Felix Trinidad vs Carmen Basilio @147

[nyital571]

Who Wins And why?

[Xplosive]

Basillo because he fought in b&w.

[nyital571]

Haha funny explosive.But I think that fight would be great to watch.Basilio was a monster at 147 deafeating future hall of famer johnny Saxton by Ko and winning 2 fights of the year with Tonyt Demarco who was a real good fighter himself.Also He beat Lou Jenkins at that weight and he had a very competitive fight with kid gavilan all the fighters I just named are Hall of famers.Trinidad In my opinion Is one of the 10 or 15 best welterweights of all time with very heavyhands and A warriors heart.We all know about his stellar record at this weight.It be a tough call for me to pick a winner.

[Double L]

i'd pick Tito. too much fire power and too little defense on the part of Basilio.

[CleanYourClock]

Basillio was a big man at 147 ... He also had a granite chin. No-one wanted any piece of him at 147 so he moved up to Middle weight. He twice took Sugar Ray's power at 160 so he would probably handle Tito's as well ...

Picture Vargas but allot better with a cast iron jaw ...

Basilio TKO 11 Tito - Tito would have some moments but he would get stopped ..

[Ugotabe Kidding]

Basillio was a big man at 147 ... He also had a granite chin. No-one wanted any piece of him at 147 so he moved up to Middle weight. He twice took Sugar Ray's power at 160 so he would probably handle Tito's as well ...

Picture Vargas but allot better with a cast iron jaw ...

Basilio TKO 11 Tito - Tito would have some moments but he would get stopped ..

He was big back in his day but these days welterweights are bigger than back then because of developed nutrition which allows them to gain weght faster after the weigh-in.

[Tam Tam]

Trinidad cos he fought in colour and was popular. :rolleyes:

[CleanYourClock]

He was big back in his day but these days welterweights are bigger than back then because of developed nutrition which allows them to gain weght faster after the weigh-in.

Whatever , I would still pick Basilio if they were the same exact size regardless ..

[whiskey]

Trinidad cos he fought in colour and was popular.

:2:

[Erratic]

He was big back in his day but these days welterweights are bigger than back then because of developed nutrition which allows them to gain weght faster after the weigh-in.

More the fact that fighters have more time to rehydrate and some put on like 15-20 pounds in the 30 hours after the weigh-in.

[nyital571]

Both fighters weren't hard to miss but Basilio Was like 5'9-5'10 if I'm not mistaken.So he wasn't small he could have taken tito's best shots in my opinion which is saying alot.Basilio was a very punishing hard puncher at 147 could he have ko'd tito? possibly Would he have I dunno tito has a ton of heart and has suffred knockdowns before only to come back and win.In my Opinion this could be a battle of chins and Basilio had a better chin So i'd lean towards him .

[nyital571]

Boxrec says Basilio is 5'6 and a half which I don't believe Cuz I've met him and he was nearly my height at 80 years old and i'm 5'9 so Maybe before old man shrinkage he was 5'9.

[Inside Whiskey's sister 24/7]

Basilio could take a beating...and Trinidad would give him one...Trinidad by KO 11

[Rubio MHS]

I think the point is that Trinidad couldn't take a beating. His chin gives up, and Basilio wins a unanimous decision or a late stoppage.

[whiskey]

I want to see more complete fights of Basilio before making a pick.

It seems like a natural great fight though, no matter who you see winning. Most pressure fighters that are there to be hit are cannon fodder for Tito, but Basilio was a lot more skilled than guys like Campas and Mayorga.

[nyital571]

Thats a good analysis whiskey.Also basilio was very good with fighters taller then him ie ray robinson and johnny saxton.He had a sneaky short left hook on the inside he used against both if you watched the fights.

[lb 4 lb]

Basillio was a big man at 147 ... He also had a granite chin. No-one wanted any piece of him at 147 so he moved up to Middle weight. He twice took Sugar Ray's power at 160 so he would probably handle Tito's as well ...

Picture Vargas but allot better with a cast iron jaw ...

Basilio TKO 11 Tito - Tito would have some moments but he would get stopped ..
Sugar Ray was never the puncher that Tito was. Tito was closer to Hearns power level than Ray’s.

[Tam Tam]

Sugar Ray was never the puncher that Tito was. Tito was closer to Hearns power level than Ray’s.
I disagree and 100+ KO's from 135 to 175 will back that up.

[Rubio MHS]

Ray was one of the biggest hitters ever; he was an incredible offensive machine.

[CleanYourClock]

Sugar Ray was never the puncher that Tito was. Tito was closer to Hearns power level than Ray’s.

:jester: :jester: Are you taking crack or something ???

Fuckin SSR was a power house. Guy hit like a mac truck ..

[Alabama_Man]

Tito easy. Basilio was tough but if you watch his fights, he has a very open and lacking defense. Watching Fullmer just launching haymakers from leftfield and "landing" on Basilio make me think that Carmen was just too open for Tito.

Tito has only had problems with movers and his only two losses came from defensive wizards (Hopkins and Wright). Tito by butchering in the 8th.

[Rubio MHS]

Yeah, because Tito had an airtight defense, right?

[Alabama_Man]

Yeah, because Tito had an airtight defense, right?

Much better than Basilio. Also Tito's defense was not bad when he was thinking defensive (watch Vargas fight, and Joppy fight). He knew how to slip, and tighten up into a shell when he needed to.

Watch a few fights kiddo, you might learn something. :2:

[CleanYourClock]

Much better than Basilio. Also Tito's defense was not bad when he was thinking defensive (watch Vargas fight, and Joppy fight). He knew how to slip, and tighten up into a shell when he needed to.

Watch a few fights kiddo, you might learn something. :2:

Maybe you should watch more then the Fullmer fight of Basilio ..
Basilio was at the tail end of his career and this fight was at Middle weight ... Basilio retired something like 9 months later ...

[puerto rock]

Sugar Ray was never the puncher that Tito was. Tito was closer to Hearns power level than Ray’s.

Have to disagree here. And I AM a Tito fan. But Robinson hit harder than Trinidad without any doubt. At least for one punch power, Robby definitely hit harder.

That said, I would still take Trinidad over Basilio via late stoppage or a 15 round UD(Assuming they fought 15). Faster, more powerful, and a better technician.

[Alabama_Man]

Maybe you should watch more then the Fullmer fight of Basilio ..
Basilio was at the tail end of his career and this fight was at Middle weight ... Basilio retired something like 9 months later ...

Really? Then maybe you should let me know which fight Basilio "ever" showed a tight defense. What? Can't find one? Great me too :jester: (I have more than half a dozen Basilio fights on VHS through fight trading over 5 years). :2:

What about Basilio's fight against Kid Gavilan? Right in the middle of Basilio's prime. How did Gavilan sweep the last 6 rounds in that fight? You don't know because you've never seen it? Then maybe I'll tell you. Gavilan did it by landing 2-3 punch combos the rest of the fight against Gavilan's wide open defense. Sure Gavilan was quick but he wasn't Sugar Ray Robinson. Now imagine Trinidad sneaking in tight, crisp left hooks on a wide open Gavilan. Start to get the picture?

Kids these days. B)

[nyital571]

How bout try to imagine Trinidad taking Ray Robinsons bombs right on the button for 30 rounds.I don't think he could have but Basilio did.

