Mayweather-Pacquiao Update: Bob Arum makes his "final offer"
by Scott Christ on Dec 27, 2009 4:36 PM EST
in Boxing News Analysis
Email
Print
Lance Pugmire of the Los Angeles Times reports that Top Rank promoter Bob Arum has made his "final offer" to Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Golden Boy Promotions regarding the drug testing controversy that may postpone or outright cancel the scheduled March 13 fight between Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.
Were Arum's offer agreed to, both fighters would submit to unlimited random urinalysis, and the Nevada State Athletic Commission would decide on January 19 if further testing is really necessary.
From the LA Times article:
"We will allow Golden Boy to present experts to the commission to explain why additional testing is required, and we'll explain our position," Arum said. "Then we'll let the Nevada commission decide. If Nevada says we need to do more testing, we'll do more, but if they don't, we won't."
...
"If the commission says both fighters have to give blood as they're walking into the ring, we'll do it," Arum said. "But I want the commission saying it, not some outside group with an agenda. If [the Mayweather camp] say no to this, that shows they don't want the fight."
What may provide a stumbling block here is the fact that Keith Kizer of the NSAC seems to have his mind made up on the matter, and he offers a solid point:
"I'm pleased with our processes as they are now. They were good enough for Pacquiao-Cotto and for Mayweather-Marquez."
Kizer says that if promoters petition, they'll consider going further, but reading between the lines a bit, I don't think Nevada is exactly bursting at the seams to go into further testing. Golden Boy and Mayweather would have to present something a lot more startling than baseless rumors. Pacquiao has fought 11 times in Nevada and passed their tests on each occasion. The commission is going to need a really, really good reason from Mayweather's team, and I don't think they have one. If you boil it all the way down, their arguments probably amount to, "He's really good and has done some truly amazing things." That's just not good enough for a commission to change the way they do their drug testing.
Arum says he wants an agreement by Monday (tomorrow) or that he'll finish negotiations for Pacquiao to face Paulie Malignaggi instead.
How about a poll? Yeah, a poll!
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Out of those options
Nothing is acceptable.
Mosley would be acceptable.
Clottey would be acceptable.
Berto would be acceptable.
Bradley would be acceptable.
Maybe even Valero would be acceptable.
But when compared to a potential Mayweather matchup not one of those opponenets comes close to making nearly as great or as significant a fight.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
Mosley would be fun to see. I wouldn’t mind seeing Manny take on all the WWs that Floyd wants nothing to do with.
Keep firing Assholes!
Fedor has accomplished nothing until he fights Kimbo.
Absolutely all those fights would be very good
but the Mayweather fight is just too big an opportunity to pass up in my opinion. we are talking about one of the biggest fights of all time here.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 27, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
“You can’t always get what you want.:”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGfJ0_KMiro
I’m a Maple Leafs fan, I’m pretty tolerant to disappointment at this point. If It does happen, I’ll cheer, but if it doesn’t I’ll not let it get to me.
Keep firing Assholes!
Fedor has accomplished nothing until he fights Kimbo.
Hmm..... na a lot of those I wouldn't consider "acceptable"
By acceptable I mean I would buy the PPV .
Pacman – Clottey I wouldn’t think would be a great fight to watch.
Pacman – Berto would be an easy W for Pac.
Pacman – Valero at either 140 or 147 would be an easy W for Pac (Valero can’t box, only punch and he would be badly exposed).
Pacman – Mosley would be acceptable.
Pacman – Bradley would be acceptalbe.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean what you mean by acceptable, I meant by acceptable worth me buying. Their all worthy fights.
I think Valero could be great. Valero can’t box, but he can really hit.
"Yes Gina, I am a Wise Cracker"
I was a Valero holdout for a long time, but the more I watch him, the nastier his power looks. I mean it is just savage power.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 28, 2009 6:44 AM EST up reply actions
Welcome aboard!! :)
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
Valero reminds me a bit of Nigel Benn early in his career. He’s an “effort/strength” puncher, like Benn, and I think he may get exposed against someone who can draw his sting for a few rounds (like Watson did). I do dig him, though – what’s not to like?
