BoxRec

man wrote:

Cent0089 wrote:IMO Floyd Mayweather is exceptionally intelligent, even if there was some rumors about his reading . He earns millions and millions dollars, send all promoters to hell, make every fighter on world want to fight him, but taking the ones with small risk and big money. Damn he earns millions for fighting ANDRE BERTO He totally ignore mandatory defenses, titles, WBACFGwhatever organisations. He was in control about gloves, referees, weights. He was lord of his career. He make millions from people who loves him and even more millions from people that hates him. Dumb person cannot do that. PS: sorry for my poor english

i second this and i do not like floyd
very much. making such an impact
with such unattractive style is really
not easy. he did all his career moves
very intelligently including the choice
of his provocative nick name.

it only looks easy when somebody
does it so magnificently.

Everyone falls all over each other to agree that education basically has nothing to do with intelligence. So now we're all going to agree that getting people to give you money is a better way to measure it?

There is a high correlation between education and intelligence. This is an axiom.

squiggy wrote:

man wrote:

Cent0089 wrote:IMO Floyd Mayweather is exceptionally intelligent, even if there was some rumors about his reading . He earns millions and millions dollars, send all promoters to hell, make every fighter on world want to fight him, but taking the ones with small risk and big money. Damn he earns millions for fighting ANDRE BERTO He totally ignore mandatory defenses, titles, WBACFGwhatever organisations. He was in control about gloves, referees, weights. He was lord of his career. He make millions from people who loves him and even more millions from people that hates him. Dumb person cannot do that. PS: sorry for my poor english

i second this and i do not like floyd
very much. making such an impact
with such unattractive style is really
not easy. he did all his career moves
very intelligently including the choice
of his provocative nick name.

it only looks easy when somebody
does it so magnificently.

Everyone falls all over each other to agree that education basically has nothing to do with intelligence. So now we're all going to agree that getting people to give you money is a better way to measure it?

floyd is not educated, but he is
intelligent. you can be weird and
morally terrible and still have a
solid amount of intelligence. it
is at the very heart of the concept
that intelligence is independent
from education.

to give this more context: peter
mckneely was not intelligent.

Asterix wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:

Asterix wrote:That's not true. He didn't need to adapt against any of the others. Even against Haye he showed no plan B.

I said that was the first time in 8 years he was unable to adapt.

You respond with "he didn't need to adapt"

Uh, duh. Exactly. What he did worked. Fury was the first one to really take him out his comfort zone.

I should clarify. He didn't need to adapt against the others in order to win. He would have had a more enjoyable night against Haye if he could have adapted. Wlad has never been versatile. It's just that what he does almost always works.

I like Wlad but your argument seems to work against him (I know that's not what you meant though).

If he's bigger than most of the fighters he fought, he is good because of size more than anything else.

He does have exceptional intelligence in & out of the ring though. I just think that age + Fury's style got him.

I do agree that part of his defeat may have been partly due to age.

But you're both going in circles either intentionally or unintentionally. There's no getting around the fact no one could solve the Klitschko puzzle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

No one could figure out Floyd's shoulder roll. He had incredible reflexes and timing. Your argument that "he's good because of his size more than anything else" is as weak as me saying Holmes' jab was only good because of his reach. It's too dismissive. There were plenty of heavyweights who were as huge as Wladmir or bigger but failed miserably (carnera, willard). There were heavyweights smaller than him who used a similar strategy (terrel, ruiz) and were successful at it. You're too dismissive of wladmirs strategy, ring iq, stamina, timing, etc, all of which can only be perfected through years of training and proper tutelage and inflating only the size factor.

Scott Quigg and Adrien Broner are apparently both in Mensa.

Cygnus475 wrote:I do agree that part of his defeat may have been partly due to age.

But you're both going in circles either intentionally or unintentionally. There's no getting around the fact no one could solve the Klitschko puzzle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

No one could figure out Floyd's shoulder roll. He had incredible reflexes and timing. Your argument that "he's good because of his size more than anything else" is as weak as me saying Holmes' jab was only good because of his reach. It's too dismissive. There were plenty of heavyweights who were as huge as Wladmir or bigger but failed miserably (carnera, willard). There were heavyweights smaller than him who used a similar strategy (terrel, ruiz) and were successful at it. You're too dismissive of wladmirs strategy, ring iq, stamina, timing, etc, all of which can only be perfected through years of training and proper tutelage and inflating only the size factor.

By your logic do you then believe Tyson Fury is more intelligent than Wlad because he beat him?

malignaggi is smart. has a good boxing brain, speaks fastl, and is an accurate and articulate fight commentator.

Alexander Dimitrenko

Asterix wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:I do agree that part of his defeat may have been partly due to age.

But you're both going in circles either intentionally or unintentionally. There's no getting around the fact no one could solve the Klitschko puzzle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

No one could figure out Floyd's shoulder roll. He had incredible reflexes and timing. Your argument that "he's good because of his size more than anything else" is as weak as me saying Holmes' jab was only good because of his reach. It's too dismissive. There were plenty of heavyweights who were as huge as Wladmir or bigger but failed miserably (carnera, willard). There were heavyweights smaller than him who used a similar strategy (terrel, ruiz) and were successful at it. You're too dismissive of wladmirs strategy, ring iq, stamina, timing, etc, all of which can only be perfected through years of training and proper tutelage and inflating only the size factor.

By your logic do you then believe Tyson Fury is more intelligent than Wlad because he beat him?

We have to wait and see. Their first fight was iffy and it is Fury's best fight. Hopefully he cleans up his act and we can have a rematch.

Frazier was the first to beat Ali but that had more to do with Eddie Futch's game plan and Frazier's sheer determination. No one thinks Frazier was more intelligent than Ali.