Is Katie Taylor Ireland best athlete

Magill

04072511 wrote: »

If Ali, Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran etc competed in the Olympics during their PRIME, they would have won gold medals. The people who actually won Olympic gold during this time would have been bit part players to Duran/Hagler/Ali's gold medal performances. To think otherwise is lunacy.

In athletics, the best of the best compete in the Olympics (except during the boycotted Games), so we all know that the winner really is the best at his/her discipline in the world. In boxing this is not the case.

Pal.... i think we should just give up. He won't get it. Maybe you have some picture illustrations ?

cowzerp

Elite amateur boxing is tougher than running, pro boxing is a different game and even tougher.

You's are clueless, have no clue how tough amateur boxing is, the standard is amazingly high, the top pros don't necessarily beat the top amateurs in amateur boxing, Bernard Dunne was world pro champ but did not qualify for the Olympics. It's a different game and scoring system plus there is never an easy fight unlike what can happen in pro boxing.

Keep it civil and don't be calling anyone ticks or you will be saying bye bye from here.

efb

Amateur boxing and Professional boxing are two different disciplines. Different rules, different length, different scoring.

Its like comparing sprints and long distance running.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

If Ali, Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran etc competed in the Olympics during their PRIME, they would have won gold medals. The people who actually won Olympic gold during this time would have been bit part players to Duran/Hagler/Ali's gold medal performances. To think otherwise is lunacy.

In athletics, the best of the best compete in the Olympics (except during the boycotted Games), so we all know that the winner really is the best at his/her discipline in the world. In boxing this is not the case.

If Hagler and Duran competed in the olympics while amateurs (having never turned pro) it is not at all certain that they would win. I have said several times, they are two different sports, training methods, rules etc.

It is most likely that Hags would not have made the '76 team. Spinks was at 165 lbs. Hagler would have had to compete at 156 lbs. Sure, he could have made that weight, but no, not at all ceratin he makes the 76 team

You do know that many great pros failed to get to the games? So, why would you make such a bold statement?

walshb

Sure, stick a prime PRO Hagler in a 3 x 3 fight in the 1980 games and I'd bet he wins every time. But, again, two different sports. He is a PRO boxer figting an amateur boxer.

Hagler as an amateur in 1973 is not at all guaranteed a medal, or even a place on the U.S team.

efb

Roy Keane was arguably the world's best player in the world's most popular sport, for a short time.

when exactly was this true?

walshb

Magill wrote: »

Pal.... i think we should just give up. He won't get it. Maybe you have some picture illustrations ?

No, you cannot comprehend that the two sports are different. One is Amateur and one is pro. The clue is in the sentence. I am not the only one to point this out to you.

Pisco Sour

efb wrote: »

Amateur boxing and Professional boxing are two different disciplines. Different rules, different length, different scoring.

Its like comparing sprints and long distance running.

Are you trying to deny the fact that if Ali stepped into the ring in Tokyo 1964, Mexico City 1968 or Munich 1972 that he would have won? Yes they are different disciplines, but boxing is still boxing. Different scoring systems are irrelevant when you've got somebody like Ali who can KO the amateur Olympic boxer. The fact of the matter is that if the Olympics were open to all boxers, amateur or professional, right now, the results would be hugely different to what they currently are.

Pisco Sour

cowzerp wrote: »

Elite amateur boxing is tougher than running, pro boxing is a different game and even tougher.

What a stupid statement. Try running 400m in 44 seconds. Take a trip down to Irishtown or Santry and witness the 400 guys vomitting on the side of the track after the 5th of 6 reps, and then getting up to do another one, then vommiting again. Those guys are as tough as nails.

What an ignorant comment.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Are you trying to deny the fact that if Ali stepped into the ring in Tokyo 1964, Mexico City 1968 or Munich 1972 that he would have won? Yes they are different disciplines, but boxing is still boxing. Different scoring systems are irrelevant when you've got somebody like Ali who can KO the amateur Olympic boxer. The fact of the matter is that if the Olympics were open to all boxers, amateur or professional, right now, the results would be hugely different to what they currently are.

Oh god. If Ali stepped into the ring in 1964 with 4 years pro experience behind him, yes, he sure could win, most likely he does, with Frazier giving him hell. So, not a certainty. If he never turned pro, and stayed amatuer, no, it's not a certainty. How is this difficult? I would say Joe Frazier could still win that gold in 1964.

Pro boxing and Amatuer boxing are two different sports.

Magill

cowzerp wrote: »

Elite amateur boxing is tougher than running, pro boxing is a different game and even tougher.

You's are clueless, have no clue how tough amateur boxing is, the standard is amazingly high, the top pros don't necessarily beat the top amateurs in amateur boxing, Bernard Dunne was world pro champ but did not qualify for the Olympics. It's a different game and scoring system plus there is never an easy fight unlike what can happen in pro boxing.