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
I love the way Bob Arum laid it on the table....
and the quote from Keith Kizer is all that really needs to be said. News tomorrow sould be intersting for any Mayweather comeback to that.
I voted Malignaggi because I think that works out a lot better to watch than Foreman, and in the poll it says March 13, so that rules out Mosely and Berto straight off. Bradley doesn’t provide as much fun pre fight and would be almost as badly outgunned as Paulie.
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
I think Bradley could make a real name for himself with his style. He’s starting to remind me of a young Mosley, too, much like Berto has. He can box, but he has that streak in him that just LOVES to fight. Even if he got beaten in three or four rounds, I think it could be so entertaining he leaps up the standings of the public eye in a big way.
But I also don’t think Bradley is even a remote possibility.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 27, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
What the Mayweather team’s accusations show more than anything is that Floyd is very wary,if not scared of what he will face in Manny.
When has he ever been like this before about his opponent being tested for drugs?
Manny’s physique tells you that he is all natural and i would take it as a compliment,personally,if someone accused me of being on steroids when i knew i wasn’t.
I would think,‘man,they must be impressed with me and/or intimidated by me if they are so convinced that i’m a cheat’.
Take the tests Manny and lets make this historic fight..
If he was scared..
..he wouldn’t even be trying to negotiate a fight with Manny. Of all of the things that Mayweather could have done during negotiations to get out of a fight, who would have thought random drug testing would do it. I’d think he would have gone for some kind of ridiculous money split like 70-30 or something. A simple yes kills Mayweather’s “escape route” as some of you are looking at it as.
My point was,as i made clear further down,that Floyd has never gone to these lengths before.I know it is partly because of his dad’s insinuations about Manny but Floyd obviously is impressed with what Manny has done or he wouldn’t be asking for these tests.I admit ‘scared’ was the wrong word to use and i think wary would be fair and more appropriate.
+1 Matt...
And +1 to SC for basically boiling down Team Mayweather’s argument: “Uh, he’s really awesome and we’re terrified of him.”
"Gowin on fourth and 14 will punt it away. He hangs it very high, angling it for the near sideline...HAKIM DROPS THE BALL!!! HAKIM DROPS THE BALL!! Brian Milne might've fallen on it at the ten yard line! It's the New Orleans Saints' football! Brian Milne, the most unlikely hero of them all, falls on the fumble, the muff by Hakim! There is a God after all!" -- Jim Henderson
by hakimdropstheball on Dec 27, 2009 5:16 PM EST reply actions
I don’t think Floyd is scared of him, actually. I really don’t. I do think that when you break down their reasons for wanting unheard-of testing for a boxing match, it comes out as “He’s really good! Look at the things he’s done!” They have nothing even remotely solid as far as evidence goes, just hunches and the fact that Pacquiao has done some amazing things.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 27, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
"Unheard-of"
You make it sound like random urine and blood testing is some crazy new bizarre idea. Sure it’s never been in done in boxing, but there’s a first time for everything.
As far as evidence is concerned, it’s not a prerequisite for the urine tests they undergo now, so I don’t see why people feel there is a need for probable cause now in order to have more stringent drug testing. Either you need evidence for everything or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose.
it isn’t a police stop or a property seizure, we don’t need probable cause. It’s a sport governed by a regulatory agency that sets the rules and tests for participation. Those rules and tests are shit and they can change them easily and quickly. The agency is doing a shitty job. shocker.
I know we’re basically on the same side of this, I just don’t like when people throw out the ‘probable cause’ bullshit. They’re not taking private property or liberty, there is no due process issue.
"Yes Gina, I am a Wise Cracker"
“unheard-of testing for a boxing match” is what I said, and that’s true. I don’t even think it’s a bad idea. But it was always going to be met with resistance. Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, “Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment.”
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 28, 2009 6:46 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The best comment yet on the whole debate....
“Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."”
Brilliant.
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
whoa
fine but overall – do you think it’s a good idea for there to be legit drug testing in boxing?
