Is Katie Taylor Ireland best athlete

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You just did it again!
Getting a ball into the top corner of a football net from 30 yards with 11 people trying to stop you is just as "tough". Tough = difficult. You are constantly trying to make the case that some forms of difficulty are more important than others in determining overall toughness of a sport. You repeatedly equate toughness with boxing skills when that is physical endurance and resistance to damage, only one type of physical skill.

I am not talking about just toughness in the true sense of the word-i am talking about skills, heart, determination, Hand to eye coordination, speed, balance, power, and lot's more-stop trying to pretend you don't understand me, You are borderline trolling now so let's get back to debating rather than you trying to be smart.

Dan_Solo

Unless your suggestion is that everybody who turns up at the boxing gym is competitive to the level of KT, in which case you've been to better gyms than I have.:rolleyes:

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's nonsense. It's as easy to join a boxing club as any other sport. The fact that people don't is simply down to popularity. How many people tune into soccer every weekend compared to subscribing to BoxNation? Some sports are simply more popular than others, and that's why we can say the best at them are definitely in a smaller percentage abilitywise as opposed to only a likelihood for minority sports.

joining and actually competing is 2 different things, any gombeen can get a competitive game of football, even novice boxing is tough as hell and it is not for the faint hearted, and the skills of the real novice boxing tournaments are good, not just 2 lads swinging like mad things hoping for the best.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

Are you actually Brain dead?

I am not talking about just toughness in the true sense of the word-i am talking about skills, heart, determination, Hand to eye coordination, speed, balance, power, and lot's more-stop trying to pretend you don't understand me, You are borderline trolling now so let's get back to debating rather than you trying to be smart.

Ah yes, this is hardly the first time somebody getting battered in an argument has reached for the troll line, is it?
Those things make a sport "tough", but you are constantly harping on about physical endurance, getting hit etc as making boxing more tough. We've already been through the list of attributes they used to come up with this list but you're back equating toughness with physical endurance instead of difficulty time and time again.
Whatever the beginners level in boxing is, that is only relative to boxing itself. You could say the same about any footballer too, after a few months of 5 a sides they do get more stamina, accuracy, strength.

makl

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well f**k all people can play football, no matter how many of them turn up for the works league, so you really have no point at all.

Exactly. They are dead weight, inflating the numbers of those who play soccer.

Also, you can get away with being sh!te and unfit in a soccer team (often relatively good ones too) a lot more than in the ring.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

Are you actually Brain dead?0

Are you actually able to hold a conversation without resorting to ad hominems? Everyone knows that's a sure sign you're getting kicked on the logical points so maybe you should try not to for that reason alone?

Dan_Solo

makl wrote: »

Exactly. They are dead weight, inflating the numbers of those who play soccer.

Also, you can get away with being sh!te and unfit in a soccer team (often relatively good ones too) a lot more than in the ring.

Same thing. Hardly anybody at any gym can actually box properly. Otherwise they'd be competitive and then then we're back where we started. Take your average Joe from a boxing gym and your average Joe from a 5-a-side team and they get humiliated by professionals. Every sport has a field of participants of varying skill levels. Boxers don't magically start out as amazing and footballers start out as crap. They both start rubbish and get better proportionally to the amount of time and effort they put in.

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are you actually able to hold a conversation without resorting to ad hominems? Everyone knows that's a sure sign you're getting kicked on the logical points so maybe you should try not to for that reason alone?

No its a sure sign that 1 half of the debate is only reading the bits that suit his silly argument-i even explain stuff to you and tou still choose to isolate my writing to the bit you want to twist, technically Boxing is extremely hard, skillwise, so when i am saying tough i am not saying it in the macho meaning of the word, you get that now. now add in doing this extremely hard sport skillwise while been hit, this is the physically tough bit and it is way up the top.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

No its a sure sign that 1 half of the debate is only reading the bits that suit his silly argument-i even explain stuff to you and tou still choose to isolate my writing to the bit you want to twist,

Another line those flailing about miserably in an argument always come out with - everything is being "twisted". Their points make so much sense to them in their head so when they are crushed logically somebody must be cheating somewhere. Troll, twist, blah blah usual story from anyone losing an internet argument. And then that grants you the divine right to call people "brain dead".
What a classless act you are.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

joining and actually competing is 2 different things, any gombeen can get a competitive game of football

Well off to England with you then, 'cos any gombeen can get £10,000 a week in a competitive game of football according to you. It never ceases to amaze me how nobody who thinks pro soccer or any other well paid sport is so easy doesn't just go and do it for a living and make millions.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's nonsense. It's as easy to join a boxing club as any other sport. The fact that people don't is simply down to popularity. .