Keep it civil and don't be calling anyone ticks or you will be saying bye bye from here.

Thats just flat out biased tho, have you ever been an elite level runner ? What are your reasons for stating this as if it is fact. Sounds like you are infact as clueless as we are. No one said that the top pro's would beat the top amateurs in amateur boxing every time, but if they stayed amateur the level of competition at amateur level would be much higher, especially those that have proved they were the best at the amateur level.

Most of the gold medal winners from 4 years ago are not back to compete in London this year... boxers, like in almost any profession, get better over the years, not worse (Well until mid/late 30's). If they had stayed amateur, like they do in other disciplines, then the standard would undoubtedly be higher.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Sure, stick a prime PRO Hagler in a 3 x 3 fight in the 1980 games and I'd bet he wins every time. But, again, two different sports. He is a PRO boxer figting an amateur boxer.

Hagler as an amateur in 1973 is not at all guaranteed a medal, or even a place on the U.S team.

What do you mean they are 2 different sports. That's rididulous. They are both boxing. They may have different rules, scoring etc, but the fundamentals of both are the same. It is still 2 guys in a ring looking to knock each other out, and score clean punches that will impress the judges. It is not 2 different sports at all.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

What a stupid statement. Try running 400m in 44 seconds. Take a trip down to Irishtown or Santry and witness the 400 guys vomitting on the side of the track after the 5th of 6 reps, and then getting up to do another one, then vommiting again. Those guys are as tough as nails.

What an ignorant comment.

Who said they are not tough? Why do you take it personally? All he said was that amateur boxing is tougher. Hardly controversial, or as you say, stupid. Amateur boxing at elite level is extremely tough. Tougher than 400 metres. I think so. I also think the 400 is hell for toughness. Why is that so bothersome to you?

efb

04072511 wrote: »

Are you trying to deny the fact that if Ali stepped into the ring in Tokyo 1964, Mexico City 1968 or Munich 1972 that he would have won? Yes they are different disciplines, but boxing is still boxing. Different scoring systems are irrelevant when you've got somebody like Ali who can KO the amateur Olympic boxer. The fact of the matter is that if the Olympics were open to all boxers, amateur or professional, right now, the results would be hugely different to what they currently are.

Do you want to go through the weights and tell me the current pro boxer who'll win- or is eat just easier to talk hyperbole?

How many boxers get a KO within three rounds?

How many athletes could medal at a different discipline?

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

What do you mean they are 2 different sports. That's rididulous. They are both boxing. They may have different rules, scoring etc, but the fundamentals of both are the same. It is still 2 guys in a ring looking to knock each other out, and score clean punches that will impress the judges. It is not 2 different sports at all.

It is two different sports. If it wasn't, then we would have them all together in the games. The fundamentals are the same, but that is it. The training and stamnina needed and toughess and heaviness and so much more is different. You are a fairly sporty dude, I would have thought you could have seen this.

efb

04072511 wrote: »

What do you mean they are 2 different sports. That's rididulous. They are both boxing. They may have different rules, scoring etc, but the fundamentals of both are the same. It is still 2 guys in a ring looking to knock each other out, and score clean punches that will impress the judges. It is not 2 different sports at all.

can you tell me when Roy Keane was the best soccer player in the world?

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

What do you mean they are 2 different sports. That's rididulous. They are both boxing. They may have different rules, scoring etc, but the fundamentals of both are the same. It is still 2 guys in a ring looking to knock each other out, and score clean punches that will impress the judges. It is not 2 different sports at all.

Are you still claiming that a 22 year old amateur Hagler in 1976 is guaranteed to make the US Olympic team and win gold? Because, you cannot have it both ways, either he's an amateur in 1976 or he's not eligible. You cannot use the pro version and pit him against an amateur. If you don't know why, well?

Tyson in 1984 failed to make the games. By your logic you want to put the 1986 man in against the olympians in LA in 1984. That is not accurate at all.

efb

04072511 wrote: »

What do you mean they are 2 different sports. It is still 2 guys in a ring looking to knock each other out

this is not the case in amateur boxing

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Who said they are not tough? Why do you take it personally? All he said was that amateur boxing is tougher. Hardly controversial, or as you say, stupid. Amateur boxing at elite level is extremely tough. Tougher than 400 metres. I think so. I also think the 400 is hell for toughness. Why is that so bothersome to you?

Enlighten we as to why it is tougher than 400m? Have you ran one competitively? Train for one? Just because one involves another guy punching your brains out does not make it "tougher". Do amateur boxers have to deal with that level of lactic acid build up? The last 70 metres of a properly run 400m race is up there among the greatest levels of intense pain in sport.

efb

sure is all racing not a group of men trying to get to the finish line the fastest?

Breaking down sports like that is farsical and doesn't achieve anything.

