is not a denigration of their heart to be recognized as being athletically unimpressive.

I don't know what drives your inferiority complex about great athletes and this desire to assert that they can't possibly thrive on some reserved pedestal you wish to be provided to boxers universally yet exclusively. It isn't an exclusive club. It could only be if it had high participation rates in which competition drove success to an undeniably high level of prowess. When you can make the case that titles and belts have only been held by extraordinary and exceptional athletes or fighters - if you prefer - we can talk. With the multitude of belts and titles and rating organizations and the video proof of the number of unimpressive participants that have picked up such hardware it is fairly impossible for you to ever do so.

Call me in twenty years. Maybe things will be different.

If you believe in wave theory perhaps this trough will someday be exceeded. Or, perhaps you can count on some mutation in which lousy or mediocre athletes drive a new renaissance of exceptional boxers. Personally I'll have to see it to believe it.

Cheers.

I'm sure you'll feel compelled to provide something back (defending some mediocre athleticism existing in some "great" boxer) - that will mean little to me - but write what you must. I'll give it a glance for the amusement value tomorrow when time permits. Make it good.

 

Would you care to define what an ELITE ATHLETE is? Or can your judgement be likened to a certain Supreme Court Justice and pornography… you know it when you see it?

You certainly like to bandy about this term but I am not sure what you mean in regards to boxing. What measurables are you using to categorize participants?

What if I told you that Wach bench presses 550? Does that qualify elite status or is that merely a parlor trick? What if told you that Ali in his prime of primes got dusted by Wilma Rudolph in a footrace? Or that he ran a 12.5 in 100 yards at 30 years old? Does that make him an elite athlete? Or that Mike Tyson could barely dribble a basketball and had zero elevation when playing with fellow boxers at the Olympic Camp in Colorado Springs? Elite athlete?

Define your terms, man...

 

I suppose it's all about that other elusive quality - "talent".

It's not a case of whether a boxer would be, or is, good at OTHER sports, it's to do with how much "TALENT" he has for boxing.

Let's assume TALENT DOES EXIST, just for argument's sake.
A "superior athlete" in regards to boxing would simple be someone who has talent/natural attributes that, when added with necessary time and work ethic, would almost guarantee some success IN BOXING.
The most talented ones may well be obviously special the first day they walk in a gym, but not necessarily. But soon enough it would be clear that they have some sort of "gift".

 

His chin wasn't all that bad.. He was often facing big hard punching men and openly trading with them, which is a recipe for a stoppage one way or another. His chin survived huge bombs from Golata along with direct hits from Purity, Butler and Savarese. I can't label that as a "bad chin." The McCline debacle was stopped after Grant claimed that he broke his ankle. But that shot Jameel hit him with hardly looked like sh-t. It was a short left jab to the face. Grant went down, got up shaken and was stumbling around the ring as McCline went after him ( presumably because of whatever his ankle was doing. )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8K8NKhoWeo

 

op

 

Grant beats them just as he did Golota, Savarese, Abdin, Sullivan and Izon leading into the Lewis fight. Golota better than any of the suggested quartet

 

Seamus vs. Halfordscreams has become far more intriguing than Grant vs. Pianeta/Wach/Mormeck/Leapai ever was (sorry mcvey)