Pep Vs Pac at 126

:goodI see. It reminds me of something i read about directors having to slow down the frame rate of cameras while filming Bruce Lee due to his speed. So according to them, the film back in the 60's Green Hornet days did no justice to his actual speed.

 

True, in the film where he fought Kareem, they had to do the same thing. I've actually seen the live footage, it's amazing how quick Bruce was.

 

While he was genetically blessed, i also read he abused amphetamines and that may have caused his very unfortunate demise.

 

Well, that doesn't work, because basketball is a team game, and greatness is measured as such. Nash is undoutedly a better player than someone like Gerald Green, but would he win a one on one matchup? No. In terms of sizes, a lot of better team players(therefore better basketball players) would be outdone by more athletic players in one on one. Doesn't make them more skilled, and it doesn't prove anything in terms of this era compared to last.

Can the same not be said about any great past boxer? In the sense that, despite not having the advances in technology, they had the science of the game down like few else, to the point that they were able to make up for their physical deficiencies, as you seem to think they have. I personally watch Robinson and see an amazing physical specimen, so I don't even get where you're coming from there.

Well, you can't compare basketball and boxing in that sense, basketball is a team game, the object is not to see who is the best one on one player, therefore that argument can't be used.

What I've already argued is the only division in boxing that has obvious physical advantages are the Heavyweights. Every other division has the same size fighters. You don't get athletic due to supplements, it's something you're born with and improve through work ethic, so I don't see where you're coming from. The only argument I could see you presenting is that the techniques of past fighters are somewhat primitive, not that they as athletes were. Athletically, nothing has changed, guys like Wilt are more athletic than any player of his size today. Same with a guy like Robinson back in the day.

 

Track is a sport that has one single goal, to go faster than the previous time. That has been going on for decades, and the record now is less than 3/10 faster than when Owens set it, most of the guys being on the roids. Therefore, even in a sport with only one common goal, the difference is hardly noticable. Boxing is much more complicated sport. You can't judge greatness in boxing the same way you can track. In track, whoever is faster is better, in boxing, who is to say how you decide who's better?

There is a common goal in most track and field events, not the same with a sport like basketball and boxing, other than to win. There are other dimensions to them, and determining who's better is a lot more complicated than just looking on a stop watch. Scoring more points, for instance, doesn't mean better in basketball. Getting more KO's doesn't mean better in boxing. Track and boxing are so different, and even in something as simple as track, the difference between now and Owens days are not very significant.

 

Peps physical attributes are like those of an amateur in comparison with Pacman.

You can never win an argument with the Pexperts as they have no grasp on reality and cannot accept simple truths. They go into denial citing frame-speed as the reason stone-age fighters look so slow.

 

S-H-U-T T-H-E F-U-C-K U-P Y-O-U T-W-A-T

 

A good measure would be this, can pac compete in the era of same day weigh ins?

 

Your hosilty is a good sign your subconscious knows the truth and it is inevitable you will come round to the correct way of thinking.

 

What facts do you have to prove this though? Over time, if the goal in track is to run faster and faster, over 50 years obviously the records are going to slightly increase. That doesn't mean the athletes are significantly better. And in boxing, what is their to prove that the athletes are better? Robinson looks to me as good an athlete as any modern athlete. As does Wilt Chamberlain. I noticed you haven't acknolwedged Wilt any time I've brought him up either. The fact that in track, they have managed to shave less than 3/10 of a second off the time set 60 years ago, doesn't mean that athletes in boxing or basketball have so dramatically improved. They don't often use supplements in basketball, whereas they most certainly do in track. People are not just naturally more athletic nowadays.

You keep citing that people are so much more athletic. How? How have they become moreso?

Pac ran through B level fighters at lower weights. Pep was displaying his skills against "lesser opponents"(according to you, though Saddler is far from a lesser opponent, same with guys like Manuel Ortiz) then the same way Pac is today. And again, since when does how athletic someone is have to do with how good a boxer they are? He was more athletic than Morales and Marquez as well, didn't stop him from getting handled in the first fight against a closer to prime Morales, and it didn't stop him from getting outboxed by Marquez for 10 rounds.

You put too much emphasis on athleticism, and you're yet to prove how athletes from today are more athletic than guys of yesterday, other than saying they're simply "more modern" or "have more medical benefits" or things of that nature. Pep may not have been as athletic in a sense of speed and explosiveness, but neither were Marquez or Morales. Why does athleticism have more to do with it than skill to you? The difference is not glaring, and it's not because modern fighters as a whole are more athletic, it's just in this one instance. Pep used his superb instincts and reflexes(part of athleticism) to effectively do what he did. Pacquiao didn't have anywhere near the reflexes and upper-body movement of Pep, would I then say that he was primitive compared to Pep physically?

Both have their advantages, Pac in explosiveness, Pep in his ability to move his body, and in his overall mastery of boxing. You put too much into athleticism, when you haven't legitimately proved anything about it. You just seem to assume it's true that athletes today are better in every sport because of track records increasing by slight margins over 60 years.

 

:thinkNo, i have been annoyed by your posts in general for months and ive had enough.:hi:Toodles.

 

Prove it. You cite track records as a way of showing that boxers today are FAR superior physically to boxers of yesterday? Makes no sense.

 

CHJ understands nothing about boxing outside of Calzaghe. Lemme re-phrase, he knows nothing about boxing outside of Calzaghe, because he doesn't understand Joe if he thinks he'd beat a prime Jones, which he actually thinks.

 

One of Pacs losses is said to have come from dehydration/bodypunch in the flyweight(?) division before moving up.

He also weighs at welterweight the night of the fight. Morales rematch was reported to have weighed 144lbs.

It matters in the sense that it gives a strength and size advantage over a natural featherweight.

 

Pacman is stronger, faster (yes even though Peps speed was his asset in the 40s) and more powerful than Pep, are you going to deny that?