Right now, in 2009, urine testing alone is frankly bullshit testing. Kids can and do beat those tests without even finding a dirty Dr.
And maybe, “he’s really good look at what he’s done” should be reason alone to force him to test him.
My question: Is it important to you that boxing try to proscribe the use of PEDs? Because right now I’m very confident (solely based on the asinine procedures in place and the money at stake), that boxing is as dirty or dirtier than any pro sport. It’s horse-racing.
So – lets not pretend. If we want horse-racing, fuck the rules and lets open it wide. But to say this is “unheard of testing” like he’s a cop asking for a body cavity search for a speeding ticket is not appropriate. Just because boxing is 25 years behind the rest of planet earth on drug testing doesn’t mean Floyd should fall in line.
"Yes Gina, I am a Wise Cracker"
do you think it’s a good idea for there to be legit drug testing in boxing?
Yes — I responded just above this comment before I read this one, and I think I basically answered this question with that, but I’ll say it again and again: Yes, I think it’s a good idea. I’m just not surprised that there’s resistance to change. There usually is.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 28, 2009 6:47 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not resistant to change.
I just think that change should come from the commissions, the experts they employ, and the sanctioning bodies.
Not from Floyd Mayweather’s dad.
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
your gonna rely on a boxing commission?
Ain’t exactly the FDA or the USDA? a boxing commission is the punchline on the end of a joke. I wouldn’t rely on them to tie their shoes properly.
"Yes Gina, I am a Wise Cracker"
They ARE the governing bodies of the sport.....
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Options
Mosley and Berto are tied up so wouldn’t be immediate options but anyway i would go with these as alternates:-
For Manny:1/Mosley 2/Bradley 3/Berto 4/Valero 5/Y Foreman.
For Floyd: 1/ Berto 2 /P Williams 3 / Berto 4/ Clottey.
Of course,only one fight matters at the moment!
It just looked like you were well interested in a Floyd/Berto fight for a minute there... :)
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
Usually Floyd calls guys ‘clubfighters’ or whatever.He hardly ever compliments them.He has been quoted as calling Manny ‘one-dimensional’(which is very wrong,imo) but as i said,being accused of being on steroids because he looks so impressive and powerful is really an unintentional compliment on Floyd’s part,imo.
So anyway,........
When the fight DOES takeplace March 13th, its gonna’ be called………… BLOOD FEUD!!!! Peace!!
Blood Feud
I like it!
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 27, 2009 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
I chose the nothing else is acceptable option, since I really don’t want to see the 2 rumored fights, but I would gladly take a Bradley fight. I think Bradley would be anything but easy for Pac, and as the clear cut #1 contender at 140, I think he deserves the opportunity as much as anyone.
I think Arum’s offer is fair. The governing body – in this case the NSAC – runs the sport, and it’s up to them to make the final decision. If GBP can convince them, good for them…otherwise they need to accept the current regulations and get on with it.
by A.F. on Dec 27, 2009 5:36 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
It would never happen, but the best thing Golden Boy could do to convince the commission is have Shane Mosley recall how he used EPO for the De La Hoya rematch, how he avoided detection and how he believes it helped him in the fight. Embarrassing the commission with how they ‘missed one’ for an important fight would certainly give them pause in evaluating this issue. But Mosley would never do that to his legacy, no matter how big his slice of the pie is.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Dec 27, 2009 5:38 PM EST reply actions
Some Facts
Mayweathers first 29 fights from 1996 – 2001 were at 129 – 133 lbs. November 2001 Mayweather weighs 129 v Jesus Chavez. 2 and a half years later Floyd is a rock hard 140 v Corley and 3 years later Floyd weighs a rock hard 150 v De La Hoya. That is a gain of 21 pounds in 5 and a half years . Pacquiao makes 125 in Dec 2004 against 3 k Battery. 5 years later against Cotto he weighs 144. A gain of 19 pounds in 5 years .Basically no difference in Pac and Moneys weight gain. Duran at 37 sent a huge middleweight in Barkley crashing to the canvas. Hearns started at 144 and beat Virgil Hill . A gain of 30 pounds . Hank Armstrong a 126 pounder was robbed against the middleweight champion . A gain of 34 pounds. I’ve been a bit stunned at the willingness of Floyds fans and even the boxing press to run with Floyds line without doing the research .
