How hard can Floyd punch?

If he is powerful, fast, can jump really high, but isn't an elite basketball player? Then yes, of course he is still physically talented, he obviously just doesn't know how to use his talent properly.

Take Bojado, physically talented, not a great fighter.

 

Re Klit & Haye - In the same way athletes in every sport become more athletic - by training like athletes & becoming way, way stronger & more powerful.

No you couldn't make Marquez as athletic as Jones....just like you couldn't make Judah as composed as Sanchez. Pac learned to box, the Klits got stronger and more powerful. And round the same circle we go, there's more to talent than raw athleticism.

 

was Jabar not talented? or McCail? were they just skilled basketball players?

 

Was Maradona not a talented footballer, Mex? Or did he just learn to be really skillful. He certainly wasn't exceptionally athletic. Garrincha? :kidcool:

 

Ah the old talent vs skill debate.

Talent isn't just athletic talent, contrary to popular belief.

Mayweather's defensive skills are also his talent. His father used to have the same shoulder roll etc..and used to get hit with everything including teh kitchen sink. Oscar tried to emply that shoulder roll technique too and got his nose bloddied by the likes of Arturo gatti!!

90% of a fighter's success is his talent, 10% is the skills he learns from the gym.

 

If that's what you consider talent to be. But like I said, I was thinking in terms of physical talent.

With training, of course you can improve power, speed, accuracy etc etc, and stamina, otherwise fighters wouldn't bother training. But there is far less scope to improve physical attributes than mental attributes. Focus, composure etc are mental, so is skill/ring IQ.

Do you think it's easier to teach someone how to box and become more skilled/composed etc, or teach them to be faster, more powerful, and more athletic?

Pacquiao learned to box, and became far more skilled, composed, and precise. Can you think of any fighter in history who has made as much of an improvement as Pacquiao has in terms of physical talent rather than skill? Someone who has gradually become much faster, more powerful, and more athletic?

 

Gross athleticism - general strength & power, speed, co-ordination, balance, hand eye co-ordination & reflex', spatial awareness
Boxing specific athleticism - athropomorphical leverages & tendon insertions favourable to punching hard, long arms, the ability to absorb punches whether due to thick skull, brain cushioning, neck strength etc
Gross athletic intanglible attributes - the ability to soak up a skill set/visual learner, ability to concentrate and focus to an extraordinary degree, taking direction well
Boxing specific intanglible attributes - physical bravery & toughness, the ability to maintain concentration while being punched in the face

All the above, taken together, and probably a few other things Im forgetting amount to a guys 'talent', IMO, since they are all the raw components a trainer has to work with when a kid comes through the door, that he can't do very much to change.

 

With or without PED's?

 

Maradona could give a square pass and it would LOOK like the most majestical pass ever made. It wasn't athleticism, it was SKILL and intelligence.

Garrincha was the most UNDERATED soccer player. Was cut from many teams before he could have a sequence of playing time to display his innovative and revolutionary skills at the time.

Larry Bird wasn't the fastest, quickest or strongest. He was very very smart with his positioning. The fact that he could shoot also helped.

 

All true but it doesnt really relate to what we're talking about!:dunno:

 

This topic was interesting for a while but now it's gone down to the sewer. May as well be closed...

 

I think reverse - I think Sanchez would've given Pacquiao a beating. Pac was much more wild in the lower divisions and could be outboxed as well. Sanchez would've been able to handle the shots Pac did manage to land but if I'm not so sure about the reverse. I could see Pac getting stopped badly in the latter rounds here.

 

Sanchez would beat Pacquiao. The Pacquiao from the first JMM fight? Sanchez would batter him with ease.

 

Forreal. I think people are confusing the welter Pac with that one.

 

Hey Ken, I can see how one could pick Sanchez, based purely on Marquez. The difference is, I'm not as high on Sanchez as a lot of people.

I think he is a top 10 all time feather of course, but I think Marquez is too, and I think Marquez had a better style to deal with Pacquiao.

I would give Saddler or Pep a better chance of beating Pacman. In my eyes, Sanchez was too slow and not accurate enough, would be beaten to the punch by Pacquiao all the time.

Oh, I would also give Arguello a better chance. I could imagine that fight looking a bit like the first Morales fight.

 

Hey Hut, I don't think we see it that differently, I think it's purely a question of terminology.

When I say skill, I'm thinking of some of the same attributes that you would class as talent, but more intangible talent.

So in a sense one can certainly have natural skill. A certain level of skill and fighting instinct that simply can't be taught.

Without over analysing it, and without it being distinct offensive/defensive skill, some fighters just KNOW how to fight.

I guess just ring generalship. Reading your opponents moves, knowing what to do at any given point, knowing how to out manoeuver your opponent, where to move to at any given time, when to throw a punch etc etc.