[Alabama_Man]

How bout try to imagine Trinidad taking Ray Robinsons bombs right on the button for 30 rounds.I don't think he could have but Basilio did.

:rolleyes:

You mean the once retired, nearly 40 year old middleweight version of Ray Robinson that Basilio fought or the 147 pound destroyer Ray Robinson in his 20s? Because Basilio never fought the latter version. Watch some fights kiddo. :2:

[CleanYourClock]

Really? Then maybe you should let me know which fight Basilio "ever" showed a tight defense. What? Can't find one? Great me too :jester: (I have more than half a dozen Basilio fights on VHS through fight trading over 5 years). :2:

What about Basilio's fight against Kid Gavilan? Right in the middle of Basilio's prime. How did Gavilan sweep the last 6 rounds in that fight? You don't know because you've never seen it? Then maybe I'll tell you. Gavilan did it by landing 2-3 punch combos the rest of the fight against Gavilan's wide open defense. Sure Gavilan was quick but he wasn't Sugar Ray Robinson. Now imagine Trinidad sneaking in tight, crisp left hooks on a wide open Gavilan. Start to get the picture?

Kids these days. B)

Wrong Bam , I did see the fight ... Yeah Gavilan boxed him but instead of telling me Gavilan is "no Robinson" you should understand that Tito is "no Gavilan" ..... Tito was outboxed by DLH and DLH isn't even a true boxer style fighter.

[CleanYourClock]

:rolleyes:

You mean the once retired, nearly 40 year old middleweight version of Ray Robinson that Basilio fought or the 147 pound destroyer Ray Robinson in his 20s? Because Basilio never fought the latter version. Watch some fights kiddo. :2:

SRR was about 36 or 37 and he still had his power. Actually he might have even punched harder since he was completely filled out as a Middle weight by this time ... I also believe Basilio was in his 30's at this point.

Nyital571 was talking about power. Maybe Ray slipped a bit in other catagories but I would say his power was the same or maybe even better.
He was filled out totally as a Middle and he did not put on any fat either so don't even go there ...

[CleanYourClock]

How bout try to imagine Trinidad taking Ray Robinsons bombs right on the button for 30 rounds.I don't think he could have but Basilio did.

Winky buckles Tito's legs about 6 times but Alabama thinks SRR wouldn't hurt Tito ...:jester:

IMO Winky could have stopped Tito if he attacked just a little bit more towards the end of the fight ..

Also what troubles me in this matchup is that Basilio Vs Hopkins would be a good fight.
Tito is getting a bit overrated. His best clear victory was over Vargas and that fight was a close one.

[Alabama_Man]

SRR was about 36 or 37 and he still had his power. Actually he might have even punched harder since he was completely filled out as a Middle weight by this time ... I also believe Basilio was in his 30's at this point.

Nyital571 was talking about power. Maybe Ray slipped a bit in other catagories but I would say his power was the same or maybe even better.
He was filled out totally as a Middle and he did not put on any fat either so don't even go there ...

You mean to say that 37 year old Ray Robinson, once retired, inactive for almost 4 years previously, was a better fighter than 147 pound 20+ year old Robinson?

:rollllling: :jester:

Wow you kids really can blind yourselves when you want to save a losing situation. Oh well, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. :2:

[Alabama_Man]

Winky buckles Tito's legs about 6 times but Alabama thinks SRR wouldn't hurt Tito ...:jester:

IMO Winky could have stopped Tito if he attacked just a little bit more towards the end of the fight ..

Also what troubles me in this matchup is that Basilio Vs Hopkins would be a good fight.
Tito is getting a bit overrated. His best clear victory was over Vargas and that fight was a close one.

When did I say that SRR couldn't hurt Tito? I challenge you to look through the 3 pages of post and find where I said SRR couldn't hurt Tito. :nixweiss:

Is that your game, when you have no argument, you just blindly make one up to strengthen your position? :loveballs:

The fact is the SRR that Basilio fought was way out of his prime and would go on to lose 13 more fights (more than 2/3 of his losses over his career). Only a deluded moron would think SRR had "more power" or was even close to his pre-retirement prime in 1958.

You're also trying to make the comparison that since Basilio went life and death with old man Robinson, and in your opinion, Tito can't beat Robinson, that Basilio would beat Tito. That's not how boxing has ever worked. Styles make fights buddy, and Tito has only ever had problems with defensive masters (Winky, Hopkins), and destroyed straight up, open defense sluggers aka Carmen Basilio.

Additionally, the Tito who fought Winky was 2 divisions and 6 years out of his prime as well. If you read the title of this thread (I doubt it), it says Felix Trinidad vs Carmen Basilio at 147. Tito was 35-0(29) at 147 and is generally ranked Top 20 all-time on any list you can find at welterweight which has been a stacked weight division through the decades. Basilio went life and death with an old, slow, Robinson. Tito would stop this guy in 8 at 147. B)

[CleanYourClock]

You mean to say that 37 year old Ray Robinson, once retired, inactive for almost 4 years previously, was a better fighter than 147 pound 20+ year old Robinson?

:rollllling: :jester:

Wow you kids really can blind yourselves when you want to save a losing situation. Oh well, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. :2:

No , read the posts . I said his power was the same . That is what we are talking about ...

[CleanYourClock]

When did I say that SRR couldn't hurt Tito? I challenge you to look through the 3 pages of post and find where I said SRR couldn't hurt Tito. :nixweiss:

Is that your game, when you have no argument, you just blindly make one up to strengthen your position? :loveballs:

The fact is the SRR that Basilio fought was way out of his prime and would go on to lose 13 more fights (more than 2/3 of his losses over his career). Only a deluded moron would think SRR had "more power" or was even close to his pre-retirement prime in 1958.

You're also trying to make the comparison that since Basilio went life and death with old man Robinson, and in your opinion, Tito can't beat Robinson, that Basilio would beat Tito. That's not how boxing has ever worked. Styles make fights buddy, and Tito has only ever had problems with defensive masters (Winky, Hopkins), and destroyed straight up, open defense sluggers aka Carmen Basilio.

Additionally, the Tito who fought Winky was 2 divisions and 6 years out of his prime as well. If you read the title of this thread (I doubt it), it says Felix Trinidad vs Carmen Basilio at 147. Tito was 35-0(29) at 147 and is generally ranked Top 20 all-time on any list you can find at welterweight which has been a stacked weight division through the decades. Basilio went life and death with an old, slow, Robinson. Tito would stop this guy in 8 at 147. B)

1st bold - You reference it on page 2 .

2nd bold - Isn't common knowledge that power is the last to go on a fighter ?
Don't try to convince everyone that because Ray was like 36 or 37 that all his power had faded :jester:

3rd bold - First off Winky is the same age and also moved up from 154 - AFTER Tito did .. Winky was no more removed from his prime then Tito was.
Also you must have not seen the Basilio / Robinson fight. SRR was not slow and old so don't even go there. Also Basilio was a Welter fighting at Middle and was ALLOT smaller then Robinson ..

Are you some sort of Boxrec ranger ?? Or does all this common sense just not click ?

[Alabama_Man]

Please post where I said SRR couldn't hurt Tito. Where is this ghost "reference" you speak of?


