Similar to my last thread. Take the top 4 most talented Mexican fighters in history and the top 4 most talented Rican fighters in history and which team has the greatest aggregation of talent?
irrelevant. India and China combined have 7 times the population of the USA and yet you can't find a handful of world class fighters even when combining those two countries. Ya dig?
PR: Benitez, Gomez, Ortiz, Camacho Mexico: Olivares, Chavez, Sanchez, Marquez (over Zarate) Mexicans win
I guess it once again comes down to what we mean by talent. If we take it in broad sense, meaning that talent is everything from physical abilities, to chin, to the ability to work hard and learn things, then I think the Mexicans have the edge. If we narrow it down to mean some physical attributes, then I agree it is close. Those Ricans have quick hands and feet, which they need in their everyday life
You know what...don't complicate this thing. Why are you trying to create a distinction between "better" and "more naturally talented"? I mean..why? Why? Better is better is better. That's all i'm talking about. Who's better!
Yes, but how would you distinguish between talent and better? Give me an example of two guys with one being more talented and the other being better.
Ricans have black in them. Black = Fast. Mexicans have Indian in then. Indian = Tough. This sweeping racial generalization has been brought to you by Sly Ministries.
Michael Nunn was more talented than Carlos Monzon. Monzon was better. If you want a head to head example Meldrick Taylor was naturally more talented than Chavez but Julio was better.
Lawd have mercy. Ok...from now on for the benefit of these topic I'm going to specify "better". From the examples you've given seems to me that speed and flash trumps all when it comes to "talent" with you gentlemen. I'd venture that y'all would say Zab Judah is more talented than Tszyu and that Mosley is more talented than Forrest....etc.... For the record....I think this distinction is silly. At any rate it does my head in...
Yes on the latter, former is debatable. It's not just about "flash". Hamed was more naturally talented and certainly flashier than Barrera. MAB was better.
4 most talented/best Mexicans - Chavez, Sanchez, Olivares, R.Lopez. 4 most talented/best Ricans: Benitez, Ortiz, Tito, Gomez. Overall, the Mexicans win but it's not by a big margin. Chavez is historically the greatest of the 8, but I dunno if he's the "best". In terms of just raw ability, you can make the case that Benitez on his A game was the most special outta all 8. You can also make a case of Carlos Ortiz being better than Chavez (I would argue that he was). The Ricans lose because Tito and Gomez are the weakest links of the 8. Which is saying A LOT, cause all 8 of these guys were awesome fighters.
I was tempted to say "Ah...fuck you!" for that shit, but you're a good guy so i'll be polite. In any other sport or endeavour, except for "fightbeat boxing", talent and ability are the same thing. Talent is ability potential. "Better" potential. The most talented tennis player is the best tennis player. The most talented painter is the best painter. The most talented soccer player is the best soccer player...etc but for some reason, unknown to mankind, you guys want to manufacture a distinction between the two and make talent seem like just some superficial display of speed and agility. Tiresome I tell ya....
None of this is true whether it comes to boxing, this particular forum or sports in general. Ask fans of other sports who was the most talented hockey/basketball/soccer/baseball players were and then ask them who was the best. There will be names who appear on both lists but they won't be identical.
Yup. For example Gazza was the most talented English footballer ever, but Bobby Moore was the best. Gazza could do things with a football that Moore could never dream of doing, yet Gazza turned in to an absolute mess and Moore captained his country to its only World Cup. Roy and Hopkins is an example which would apply in boxing terms. Hopkins was a better boxer, a better technician, Roy was a freakish physical talent. Talent won out when they faced each other in the 90's, but when Roy's physical gifts inevitably began to fade with age, Hopkins could still maintain a high level because he'd mastered his craft.
And as another example in hockey you have Mark Messier. One of the best players in history and somebody every coach or player would want on their team. In terms of pure talent hockey fans would put dozens of players ahead of him.
Talent=ability=competence. The guy with the most talent is also the best. Talent isn't just flair and flash. in boxing terms...talent isn't just athleticism as you fellas are implying....talent also incorporates ring IQ, power, chin, stamina. Zab Judah IS NOT more talented than Julio Cesar Chavez...I don't give a fuck if he's much faster or punches harder. Now...if the distinction between "talent" and "best" is ability vs accomplishments....that's a different discussion and i can accept that. But if it's Athleticism vs head to head prowess, which is what it sounds like from the examples you are giving, that's boolsheeeeet!
I would say Zab Judah is more talented than someone like Terence Crawford... But if they were to meet in their primes (Mythical Matchup), I would take Crawford to beat him via UD or possible late stoppage. Mainly because of intangibles. Crawford has more heart, better ring IQ, and he can change his style/make adjustments in the fight, whereas Zab sorta does the same thing. So in that sense, yes a fighter can be more talented than another but that won't always be the difference in the fight.