No, this is nonesense. How many mothers won't even allow their son near a club due to fear and the fact that to them the sport is too tough, some fathers too. The sport is not for everyone. Soccer and team sports like you mention will always see high numbers. They are easier sports. There are many many clubs in Ireland. The sport is well established and we have a rich history in the sport.

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well off to England with you then, 'cos any gombeen can get £10,000 a week in a competitive game of football according to you. It never ceases to amaze me how nobody who thinks pro soccer or any other well paid sport is so easy doesn't just go and do it for a living and make millions.

Competitive only has to be a local official game, i never said high class competitive-I played against the welsh national youth team and also Blackburn and Tranmere youths so i know a bit about football..

you're getting deperate now.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

Competitive only has to be a local official game, i never said high class competitive-I played against the welsh national youth team and also Blackburn and Tranmere youths so i know a bit about football..

you're getting deperate now.

Another laughable line of argument.
This is only relevant if every boxing match is competitive to the level of a national title or something. They are quite obviously not, therefore drawing some imaginary line where competition is "competitive" and "non-competitive" is as futile as all your other ideas.
Now you'll resort to "high class" and "low class" competitive, where every boxing match is "high class" and every other sport "low class" competition no doubt!

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Another laughable line of argument.
This is only relevant if every boxing match is competitive to the level of a national title or something. They are quite obviously not, therefore drawing some imaginary line where competition is "competitive" and "non-competitive" is as futile as all your other ideas.
Now you'll resort to "high class" and "low class" competitive, where every boxing match is "high class" and every other sport "low class" competition no doubt!

Ok Dan i'll tell ya what-Post on this thread again and you will be banned from this forum-you are trolling and adding nothing to this thread. and writing a reply to this is posting on this thread again.

Now back on topic.

Pisco Sour

cowzerp wrote: »

Ok Dan i'll tell ya what-Post on this thread again and you will be banned from this forum-you are trolling and adding nothing to this thread. and writing a reply to this is posting on this thread again.

Now back on topic.

While his comments may not have been said in the nicest manner, I agree with most of his points, and your comment here is bang out of order. Using the mod stick to try win an argument is against the spirit of this forum. You haven't helped yourself by coming out with comments that boxing is a lot "tougher" than running. You clearly have zero knowledge of what actually is involved in training for a 400m, 1500m etc. For the last time "tough" = difficult. Every sport is "tough" in its own way. You seem to equate "toughness" as to difficulty in the physical, getting hit in the head, sense. Yes boxing is tough. Yes athletics is tough. They are all tough in their unique ways and their toughness is incomparable. A 400m runner will never have to be hit in the head. A boxer will never have to suffer that lactic acid hell that a 400m runner has to endure in the last 70m. It's enough to make you want to cry! Learn something about other sports if you wish to comment on them.

cowzerp

Ok, that's the start of it-questioning mods publicly is a big no no.

Infraction given and bans will come into force if it keeps up.

We all try to be civil on here and won't tolerate aggressive posters who keep misreading what you are saying, i said lot's of times the skills involved in boxing are tough, try doing any skill sport and then it becomes extra hard when physically been hit comes into it, is that that hard to comprehend?!

Pisco Sour

cowzerp wrote: »

Ok, that's the start of it-questioning mods publicly is a big no no.

Infraction given and bans will come into force if it keeps up.

We all try to be civil on here and won't tolerate aggressive posters who keep misreading what you are saying, i said lot's of times the skills involved in boxing are tough, try doing any skill sport and then it becomes extra hard when physically been hit comes into it, is that that hard to comprehend?!

