Boxing Discussion Thread

Training
81

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Marquez came off the roids. Thats what happened to his impressive condition that showed up in the pac fight.

He was getting a lot of negative attention and a big spot light placed on him for having hired Angel Heredia, who was formerly the “chemist” for many well known sprinters. Some say hes probably the best doping expert ever. And supposedly “reformed”. He’s the cocksucker who, where Victor Conte of BALCO said “fuck you” to the authorities when they asked him to roll on these athletes for a reduced sentence, Angel was all to happy to name and shame all parties involved to save his own skin.

So I very much doubt its coincidental or just a rootin tootin new training method that at nearly 40 years old, marquez leans out while putting on some impressive musculature, and a bit of spotty acne around his shoulders, while having Angel on his team.

Fuck me he looked great in the pac fight though. Bigger, faster, stronger indeed.

[/quote]

I strongly disagree with this assertion. Strongly.

C’mon Dave. You’re on THIS site, so you’ve got to know that Marquez being Marquez, is in the top 1 percent or so of the human gene pool. He could add a little muscle, and cut a little fat, and create a much more dramatic look VERY easily, even at 39.

And he looked slower against Bradley, but it was every bit of “styles make fights” - and Bradley fought a smart fight.

I do not believe Marquez took steroids. And I don’t think the Bradley loss was the result of him not taking them.[/quote]

I like marquez man, but you cant tell me its just coincidence that at 38 he is suddenly putting up big numbers in the weight room, suddenly leaning out and putting on upper body mass and a former doping expert just happens to be the s&c of choice he hires to make this happen, that doesnt sound the least bit fishy to you?

I dont blame him because tbh I think pacquiao has been on and off steroids for a good part of his career now. Theres even a story that floyd has had several samples supposedly excused for “inadvertent use”. As to what the samples tested positive for is anyones guess.

82

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Marquez came off the roids. Thats what happened to his impressive condition that showed up in the pac fight.

He was getting a lot of negative attention and a big spot light placed on him for having hired Angel Heredia, who was formerly the “chemist” for many well known sprinters. Some say hes probably the best doping expert ever. And supposedly “reformed”. He’s the cocksucker who, where Victor Conte of BALCO said “fuck you” to the authorities when they asked him to roll on these athletes for a reduced sentence, Angel was all to happy to name and shame all parties involved to save his own skin.

So I very much doubt its coincidental or just a rootin tootin new training method that at nearly 40 years old, marquez leans out while putting on some impressive musculature, and a bit of spotty acne around his shoulders, while having Angel on his team.

Fuck me he looked great in the pac fight though. Bigger, faster, stronger indeed.

[/quote]

I strongly disagree with this assertion. Strongly.

C’mon Dave. You’re on THIS site, so you’ve got to know that Marquez being Marquez, is in the top 1 percent or so of the human gene pool. He could add a little muscle, and cut a little fat, and create a much more dramatic look VERY easily, even at 39.

And he looked slower against Bradley, but it was every bit of “styles make fights” - and Bradley fought a smart fight.

I do not believe Marquez took steroids. And I don’t think the Bradley loss was the result of him not taking them.[/quote]

I like marquez man, but you cant tell me its just coincidence that at 38 he is suddenly putting up big numbers in the weight room, suddenly leaning out and putting on upper body mass and a former doping expert just happens to be the s&c of choice he hires to make this happen, that doesnt sound the least bit fishy to you?

I dont blame him because tbh I think pacquiao has been on and off steroids for a good part of his career now. Theres even a story that floyd has had several samples supposedly excused for “inadvertent use”. As to what the samples tested positive for is anyones guess.
[/quote]

fuck… I don’t no. my heart says he didn’t, head says the evidence is just too strong.

the appointment of Angel is a very peculiar one. on the other hand, are we really gone be in awe of a guys muscularity at 10.5 stone lol.

83


Yeah, if someone can do it, post pics of the weigh-in photos of Marquez before the Pacman fight and then with Timmy. Will look like a different dude.[/quote]

look at his shoulders in particular, the shape, the size.

84

Yeah, if someone can do it, post pics of the weigh-in photos of Marquez before the Pacman fight and then with Timmy. Will look like a different dude.[/quote]

now with Bradley. tbf Bradley is fucking diced. look at his bicep peak, the indentation on his abs.

right, that aside, back to Marquez, his abs just look soft, they aren’t nearly as pronounced. overall (for me) the physiques are noticeably apart - not stupidly, if it were bodybuilding youd be talking a few months, but why has his shape dropped. only 3 possibility’s. 1. age. 2. he didn’t prepare as well. 3. …drugs.

85

those pics are far from perfect comparison. only thing ill say is that the top 1 is relaxed and the most recent with Bradley is flexed.