by JC40 on Dec 27, 2009 5:52 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Like it - good analysis
And Hank was robbed vs Garcia
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
good stuff though one minor thing. pacquiao started off at 106 which i think is more startling than him going from 125-147. but obv he was a kid then so it doesn’t matter :p, and as a pacquiao fanboy i don’t buy into this whole “pacquiao is a cheat” malarkey
The Dude Abides
by battle axe of doom on Dec 28, 2009 2:46 AM EST up reply actions
Some rather wise analysts
have said in the past that it’s far more surprising that Pac could ever make 106 and that he made anything under 125 for so long, not that he made 140 and 145.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 7:08 AM EST up reply actions
Not that I’m wise, but I’m in that camp these days. The title in his career that most stuns me is the one at 112
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 28, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Let's not forget...
Henry Armstrong also, in a similar space of time, beat world champions featherweight, welterweight, and then lightweight. Then he set a then-record (it may still be the record, but I admit I don’t know) of ten consecutive successful welterweight title defenses… in just 18 months. All of this is actually more impressive, to me, then the fact that he fought for the middleweight crown at the end of his welterweight reign… though that certainly puts an exclamation point on his achievements.
As note, the fight was not for the undisputed championship. Ceferino Garcia was recognized as middleweight champion by the NYSAC, but the NBA recognized another man and the British Boxing Board of Control recognized a third. The NYSAC refused to sanction Garcia’s fight with Armstrong, which was only recognized as a middleweight title fight by the California commission, because they wanted him to fight one of his rival claimants.
I find that an amusing bit of trivia, particularly ironic today: a sanctioning body refusing to recognize a championship fight because the champion DOESN’T fight a rival titlist. :)
by The Boxing Geek on Dec 28, 2009 5:09 AM EST up reply actions
Oh...
I also should have mentioned that, like Pacquiao, Armstrong’s first pro fight was at flyweight.
by The Boxing Geek on Dec 28, 2009 5:27 AM EST up reply actions
Hello JC40
I had thought the same thing myself,though didnt know the details like you have shown.Also Pac was only 16 years old when he fought at 106lbs and is now 31.In that time he could easily put on 20-30 lbs of weight naturally.When rigorous training regimes and professional nutrionists are added the mix,there is nothing so unusual about his weight gain.However,i think what the Mayweather camp is getting at is the unusual fact that Manny is carrying the punching power up in weight with him.In fact,he seems to be getting more lethal as he goes up!
I really think he is one of these special fighters who comes along once in a lifetime and he is the exception to the rule,as far as weight classes go.As he says,maybe it is his belief in God that gives him extra motivation and belief in himself too.Who knows.
I certainly don’t believe he a is a cheat though.
I really don’t see him having brought his punching power with him. Cotto took some straight shots that wobbled him onto one leg, but Pacquiao unleashed those same shots at Featherweight and put Marquez down with a busted nose (not necessarily hurt, but unable to stay on his two legs from the power). He’s a better boxer now, and you could definitely argue he brought his stamina with him if you want to talk blood doping, but the power isn’t there like it was when he first took up with Roach and was just blowing through guys with straight left hands. People other than De La Hoya have downplayed his power, but if Manny was really using steroids, I would hope he could knock a welterweight, or even David Diaz straight backwards the way he did Julio.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Dec 27, 2009 6:44 PM EST up reply actions
I think someone who took his power with him from JC’s list was Hearns. From Duran on, so many of his knockouts at the heavier weights looked like a carbon copy of the Cuevas knockout. But Hearns added most of the weight in his legs, and he seemed to understand the difficulty, as he accused Leonard of using steroids to get to the same weight.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Dec 27, 2009 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
I really don’t see him having brought his punching power with him.