Don't know what age you are and how fit/unfit you are, but get down to a track and attempt a 400m flat out. See the effort that goes into breaking 70 seconds even. Feel the horrible pain as your legs give up on you in the last 100m due to your inability to pace yourself properly. Feel that lactic acid burn burn burn. Feel the vomit come up almost in slow motion. Feel yourself in a heap on the floor, saying "never again". Then stop to think that some people are going 25 seconds faster than that! Anybody who has done the event will tell you how incredibly "tough" it is. You don't need to get hit in the head for, or to have to duck and weave and dip for something to be tough. Boxing is tougher than athletics is just a false statement. Both are tough, but in their unique, incomparable ways. If you can't see that then you are blinded by bias, and ignorance.

cowzerp

04072511 wrote: »

Don't know what age you are and how fit/unfit you are, but get down to a track and attempt a 400m flat out. See the effort that goes into breaking 70 seconds even. Feel the horrible pain as your legs give up on you in the last 100m due to your inability to pace yourself properly. Feel that lactic acid burn burn burn. Feel the vomit come up almost in slow motion. Feel yourself in a heap on the floor, saying "never again". Then stop to think that some people are going 25 seconds faster than that! Anybody who has done the event will tell you how incredibly "tough" it is. You don't need to get hit in the head for, or to have to duck and weave and dip for something to be tough. Boxing is tougher than athletics is just a false statement. Both are tough, but in their unique, incomparable ways. If you can't see that then you are blinded by bias, and ignorance.

I know Athletics are tough, but saying Boxing is tougher is not wrong, it is an opinion and a valid 1 at that.

I have done 400meter sprints competitively,(not saying i was good but i pushed my body to it's max for 400m so the toughness is still involved) it is hard but its just a short burst of hard work then it is over, Boxing is 3 x 3 mins of insane toughness-1 round of boxing i always felt more tired than a whole soccer game, then ya have to go back out 2 more times.

Try doing 400 Meters then have 1 min rest then do it again, 1 more min rest then do it again. Then you will know what toughness is. you may do this in training but that is training not competition.

Pisco Sour

cowzerp wrote: »

Try doing 400 Meters then have 1 min rest then do it again, 1 more min rest then do it again. Then you will know what toughness is. you may do this in training but that is training not competition.

That is exactly what is done in training. Without the training, the competition doesnt happen. 400m training is as "tough" as anything out there.

What's your thoughts on World's Strongest Man for toughness? Magnus Ver Magnusson the greatest sports star of the 1990s? What you reckon?

cowzerp

04072511 wrote: »

That is exactly what is done in training. Without the training, the competition doesnt happen. 400m training is as "tough" as anything out there.

What's your thoughts on World's Strongest Man for toughness? Magnus Ver Magnusson the greatest sports star of the 1990s? What you reckon?

Clearly very tough-this is the whole issue-the debate is not are other sports tough, i simply believe Boxing is tougher-Strongman is insanely tough and would be a good 1 for been there or there abouts on the list, as would Triathlons and that sort of thing.

Maravilla33

04072511 wrote: »

While his comments may not have been said in the nicest manner, I agree with most of his points, and your comment here is bang out of order. Using the mod stick to try win an argument is against the spirit of this forum. You haven't helped yourself by coming out with comments that boxing is a lot "tougher" than running. You clearly have zero knowledge of what actually is involved in training for a 400m, 1500m etc. For the last time "tough" = difficult. Every sport is "tough" in its own way. You seem to equate "toughness" as to difficulty in the physical, getting hit in the head, sense. Yes boxing is tough. Yes athletics is tough. They are all tough in their unique ways and their toughness is incomparable. A 400m runner will never have to be hit in the head. A boxer will never have to suffer that lactic acid hell that a 400m runner has to endure in the last 70m. It's enough to make you want to cry! Learn something about other sports if you wish to comment on them.

I haven't gotten involved in this debate as don't have a lot of interest in athletics but I think you're underselling boxing big time with your last comment. Whatever about the lactic acid at the end of 400m try fight 11 hard fast paced rounds against someone who is your equal. Try getting of your stool for the 12 when you know that the last 33 minutes of action, your whole training camp and at times your future career comes down to this last 3 minutes of action. You're hurting all over, probably cant see straight and may struggle to keep your arms up but you have to go out there and give it everything you've got. Watch Morales Vs Barrera 1 and come back and tell me that boxing isn't a ridiculously tough sport. I've enjoyed the debate up to now but to compare the pain a boxer goes through in a hard 12 round fight to the end of a 400m is a bit wide of the mark.