86

[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
those pics are far from perfect comparison. only thing ill say is that the top 1 is relaxed and the most recent with Bradley is flexed.[/quote]

Gotta’ be honest, I don’t see a huge difference, if any. When your arms are down (like in the first pic) you can hit your abs harder (flex them and push them “out”) more, so they’re going to look better than they do in an arms-overhead double-bicep pose. He’s got more of a tan in the first pic (or the lighting is more flattering) . . . maybe he’s the “teency-est” bit more lean, (?) but hard to really say.

And you just can’t compare shoulders in those two pics, given the completely different arm/shoulder positions/poses.

87

[quote]CarltonJ wrote:

fuck… I don’t no. my heart says he didn’t, head says the evidence is just too strong.

the appointment of Angel is a very peculiar one. on the other hand, are we really gone be in awe of a guys muscularity at 10.5 stone lol.

[/quote]

This is kind of what I’m saying. We’re all on a weightlifting site frequented by steroid users, and we’ve all been here a long time.

WE of all people know that a lot of the rumors about “how to tell” someone is on gear are false, and that - especially when it comes to pro athletes who are endowed by their creator with the absolute top of the genetic gene pool - it’s a lot easier to LOOK good because you cut some fat.

And yea, they weighed in at 147. His body is not exactly a towering achievement in terms of bodybuilding for his height, and his lifts, whatever they may be, are surely not anywhere near elite in powerlifting.

So what are we basing it on? The fact that he was ripped? Or a tiny bit bigger than he was previously? Are we sure that the introduction of Angel didn’t simply get him weightlifting a little, as opposed to the more traditional style of training for boxing found in third world countries like Mexico (which probably has always involved running, hitting a bag, and sparring?)

I’m not putting anything past anyone. And he might have done it, who knows - as a baseball fan, there were a lot of guys named in previous scandals that I would not have thought of had you just asked me.

But I’m gonna need more proof than the fact that he was a half-percentage point lower in body fat than he was for a previous fight.

Fuck, that could literally be the lighting on the stage.

88

[quote]Damici wrote:

[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
those pics are far from perfect comparison. only thing ill say is that the top 1 is relaxed and the most recent with Bradley is flexed.[/quote]

Gotta’ be honest, I don’t see a huge difference, if any. When your arms are down (like in the first pic) you can hit your abs harder (flex them and push them “out”) more, so they’re going to look better than they do in an arms-overhead double-bicep pose. He’s got more of a tan in the first pic (or the lighting is more flattering) . . . maybe he’s the “teency-est” bit more lean, (?) but hard to really say.

And you just can’t compare shoulders in those two pics, given the completely different arm/shoulder positions/poses.[/quote]

that’s fair, those pics aren’t the best. maybe its unintentional prejudice - in that it just seemed at the weigh in, in the ring, his physique seemed better.

89

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]CarltonJ wrote:

fuck… I don’t no. my heart says he didn’t, head says the evidence is just too strong.

the appointment of Angel is a very peculiar one. on the other hand, are we really gone be in awe of a guys muscularity at 10.5 stone lol.

[/quote]

This is kind of what I’m saying. We’re all on a weightlifting site frequented by steroid users, and we’ve all been here a long time.

WE of all people know that a lot of the rumors about “how to tell” someone is on gear are false, and that - especially when it comes to pro athletes who are endowed by their creator with the absolute top of the genetic gene pool - it’s a lot easier to LOOK good because you cut some fat.

And yea, they weighed in at 147. His body is not exactly a towering achievement in terms of bodybuilding for his height, and his lifts, whatever they may be, are surely not anywhere near elite in powerlifting.

So what are we basing it on? The fact that he was ripped? Or a tiny bit bigger than he was previously? Are we sure that the introduction of Angel didn’t simply get him weightlifting a little, as opposed to the more traditional style of training for boxing found in third world countries like Mexico (which probably has always involved running, hitting a bag, and sparring?)

I’m not putting anything past anyone. And he might have done it, who knows - as a baseball fan, there were a lot of guys named in previous scandals that I would not have thought of had you just asked me.

But I’m gonna need more proof than the fact that he was a half-percentage point lower in body fat than he was for a previous fight.

Fuck, that could literally be the lighting on the stage.[/quote]

ye, tbf, its innocent until proven guilty and prob not somet we want to discuss at too much length.

gotta mention though, at the risk of adding a little to the fire, in pac - marquez 4 it was the first time Marquez has knocked pac down wasn’t it. round 3 - that overhand right. I remember at the time thinking fuck, whats he got in the right hand dynamite?! then again, pac was coming forward a lot.

