Felix Trinidad vs Carmen Basilio @147

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:

 

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.

 

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 ??

 

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 ( , 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:

 

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:

 

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)

 

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)

 

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:

 

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.

 

No, you fucked up, and I caught it with you.

 

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:

:jester: College educated my ass. B)

 

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

 

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)

 

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.

 

ouch :1:

 

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.

 

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:

 

:jester: :jester: :rollllling:

 

You talk about me on other fora?

 

Basilio wasn't in his prime yet for that fight. He was still very wild and sloppy and showed very poor balance in his fights around that time frame (i.e.: Graham, Davey, Langlois) compared to how he would look a couple years later.

According to Pender himself, his hand problems did resolve after doctors finally located the bone fragment that was causing so much trouble. That's why he fought so sporadically prior to '58, but then went on a tear and was fighting once a month after that.

 

You'll be waiting awhile on that response, @Ring Leader. That MF has not been around for many years .

Thanks for taking us Legacy posters down memory lane .

 

He was an idiot.

 

He almost certainly still is.

MTF