Instigator / Pro
11
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4087

1973 Nicolino Locche would beat 2007 Floyd Mayweather in a boxing match

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
13
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description

Nicolino Locche lacked punching power. He was 5’6 and a chain-smoker, as well as barrel-chested. In 1973, he was 34 years old and nearing the end of his career.

Floyd is 5’8. In 2007, Floyd Mayweather was 30 years old and his defensive style was very new. This was the year he beat Oscar De La Hoya. Current Floyd Mayweather has a 50-0 ratio, he has never lost a fight!

This match assumes they’re both competing in the 140-145 range.

Rules:
1. BOP is on Pro. Since it’s impossible to prove something completely, Pro only needs to successfully convince voters the accuracy of the resolution.
Con will be arguing that Floyd would win, but all Con needs to do to win is refute Pro’s case rather than establish the certainty of his own.

2. Pro must provide at least three sources to meet the BOP. Con doesn’t need any.

3. Hypothetical boxing match will be 12 rounds with each round being three minutes. Both fighters will be assumed to weigh inbetween 140-145 lbs.

4. Alterations and adjustments can be made before the debate but once you accept, you agree to the terms.

5. Voters are not required to know anything about boxing in order to vote. I assure you, I will cover everything in detail.

As you can see, I am already at a disadvantage so this will make things interesting.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmuyvKvtPXc

He did pull a jan 6

-->
@AustinL0926

Thanks for the vote!

-->
@RationalMadman

Haven’t you reported votes to try to win debates and blocked people for voting against you? Or tried desperately to overturn an election?

You have no room to speak, so tread carefully.

-->
@RationalMadman

An insult to Islam....

Incredible.
The hypocrisy and bullshit are at the same level without mentioning how bizarre it is for you to get offended for a religion that you yourself have attacked.

If you join Muslim Boxing communities on Reddit, Nicolino Locche is one of the few boxers held in high esteem. Maybe not on the level of Muhammad Ali but majority of his core fanbase were Muslim.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

submissive people can have self respect. Nothing is wrong with wanting to be a lap dog but my personality doesn't really fit that at all, nor Wylted, making your insult degrading in a faulty way to even land the punchline much like you failed to land a win in this debate despite @ing the whole website twice over.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

what you tried to do is both an insult to Muslims having integrity to vote against Muslims in debates and furthermore is a lie. Nicolino has fuck all to do with Islam, Idk what you are actually talking about, there are Islamic boxers and they are barely affiliated with Nicolino, a proud Argentine (probably Italian descent with Catholic lean) Christian.

-->
@rayhan16

That’s fine.

You’re not required to vote, but you can if you want to.
Previous boxing knowledge is useful, but not necessary to judge.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

I can't lie, I know nothing about boxing lol

Also, Nico’s name is synonymous with Islamic communities in Boxing, regardless of his personal beliefs.

Encouraging votes based on that is not bribery. Lmao

-->
@RationalMadman

You made yourself a voluntary lapdog at the expense of your personal dignity.

Don’t lecture me on self-respect.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

Let the Muslims tell you that, you pathetic beggar using religion of 2 members to try to manipulate them to vote for you based on it. At first you were pathetic, now you genuinely disgust me. Get some self-respect.

-->
@RationalMadman

Between Nico and Floyd individually, who has done more for Muslim communities?

-->
@Yassine
@rayhan16

As we both know, it is not caucasian boxers but black boxers that have done more for Islam in boxing.

Cheers.

Neither Floyd nor Nicolino were Muslims, both were Christian.

-->
@Yassine
@Greyparrot
@SirAnonymous
@rayhan16

You guys might actually enjoy voting on this. It’s possible you heard of Nicolino through his contributions to Islam at some point.

-->
@YouFound_Lxam

Would you be interested in casting a vote?

If Wylted had the intent of rigging the debate in my favor. Why would he jeopardize a potential victory by outing himself in the comments?

I obviously would have just PMed that to him if this were some illuminati conspiracy or something

RM you were the only person who read that who didn't have the common sense to see it was a joke.

The rules are implying situations that aren't extremely obvious jokes or kidding.

I was also joking, everything that suits my agenda is not a joke and anything that doesn't is a joke or is malicious.

I am so socially savvy hee haww.

FYI the rules outlaw the 'just kidding' excuse.

The problem with autism is they have a hard time picking up on humor and other subtleties which means they aren't fit for positions of power

-->
@Wylted

Ik it was a joke.
I also knew you were joking when you threatened to invoke your power as President to stop votes against you in the rap debate.

But it scared people for a good moment.

I am obviously joking. Stop being a spaz

-->
@AleutianTexan

Thanks for the vote!

-->
@AleutianTexan

Thanks for this great vote.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@PREZ-HILTON

How is it fair that wylted can publicly promise and prearrange votes towards someone like this?

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

CVB incoming Don't worry

-->
@RationalMadman
@Sir.Lancelot

Notes for Pro
1. You get lost in the sauce of "who's a better boxer" instead of who would win in a fight. Bulbasaur is statistically weaker than a Squirtle, but Bulbasaur would still win the fight. I use this analogy to say that you need to tell me what a fight looks like. Is Nicolico going so long that Floyd quits, is he getting the knockout, or is he racking up points? The only description I'm given of how Nicolico wins rounds is Round 1 when you say he tired a guy out into giving up. I don't think he could do that to Floyd.
2. You number your speech so well in Round 1, but then Con creates a mud pit in how they don't answer your points directly or number their points, and then you wrestle in the mud pit. I write all the arguments on an excel sheet when I judge to be as fair as possible to yall, and that's easier when both sides try to stick to points.
3. The argument you mishandle the most is the "modern boxing is just better". Your answer is three reasons why it's better, nutrition, tech, and regulations. You should focus on the regulations making boxers unable to fully engage and how fighting more gave more training (you say they fought more, but going that extra step takes it from defensive (proving the opponent untrue) to offense (saying the opponent is proving your point)).

