Autobarn wrote:Carbo wrote:
I'd like to put my foot in the K-G camp.
First, too many of us, including me, on occasion, are far too permissive of stupidity. People make comments which are no more than the thoughtless repetition of false axioms and we try our best to argue sensibly against them, when often it's best to treat them with the condescension they deserve. For example, how many times have you heard on here "you can't put muscle on chin", or variants of that theme? It adds nothing to the forum, dilutes the contributions of several excellent posters and deserves to be ruthlessly swatted aside.
Second, anyone who can regale us with stories about homosexual oral fornication on a building site, replete with workers climbing scaffolding like "a scene from Planet of the Apes" deserves our support.
i think FW put that in his newspaper column, re Haye.
in fact that cliche is something i could imagine john rawling saying. cue scary threats from "blade", the Internet equivalent of Ray Winstone taking you to one side and implying nasty things will happen to you, in a low voice.
Well, if Warren did write that, it proves more that Warren is hired for his name and little else rather than that the phrase is valid. Commonplace, hoary, tired cliches and analogies are one of the first things that you should cut out of your writing if you care at all about the written word -- let alone if you're being paid to write.
Even if it was true, which I'm not convinced it is, that phrase is so tired, so overused that it has no place in any prose which strives to be good, and no place on a boxing forum populated by fans who (should) have heard it a million times over.
It astonishes me that people find such phrases so popular, as if they were lifted from parchment written by Ray Arcel or Chappie Blackburn and that the person writing/repeating it 'knows' something about 'the game'. Jack Blackburn
might have said that, but it's been said so often that it's
meaningless: it's someone unthinkingly repeating something they heard from someone who hadn't actually thought about it either, and therefore adds literally nothing to the conversation. How could it when no thought has been given to it's fundamental truth, or even relevance to the particular issue?
What people are far less likely to examine, presumably because it actually requires thought, is how Khan was getting hit, whether he was seeing the punches coming, whether he was stiffening his neck as he was hit to steel himself, whether he was rolling with the punches, where his chin was in relation to his chest, what his body position was, whether his momentum was taking him into the punch, creating a kind of head on car collision impact multiplier, and most of all, why the hell his chin was so reachable when he has such hand speed, a long jab, a big reach advantage, and quicksilver feet.
In short, why was Khan, who if you know anything about boxing, had a heap of raw ability, fighting with such terrible technique, and how was that affecting his ability to take, but more importantly, avoid, punches.
There's a more difficult explanation there, but because Oliver Harrison is clearly a quality trainer, and I hear a decent and popular guy, nobody wants to make it, because they seem to forget that some trainers can be superb, but not get the best out of some of the men they train.
Meantime, every single time Khan takes a shot, people will site it as "proof" that Khan simply "don't 'ave a chin," without actually considering that he's just been clocked by Edwin Valero, or wondering how anyone else would have been shaken if caught like that, but certainly nobody can tell me that Kotelnik didn't clock him a few times just as hard as some of the jabs that seemed to wobble Khan in his pre-Roach days.
EDIT: Oh, God, that was dull. Why can't I just say that Autoban is a good Dame and be, actually, you know, funny and concise?