No , read the posts . I said his power was the same . That is what we are talking about ...

Even if that was your point, you're still wrong. :loveballs:

After Robinson came back from retirement his record was 62 - 16, with a paltry 22 stoppages. He has a 35% knockout percentage in his comeback years. Tell me how that indicates he "had more or the same power"?? Or did fighters like Joey Archer and Paul Pender just have superhuman chins? :jester: :rollllling:

Pre-retirement, Ray's record was 111-3(86). He had a 77% knockout percentage, more than double what it was during his comeback.

The fact that you can even seriously consider 37 year old Ray Robinson comparable to 25 year old, 147 pound Robinson shows either: A) The kind of delusion you're willing to accept to see your point across or B) Pure idiocy. Take your pick.

The statistics (aka facts) seem to disagree with your out-of-your-ass opinion. Please do some research before you start picking nuggets out of your ass and presenting them as "boxing knowledge". B)

As for Tito, Tito was coming off a 2 year layoff. His fighting style was never defensive during his career and he had considerable more wear and tear on his body by 2005. Tito was not in his prime by any stretch of the imagination in 2005.

[Rubio MHS]

Your understanding of the subject is weak, Alabama. When Robinson was 37, he was just as powerful as he was at welterweight, punch-for-punch. Robinson was able to compete 12 years past his prime because he did have such tremendous power. I seriously doubt that Trinidad could last 15 or even 12 rounds with a 37-year-old Robinson.

[CleanYourClock]

Please post where I said SRR couldn't hurt Tito. Where is this ghost "reference" you speak of?



Even if that was your point, you're still wrong. :loveballs:

After Robinson came back from retirement his record was 62 - 16, with a paltry 22 stoppages. He has a 35% knockout percentage in his comeback years. Tell me how that indicates he "had more or the same power"?? Or did fighters like Joey Archer and Paul Pender just have superhuman chins? :jester: :rollllling:

Pre-retirement, Ray's record was 111-3(86). He had a 77% knockout percentage, more than double what it was during his comeback.

The fact that you can even seriously consider 37 year old Ray Robinson comparable to 25 year old, 147 pound Robinson shows either: A) The kind of delusion you're willing to accept to see your point across or B) Pure idiocy. Take your pick.

The statistics (aka facts) seem to disagree with your out-of-your-ass opinion. Please do some research before you start picking nuggets out of your ass and presenting them as "boxing knowledge". B)

As for Tito, Tito was coming off a 2 year layoff. His fighting style was never defensive during his career and he had considerable more wear and tear on his body by 2005. Tito was not in his prime by any stretch of the imagination in 2005.

So to break down your post , you are telling us that a 147lb SRR hit harder then a 160lb SRR ( body fat percentage the same )
So the SAME person with an additional 13 pounds of muscle on their body some how can't hit as hard ...:rolleyes:

You make no sense ...

Also if you are trying to make some sort of argument that Tito was shot or more shot then Winky when they fought , you have your head up your ass .
Only a tito nuthugger would say such a thing ...

[CleanYourClock]

Your understanding of the subject is weak, Alabama. When Robinson was 37, he was just as powerful as he was at welterweight, punch-for-punch. Robinson was able to compete 12 years past his prime because he did have such tremendous power. I seriously doubt that Trinidad could last 15 or even 12 rounds with a 37-year-old Robinson.

Bottom line is that Alabama is saying that Tito would chop down Basilio and stop him even when SRR couldn't do it in two 15 round fights ...

So in other words he is really saying that Tito is better then the SRR that fought Basilio ...
I have seen those fights and I have seen Trinidad. The SRR that fought Basilio could hit harder , was faster , tremdous stamina , and 3 times as skilled of any version of Trinidad ... If Trinidad was Basilio in those fights SRR would stop him in 8 rounds maybe sooner if he catches him right..

Alabama has his head up his ass ...

[Alabama_Man]

I notice CleanYourCawk and Rufio haven't addressed the pure statistics that show that SRR was half the fighter he was after his first retirement. 37 year old SRR got schooled by light hitting Paul Pender x2, and was floored by Joey Archer (another nobody). Not to mention SRR only came back to boxing because of financial difficulties, his heart wasn't in it, this guy wanted to stop fighting in 1952. That's an immeasurable loss. But the fact still stands, SRR only had a 35% KO percentage after his first retirement and you guys can't come up with an answer why.

You know why you haven't addressed it? Because you can't refute it. It this were an academic debate you guys would've been shuffled off the stage while I was waving a small gold trophy in your faces. :jester: :rollllling:

Facts > Opinion of two nobodies.

Look like you two fail at the sport of boxing and life. B)

P.S - You can tell CleanYourCawk and his boyfriend Rufio haven't taken a basic Newtonian physics class. The power of a punch can be calculated by the formula KE = 1/2mv^2 (formula for kinetic energy).

If you double your mass, you double your energy. If you double your velocity(speed with direction or a vector), you quad your energy. Obviously speed has a greater effect on overall power than mass so "13 pounds of pure muscle" wouldn't compensate for the loss of speed a 37 year old SRR would've been experiencing.

Get out of here kids, school is out. B)

[Alabama_Man]

Where did CleanYourCawk and Rufio go? Oh nevermind, schooled. B)

[Donnybrook]

1st bold - You reference it on page 2 .

2nd bold - Isn't common knowledge that power is the last to go on a fighter ?
Don't try to convince everyone that because Ray was like 36 or 37 that all his power had faded :jester:

3rd bold - First off Winky is the same age and also moved up from 154 - AFTER Tito did .. Winky was no more removed from his prime then Tito was.
Also you must have not seen the Basilio / Robinson fight. SRR was not slow and old so don't even go there. Also Basilio was a Welter fighting at Middle and was ALLOT smaller then Robinson ..

Are you some sort of Boxrec ranger ?? Or does all this common sense just not click ?

Bro - I think it's rather obvious that Robinson at 160 didn't carry the same power as he did at 147 - both because he was in against bigger men as well as because he had shown decline in his reflexes and speed - which are two of the primary reasons why he was so devastating at 147 (and still served him well, but just to a much lesser extent). His punches weren't nearly as crisp or sharp, nor was he as aggressive either.

The other point is that I'd dispute that Wright and Trinidad were at the same point in terms of their closeness to prime, given all of Trinidad's layoff/inactivity (he had 12 rounds from 9/01 - 05) - and btw, Trinidad was actually younger age-wise when they fought.

Wright had been fighting consistently, and had been a CAREER 154 lber - and a very big one at that (something I always maintained). Trinidad went from 147 to 160 in TWO years. Then was very inactive for almost 4 before facing Winky.

Does Wright beat him anyway if they had faced off when Trinidad was still very active? Very probable. But I think it would have been a better/closer fight at least.

Peace.

[CleanYourClock]

I notice CleanYourCawk and Rufio haven't addressed the pure statistics that show that SRR was half the fighter he was after his first retirement. 37 year old SRR got schooled by light hitting Paul Pender x2, and was floored by Joey Archer (another nobody). Not to mention SRR only came back to boxing because of financial difficulties, his heart wasn't in it, this guy wanted to stop fighting in 1952. That's an immeasurable loss. But the fact still stands, SRR only had a 35% KO percentage after his first retirement and you guys can't come up with an answer why.