As for Cowzerp's main point this is my understanding of it. Have you ever messed about with a heavy bag for 10-15 minutes? Its crazy how much it takes out of you. You get out of breath, your arms become heavy its a serious workout. Now try doing that for 36 minutes while moving about a ring, coordinating your hands and feet while maintaining a serious level of concentration. This on its own is seriously tough. Now factor in getting punched back while your doing this. A good body shot will take the wind right out of your sails and make you want to curl up into a ball and give up. I don't think Cowzerp was simply saying you have to be tough to box. The toughness is in coordinating and maintaining all of the skills needed while being hit back.

I've respect for anybody that gets to the top level in their chosen sport. All sport at the elite level is going to involve a serious amount of skill and effort. I just think you were underselling boxing a bit with your last comment.

Big Ears

04072511 wrote: »

Don't know what age you are and how fit/unfit you are, but get down to a track and attempt a 400m flat out. See the effort that goes into breaking 70 seconds even. Feel the horrible pain as your legs give up on you in the last 100m due to your inability to pace yourself properly. Feel that lactic acid burn burn burn. Feel the vomit come up almost in slow motion. Feel yourself in a heap on the floor, saying "never again". Then stop to think that some people are going 25 seconds faster than that! Anybody who has done the event will tell you how incredibly "tough" it is. You don't need to get hit in the head for, or to have to duck and weave and dip for something to be tough. Boxing is tougher than athletics is just a false statement. Both are tough, but in their unique, incomparable ways. If you can't see that then you are blinded by bias, and ignorance.

While I've no doubt you've quite a bit of knowledge about your sport from a technical point of view, you may want to brush up on your physiology. Lactic acid replenishes ATP as part of the Cori cycle, this is actually a positive as it allows you to continue working at a high intensity for longer. Blood lactate, which is the salt of lactic acid is the substance hypothesised to limit athletic performance. However that is not even certain with potassium and inorganic phosphate being theorised as the true reasons inhibiting athletic performance.

walshb

Again we are getting bogged down on the word tough

Both the 400 and pro boxing are tough in the difficult sense, and toughness sense. I will say that boxing requires more from the body's mechanics/movement ect. It is more difficult to execute at the top.

It's 12 rds of 3 minutes, and they could be torrid rds too. In that way I think it's safe to say that boxing is ALSO physically more demanding of the human body.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Watch Morales Vs Barrera 1 and come back and tell me that boxing isn't a ridiculously tough sport. I've enjoyed the debate up to now but to compare the pain a boxer goes through in a hard 12 round fight to the end of a 400m is a bit wide of the mark.

.

In fairness to the poster he is NOT saying that boxing isn't ridiculously tough in the physical sense.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

In fairness to the poster he is NOT saying that boxing isn't ridiculously tough in the physical sense.

I know that and I have enjoyed reading the debate between you which has been nip and tuck and both have argued your sides very well. But as I said I just think his last comparison was a bit wide of the mark.

Pisco Sour

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I haven't gotten involved in this debate as don't have a lot of interest in athletics but I think you're underselling boxing big time with your last comment. Whatever about the lactic acid at the end of 400m try fight 11 hard fast paced rounds against someone who is your equal. Try getting of your stool for the 12 when you know that the last 33 minutes of action, your whole training camp and at times your future career comes down to this last 3 minutes of action. You're hurting all over, probably cant see straight and may struggle to keep your arms up but you have to go out there and give it everything you've got. Watch Morales Vs Barrera 1 and come back and tell me that boxing isn't a ridiculously tough sport. I've enjoyed the debate up to now but to compare the pain a boxer goes through in a hard 12 round fight to the end of a 400m is a bit wide of the mark.

As for Cowzerp's main point this is my understanding of it. Have you ever messed about with a heavy bag for 10-15 minutes? Its crazy how much it takes out of you. You get out of breath, your arms become heavy its a serious workout. Now try doing that for 36 minutes while moving about a ring, coordinating your hands and feet while maintaining a serious level of concentration. This on its own is seriously tough. Now factor in getting punched back while your doing this. A good body shot will take the wind right out of your sails and make you want to curl up into a ball and give up. I don't think Cowzerp was simply saying you have to be tough to box. The toughness is in coordinating and maintaining all of the skills needed while being hit back.

I've respect for anybody that gets to the top level in their chosen sport. All sport at the elite level is going to involve a serious amount of skill and effort. I just think you were underselling boxing a bit with your last comment.