Guys like Hopkins, Floyd, and Duran - they have that natural fighting skill, and the average world class fighter, all the training in the world isn't going to make them as skilled and crafty as those 3, not by a long shot.

But for me, I just fnid it easier to make the distinction with 2 different words.

IE - Hopkins is every bit the natural fighter Jones is, but I would consider Jones more talented, and Hopkins more skilled - even if most of that skill is natural born skill, to me it's still skill, rather than talent, which I associate with phsyical attributes/athleticism.

 

By the way, Floyd really is a draw it can't be denied.

This thread isn't even about Floyd anymore, but it has 345 posts, just the word "Floyd" compels people to post ::

 

I'm not basing it on Marquez. I'm basing it on his body of work, including fights against Velazquez, Morales (the first time), etc. I'm not as high as Sanchez as others either (ATG, OMG!, etc). But I don't see what the feather version of Pac brings to the table that could "batter" him. In fact, I'd say - based on the styles that gave Pac trouble in the lower divisions - that he'd be the one getting battered.

 

::

I'm looking at the styles too, and honestly I don't see it.

The fighters that have given Pacquiao trouble have been sharp shooters. Fighters like Marquez with fast counters, and great accuracy, and good boxing ability, or Morales - who when he actually chose to box, was sharp, accurate, rangey, with good power (quite a bit like Arguello actually, but faster/less powerful).

Where as Barrera for example got crushed, his punches weren't fast or straight enough, didn't quite have the accuracy or timing of Marquez, and was just beaten to the punch over and over and over again.

Now despite Sanchez's ring generalship and skill, he wasn't a sharp shooter. His punches weren't straight and he missed a lot. Honestly just looking at the styles, I see Pacman beating him to the punch consistently.

The reason I listed Arguello etc - is Arguello I think would look very much like the first Morales fight, the range and power and accuracy would be able to control Pacman to an extent. Similar situation with Saddler.

 

Actually, I think Sanchez is a sharpshooter. And I think he adjusted to the opponent quite well too, including the kind of punches he threw. Idk.

 

I think Arguello would fail miserably against Pacquiao. Any fighter like Arguello, who likes to be set to punch, is going to get run over by Pacquiao.

 

When I first saw Sanchez (after hearing some hardcore salivating, one of the best fighters ever etc, best Mexican fighter ever etc) - I could see he was a good boxer and skilled, but one of the things that surprised me was his lack of accuracy, and the sloppiness of some of his punches.

 

Arguello's slow feet might let him down against Pacquiao, but his power, range and accuracy would give him a better shot than Sanchez IMO. I also think Arguello would beat Sanchez.

 

what fights of his have you seen? what made his punches seem sloppy? he loops punches in order to get around his opponent's defense in some cases (vs. Lopez), but he can also throw punches as straight as an arrow - for example the murderous straight right hand he threw to Nelson's belly just before he finished him.

Sanchez is one of the most relaxed and organized boxers I've ever seen. How anyone could watch him and think he's sloppy is beyond me. A possible explanation is that you have a somewhat narrow idea in your head of how a talented fighter should fight.

When you think of talented fighter, who do you think of? Throw out five names.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking. Sanchez adjusted to the opponent in front of him. Whether it was looping punches or straight...whatever.

 

Duran, Leonard, Robinson, Pacquiao, Jones. They are the first five that come to mind.

I've seen a handful of Sanchez's fights, including Gomez and Nelson. He wasn't a straight puncher, and he wasn't particularly accurate or fast.

He was relaxed and natural, so was Carlos Monzon, it doesn't mean they are physically talented in the distinction I made earlier. Naturally skilled, with natural ringcraft, sure.

 

I'm surprised you've viewed those two fights and see Sanchez as not being a straight puncher. Seems to me he was capable of doing both well - depending on what type of fighter was placed in front of him. Ironically, Azumah was very similar in that regard.

 

....as long as the fight was a rematch.

 

Well then I'd say "your" use of the term, "talent," is irresponsible, misleading, idiosyncratic, and inadequate. And I command you to cease and desist it's use. ::

I'd also point out that all of the fighters you mentioned as being talented threw many a sloppy punch in their day.

Also, let's assume for a minute Sanchez did not throw straight punches. So what? One of his best moves was to feint to the body with his left and then loop his right over his head.

Anyways, when it comes to the discussion of boxers, current and past, I don't think it's interesting or useful to talk about talent, as you've defined it. Your definition is so strict, and so separate from boxing as a sport, that I'm not even sure why it matters in this context. Why would you impose on conversation such a narrow and irrelevant definition of the term, "talented?"

 

To all intents & purposes, the only guys that can be 'talented' by Mex' definition are black speedsters. And Pac.