You know why you haven't addressed it? Because you can't refute it. It this were an academic debate you guys would've been shuffled off the stage while I was waving a small gold trophy in your faces. :jester: :rollllling:

Facts > Opinion of two nobodies.

Look like you two fail at the sport of boxing and life. B)

P.S - You can tell CleanYourCawk and his boyfriend Rufio haven't taken a basic Newtonian physics class. The power of a punch can be calculated by the formula KE = 1/2mv^2 (formula for kinetic energy).

If you double your mass, you double your energy. If you double your velocity(speed with direction or a vector), you quad your energy. Obviously speed has a greater effect on overall power than mass so "13 pounds of pure muscle" wouldn't compensate for the loss of speed a 37 year old SRR would've been experiencing.

Get out of here kids, school is out. B)

I can refute it right now. I just never thought you were that dumb not to see or think of it yourself.
The reason why he was at 75% early on compared to your quote of 35% percent is simply explained by the pure fact that early on he had allot of fights with more opportunity . He fought a larger number of bums period ..

Are you slow in the head or something that you couldn't figure this out for yourself ??:jester:

Also even if you could come back to refute this , it doesn't mean a damm thing. I was strickly talking power and your stupid ass is still not understanding this ... Do we have to hire a fucking sky writer for you to spell it out over your home town ?

What a joke ...:jester:

[CleanYourClock]

Bro - I think it's rather obvious that Robinson at 160 didn't carry the same power as he did at 147 - both because he was in against bigger men as well as because he had shown decline in his reflexes and speed - which are two of the primary reasons why he was so devastating at 147 (and still served him well, but just to a much lesser extent). His punches weren't nearly as crisp or sharp, nor was he as aggressive either.

The other point is that I'd dispute that Wright and Trinidad were at the same point in terms of their closeness to prime, given all of Trinidad's layoff/inactivity (he had 12 rounds from 9/01 - 05) - and btw, Trinidad was actually younger age-wise when they fought.

Wright had been fighting consistently, and had been a CAREER 154 lber - and a very big one at that (something I always maintained). Trinidad went from 147 to 160 in TWO years. Then was very inactive for almost 4 before facing Winky.

Does Wright beat him anyway if they had faced off when Trinidad was still very active? Very probable. But I think it would have been a better/closer fight at least.

Peace.

Don't miss understand. I'm not saying his power was more effective at 160 but IMO if you lined up the 147 version of SRR and the 160 Version of SRR and made them both punch a machine that determines the punch pressure , my money is on the 160 version of SRR if I had to bet... I'd be certain that the 160 version would not punch easier or less than the 147 version.. Like I said earlier , he might have slipped in other areas but I DOUBT he started punching EASIER just because he was 36 or 37 years old. IMO thats ridiculous to even debate.

So the bottom line Alabama still doesn't understand is that SRR at 147 could not punch harder then SRR at 160 ....
He is an idiot for even suggesting this ...

C'mon Alabama , show us all how SRR could punch harder at 147 then he could at 160 ... And no I don't mean relative effectiveness at each weight , I mean real punch power ...
So don't bother with your percentages since they are meaningless ...
Relative Percentage is not what fighters like Basilio felt on their jaw when SRR landed a punch ...

[Rubio MHS]

I notice CleanYourCawk and Rufio haven't addressed the pure statistics that show that SRR was half the fighter he was after his first retirement. 37 year old SRR got schooled by light hitting Paul Pender x2, and was floored by Joey Archer (another nobody).At age 37, he was still much better than Trinidad. And the Pender and Archer fights took place years after the Basilio fight. The Archer fight took place when Ray was 44! He was a nobody? Try the #8 middleweight contender at the end of 1962, the #2 middleweight contender at the end of 1963, the #1 contender at the end of 1964, the #2 contender at the end of 1965, and the #8 contender at the end of 1966. He beat all those good fighters, like Denny Moyer, Rubin "Hurricaine" Carter, Dick Tiger, Holly Mimms and Don Fullmer. Half of those guys were better than Trinidad at 160.

And Pender was light-hitting? He had a few hand problems, but after he got out of the Marines, his hands were much better, and he was knocking people around all the time. Sure, he didn't have one-punch power, but he was so active and so precise that he scored knockdowns in most of his fights. Further, both of those fights were very close, especially the first one. And again, Trinidad was nowhere near as good as the Pender of 1960.

[Alabama_Man]

Trinidad was nowhere near as good as the Pender of 1960.

:jester: :rollllling: :rollllling:

Instantly quotable!

All the proof I need to show that your brain was replaced with a piece of fruit (probably a lemon).

[Alabama_Man]

I lost!


- He had a higher knockout percentage at 147 because he fought bums? Why is Joey Archer and Paul Pender better than Randy Turpin, Kid Gavilan(prime), and Jack Lamotta(prime) ???
- Do you even know what Kinetic Energy is? Have you taken a college class in your entire life?

Donnybrook already owned you, and I schooled you and all you have left are insults and curse words.

But the final reason why CleanYourCawk and his boyfriend Rufio lose is because:

Isaac Newton > CleanYourCawk and Rufio anyday of the week. B)

That's that. :neener: B)

[Rubio MHS]

Trinidad has a 2-2 record at 160, and he was owned by everyone he faced who had a pulse. Only an idiot would rank him above a two-time champion like Paul Pender, who beat Basilio, Robinson and Downs. Pender's only loss in his prime was against Downs, and not only was Pender near the end of his career, but he beat Downs two times out of three.

Trinidad was nothing at 160. Are you some sort of nuthugger or something? Puerto Rican? I pretty much knew you were a Boxrec ranger after you said that Joey Archer was a no one.

[Alabama_Man]

Trinidad has a 2-2 record at 160, and he was owned by everyone he faced who had a pulse. Only an idiot would rank him above a two-time champion like Paul Pender, who beat Basilio, Robinson and Downs. Pender's only loss in his prime was against Downs, and not only was Pender near the end of his career, but he beat Downs two times out of three.

Trinidad was nothing at 160. Are you some sort of nuthugger or something? Puerto Rican? I pretty much knew you were a Boxrec ranger after you said that Joey Archer was a no one.
Wow bringing up race and other assorted insults. Rufio the idiot has arrived.

Ignoring the Puerto Rican comment (as if only Puerto Ricans can like Felix Trinidad) and also the fact that we're talking about Tito @147 (35-0 record), is "boxrec" ranger really the best you could come up with? That's the best insult you could come up with? Remind me to send you a joke book next Christmas. B)

The fact is Paul Pender was beaten "in his prime" by people like Norman Hayes, and Joe Rindone. Both of these guys never held a world title, or even fought for one. So this "Paul Pender is the best thing since sliced bread" slant is only making you look sillier. :jester:

But hey, if you jump on the "Joe Rindone was better at 160 than Bernard Hopkins" bandwagon, maybe we can forget about how stupid you are and just think you're retarded. :rollllling: B)

[Rubio MHS]

Those fights were when Pender was still having hand problems. His prime took place after he left the Marines. I told you before. And I said, "again, Trinidad was nowhere near as good as the Pender of 1960." I meant that in an absolute sense, not any pound-for-pound nonsense.