Pisco Sour

efb wrote: »

can you tell me when Roy Keane was the best soccer player in the world?

1999. I didnt say he was. I said he arguably was.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

What a stupid statement. Try running 400m in 44 seconds. Take a trip down to Irishtown or Santry and witness the 400 guys vomitting on the side of the track after the 5th of 6 reps, and then getting up to do another one, then vommiting again. Those guys are as tough as nails.

What an ignorant comment.

You won't get many Irish coming close to 44 seconds by the way. You should have out 46/47 secs as a more reasonable time.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Enlighten we as to why it is tougher than 400m? Have you ran one competitively? Train for one? Just because one involves another guy punching your brains out does not make it "tougher". Do amateur boxers have to deal with that level of lactic acid build up? The last 70 metres of a properly run 400m race is up there among the greatest levels of intense pain in sport.

It is not provable. You can't prove 400 m running is tougher and I can't prove boxing is. I happen to think from my knowledge of both, moreso boxing, that the amateur boxing at elite level is tougher. You happen to think that 400 m is tougher, as you are involved moreso in that. No big deal, is it?

You are the one throwing around comments like "that's stupid," when in reality you cannot prove 400 m is tougher, just like me and cowzerp cannot prove Am boxing is tougher.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Are you still claiming that a 22 year old amateur Hagler in 1976 is guaranteed to make the US Olympic team and win gold? Because, you cannot have it both ways, either he's an amatuer in 1976 or he's not eligible. You cannot use the pro version and pit him against an amateur. If you don't know why, well?

Tyson in 1984 failed to make the games. By your logic you want to put the 1986 man in against the olympians in LA in 1984. That is not accurate at all.

No but lets put the 1988 Tyson in against the Olympians in Seoul in 1988. Does Tyson win? I'd say so.

Look, take the 10 winners of Olympic Gold in London. Take the 10 world champions in each weight (you can pick who you think is the best champion at each weight out of WBO, WBA, WBC, IBF, The Ring, God knows what else). Pit the Olympic champion up against the Pro World Champion at each weight, and have them fight under amateur rules. I'm willing to guess that the Pro boxers win more often than the Amateur boxers. Probably 7-3 or 6-4. This hugely distorts what the results in the Olympics would be if every boxer, amateur or pro, could compete.

walshb

BTW, many people happen to think that the 400 metres is the toughest race discipline of all. I think it's the 800. They are all sh1t tough though.

efb

04072511 wrote: »

1999. I didnt say he was. I said he arguably was.

well if you say he arguably was then surely you believe it?

wasn't in the top three of the Ballon D'or in 99 (I have no record of where he finished) , and joint 27th in 2000


I've never met anyone who would say it either.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

No but lets put the 1988 Tyson in against the Olympians in Seoul in 1988. Does Tyson win? I'd say so.
.

Yes, I agree, he most likely wins. But, I said this too, and I used Hagler as an example. The pro version of any great fighter will most likely beat the best amateur over 3x3 with no headgear. If a headgear, the amateur gets a little extra chance.

Important point is that they are two separate sports. I know that is difficult for you to agree with, and yes, I see where you are coming from, but seriously, the difference is very clear and distinct. Pro boxers at the top are savages compared to amateur boxers at the top.

Amatuer rules or not, the sport is about punching, and pros are savages. So, most likely they will beat any amatuer over 3 rds if they decide to go all out. But, they are pros. Two different sports and competitors.

If a pro decides to try and outbox or outpoint he could well come up short. But, take Manny, for example. If he stepped in with the best Am, I would be confident that if Manny went all out in a pro style he would prevail

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

It is not provable. You can't prove 400 m running is tougher and I can't prove boxing is. I happen to think from my knowledge of both, moreso boxing, that the amateur boxing at elite level is tougher. You happen to think that 400 m is tougher, as you are involved moreso in that. No big deal, is it?

You are the one throwing around comments like "that's stupid," when in reality you cannot prove 400 m is tougher, just like me and cowzerp cannot prove Am boxing is tougher.

But I'm not saying the 400m is tougher am I? You guys on the otherhand are saying that amateur boxing IS tougher. They are both tough in their own unique ways and their levels of toughness are incomparable. Never once did I say one is tougher than the other. But you guys did.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

But I'm not saying the 400m is tougher am I? You guys on the otherhand are saying that amateur boxing IS tougher. They are both tough in their own unique ways and their levels of toughness are incomparable. Never once did I say one is tougher than the other. But you guys did.

Ok, appologies then. I did say one was tougher, but did admit clearly that it's my view and opinion. I have no issue with anyone saying 400 is tougher.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

You won't get many Irish coming close to 44 seconds by the way. You should have out 46/47 secs as a more reasonable time.

:eek: David Gillick?? 44.77

Brian Gregan ran 45.9 last year. He'll be mid 45s this year I reckon.