I’m not sure if he has in a pure power sense, either. What I think is he’s become a much, much better boxer, and his speed and pinpoint accuracy combine to make him lethal more than his blunt power.
Bad Left Hook
"If bulls**t was poetry, Ray 'Boom Boom' Mancini's name would be Shakespeare." -- Dennis Rappaport
by Scott Christ on Dec 28, 2009 6:49 AM EST up reply actions
Yes thats true but speed + strength/force = power.Thats a scientific fact.Manny’s improved boxing(through Freddie’s teaching),his accuracy and unorthodox style all play their part too.
F=MA
Force = Mass x Acceleration
It’s true that the fact that Manny has carried his speed up through the weight classes has helped him to ratain his power.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 7:24 AM EST up reply actions
I’ve always thought conservation of momentum for head shots, but that’s just me
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
I "think" you're referring to timing?
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
Timing is an art,
not a science! But a very important one, at that. It includes, amongst other things, a mixture of accuracy and anticipation. There’s also timing and coordination involved in the mechanics of punch delivery, and that seems to be broadly independent of size and muscularity – which is why great punchers, like great fast bowlers, come in all shapes and sizes.
On a purely physical level, at the point of impact, it’s all about how much acceleration you can impart upon the other persons noggin. Since the impact happens over a very short period of time, you’re not really applying a force due to your strength at that point, but instead due to the momentum of your fist/arm/shoulder combo. Of course, strength (or at least explosive, fast-twitch strength) has a part to play in generating that momentum. Think how hard it would be to knock someone out if the punch started with your fist resting on their chin. Your shoulder wouldn’t be able to apply enough force over that small distance to generate the acceleration needed. That’s why punches have to travel at least a foot or so, so that your arm/shoulder/back/hips have enough time to apply their forces to accelerate up to speed. At the point at which your arm and fist are really shifting, you’re not applying any more muscular force than when you started the punch (in fact, maybe a lot less) – they’ve just now got a lot more momentum. Of course, getting all that anatomy up to top speed at the point of impact also crucially requires timing and coordination that no amount of strength can compensate for!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
It's a good post, and you have got most of what timing is about.
However, there are other fundamentals you’ve left out.
1. My PE teacher at school tried to get me to understand at an early age the difficulties of throwing a ball into a basket, what with the need to judge the weight of the ball, the distance, height and sizeof the target,, the speed of the movement of the arms, the dip of the ball after it reaches it’s zenith, the movement of the thrower in relation to the basket, both in terms of speed and direction…. the factors involved are crazy. He then moved the goalposts (excuse the pun) and asked me how many extra factors were involved in David Beckham hitting a free kick into the top corner; wind resistance, the bend he imparts on the ball, the fact he is striking rather than throwing, and striking the ball deliberately less than squarely….
The idea he was trying to get into my head is that the brain has to make a ridiculous amount of calculations in sport. It is an idea that has stayed with me for years.
Now consider the extra calculations needed to throw a shot at a moving target…… and not just a target that is moving, but you have to hit a certain part of that target, taking into account not only your own body position, and movement, but the movement of your hands in relation to your body, the necessary consideration of what your opponent is doing (so as not to get sparked yourself), the anticipation of where your opponent is going to be in the split second it takes to throw the shot (tight-in body movement is hard to anticipate, and legislate for), the accuracy required to throw your shot between two moving, intercepting targets (his hands) and hitting the one you want (his head/body), which is also going to be using avoidance strategies….
This isn’t Fight Night Round 4, this is a real skill that some fighters, even those approaching the top level, simply do not possess. Timing the shot, and hitting the guy exactly where you want to hit him, is helped by speed and accuracy, but is far more than a sum of just those parts.
2. The tension of the arm upon contact is also really important. If you swing a loose arm at someone, it won’t hurt, if you swing a fully tensed arm at someone it also won’t be effective. The midground is a tension that is timed to be most effective at the point of impact. I’ll explain more about this at a later point, if so required.
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
by Chaos100 on Dec 28, 2009 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
1. It’s a good way to get thinking about the physics involved, but I’ve never bought into the idea about the brain making all these complicated calculations – for me it’s just muscle memory (which is obviously brain-memory) and experience. The brain does have to make a lot of calculations, but it isn’t really an algorithm-crunching sequential computer. Instead, it performs lots and lots of simple calculations in parallel, comparing inputs from stimuli with stored memory, and either sending the results to your higher thought processes (“that fist is coming towards me mighty fast”), or doing something autonomic (slips punch). Eventually, after lots of practice, you’ll have a lot of stored memory to compare inputs against; and you’ll also have learned not to think about what to do – the inputs will trigger muscle actions without you having to “think” about it at a conscious level. Some people have a greater capacity to learn and lay down muscle memory, and are also better coordinated , and therefore rise to the top of their chosen sport.
2. Very, very, very (^100) important – I’d meant to include something about this. You need a bit of tension to hold everything “in-line”: fist and arm, obviously (don’t want a broken thumb or wrist); but also shoulder. Well, not really in-line for the shoulder, but “coupled”, so that it becomes part of the overall motion, and acts as a fulcrum for applying torque. This coupling/in-line-ness allows for the maximum amount of momentum to be brought to bear. I remember reading an interview with Julian Jackson in KO (I think – it was years ago), in which he described the feeling of delivering one of his howitzers: he said it felt like an electric shock from the point of impact, all the way up his arm and into his shoulder and back. I think that’s because all of the coupled, semi-free moving parts were in-line, and all lost their share of momentum on impact: a bit like a head-on train crash.
If you can also “couple” your shoulder blade into this motion, then a lot of of your upper back can be used to add torque around the fulcrum of your shoulder. Too much tension, however, and you’ve got muscles pulling against one another, which will reduce the speed.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
I'll reply to your repsonse to my number #1.... I think we're about in line on #2...
I suggest you read Whorf. Or maybe Jung. The “thinking” about stuff is only the literary side of what your brain does. Whether or not you put those calculations into words is kind of irrelevant. Your brain still has to make them.
Timing a stationary target is easier than timing a moving one. The movement of your target is another calculation you have to make, whether you like it or not. Then you have all the other factors, (opponent’s hands, etc) to take into the equation as well. These are all calculations your brain has to make, and the more accurate the calculations, the better the shot will connect.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
I do agree that the brain has to make a lot of calculations (and you obviously know your stuff on this – didn’t Whorf write in Klingon, though?!), I’m just saying that those calculations are more like simple pattern-matching than higher calculus. David Beckham (or his brain) probably doesn’t know much about the physics of his job; he (and his brain) will, however, have a good set of free-kick stimuli memories with which to compare the inputs from most new situations on the field. If, however, some of those inputs are new, or novel, then he may struggle, e.g. a new ball introduced at the beginning of a big tournament always seems to throw free-kick takers off for a while.
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
The wind blowing in different directions…. the distance being 3 yards more or less…. the wall being a foot closer than it should be… the ball being 3 feet furhter to the right or the left….. the goalie standing further to the left or the right…. the ball being wet or dry…. the air being humid or not….
There are shitloads.
Now, take all those calculations, and add a moving goal, and one that fires balls back at you…..
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Yep
It’s a lot of calculations – then again, most free-kick attempts are rubbish, aren’t they?
Take your point on the extension to boxing – you can’t really stand there with your hands on your hips sizing up the other guys chin, can you?!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
Unless you're Nate Campbell....
Didn’t he get knocked out doing pretty much that?
Invited a guy to hit him, thinking he’d dodge, and got sparked?
Or did Campbell spark someone who did it to him?
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
That was it.... lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5nPIeDqelI
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
And Beckham’s free-kicks aren’t rubbish…..
(I love Beckham almost as much as I love David Tua…. but I know who would win in a scrap!!)
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
BTW, if you fancy reading up on what I'm saying the easy way, look up the "Whorf-Sapir hypothesis".....