90

I dont think the knockout of pac is suspicious. It was a nearly perfectly timed punch, pac was coming foward as he always does and marquez had the perfect angle for a vicious overhand.

But since working with Angel marquez has looked really impressive athletically, its the fastest and strongest he’s been in a while.

I suppose you could make a case just for new training methods. Undoubtedly Angel wouldn’t have become as well regarded among athletes as he did if was simply a drug dealer. And it is true mexican athletes typically train the same way for their whole career and that massive endurance style workload is probably pushing into overtraining for a man coming up on his 40s.

91

Can’t wait to see Provodnikov tonight. It could get ugly for Alvardo, who I like. Should be very entertaining, although it might not last long.

92

damn Floyd could bang back in the day. sure now he has 2 kos in his last 10 fights. but before these he was 24 in 35. not too bad at all.

93

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Can’t wait to see Provodnikov tonight. It could get ugly for Alvardo, who I like. Should be very entertaining, although it might not last long.[/quote]

haven’t seen it yet but heard Provodnikov was relentless. love to see him take on danny Garcia or matheyse.

for me the 140-147 is the most exciting division(s) going atm. kovalev and ggg are making more and more noise but I don’t see any1 either putting up a challenge against ward, nor Hopkins or any other light heavy. 140-147 is just so open atm.

94

fuck I worded that badly. I mean WARD for me beats everyone at light heavyweight or lower.

id be very interested to see kovalev v Hopkins.

95

whilst im on light-heavy… wtf is with mandatory’s. tony bellew taking on Adonis Stevenson?

at the risk of having to eat a whole load of humble pie…this is an absolute mismatch. I don’t see anything other than Stevenson brutally koing bellew.

96

[quote]Damici wrote:

[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
those pics are far from perfect comparison. only thing ill say is that the top 1 is relaxed and the most recent with Bradley is flexed.[/quote]

Gotta’ be honest, I don’t see a huge difference, if any. When your arms are down (like in the first pic) you can hit your abs harder (flex them and push them “out”) more, so they’re going to look better than they do in an arms-overhead double-bicep pose. He’s got more of a tan in the first pic (or the lighting is more flattering) . . . maybe he’s the “teency-est” bit more lean, (?) but hard to really say.

And you just can’t compare shoulders in those two pics, given the completely different arm/shoulder positions/poses.[/quote]

uh, yeah. Ditto that. And what about lighting? Lighting is different in the two pictures, and that can wash damn near anybody out in any conditioning. The effect of lighting is very dramatic.

97

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Damici wrote:

[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
those pics are far from perfect comparison. only thing ill say is that the top 1 is relaxed and the most recent with Bradley is flexed.[/quote]

Gotta’ be honest, I don’t see a huge difference, if any. When your arms are down (like in the first pic) you can hit your abs harder (flex them and push them “out”) more, so they’re going to look better than they do in an arms-overhead double-bicep pose. He’s got more of a tan in the first pic (or the lighting is more flattering) . . . maybe he’s the “teency-est” bit more lean, (?) but hard to really say.

And you just can’t compare shoulders in those two pics, given the completely different arm/shoulder positions/poses.[/quote]

uh, yeah. Ditto that. And what about lighting? Lighting is different in the two pictures, and that can wash damn near anybody out in any conditioning. The effect of lighting is very dramatic.[/quote]
Agreed. I think the only reason that there is any suspicion of any kind of PED use is due to the addition of Angel Heredia to his camp. Marquez must have known that by hiring him he was inviting all kinds of scrutiny. However, I just don’t see this unbelievable transformation in Marquez’s physique that everyone is shitting themselves over. Yes, he did look more muscular than before in Marquez v PAC IV but nothing that 6 months of a basic linear progression program and some top notch nutrition couldn’t have produced in virtually anyone who had the amount of time and resources to put into it that a professional athlete does. This whole thing reminds me of the Emperor’s New Clothes . I’m still waiting for a journalist with some balls to finally come out and say that they don’t see a huge transformation in his physique. I mean, in the HBo 24/7 for the fight, Marquez 1/4 squats 275 for a single and people are talking about his otherworldly strength! Come on!

98

FROCH GROVES!!! WHAT A FIGHT!!!

STOPPED TOO EARLY??

FROCH CAN BE HURT BUT NOT STOPED HAHA

99

Froch took some huge shots clean on the jaw. hes far too reliant on his chin. hes my favourite fighter but after tonight I don’t see any point him taking a rematch with ward.

best chin in current boxing!? ha

david tua esq!

100

broner maidana?? sick. what a performance. 31 kos from 34 wins at welterweight… maidains a monster ha. thought hed have got broner out of there if it wasn’t for the headbutt allowing broner time to recuperate.