Not underselling boxing at all. I think it's a great sport (well and truly destroyed by money and corruption, but thats a different discussion entirely). I admire their skill and stamina. It is definetely a tough sport. All I'm saying is that it is not tougher than 400m for example (to name one example), in the same way the 400m is not tougher than boxing. They are all tough, but in their own way. Show me a sport that isn't tough and I'm there

Anyway, I'm a bit bored with the discussion as it is going around in circles.

Here's to Katie doing the business this week, or else we'll all look like a bunch of tools.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Not underselling boxing at all. I think it's a great sport (well and truly destroyed by money and corruption, but thats a different discussion entirely). I admire their skill and stamina. It is definetely a tough sport. All I'm saying is that it is not tougher than 400m for example (to name one example), in the same way the 400m is not tougher than boxing. They are all tough, but in their own way. Show me a sport that isn't tough and I'm there

Anyway, I'm a bit bored with the discussion as it is going around in circles.

Here's to Katie doing the business this week, or else we'll all look like a bunch of tools.

Well, I guess if we polled non boxing fans and non athletics fans, just general sports fans, I would really bet that most would selcet the sport of boxing as overall the most difficult and tough sport vs. the 400 metres.

Big Ears

walshb wrote: »

Again we are getting bogged down on the word tough

Both the 400 and pro boxing are tough in the difficult sense, and toughness sense. I will say that boxing requires more from the body's mechanics/movement ect. It is more difficult to execute at the top.

It's 12 rds of 3 minutes, and they could be torrid rds too. In that way I think it's safe to say that boxing is physically more demanding of the human body.

I'm not sure any sport compares to the 12x3 min rounds of professional boxing, in both senses of the word. However since this thread was originally about Katie Taylor, and I suppose its the 3x3 amateur version of the game we should be discussing. In terms of shear physical effort required I think a marathon clearly trumps this version of the game, however boxing is still an extremely difficult sport at amateur level due to the speed, reflexes, mental toughness and abundance of skill required. Therefore amateur boxing is as difficult a sport as any other, while still being very physically demanding (just nowhere near as much as the pro game).

All sports have to be taken on their merits, to be a success in any track and field sport, any major field sport, any skill based game (eg. golf and snooker) is not easy, in fact it's tremendously hard. Some sports are more difficult than others, but this is hard to quantify with no real measurable variables. Things can become complicated even further when team game sports are concerned, having to account for how well an athlete cooperate and interlinks with their team-mates to improve the team as a whole.

Sometimes it seems easy for us to distinguish quality, after all most of us would probably regard the reigning World Snooker champion Ronnie O'Sullivan as superior to World 9-ball pool champion Yukio Akagariyama. But would this be the case in Japan ?, or would you regard O'Sullivan's 4 World titles to be superior to Earl Strickland's 3 World 9-ball pool Championships ?, the vast majority of us would, that might not be the case however in America. Perception is everything and sometimes it is effected by our surroundings, and thus we bring in the issue of bias. Most of us will regard the sport our background is in to be superior, or tougher, and with little quantifiable measurements to dispute this it is difficult to make opposing arguments.

In the end it all comes down to personal opinion. At the current time I would have Sonia O'Sullivan pipping Taylor to the place of Ireland's greatest athlete. Sean Kelly like Michelle de Bruin does not factor into my calculations due to their strong links to doping. I do believe however that Taylor has an opportunity right now to really prove herself. She is in a competition where not only the best from her weight class, but the best fighters from 3 weight classes (57kg, 60kg, 64kg) are competing against each other for a place at the Olympics at 60kg. The competitiveness of this was established when World 64kg champion Gulsum Tatar, who has been nearly as dominant as Taylor in her weight class, was defeated today. If Taylor is to emerge victorious from that field, then not only does my position change to her being our greatest ever athlete, but she is without any question in my mind as being firmly established in that position.

Right now there is keen debate on the issue, the amazing thing is that by the end of Taylor's career I don't think there will be. I believe that even those who's background is in long distance running, cycling or swimming will recognise Taylor as our finest athlete because of what she'll achieve, and I think as Irishmen, Irishwomen, Irish people, that is something we'd all enjoy.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Well, I guess if we polled non boxing fans and non athletics fans, just general sports fans, I would really bet that most would selcet the sport of boxing as overall the most difficult and tough sport vs. the 400 metres.

Because one LOOKS tougher to the naked, untrained eye. World's strongest man LOOKS like the toughest of all, but that doesn't mean it is.

gene_tunney

Nobody gets punched in the face in the 400m.