[Alabama_Man]

Those fights were when Pender was still having hand problems. His prime took place after he left the Marines. I told you before. And I said, "again, Trinidad was nowhere near as good as the Pender of 1960." I meant that in an absolute sense, not any pound-for-pound nonsense.

Umm, Paul Pender fought with brittle hands his whole career. I read an article in the Miami Herald shortly after Pender died where he admitted to having over a dozen surgeries throughout his career. You act as if his hand problems suddenly disappeared "after he left the marines". The fact is he was beaten by guys who weren't world class and his biggest claim to fame is beating 39 year old SRR by Split decision(x2). It's the equivalent of Julio Gonzales beating a 39 year old RJJ, sure it would be an okay victory but what does it really mean when a fighter is clearly past his prime and faded?:nixweiss:

Trinidad in his prime never lost to a 34-14 fighter, and was only beaten by the best in his division (2 divisions past his prime and 2 years out of retirement). The thing you and CleanYourCawk don't seem to notice is that the 147 pound Trinidad was 35-0 (29), and wasn't the same guy who fought Winky.

But hey, you can jump on the "Norman Hayes was better than Oscar Dela Hoya at 160" bandwagon and then accuse me of being "African American" for not agreeing. :loveballs:

[CleanYourClock]

- He had a higher knockout percentage at 147 because he fought bums? Why is Joey Archer and Paul Pender better than Randy Turpin, Kid Gavilan(prime), and Jack Lamotta(prime) ???
- Do you even know what Kinetic Energy is? Have you taken a college class in your entire life?

Donnybrook already owned you, and I schooled you and all you have left are insults and curse words.

But the final reason why CleanYourCawk and his boyfriend Rufio lose is because:

Isaac Newton > CleanYourCawk and Rufio anyday of the week. B)

That's that. :neener: B)

Jake LaMotta & Randy Turpin were at 160 you fool .. Why would you include them with the Welter fight against Gavilan ? Dumbass . You can't even get your facts straight ...
Also LaMotta was NEVER ko'd and Turpin got KO'd in the rematch ..

:jester: :jester: Your a Joke !

So far you have been owned about 3 times in this thread ...
You have no argument and are replying simply just to try and get the last word in ....
You are starting to remind me of I and I ...

You got owned and the more you post , the more foolish you look ..

[CleanYourClock]

Umm, Paul Pender fought with brittle hands his whole career. I read an article in the Miami Herald shortly after Pender died where he admitted to having over a dozen surgeries throughout his career. You act as if his hand problems suddenly disappeared "after he left the marines". The fact is he was beaten by guys who weren't world class and his biggest claim to fame is beating 39 year old SRR by Split decision(x2). It's the equivalent of Julio Gonzales beating a 39 year old RJJ, sure it would be an okay victory but what does it really mean when a fighter is clearly past his prime and faded?:nixweiss:

Trinidad in his prime never lost to a 34-14 fighter, and was only beaten by the best in his division (2 divisions past his prime and 2 years out of retirement). The thing you and CleanYourCawk don't seem to notice is that the 147 pound Trinidad was 35-0 (29), and wasn't the same guy who fought Winky.

But hey, you can jump on the "Norman Hayes was better than Oscar Dela Hoya at 160" bandwagon and then accuse me of being "African American" for not agreeing. :loveballs:

You don't have a very good attention span . No-one is saying SRR wasn't past his prime later in his career at 160 . Of course he was. Do you not understand English ?

Point is at 36 / 37 yeras old his power was not gone and at a completely filled out Middle weight of 160 , he probably hit as hard or harder then he did at Welter. He didn't hit "easier" as you claim ! Common fucking sense ...
Why do you continue to deny this ?

You have been owned several times here. Now you are dismissed .

[Alabama_Man]

Jake LaMotta & Randy Turpin were at 160 you fool .. Why would you include them with the Welter fight against Gavilan ? Dumbass . You can't even get your facts straight ...
Also LaMotta was NEVER ko'd and Turpin got KO'd in the rematch ..

:jester: :jester: Your a Joke !

So far you have been owned about 3 times in this thread ...
You have no argument and are replying simply just to try and get the last word in ....
You are starting to remind me of I and I ...

You got owned and the more you post , the more foolish you look ..


I'm beginning to believe you've never even touched a mathematical equation before. B)
Umm Turpin and Gavilan were Pre-retirement which was my entire point. And how exactly did I get owned? Archer was a post-retirement opponent. :loveballs:

Donnybrook and I both proved that Robinson was faded at 160 (post-retirement), had a 35% knockout percentage and furthermore, basic newtonian physics proves that Ray Robinson's loss of speed meant his punches were hitting with less overall energy.

CleanYourCawk, unless you can disprove KE = 1/2mv^2, then you really don't have a point.

I'm not posting to "get the last post in", that's probably something that has only crossed your feeble mind.

All I ask is:

- Disprove that SRR loss of speed is somehow countered by the fact he gained bodyweight (even though he was 6-7 years out of his prime).

- Why Joey Archer and Paul Pender (post-retirement) are better opponents than Gavilan, Turpin, and Jake Lamotta (pre-retirement).

But please continue with your exagerrated claims of "owned", and "I got you now", I'm sure that'll prove somehow that you know the "physics" of a punch. :neener:

[Alabama_Man]

Just to sum up the debate thus far for people reading: B)

Key points presented by each person -

Rufio PMS:
- The SRR that Basilio fought (in 1957 and 1958) was basically the same fighter as the Prime SRR (1947-1952).

- Near 40 year old Robinson had the same power as prime Robinson "punch for punch

- Paul Pender was better than Felix Trinidad even though Pender was beaten by a 34-14 fighter in his prime. :rollllling:

- Alabama Man must be Puerto Rican because he likes Felix Trinidad :loveballs:

CleanYourCawk:
- Near 40 year old Ray Robinson had more power than 25 year old Ray Robinson :loveballs:

- Ray Robinson, after a 4 year stint of inactivity, and 10+ years out of his prime was basically the same fighter as he was when he was 25 "except he slipped a little in other categories"

- Robinson only fought bums "pre 1952 retirement (even though he fought Turpin, Gavilan, Jake Lamotta pre-retirement) that's why his KO percentage is double (over his comeback years)

- Claimed that Alabama Man said "SRR can't hurt Tito", obvious ghost reference to something never said in the thread, only in Cawk's imagination (reader's can just check the thread and find this was never said).

DonnyBrook
- SRR wasn't carrying nearly as much power in his late 30s because of his loss of reflexes and speed (backed by the Kinetic Energy formula of newtonian physics). His punches weren't as crisp or as numerous.

- Trinidad was out of his prime by the time he faced Winky Wright (2 year retirement, and 2 divisions over his fighting weight prime) so this isn't the same Tito as 147 Prime Tito.

Alabama Man:
- Tito Trinidad at 147 was 35-0(29). He is ranked on most all-time list in the top 20 at 147.

- He would beat Basilio based on styles, not on "who beat who" mathematics which are notoriously inaccurate. Basilio was a wide open swarmer, who was soundly outclassed by an older Gavilan and Fullmer based on Basilio blocking punches with his mug. Tito has only had problems with defensive wizards (Winky, Hopkins) and has destroyed swarmers (Vargas, Mayorga, Thiam).