Notes for Con
1. You won on presumption, which is good for BOP on pro debates, but not phenomenal. Work on hammering harder how Floyd would win. Also, you drop a lot of defensive arguments, like the calcium, expert analysis of Nicolico's defense and cherry-picking (you said this wasn't true, but never warranted or answered Pro's individual points).
2. Please, when constructing new arguments, title/number them and use the opponent's title/numbers when answering. It makes the debate so much easier to judge.
3. Pro does a good job of describing Floyd in 2007, not over his career. You need to be more time specific with a lot of your points.

As always, really good debate. Please comment, question, or message me with any questions or complaints!

-->
@RationalMadman
@Sir.Lancelot

I vote Con because Pro has failed to prove how Nicolico would win.

This is a really good round, and I'll type a lot here, so I'll explain the anatomy of my decision so you can get what you want, only. I type out how every argument happens individually, then under that, type a conclusion of my weighing those against one another. I come back to the top and put my decision, and then try to give notes, usually three, of what both sides could have done to make them win or win by a larger margin.

1. The burden of proof is that Nicolino could win, meaning I need to buy that statement as true to vote Pro.

2. Was Nicolino good at defense, or just the inventor of defense? Pro has an expert analysis of how good Nicolino was, as well as a quote from a trainer about how he could bait people into swinging and then dodge. The only argument comparing pure defense between the two is the nickname game, and I buy that Pretty boy is probably an appearance thing, but untouchable is probably from good defense.

3. On energy conservation, Pro is uncontested.

4. On training, I buy that Floyd does better training as this is uncontested.

5. On the difficulty of boxing today versus in the 70's, even though boxers fought more, I buy that the nutrition information, tech, and training techniques mean that boxers today are better (writ large) than boxers in general. I buy judging has stayed consistent, however.

6. Is Floyd best at defensive opponents? Uncontested yes, the contestation Pro gives is that Nicolino is good enough to overcome this, not that Floyd isn't good at beating defensive debaters.

7. I buy Floyd plays dirty and this will have an effect on catching Nicolino off guard in small moments.

8. I buy that Floyd doesn't use a hybrid strategy, but is transitioning to defense in 2007 (even if he had a hybrid strategy at other times in his career, there is no year on this)

9. I buy that in 2007 Floyd had calcium deficiencies in his hand.

10. I buy that Floyd has much more stamina than Nicolino because of better training.

11. I buy that Floyd cherry-picks fights that he can win and pushes boxes off until they're past their prime.

12. I buy that Floyd has reach and Nicolino has strength/girth.

These disparate points, unfortunately, aren't put all together for me by either side, leaving winning offense on both sides for me to piece together. The BOP says I have to answer the question, can Nicolino beat Floyd, so I begin with the question of will either tire out, to which I say no, Nicolino conserves energy and Floyd has the stamina from training. Next, I ask, can either knock out the other one, to which I have to put pieces together. Both are weak hitters, but Floyd has 27 knockouts. His knockouts, however, are not given to me in a timeframe of his entire career, however, I do know that he cherry-picks fighters he can beat and he had calcium deficiencies in 2007, so he's trying to avoid punching. Nicolino is a weak hitter, so he couldn't get the knockout either. This means the boxing round comes down to points. I know the boxing has gotten harder with time, Floyd is best at defensive opponents (even if they are cherry-picked to be weak) and He will also sneak in extra hits by playing unfairly. Floyd, however, has calcium deficiencies and therefore is a defensive boxer as well. Pro, however, has no offense about Nicolino's hitting. The big issue here is I have a huge blindspot in my ability to vote Pro, namely, I don't know how Nicolino won rounds. I know for a fact he wouldn't tire out Floyd because it's 12 rounds and Floyd can do that. I know for a fact that he wouldn't get the knockout either because he was a weak hitter. I'm never told about him racking up points in a fight, so I don't feel that has been proven to me. Even if I'm skeptical about Floyd's ability to rack up points in a fight because of his transition to defense, I still believe that has been labeled as a strategy, while Nicolico has no winning strategy for me to vote on.

-->
@Wylted
@Ramshutu
@ILikePie5

I wonder if I can convince Ram or Pie to vote.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

Just reading that I am supposed to reward you. Unfortunately this topic is not interesting to me

-->
@RationalMadman

Nice job changing your PFP to a boxing icon. Nearly makes up for your timid personality.

-->
@RationalMadman

Ironic.
Me pestering people for votes vs a year of unsuccessful plotting to get the mods to love and respect you.

Which was the bigger failure in your opinion?

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

keep bumping and begging then, let me know when Wylted rewards you for being a good bitchboy.

-->
@RationalMadman

Given how much you simp for special privileges, you’re the last person to talk about beta male energy.

I will laugh if your begging backfires.

This is some serious beta male level desperation. Gamma male even.

-->
@TheUnderdog

Would you like to vote?

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

Bump for votes

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

I'll think about it.

Currently about halfway through the vote. Weighting the arguments is pretty tricky.

Bump

-->
@RationalMadman

I literally can't understand either of the arguments without doing some research to find out basic context.

-->
@RationalMadman

Ah. I see.

-->
@Best.Korea

Would you like to vote?

-->
@Athias

Would you like to vote on this?