How hard can Floyd punch?

I take it you missed out on Duran as one of the most talented fighters I've ever seen ::

 

Not at all, I've already made my position quite clear - when I think talent I think physical talent.

Some fighters have natural born skill and ringcraft, Sanchez is one those, Floyd is another (though Floyd obviously has physical talent too).

I call it natural skill, you call it talent. Sanchez is a naturally skilled fighter, not a physically talented fighter.

I find your use of the term talented stupid, irresponsible and misleading - from now on I'd rather you refer to fighters like Sanchez as "naturally skilled" rather than "talented".

 

the only problem is that fighting, boxing, is a physical endeavor. so it's tough to make any sense of your distinction as long as you insist on using the term, talent.

as i see it, there's something about fighters like Duran and SRL that you find impressive, and to describe it, you've hijacked the term, "talent," for lack of a better one. the problem is, in doing so, you leave us with some awkward, home-grown term (naturally skilled) to describe what we think clearly qualifies as talent.

words have conotations. and so it's not simply a question of semantics in my mind. and it's why this topic is somewhat worth discussing, although it's running out of steam i'd say.

 

But on the other hand, do you think it's a bit vague to say... call Carlos Monzon talented and Roy Jones talented?

Two excellent fighters, completely different, very different attributes that make them as effective as they are.

That's the problem I have with calling the more intangible attributes talent (not that I think less of them than physical talent, Judah is a prime example of why physical talent only counts for so much, and so is Marquez, who although quite fast and powerful in his prime, isn't on the same level of physical talent as Pacman - yet his ringcraft made up for that).

Calling Jones talented and calling King Carlos naturally skilled is less vague, and to me more clear cut.

Could you call those natural skills talent? Of course you could, because they are attributes that no matter how much teaching, could never really be achieved by most fighters.

It's just in my mind, I don't like to group them together in the same word. Some of the attributes are mental, and some are physical. I use the word talent for physical attributes, and I use the word skill for more mental attributes, that includes focus, concentration, ringcraft etc and CAN be every bit as natural as physical talent.

I do of course count chin and stamina as talent, which is why I consider Duran to be so talented. Fast, strong, powerful, with a great chin and absolutely insane stamina, he had all the physical attributes, but he also had that natural fighting ability and ringcraft, which is what I consider skill.

 

You're babbling nonsense.

Everything TANGIBLE is talent. That includes speed, power, chin, stamina, length of arms, reflexes, boxing brain etc.

Heart/courage/psyche/dedication/commitment is more intangible...and outside the realm of talent.

That's the bottomline...

Anything else is meaningless psychobabble...

 

I didn't actually but given your criteria I figured it for an ass-covering token gesture! ::

 

Are you Indian?

 

Only if you have a small brain would you consider what I'm typing to be nonsense, my points are clear and concise.

Ringcraft/boxing brain is more intangible, it's not part of physical talent. You can't see it in the same direct way you can a really hard punch to the jaw for example, or even a chin that can soak up that really hard punch to the jaw.

You list heart as being intangible and a boxing brain as being tangible. One is not more tangible than the other.

Seeing a fighter get up from being knocked down hard, or fighting furiously after being badly hurt etc, is at least as "tangible" as seeing one fighter use his ringcraft and boxing IQ to outbox another.

 

well, not to get off track, but Sanchez did have an amazing chin and great stamina.

 

"Ringcraft/boxing brain" is no less tangible than what you're calling, "physical talent." There may be things you recognize as being closely associated with what you're calling, "physical talent," that are more tangible, but "physical talent," as you've defined it, is not.

 

Then going by some of your definitions, there is no such thing is skill, basically everything is talent.

People don't say Pacquiao has become more talented do they? ::

Pacquiao has improved in areas that some of you are saying is talent, yet saying he's become more talented would be stupid, people rightfully say he has become more skillful.