Usyk/Joshua Weigh in

I see it when they get together in interviews.

 

You are clearly totally uneducated in sport and business, anti-doping policy and governance and are too lazy to educate yourself, so continue to live in your own little bubble.

Why do you pretend to know anything when you have no expertise in research nor practical experience in the field? You sound genuinely stupid.

 

I'll tell you what it is. When I was a teen I was into weight training and bodybuilding. I could squat double my body weight, bench press a lot and do respectable deadlifts. Then I went to do boxing and my first sparring I fought a 16 year old skinny dude that I couldn't touch, after only 2 rounds I was about done and my legs were shaky. Functional strength is something that transfers to everyday life movements and survival. If I was lifting so much more weight than that kid, why didn't it transfer that well in the ring?

Nerves for one but also different kind of strength was needed, the type that would allow my legs to squat down in a low position and stay there repeatedly for as many rounds as needed. So what I did was go the the beach and tried to stay low and explode of the unstable sand. No matter how strong you think your legs are, a few minutes of that and the legs were burning. This is why I was saying that AJ didn't even need weights for this fight.

 

Your problem was not strength. Isn’t that clear? Your legs being filled with lactic acid is not a strength problem. Are you serious?!

 

The point is, different type of strength was needed for boxing. Strength-Endurance.

 

You assumed incorrectly & based upon no evidence that i am uneducated in sports & business + anti-doping policy etc...
It is irrational to make these assumptions & it seems I hit a nerve, so you lashed out viciously.
Instead of actually being able to offer a single shred of evidence that Usyk ever juiced.

You know nothing about me-I may no more than you about many of these things, & you have *no idea* about that.

Oh by the way it is illogical to conclude people "pretend" to know something-or may not know a ton-if they do not have expertise in research or practical experience-I dunno if you have some of that, but for sure you have opinions about tons of matters that you have not been directly involved in via work or academia.

And knock off the petty hate speech "genuinely stupid".
It is abuse like that which has damaged the forum for years.

Now I hope you have the principles & gumption to tell us WHY you even suspect, let alone firmly conclude, Usyk is juicing.
Suggesting all the reasons why a person might be motivated to juice or get away would be just as unscientific, non-specific evidence as saying all the reasons (principle, fear of being caught/humiliated/ruined reputation, health side effects...) why many do not use.

If you like I can start a thread & you can tell the vast majority of folks here-many likely more expert that you-why it is factually & morally wrong to assume guilt without evidence.
Then you can copy their language like with me about making a "lazy" assumption, be malicious & insulting, & get banned.

 

You're alright, man, I have no axe to grind with you. But there was no hate speech. You can argue that he was too casual with some relatively mild but unnecessary abuse without the stifling global regime lingo.

@Safin's a pretty good fellow. Don't take his brusqueness personally.

 

You seem alright too.
However someone being abusive is a kind of hate.
It is not just "blunt"-someone can be blunt & spew the most vile or mild abuse-that does not address the motivation.
When a guy knows nothing about you or I, makes a range of unsupported assumptions about the poster's ignorance in many subjects-which I do not about him-& ostentatiously avoids any actual argument when challenged that there is no cause to assume an unsullied superb boxer & seemingly excellent individual is a cheatin' liar...

The only reasonable conclusion is that his ego was wounded.
He has no specific reason to defame Usyk, nor specific evidence to offer.

I likely would not agree with you about what you label a stifling global regime lingo.
It need not be ideological or censorious to critique what I fully agree is "relatively mild but unnecessary abuse".
My brother wrote for Bill Maher for over a decade, & I agree with much of what he says in the name of being, as his old show was called, "politically incorrect".
Other things he & others slam as being so are defensing inhumane or logically untenable positions.

 

Fury fanboy so he just says every fighter is juiced thereby clearing Fury of any wrongdoing.

 

Yeah tupical BB training is going to hurt you more than actually helping you in a fight.

 

Well, it occurred to me after posting that the more applicable term would be 'brusque'.

I don't consider it ideological to alert someone to their own rudeness, of course. It was the figure of speech you chose that struck me as oddly loaded.

Anyway, don't take the slight to heart. When a guy feels ground is being unnecessarily retrod, his tone can become short. We all have our moments.

My feeling is that Hearn impersonally dislikes whatever is in his way. But he's the slimy kind who'll fawningly buddy up to the guy whose decapitation he's praying for.

 

True. I actually quite like Hearn, he’s entertaining even if slippery.

I think he likes Usyk and Fury too - but obviously will do anything he can to ensure Joshua gets as far as possible.

 

But it is not just "brusque" to call someone "genuinely stupid".
I definitely can see how you see "hate" as loaded.
But it is broad to show hate, not intrinsically odd to use such a general term; I meant that your comment assuming fealty to a global negative tendency is something I may not agree with you about your general critique of what you see-or fully agree-if you laid it out...
& that my broad rejection of small hate does not imply I represent, endorse, or show an example of what you imply.

It would be wrong & that mild abuse to use the term "stupid" which you will admit is mean, more than "loaded", even if I was being dense or dumb.
Ironically it was not smart or logical for him to assume from what i wrote that I know nothing about all those issues, including sports & business as a whole-it was completely wrong, in both senses.
So actually only I would have reason to use that word-but *still* it would be wrong & beneath proper debate-but understandable since he started being nasty---> to call him stupid.

Unless there is a definition of "retrod" I do not know or cannot find, I reject that it is necessary (of course literally I

This content is protected

not do it, but it is both of small value & fair) to critique unsupported assumptions that any man-especially one who seems to have many personal & sporting virtues, is breaking the rules, law, a fraud, a liar...

However he always could & can present evidence that Usyk is juicing.
Then if correct I would admit my ignorance & apologize for an inapplicable refutation.

But it is highly unlikely you, me, & virtually everyone on the forum is unaware of evidence of guilt.
As his inability to directly answer my challenge about that solidifies.

Pardon the unusual parsing & pedantic quality of my reply.
But besides being seemingly adjacent to "on the spectrum", these things can be useful & stimulating-getting to the real intentions, implications, & possible justifications of by necessity depersonalized exchanges when folks who know not the other respond via mere words.

 

Endurance and the ability to repeatedly exert a particular motion is a form of strength. Strength doesn't solely mean the ability to output a maximal effort, it also includes the ability to output and withstand repeated force.

The word gets used (correctly) across multiple disciplines. Its correct to say that both Roger Federer and Brian Shaw have strong legs.

 

So, all that "Usyk is in the 250s" talk was obvious BS.