- Basilio never fought a prime Robinson, he fought a near 40 year old faded version.

- SRR at nearly 40 wasn't the same fighter as he was when he was 25. His speed, power, and stamina were all diminished by his late 30s. He had been inactive for nearly 4 years before coming back to the sport for financial reasons and took fights to pay bills not because he wanted to keep boxing.

- Because of SRR loss of speed, the basic formula for kinetic energy (KE = 1/2mv^2) clearly shows that the velocity variable (a vector) makes it a very likely scenario that SRR was punching with much less overall energy in his late 30s and early 40s. Not only that but his accuracy would've been adversely affected too.

- Basic statistics: Pre-retirement, Ray's record was 111-3(86). He had a 77% knockout percentage, more than double what it was during his comeback.
After Robinson came back from retirement his record was 62 - 16, with a paltry 22 stoppages. He has a 35% knockout percentage in his comeback years. It's obvious he's not the same fighter during his comeback (which Rufio PMS and CleanYourCawk seem to claim).

I just wanted people to marvel over the academic genius that is Rufio and his boyfriend CleanYourCawk. B)

[CleanYourClock]

I'm beginning to believe you've never even touched a mathematical equation before. B)
Umm Turpin and Gavilan were Pre-retirement which was my entire point. And how exactly did I get owned? Archer was a post-retirement opponent. :loveballs:

Donnybrook and I both proved that Robinson was faded at 160 (post-retirement), had a 35% knockout percentage and furthermore, basic newtonian physics proves that Ray Robinson's loss of speed meant his punches were hitting with less overall energy.

CleanYourCawk, unless you can disprove KE = 1/2mv^2, then you really don't have a point.

I'm not posting to "get the last post in", that's probably something that has only crossed your feeble mind.

All I ask is:

- Disprove that SRR loss of speed is somehow countered by the fact he gained bodyweight (even though he was 6-7 years out of his prime).

- Why Joey Archer and Paul Pender (post-retirement) are better opponents than Gavilan, Turpin, and Jake Lamotta (pre-retirement).

But please continue with your exagerrated claims of "owned", and "I got you now", I'm sure that'll prove somehow that you know the "physics" of a punch. :neener:

First of all , Don't mention Donnybrook. He did not and does not have your back in this thread. He wouldn't embarrass himself like that. Also if you read back , you will see that him and I never disagreed.

Second , why do you continue to bring up how Robinson was past it ?
We already know this and I'm in agreement with this. :nixweiss:

Third , Why do you continue to bring up this 35% percent KO ratio ?
It's meaningless on how hard he really punched. You neglect the fact that Robinson fought about 70 bums in with the higher 75% ratio ...
You make no sense ... Go look at all the bums he KO'd to get that high percentage ...

Fourth , How much slower do you think he was at the time he fought Basilio ?
Bro , wasn't slow by any means . Did you not see the fights ? He was still faster then any version of Trinidad . Also he was a solid 160 with no fat on his body ...

Fifth , why do you continure to say that Ray was retired for 5 years. It was 2 1/2 years ...

Sixth , I'm in my mid 30's and I know for a fact I can hit harder now then in my mid 20's. Other things might not be as good but my power is even better.

To Say Robinson hit "easier" or "less" at 160 then he did at 147 even though he was more muscular at 160 - just because he was 36 years old is ridiculous.
Only an ass backwards person would say that type of shit ..
Also to say a 147 version of Trinidad hit harder then the 160 version of Robinson is fucking retarded ...

OWNED ONCE AGAIN !!

[Alabama_Man]

First of all , Don't mention Donnybrook. He did not and does not have your back in this thread. He wouldn't embarrass himself like that. Also if you read back , you will see that him and I never disagreed.

He made those points himself, I didn't tell him to type those points out.
Donnybrook agrees with most of the points I've made, this isn't about "getting someone's back" it's just logic over emotion. You lose, we win. B)



Second ,
I'm in agreement with this. :nixweiss:

I'm glad you agree with your master, it's been a long time coming.



Third
It's meaningless on how hard he really punched.


Really, it's meaningless? Because punching power suddenly doesn't equate into a fighters skills because you said so? :loveballs:



FourthHow much slower do you think he was at the time he fought Basilio ?
Also he was a solid 160 with no fat on his body ...


I doubt you were around to test how good SRR health was as a near 40 year old boxer. Based on conjecture, not fact. :loveballs:



Sixth , I'm in my mid 30's and I know for a fact I can hit harder now then in my mid 20's. Other things might not be as good but my power is even better.


OWNED ONCE AGAIN !!

:jester: :rollllling:

Damn I can't stop laughing at this little gem. A 35 year old internet keyboard warrior talking about his increased "punching power". :loveballs:

I don't know what's funnier: A 35 year old guy on the internet talking about his "punching" power or a 35 year old guy on the internet using the words "OWNED" in bright red font. :rollllling:

[CleanYourClock]

He made those points himself, I didn't tell him to type those points out.
Donnybrook agrees with most of the points I've made, this isn't about "getting someone's back" it's just logic over emotion. You lose, we win. B)


I'm glad you agree with your master, it's been a long time coming.



Really, it's meaningless? Because punching power suddenly doesn't equate into a fighters skills because you said so? :loveballs:



I doubt you were around to test how good SRR health was as a near 40 year old boxer. Based on conjecture, not fact. :loveballs:
Fifth , why do you continure to say that Ray was retired for 5 years. It was 2 1/2 years ...



:jester: :rollllling:

Damn I can't stop laughing at this little gem. A 35 year old internet keyboard warrior talking about his increased "punching power".

I don't know what's funnier: A 35 year old talking about his "punching" power or a 35 year old guy on the internet using the words "OWNED" in bright red font.

Yeah , great comeback ...:rolleyes:

By the way , thanks for helping me get through my work day ...
It's nice to have something to do while I'm eating lunch ..

Your last reply is just something else the board can get a good laugh at.
It's sad to see someone try to turn things around for themselves by saying someone in their 30's shouldn't use the word owned ...:jester:

[StingerKarl]

Two of my favorites.
When Tito was young he reminded me a lot of Robby with the destructive combinations that he would cut loose with.
As he got older, Tito became more of a clubber than a crisp hit man, and when Ray got older he relied more on his shot selection and power as the years of the living the high life took their tool on the brilliant fighting machine.
I wish Tito would have retired for good after the Mayorga KO and his place in history would have been higher.
Robby beat some very strong and authentically hard men like you guys mentioned in the thread in Turpin, Fullmer, and Jake and I think hit harder just to keep these guys off of him.
I don't think Tito could have held them off for over a few rounds, and the Fullmer KO was the most destructive one shot knockout I have ever seen.
I would say Ray hit harder between the two.
But as great as both of them were at 147, I don't think either could have taken Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles (my pick as the best welter) on his best day.

[CleanYourClock]

Two of my favorites.
When Tito was young he reminded me a lot of Robby with the destructive combinations that he would cut loose with.
As he got older, Tito became more of a clubber than a crisp hit man, and when Ray got older he relied more on his shot selection and power as the years of the living the high life took their tool on the brilliant fighting machine.
I wish Tito would have retired for good after the Mayorga KO and his place in history would have been higher.
Robby beat some very strong and authentically hard men like you guys mentioned in the thread in Turpin, Fullmer, and Jake and I think hit harder just to keep these guys off of him.
I don't think Tito could have held them off for over a few rounds, and the Fullmer KO was the most destructive one shot knockout I have ever seen.
I would say Ray hit harder between the two.
But as great as both of them were at 147, I don't think either could have taken Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles (my pick as the best welter) on his best day.

