Why does everyone say SRR was the best of all time

It doesn't hit the later rounds.

Reasonable, but you're not appreciating how many fighters a fighter might have before he hits the big time OR how commited a fighter might be to a given style/phase of their career.

:-(

Not neccisarily; it was a rather arbitary example. What I am suggesting is that it would be a fool who didn't learn somethin new in every fight. And a fool who could not employ that information.

 

For once. This is how you respond to almost every post.

I form opinions and then defend them actively. More than you do, certainly.

I don't consider my debating skills as effective as some; anyone reading through this thread though, can only conclude that YOUR arguments have been steamrolled entirely - you've offered almost nothing of value here.

 

Well, I placed the "suddenly" in speech marks so you would pick up on the fact that it isn't sudden at all. As to this exact figure "100", I can't say for sure, to be honest. I would guess that Zivic had around 100 before he came to the title; he certainly had many more before he retired and his time inculded many serious adaptions caused by many different factors. Greb would be my other serious offering. But it's worth noting that Robinson himself had more than 100 fights before he came to the MW title all in. For example.

As i've said in the thread - not ALL fighters need this many fights to improve, not all WILL. I've been quite clear about that all along. In my opinion though, more fighters will improve with more fights. I certainly think CHJ's notion that 30-40 fights doesn't necesitate the definitive peak for all fighters is nonsensical.

Of course. But i've never said otherwise.

It would be nice if people would pay attention. It would save the rest of us a lot of work.

 

And this is the key factor.

I am not questioning the value of sparring which is very real. But if you can't see the differnce, there is no way for me to explain it.

Not on any serious level.

This is as much as I do understand, the limit of my involvment in the physical side of the game, over about six years until last year.

Perhaps not so much in my physicl experience, although I understand what you mean.

I do indeed. But I think i've dealt with this question now here and elswhere in the thread.

 

Not possible. Actually impossible.

 

I really can't belive this joke of a post.

To answer it properly, I would have to provide an example of a fighter who fought 100 fights AND 30 fights whilst enjoying a "proper training cycle".

And you won't even answer one third of the points I make in direct rebutle to what you say.

 

No cure for life bud.

I would just like to say that I don't see it either way - that is I don't see modern or previous day fighters as "superior", for me, there is a parity.

 

Jesus, i'm really starting to find this a bit of a struggle now.

I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS GAIN IN TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO BE GAINED FROM FIGHTING NUMEROUS FIGHTS.

PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND.