Would you consider Pacquiao a "freak" athlete?

I post who I think will win fights here often enough for you to call me on it if you want.

I recall a lot of people calling pacquiao. I don't remember many calling senchenko against Hatton for a recent example.

I didn't say he wasn't a "freak" athlete, whatever the definition of that is.
 
I post who I think will win fights here often enough for you to call me on it if you want.

I recall a lot of people calling pacquiao. I don't remember many calling senchenko against Hatton for a recent example.

I didn't say he wasn't a "freak" athlete, whatever the definition of that is.

what fights did you get wrong? Any?
 
Hatton senchenko, khan Garcia, pascal Dawson, the first two are recent, last one was when I gave up boxing gambling. I called Kessler froch wrong but don't feel too bad about it. Pacquiao Marquez IV, Cotto trout, Ortiz Lopez, loads. I get quite a lot right and we all get quite a lot wrong.

I like talking before the fights to get people's opinions and hyped for them, I'll get many wrong in the future and that's one of the reasons I love this sport.
 
Hatton senchenko, khan Garcia, pascal Dawson, the first two are recent, last one was when I gave up boxing gambling. I called Kessler froch wrong but don't feel too bad about it. Pacquiao Marquez IV, Cotto trout, Ortiz Lopez, loads. I get quite a lot right and we all get quite a lot wrong.

I like talking before the fights to get people's opinions and hyped for them, I'll get many wrong in the future and that's one of the reasons I love this sport.

lol that's my point.

An easy way to be a "fake genius" without doing any thinking/analyzing is to always pick the odds on favorite to win. Because in the long run your Win/Loss record in betting will always be on top. In boxing you can always just pick the bigger man to win and when you tally up all the totals you will be on top in your Win/Loss betting record

But of course not analyzing fights wouldn't be exciting
 
You have the wrong idea of what athleticism is.

An athlete or athleticism is defined by measureable statistics. An athlete isn't how good someone can be at a skill. The reason the decathlon is the epitomy of athleticism is that each even represents a corenerstone for athleticism in and of itself. It's pure sports science in action. There is a definative measureable statistic for every single sport. That test in the video above highlights all measureable statistics in regards to athleticms and the olympic gold medallist decathlete who participated in it, scored higher than virtually every pro athlete in their specific sports related drills. He did not train for this specifically. He scored higher because he is athletically superior.

This is the reason Pacquiao isn't a great athlete. He is a great sportsman a brilliant boxer and obviously has the required physical attributes to be competitive within a weight separated sport, but if he participated in a measureable test such as the video I highlighted; Pacquiao would do no better than the average non professional athletic male.

Please show me that definition of an athlete or athleticism.

Also, please show me where the guy in the video where the guy doesn't train for these drills, or ones similar. Oh, wait, the one he doesn't train for already, he "faltered". Which was the starting, stopping agility drill or whatever.

100 metres
Long jump
Shot put
High jump
400 metres
Day 2
110 metres hurdles
Discus throw
Pole vault
Javelin throw
1500 metres

Those are the events, every single thing in that video was similar. So this guy trains this shit all the time. WITHOUT doing bag work, mitt work, defense drills, shooting hoops, throwing footballs, practicing receiving, practicing/memorizing plays. Having to adapt to other players trying to tackle you, people punching your face.

If these guys are the greatest athletes, they would be in a sport where they can make decent money and get mad pussy.

And he was only at the level of SOME NBA players, SOME NFL runners, not the top ones in either sport.


I am pretty sure Pacman would do better than the "average non professional athletic male". LOL, wtf kind of statement is that. You mention Oscar and Floyd running, but people mention Pac is an incredible runner as well.

also, "the olympic gold medallist decathlete who participated in it, scored higher than virtually every pro athlete in their specific sports related drills" -- They NEVER mention that. They only say he is on the "upper end", which is expected of a SILVER (not gold) medalist, in peak shape, as he was currently training for the next olympics.


I don't think you know what an athlete is brah. Again, it is one thing to run a sprint, one thing to do a high jump, another to throw something. Do them all together, with a 300 pound guy trying to crush you, with the goal of moving a ball to the end zone. Or the goal of landing more punches, with another landing as well, and having to keep your mental toughness.
 
My point was several people picked PAC DLH and it wasnt that much of a surprise. Too many people put too much stock in size.
 
My point was several people picked PAC DLH and it wasnt that much of a surprise. Too many people put too much stock in size.

I put two bets down that night. One was oscar to win a dec, which I think was like -210. The other was for pac to win by KO/tko, which was +900. The bet on Oscar covered my bet on Pac.

Needless to say, I was happy that night :)
 
I post who I think will win fights here often enough for you to call me on it if you want.

I recall a lot of people calling pacquiao. I don't remember many calling senchenko against Hatton for a recent example.

I didn't say he wasn't a "freak" athlete, whatever the definition of that is.

In the boxing Gambling thread, many were about to drop money on hatton but we all stopped because the odds went from -400 to -350 and than on fight night it was down to -285...

Odds rarely swing that much...

that being said, none of us here are perfect regarding predictions...

hell, just this weekend, I picked Adamek....I was correct in my wager, thanks only to a Robbery.
 
I remember that LI, I think you were instrumental in talking a lot of people back into their cash in the Hatton fight.

To compare picking pacquiao over Oscar to picking Douglas over Tyson is exaggeration, Corleone was going for dramatic effect.
 
I remember that LI, I think you were instrumental in talking a lot of people back into their cash in the Hatton fight.

To compare picking pacquiao over Oscar to picking Douglas over Tyson is exaggeration, Corleone was going for dramatic effect.

Those two are no where near comparable...and you would have to be a complete fuc*ing idiot to believe that.

If I remember correctly, Pacquiao was a slight underdog, when the fight was first accounced DLH was -300, he dropped as it came to fight time..

Tyson was -4200 at fight time.

It made sense to pick Pacquiao over DLH, the younger, more dynamic, highly offensive fighter against the older, war torn veteran.

Tyson at that time was perceived as borderline invincible.
 
No doubt, you gotta find value.

Manny still had doubters heading into Cotto.
 
No doubt, you gotta find value.

Manny still had doubters heading into Cotto.

That was a dangerous fight...didn't touch that one...


but you're right. YOu gotta find value in bets...

my last large victory was Shogun vs JBJ. JBJ was only -120, than -160. Dropped 700 on JBJ.


My last major loss was Paul Daley vs Nick Diaz. Paul Daley was almost +240 at fight time.

My theory was that Nick Diaz is crazy enough to stand with Paul Daley and would be KTFO.

I was half right in my theory.
 
That's what I mean, the big fights aren't always the ones to land on. But I know you know this.

Hope you have a good christmas, you betting the JDS fight?
 
it doesn't matter who is an idiot or who isn't.

Only idiots thought that Tyson would beat Buster or that Lamon Brewster would beat Wlad. Anyone can talk like this after the fact

The fact is

1. De La Hoya was the favorite and the matchup was considered a joke a year prior
2. The outcome deviated from the notion that A good big man always beats a good little man, which not only has been shown to hold true for boxing but pretty much most althletic sports (ussain bolt, michael phelps, Lebron James). Pretty much the advent of weight cutting/weight classes in boxing was due to this observable disparity. To deviate from it so emphatically shows freak-like status

delahoya was a clear favorite amongst the boxing people, I remember that. I personally thought delahoya just didn't have the desire anymore and would fuck up this fight like he fucks up all his big fights. But the way manny just ripped through him and left him just with no answers, couldn't even defend himself or get away from this machine, right then is the real beginning of manny's reign of terror which I always thought would be very brief. Remember, henry armstrong was a king of 3,nearly four weight divisions and he did it with a ferocious nonstop style, he had a freakish heartrate which enabled his incredible stamina but he was basically finished by his early thirties. The nonstop guys decline fast unless they have other skills.
 
It's not being smart after the event in the case of pacquiao DLH.

If you called Tyson Douglas right, how's your yacht looking?

that's right, only 2 people in the boxing world expected that, I think odds were 42-1 or something. Angelo Dundee was one of the few knowledgable people to give douglas a shot and I view that with suspicious because other trainers tend to have sour grapes over not having that kind of talent under their control. We saw the same thing we see with manny post-loss though, everyone in the boxing world wrote Tyson off, Futch, Dundee, Steward I think, it's human nature after a loss. I think alot of us, ( i know I'm one) who changed their opinion on roy after the two kayo losses to tarver and johnson. But I think that was a lot more justified because roy never really took consistent punishment. Tyson and manny had been through tough, competitive fights so we at least knew they could take some punishment. Durability has to be considered an ability too, some guys cut easy, can't take it to the body, bones break easily, and then most important, some guys can't take a shot. All the talent in the world is useless if you can't take punishment.
 
Why? They're famous. I would definitely recognize David Telesco or Richard Hall on the street.

i always felt bad for Hall, that was a nasty beating and should have been stopped. I never liked how roy would stretch out those kinds of fights just to show off.
 
it doesn't matter who is an idiot or who isn't.

Only idiots thought that Tyson would beat Buster or that Lamon Brewster would beat Wlad. Anyone can talk like this after the fact

The fact is

1. De La Hoya was the favorite and the matchup was considered a joke a year prior
2. The outcome deviated from the notion that A good big man always beats a good little man, which not only has been shown to hold true for boxing but pretty much most althletic sports (ussain bolt, michael phelps, Lebron James). Pretty much the advent of weight cutting/weight classes in boxing was due to this observable disparity. To deviate from it so emphatically shows freak-like status

It was probably the most obvious,easy to break down fight I ever saw made.

Oscar was the favorite because he was big and for no other reason.
 
It was probably the most obvious,easy to break down fight I ever saw made.

Oscar was the favorite because he was big and for no other reason.

I think, out of any sport the oddsmakers get it wrong the most when it comes to boxing and MMA.

MMA more so because it is a younger sport...
 
I think, out of any sport the oddsmakers get it wrong the most when it comes to boxing and MMA.

MMA more so because it is a younger sport...

oscar didn't look that bad in the mayweather fight and I think he fought before pac but i didn't see it, nothing would have told me he'd look that piss poor on fight night. He never was a truly great fighter but he had the promise of it, when he was in his early to mid twenties he could fight his ass off. They tried to say the weight of welter was too low for him but I don't believe that, he may have had trouble but only because he didn't have the discipline he used to, because he wasn't even a natural welterweight, he was best at lightweight. I still think that DLH at 25 instead of 35 would have knocked Pac silly with left hooks.
 
Back
Top