Thank You Karl

Alabama just doesn't understand. No-one is taking away from Tito's power.
I seen Basilio/Robinson. Ray caught Basilio flush god knows how many times with some MAJOR bombs and combinations .. Basilio kept coming.
Basilio was a 147 Welter fighting at Middle. He was only 153 , approximately the same as he would weigh stepping into the ring for a Welter weight fight.

He took 160 pound Ray Robinsons best shots for 30 rounds. To say that a 147 pound Welter weight Tito would stop Basilio with his power because Ray was 36 or 37 years old is ridiculous ... Not to mention Basilio was never KO'd and only stopped by Fullmer ...

So Really in Alabamas mind Tito at 147 would have to be levels above Robinson at 160 in terms of power in order for his 8th round Basilio stoppage or KO be a reality. Sugar Ray Robinson at Middle weight lands on his jaw for two 15 round fights and he never gets hurt but Basilio at the same exact size for a Tito fight is going to get stopped by 147 Welter weight Tito in the 8th ... Hmmm , I don't think so ...
I just don't see this - I can't even see 147 pound Welter weight Trinidad hitting equally as hard as a 160 pound Middle weight Robinson ...

[Rubio MHS]

Donnybrook and I both proved that Robinson was faded at 160 (post-retirement), had a 35% knockout percentage and furthermore, basic newtonian physics proves that Ray Robinson's loss of speed meant his punches were hitting with less overall energy.

CleanYourCawk, unless you can disprove KE = 1/2mv^2, then you really don't have a point. Your equation is faulty, because you're assuming mass is constant, which it isn't. He weighed considerably more than he did in his prime. Further, when Robinson was older, he planted his feet more, thus increasing the amount of power in his punches. You're using an overly simple equation to explain a complex situation, which shows that you have a very basic understanding of Newtonian physics.

[Alabama_Man]

Your equation is faulty, because you're assuming mass is constant, which it isn't. He weighed considerably more than he did in his prime. Further, when Robinson was older, he planted his feet more, thus increasing the amount of power in his punches. You're using an overly simple equation to explain a complex situation, which shows that you have a very basic understanding of Newtonian physics.

Actually, it doesn't matter if he "had considerably mass than in his prime", the fact that velocity is squared every iteration would negate any gain in weight Robinson might have had. Not only do you not understand the equation, you don't seem to understand basic algebra which is scary. Did you graduate high school? I'm not even trying to be insulting, I really question if you have a basic high school education to not understand that velocity squared would make any increase in mass almost moot in that particular equation. B)

As for CleanYourCawk....

:rollllling: :rollllling: :jester:

I can't stop laughing everytime I read "I'm in my mid 30's and I know for a fact I can hit harder now then in my mid 20's. Other things might not be as good but my power is even better."

Seriously, that was a good joke for such an old fart. :2:

[Rubio MHS]

Again, that equation is way too simple to explain a complicated situation. A jab is usually faster than a left hook, right? Which one hits harder? With a left hook, you're able to swing your body more into the fight. You simply can't explain the complex physics of boxing with something you learned in 8th-grade science class. It's simply stupid to try.

[CleanYourClock]

Actually, it doesn't matter if he "had considerably mass than in his prime", the fact that velocity is squared every iteration would negate any gain in weight Robinson might have had. Not only do you not understand the equation, you don't seem to understand basic algebra which is scary. Did you graduate high school? I'm not even trying to be insulting, I really question if you have a basic high school education to not understand that velocity squared would make any increase in mass almost moot in that particular equation. B)

As for CleanYourCawk....

:rollllling: :rollllling: :jester:

I can't stop laughing everytime I read "I'm in my mid 30's and I know for a fact I can hit harder now then in my mid 20's. Other things might not be as good but my power is even better."

Seriously, that was a good joke for such an old fart. :2:

So far you have proven to be the biggest joke in this section.

Understand something right now - you can't laugh at anyone. You are not on that level.
People laugh at you ....

Now are you trying to tell me I "can't" hit harder now then when say I was 25 ??
If so you have just proven to the board how much of a fucking STUPID ass you really are ...

Tell me what is so fucking funny about how someone can bang harder in their 30's rather then their 20's ....
C'mon lets hear it you stupid muther fucker. Tell the board so we can all laugh at your stupid ass - AGAIN ...

HOW OLD ARE YOU ????

You are either a young dumb muther fucker or you are older and let your body go to SHIT probably because you are lazy ...
Do you not know that male power doesn't peak until the early 30's ??
Are you that fucking stupid ??

So which one is it ?? Young and Stupid or Old, stupid, fat and lazy ??

[Donnybrook]

Ok, hold on.

There is WAY too much smack talk on this thread.

Either we become civil and make points and have a discussion without resorting to name-calling and insults (and I don't want to hear any "he started it" crap, please), or the thread is locked...and suspensions are just a keystroke away as this is an official warning ( :rolleyes: , yeah, it sounds stupid and pompous, but there's a reason why we have Forum rules).

Peace.

[CleanYourClock]

Ok, hold on.

There is WAY too much smack talk on this thread.

Either we become civil and make points and have a discussion without resorting to name-calling and insults (and I don't want to hear any "he started it" crap, please), or the thread is locked...and suspensions are just a keystroke away as this is an official warning ( :rolleyes: , yeah, it sounds stupid and pompous, but there's a reason why we have Forum rules).

Peace.

Well , I did spell mother as in "mother fucker" with a "U" ( mUther ) to be sure that I did not imply that he really screws his mother ...

That was kind of civil on my part ... :1:

[Alabama_Man]

Again, that equation is way too simple to explain a complicated situation. A jab is usually faster than a left hook, right? Which one hits harder? With a left hook, you're able to swing your body more into the fight. You simply can't explain the complex physics of boxing with something you learned in 8th-grade science class. It's simply stupid to try.

All movement in boxing is physics. In fact, all movement is physics. Explaining boxing using physics makes perfect sense unless you don't understand it (which is the case with you).

First off you're losing sight of scale (another reason I believe you haven't graduated high school).

Second, you're comparing two different scenarios using the same formula which doesn't work in this case.

Lastly, you're talking about Torque. Why don't you look up the equation for that formula and see how it is changed. You will find the nearly the same components. Class dismissed. :neener:

[Rubio MHS]

Second, you're comparing two different scenarios using the same formula which doesn't work in this case.
Isn't that what you were doing in the first place? Anyone who's watched boxing knows that the way Robinson planted his feet at 147 is totally different than the way he planted his feet at 160. In effect, you're comparing two completely different scenerios with the same equation. AS I SAID, you can't use a simple equation to judge a complicated formula.

[Alabama_Man]

Isn't that what you were doing in the first place? Anyone who's watched boxing knows that the way Robinson planted his feet at 147 is totally different than the way he planted his feet at 160. In effect, you're comparing two completely different scenerios with the same equation. AS I SAID, you can't use a simple equation to judge a complicated formula.