It’s on Wikipedia, and the article is actually quite accurate, surprisingly.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
I’m just making stuff up, whereas you’ve obviously got some knowledge behind you. Now look, that’s not fair….
That linguistic relativism looks interesting, btw – reminds me of an Al Murray story about Germans only appearing to be stoic because of their language. Something along the lines of Teutonic grammar being so complicated that they’re unable to construct syntactically correct exclamations quickly enough when they bang their thumb with a hammer; and by the time they have, the pain’s gone so they don’t bother!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
Whorf's theories are great, even if generally poorly explained.
Surprisingly though, he is at his best when he is paraphrasing Jung. Jung on his own (with regard to thought and language) I’m not a fan of. But When Whorf quotes him, and paraphrases him, it makes perfect sense!!
The primary thought behind linguistic relativism is (prepares to type it out, so be grateful….) this one;
“One of the clearest characterizations of thinking is that of Carl Jung, who distinguishes four basic psychic functions: sensation, feeling, thinking and intuition. It is evident to a linguist that thinking, as defined by Jung, contains a large linguistic element of a strictly patterned nature, while feeling is mainly non-linguistic, though it may use the vehicle of language, albeit in a way quite different from thinking. Thinking may be said to be language’s own ground, whereas feeling deals in feeling values which language indeed possesses, but which lie rather on its borderland. […] We are thus able to distinguish thinking as the function which is to a large extent linguistic.”
The idea that thinking is linguistic was one I had previously encountered in Orwell (chiefly one of his appendices to 1984), and it helps to explaina lot of stuff like the crux of this debate.
The brain might not have time to stop and consciously work out all the numbers for throwing a massive, modelling-career-destroying right hand, but it still has to work it all out in order to make your muscles do what is necessary. Some do it better than others. Manny Pacquiao does it better than almost anyone, and without a doubt better than he used to, which has a lot to do with why people now say stuff like “he carries his power”… he does, in terms of punching power, but probably not in absolute terms, or even P4P terms.
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
by Chaos100 on Dec 28, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry,I missed out the part that explains how thinking is basically a dialogue with yourself.
But I think that’s pretty much implied, and I can’t be assed to type that out too…. :)
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Thanks for the free lesson!
Please don’t test me on it, though!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
LOL
No homework this week…. :)
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
good back and fort dudes
only just caught up on this link now. Happy New YearFCF, whatever you’re up to tonight…
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
forth*
I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘’Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'’ (Bernard Hopkins)
Cheers Mr Brock
Happy New Year to you, too!
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
Strength is a more accurate element than mass.Mass is not always a factor in measuring power but strength is. Manny is strong but he is not big,therefore he does NOT have MASS.Some heavyweights are big and strong but don’t have power because they are slow.Some are fast but don’t have strength.Neither has exceptional POWER because you need SPEED and STRENGTH to produce KO power.I have studied this and i know what i am talking about.Speed + strength = power.
Power is not the same as punching power.
There is a simple reason for this. Boxers are not hitting stationary objects.
Think of it as two building blocks moving in trajectories that are 90 degrees apart.
If block A (the fist) hits block B (the head, or maybe more suitably, the ‘target’) just before or just after block B moves out of line, ie- catches it a glancing blow, then yes, there will be some evidence of impact. This impact will be more pronounced the faster block A is travelling.
However, if the timing of block A results in a full on collision, so that all of the side of block A catches all of the side of block B cleanly and squarely, then the impact upon block B will be more pronounced than a glancing contact (in terms of change of direction/angle of block B), even if the speed of the full contact is slower than that of the glancing contact.
Pacquiao used to combine mass (the weight or power behind the punch) with massive speed, and therefore was concussive (remember also that the fighters he was facing were lighter, which complicates things somewhat but can only help my point) at lower weights.
Now, Pacquaio punches better, so block A connects with block B with more mass (Manny now weighs more), slightly less speed, but with a much cleaner hit (a full-on contact between building blocks rather than a glancing blow just after block B has passed….) more often.
