Skillsets Are Overated on ESB, While Effectiveness Is Underated... Agree?

Alot of posters here are overrated. Problem is they can put up 10 pages of jargon just to sound smart...Instead of analyzing why the **** PAc is p4p #1. No one seems to really think about that..why is this guy the best right now?..instead of Guzman will box around everyone..lol

Its because..heart, courage, determination and intangibles are very simple characteristics..it hard for the "smart" gurus in here to extrapolate it into a ****in manifesto of fancy words.

Sometimes when I read pretentious posts from the usual suspects..I cant help to think..that you know what? its just as bad as saying PAC by KO! or maybe even worse..I can praise the latter post for its brevity

 

Exactly.

 

Exactly. And really, Pavlik is a good example of just this type of thing here.

 

Because at the backbone of every boxing match its a FIGHT, and being the prettiest boxer with a fancy skill set isn't going to guarantee you the win. Did Jose Luis Castillo give a flying **** about Mayweather's skill set? How much did it matter in that 1st fight of theirs as many scored it a close win for Castillo. Another good example was Mosley's and Judah's appeared unbelievable advantage in skills as they were "faster quicker more explosive" fighters, Did Cotto let their "skill set" win the fights? Just think about all the upsets and underdogs winning when they aren't supposed to, and it proves that skill set without execution/effectiveness is overrated.

 

. . . and Guzman a supernatural?

:rofl

 

I don't agree. While I do think that effectiveness is the most important factor, I don't think that ESB'ers are more affectuated by skillsets than efficientcy, as evident in the replys thus far in the thread.

 

Fans likes and dislikes for specific boxers are more subjective than anything else. A track record doesn't make a boxer particularly likeable. It might justify one's preference for a specific boxers ("I like this boxer and he's 39-0 therefore I'm smart for liking him") but not a great deal more.

The Edwin Valero example is relevant. To fans who appreciate skill sets over brute force, he shall forever remain a troglodyte, sort of a Korgoth of Barbaria kind of brawler, unskilled and crude.

 

Well said.

 

You can only take Rating a fighter off pure athletic H2H ability so far, and it shouldn't be taken as far as accomplishments/resume at all! As of right now Pacquiao has a hell of a better resume than Guzman, it is for that reason that I won't ever rank Guzman higher than Pac unless he totally demolished him or built up a comparable resume.

Once resume is on equal terms, THEN you point and refer back to their "skill set" and rank the fighters accordingly. But you rate a fighter higher because you think their skill set is BETTER, It is a mistake that people have to totally stop doing. It is absolutely degrading to a fighter that is out there actually accomplishing and taking care of his **** in the ring by rating another fighter that is quote on quote "better" but has been sitting there with his finger up his ass.

 

This thread doesn't necessarily reflect the average thread on ESB just because there are several posters who are coming to a consensus about the issue. Actually most of the recent threads here in the last few months have become very "skillset" concious in my view... not that I haven't done this myself at times..

 

To some extent, yes, there seems to be alot of emphasis on this kind of stuff. To be honest though, boxing is a popularity contest and fan followings are the true motivation behind people's reasoning in most cases. When people are constantly stating that "Fighter A is too skilled for Fighter B," ect, they generally know damn well this is just thinly veiled propoganda in favor of their boy, or propoganda against a fighter they don't care for.

 

I'm not talking about "fans liking"

I'm talking about "fans rating" there is a big difference. I don't care if you don't like Valero or any other type of fighter. What they accomplish in the ring is set in stone, and you have to rate them accordingly regardless of who else is percieved to be "better"

 

This is true in any sports..anything can happen...Giants/Patriots anyone?? Tiger Woods dont win every tournament! But as for these examples, I wil tell you that you gotta hand it to New England and Tiger Woods...They are consistently very good, year in and year out...is it because of their skills?? Yes both are very skillful.

Now follow me..just to show you why boxers like Pac or Pavlik doesnt really get the respect...These guys are just as consistent as the Patriots and Tiger woods and they win consistently as well...Is it because maybe they are skilled as well.. We have to start redefining what "SKILL" is.

My point:

New England/Tiger Woods very skilled but loses..gets credit
PAC/Pavlik wins but limited skills...dont get credit as far as skils go

it doesnt add up people

 

Yes but such consciousness is always counterbalanced by the opposite view.

Spirit of contradiction (often pushed to antagonism) is pretty much the engine of every discussion on internet forums.

 

That boils down to strengths and weaknesses. The very skilled teams/individuals when they win many times it maybe more impressive than ordinary BUT at the end of the day a win is a win for the most part (boxing is a little different here obviously). It's like whats better, beating down and blasting an opponent out in 2 rounds or out boxing the opponent easily over 12 rounds? There is a lot of diversity in boxing as far as winning is concerned.

When a "limited" team/individual wins its just that their strengths were imposed on their opponents weaknesses to a larger extent than their opponents did to them - and that is basically what effectiveness/execution boils down to.