Katie Taylor. Do you think you could beat her in a fight?

Am I the only who laughs when she is described as Ireland's greatest ever sportsperson as some have claimed. She's won a lot but its in a sport with a tiny participation level. I wouldn't put her at the same level of Sonia O'sullivan at all. When it comes to sports like mens football or golf, female boxing is such a tiny sport in terms of scale that I don't think people from the two backgrounds can really be compared in terms of how good they are.

I've nothing against Katie but I wonder could the people who speak of her in glowing terms name a single other female boxer.

I wouldn't last 10 seconds in a ring with her nonetheless.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

In a fight? No.

In a boxing match? No.

Fixed your post.

Anyone that doesn't do any fighting training at all that thinks they have a chance is deluded. She'd floor you with a 3 or 4 punch combo before you could blink

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

You might be alright, yeh. Really you're just showing your ignorance of boxing in particular and sport in general. At the top level of any sport, the number of peers and the depth of talent is the same. The reason KT is so far ahead of the field has nothing to do with the quaity of the competition, it's because she really, really is just that good. In any sport, in any era, the greats of the day would be the greats of any other day, no matter who they had to compete with. They raise their game every time it matters. That's what makes them greats and that's what puts her among them.

I don't really take your point, the more participants in a sport the harder it is to get to the top. Surely you understand this basic point?

By your rationale it is as good an achievement to be the greatest author in the english language as it is say being the greatest author in the irish langauge.

You would see no difference presumably between say Bernard brogan and Lionel Messi in terms of ability or say Henry Shefflin and Rafa Nadal. Correct?

Dots1982 wrote: »

I don't really take your point, the more participants in a sport the harder it is to get to the top. Surely you understand this basic point?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the fact is that at the top level of any sport the competition is reduced to a small pool of peers. In men's Tennis for example, it is really about less than half a dozen players for some time now.

Dots1982 wrote: »

By your rationale it is as good an achievement to be the greatest author in the english language as it is say being the greatest author the irish langauge.

Of course it is. A deeper pool of writers doesn't mean they're all good, let alone great. A wider readership doesn't mean the output is any better.

Dots1982 wrote: »

You would see no difference presumably between say Bernard brogan and Lionel Messi in terms of ability or say Henry Shefflin and Rafa Nadal. Correct?

No, not correct and based on nothing I said. Of those you've mentioned, Bernard Brogan doesn't fit as he had some great victories and was a great competitor, but didn't produce his best stuff consistently, or for very long and had an eye on retirement long before he did, so his record doesn't compare to Messi, as you've proposed. He also had huge technical faults, in defense in particular.
Nadal is hugely popular, eyecatching and has a great record on clay, but none of the top 3/4 in his era have established clear dominance, including him. That may be more of a reflection of the fact that tennis is played on a variety of surfaces though, whereas boxing rings are the same everywhere. Henry Shefflin was a great, but playing in a great team, making it impossible to say what he'd have done in any other team. If he played in the Louth hurling team, he coould have been the greatest hurler ever to win **** all. In boxing, there's nobody to carry you on an off-day. There's no team to get through the early rounds without you while you're injured, to give you a chance to play in later rounds. You don't fight in boxing, your tournament is over. There is no benefit to the team you box in, you'll still be on your own in the ring.
In comparison, KT has travelled everywhere and won against all challengers, with only one notable loss on a hometown decision, which was such a travesty that the governing bodies met afterwards to discuss changes to the judging and scoring systems. She didn't moan and she came back stronger. That's a champion.

Dots1982 wrote: »

I didn't need a critque of Bernard Brogan vs messi or Nadal vs Shefflin. My basic point is that you think participation levels have no bearing on how good it takes to be the best in that sport which is completely deluded.

You proposed that I had a theory on those comparisons, so the critque was invited to explain why you were misunderstanding my point.

I know sport at the top level and I know that the depth of the pool at the lower levels has little bearing, the pool of peers at the top level is what matters and in pretty much all sports, it's the same sized pool. There is no sport where you have to beat everybody in straight competition to win.

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

You proposed that I had a theory on those comparisons, so the critque was invited to explain why you were misunderstanding my point.

I know sport at the top level and I know that the depth of the pool at the lower levels has little bearing, the pool of peers at the top level is what matters and in pretty much all sports, it's the same sized pool. There is no sport where you have to beat everybody in straight competition to win.

The pool for people who have played a game of football would be in the very high millions, the pool of women globally who have fought in a boxing ring is hard to gauge but would be about .000something of that. Thats the size of the "pools".

DeVore wrote: »

Well I'm not an internet hardman, but I did grow up in Coolock and then lived in D1 for most of my life so I've been in a fight or two.
My father was Irish amateur champion for a few years and taught me as a lad. But I do agree with the spirit of your comments, boxing isnt a bad thing to know in a street fight, but what I meant was that it wont go by Queensbury Rules and turns into a wrestling match fast.

Re: BJJ, Sorry, I didnt think of Judo because I wouldnt have referred to it as a "ground fighting" art. Would you? (genuine question, I know you are a Judoka). I always think of Judo as the art of you putting someone ELSE on the ground

Having seen some high level Judokas in my time, yeah... now that you mention it, I'd probably pick Judo or MT for a street fight if I could only pick one artform. Dont ask me which, because my trainer might be reading
High level Judoka's are amazingly scary... there are two 65 year old black belts in my club and mother of god.... I hope some punk tries to rob them of their pension someday hahah

DeV.

I never implied you were an internet hardman at all, and I'd hope you don't read me as coming across as one either.

But I do have 20 years (+/-) doorwork experience to draw on and I've never seen a boxer have any real trouble on the street - btw, I'm talking about real boxers here and not the guy who says "I done a bit of boxing years ago", because I think most of us put on a pair of gloves growing up.

Judo and BJJ are opposite sides of the same coin, yes Judo is about putting someone on the ground (or hitting them with the world ) but people 'tend to forget that of the four ways to win a judo fight, three are on the ground (chokes/strangles, submission/joint lock and pins).

I often say you can have all the fancy take downs in the world, or all the fancy joint locks and sub's, but everyone understands a punch in the snot and when a boxer opens up on someone it can be pretty special.

Re. internet hardman comments - its hard to talk about fighting or martial arts on the internet without someone accusing you of being an internet hardman.. To me martial arts just provides me with the tools to defend myself (and others) in work. But I love martial arts, otherwise I wouldn't be moderating a martial arts forum here. I love to promote martial arts both on and off the internet and I see its benefits in terms of discipline, health and wellbeing, its social aspects etc. Anyway I'm getting away from the point.

Martial arts, and judo in particular, are a part of my life. There's probably not five minutes go past when I'm not thinking about something m.a. related.. When I gave up the doors for four years I didn't give up martial arts training.

Its my passion.