This gives the impression of “carrying up his power”, but I’d be willing to bet that in absolute terms (ie- PSi {vs stationary object} divided by weight of Manny) he is not punching as hard as he was at 126. He is more rounded, and times shots better, and this means his shots are just as concussive, if not as powerful, P4P….
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
This has got to be
the only boxing site in the world where posters discuss the effects of punches in terms of physics. I love this site.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
Indeed!
It’s awful really, though, isn’t it – deconstructing the mystique of punching power. Feels a bit like talking about the Muppets in terms of the hands up their backsides
"I'm not God - but I am something similar", Roberto Duran
by FCF on Dec 28, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
LOL :)
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
Not really physics.... more like children's lego.... :) At least in my case. :)
Some people are acting like Pacquiao should be expected to have just gone, "Yeah sure, let’s do something I’ve never done before because your dad made some dumbass baseless comment."
(SC, 28/12/09; http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/12/27/1221143/mayweather-pacquiao-update-bob#comments)
I think the point that SC is making is that in boxing the formula is slightly different.
In boxing terms, a fairer formula would be “Speed + Strength + TIMING = Punching power”.
Pacquiao has improved his timing, his accuracy, so scores cleaner hits and better timed ones when they land. Anyone who has boxed will know about punch timing (it allowed Tyson to hit hard than men much physically stronger than him).
Increased timing with less power still gives the impression of sustained power…..
Boxing is the beginning of all sports. I'm willing to bet that the first sport was a man against another man in a fight. (Omar Epps)
Oh totally
I don’t think that F=MA can be applied to punching power except partially. There are other important thigns too. I doubt there is a perfect formula.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
He knocked David Diaz clean out,and almost killed Ricky Hatton!Thats a super feather doing that to a lightweight and a lightwelter.How is that not carrying his power up?He would have stopped Cotto a lot sooner too if MC hadn’t ran like crazy in the last few rounds.
When at the lower weights
his punches carried more power but weren’t as well thrown in terms of accuracy or timing. Now he has less power but far better accuracy for landing on the chin and hitting opponenets effectively as they come in. He’s still powerful but not as powerful. However his new technique and tactics make him appear just as powerful.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 7:11 AM EST up reply actions
Cheers mate
Hope all is well Down Under……Wish i was still there:)……..Maybe one day i’ll go back for good once i’ve had a look around a few other places :D.
Personally...
I see this as just another one of Mayweather’s games. Probably, it is a way to get out of the fight and look good. Worst case scenario (for Mayweather), he gets a significant psychological advantage going into the fight as a result of all the gamesmanship. Best case scenario he both avoids having to fight a live opponent while placing Pacquiao under a cloud that lends legitimacy to Mayweather’s claims that Pacquiao shouldn’t be considered in his league.
I didn’t think the fight was going to happen in the first place and have been very skeptical of all the boxing writers claiming ’it’s on no matter what.’ This dispute has made me skeptical all over again, and I don’t think it will come off unless Pacquiao shows a Haglerian willingness to give Floyd everything he wants to get the fight.
If the fight does come off, we’ll be treated to another boring Mayweather decision. That’s what irritates me the most about Mayweather. He really is very close to as good as he thinks he is, even if he has consistently managed to avoid having to prove it against a live dog, but he continues to ‘protect’ himself out of the chance to earn legitimate greatness.
I don’t expect a man who wouldn’t defend the welterweight championship of the world against a glorified clubfighter or a flawed boxer/puncher undersized for the division solely because they were real welterweights to fight his rival for the best fighter in the world. It defies Mayweather’s psychology and I think all the boxing writers trying to apply logic to the issue are working from a flawed premise.
by The Boxing Geek on Dec 28, 2009 5:36 AM EST reply actions
I agree about Mayweather
not proving himself as being annoying. I have said before that he could have beaten far better people than he has and been recognised as one of the best welters of all time. He has the skills but not the resume and it’s a shame for fans and for him. History will not be kind to Floyd Mayweather’s legacy.
"Honey i forgot to duck" - Jack Dempsey
by Drunken cutman on Dec 28, 2009 7:14 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