I don't think you have even seen the formulas before I brought them up here in this thread, let alone understand their application in any sense beyond remedial.

I also stand by the belief that you didn't graduate high school based on your understanding of basic mathematical concepts. Basic algebra is introduced as early as 6th grade in most schools, yet you seem to have trouble handling the most basic of concepts. It's not a bad thing but you should probably not comment on things you clearly don't understand. B)

[Rubio MHS]

I have a degree in Applied Mathematics, with a cognate in Physics. You sound like someone who's taking high-school physics. Exactly how old are you?

[Alabama_Man]

I have a degree in Applied Mathematics, with a cognate in Physics. You sound like someone who's taking high-school physics. Exactly how old are you?

:rollllling:

Better go back to school for a refresher, because there are 6th graders who know that a squared variable will always increase faster than one with just a scalar (velocity is a vector and has no scalar in KE formula unless you consider M a scalar, clarified because Rufio needs detailed explainations to understand basic algebra). :rollllling:

Seriously Rufio, you take internet fantasies to a new level. :2:

Oh btw, just to test that you do indeed have those credentials (I have an engineering degree), I'll ask you two questions that only those with a degree in mathematics or engineering could answer. These are not easily found answers on Google unless you know what you're looking for. Better start banging that phone book for a friend who majored in mathematics. B)

Question 1:
"If I was calculating movement over time of a random asteroid in the asteroid belt, what basic application of mathematics would I be using and why is this more appropriate given the circumstances?" Hint: Compared to measuring the same movement in a vacuum for instance.

Question 2:
"If I was shooting an imaginary line (Hint: vector) towards a sphere, what basic mathematical formula(s) would I use to make sense of the line and sphere meeting in 3D space, and what would the possible result(s) mean from this basic formula(s)?" Note: For full credit you should explain every possible outcome. B)

This is a question that could be answered in about a minute by someone with a "degree in applied mathematics" and a minor in physics. I'll give you a day before I conclude that you can't get the answer from google, a friend, or yourself (and therefore declared a liar and a fraud). This should be fun.B)

[Rubio MHS]

Better go back to school for a refresher, because there are 6th graders who know that a squared variable will always increase faster than one without a scalar. :rollllling: You are in high school, aren't you? A scalar isn't a "square"; it's a constant multiplied to a vector, a linear transformantion or a vector space, for example: k<v1, v2, v3, ... vn> => <kv1, kv2, kv3, ... kvn>, kf(a1, a2, a3, .... an) => k(f(a1, a2, a3, .... an)) (non-matrix case; the matrix case would be too hard to write out in this forum) and kC => ka + kbi, respectively.

Here's the Wikipedia article on it, in case you ever decide to go to college:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28mathematics%29

[Alabama_Man]

You are in high school, aren't you? A scalar isn't a "square"; it's a constant multiplied to a vector, a linear transformantion or a vector space, for example: k<v1, v2, v3, ... vn> => <kv1, kv2, kv3, ... kvn>, kf(a1, a2, a3, .... an) => k(f(a1, a2, a3, .... an)) (non-matrix case; the matrix case would be too hard to write out in this forum) and kC => ka + kbi, respectively.

Here's the Wikipedia article on it, in case you ever decide to go to college:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28mathematics%29
::yawn::, I never said a scalar is a "square", you must really be a high school drop out. I just typed without instead of with, great you got me on a typo. Read my post again it has been clarified for you specifically.

This is only more proof that you really don't understand basic algebraic equations and what simple words like "scaler and squared" mean in the right context. Also the fact that you basically copied what a scalar is from from wikipedia doesn't help your case. Actually the fact that you are using wikipedia to learn math is troubling, you should just finish high school or open a basic Calculus book and learn for yourself.

Stop stalling my friend, the sooner you answer those very easy questions (especially for someone who has the credentials you claim), the sooner you will prove that you are not the dunce I know you are. The forum and I are waiting patiently. Keep searching google and wikipedia for the answer. B)

Time is ticking Rufio. You have a little more time to google and answer my questions. Make sure you make good use of it. :2:

My bet is Rufio simply continues stalling and acts like those questions don't exist. :jester:

[nyital571]

This is stupid this argument or mythical matchup has turned into this physics debate.Cmon fellas lets leave the physics argument for another forum.

[Alabama_Man]

This is stupid this argument or mythical matchup has turned into this physics debate.Cmon fellas lets leave the physics argument for another forum.

You're right, but this is my last point to make then I'll leave it. Don't worry, Rufio won't answer the questions (because he doesn't know the answers), and will be exposed as a liar.

[Rubio MHS]

::yawn::, I never said a scalar is a "square", you must really be a high school drop out. I just typed without instead of with, great you got me on a typo. Read my post again it has been clarified for you specifically.No, you fucked up, and I caught it with you.

[Alabama_Man]

I admit I can't answer the 2 questions you asked because I'm a fraud.

Just as I thought, you can't answer the questions and it's here for everyone to see. Next time, don't try to pull that BS on someone who actually has a degree and understands mathematics and physics to some depth. I also posted this thread on a few other academic messageboards with the topic title "Is this guy a fraud?", and most people agree the questions I asked are quite easy for someone who claims to have your credentials, the consensus is that you're a fraud on those boards as well. :2:

As an aside...

Broken english of the day:


...I caught it with you.

:jester: College educated my ass. B)

[Rubio MHS]

Now you're confusing a scalar with a scale factor.

[Alabama_Man]

I'm a fraud.

I'm sorry Rufio, I don't talk mathematics with frauds and liars. You had 24+ hours to answer those simple questions but you couldn't. I posted this topic at 3 different message boards and most agreed you were stalling and simply couldn't answer the questions. Applied Math degree my ass. :jester:

Exposed. B)

[Rubio MHS]

Um, I just saw those questions half an hour ago. I do have a life, you know.

[Alabama_Man]

Um, I just saw those questions half an hour ago. I do have a life, you know.

No excuses, you posted over a dozen times over 2 days that the questions were up, two of which were in the threads where the questions were. Then your answer was literally all over the place. Zero points for question 1 (general relativity? lmao), and I'll give you 2/10 on Question 2. That's how I would've scored it as a GSI in college, if an entering freshman was taking the class. Totally exposed.

As for this thread, Trinidad TKO Basilio in 8. I'm out of here.

If people want the actual solutions, please PM me, it's easy to see why Rufio is a fraud. B)


P.S - We had a good laugh at your solution in the other forum :jester: Thanks for that.

[Der Tiger]

ouch :1:

[Rubio MHS]

You can easily click on my username, and then "Find all posts by Rubio MHS" to confirm this. I went offline right before you posted the questions, returned to the forum twice for about half an hour or so, then went away for 24 hours. Anyway, I answered your questions (correctly), now you answer mine. They aren't vague like yours. You either know them, or you don't know them.

[Alabama_Man]

bwack bwack bwack.

No you answered each wrong, and a Physics PhD candidate at UT Austin has commented that you were wrong in a PM to me on another forum.

If you want the correct answers, just PM me, I'll be glad to school you since it's quite obvious you need it. :neener:

[Alabama_Man]

ouch :1:
:jester: :jester: :rollllling:

[Rubio MHS]

You talk about me on other fora?