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
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This RfD is a bit short, I'm not making it as detailed as it could be because it doesn't really affect things anyway - I'm just doing it to provide feedback.

PRO's main points are that Nicolino had a better defensive style, superior energy conservation, more experience, and a sturdier frame.
CON's main points are that Floyd has a strong style against other defensive fighters, has a better grasp of the sport, and has also proven himself to be one of the best boxers in a competitive era.

Along the way, PRO adds a few more points (like Floyd's calcium deficiency), while CON adds some important ones as well, such as Floyd having better training.

Both sides agree that Floyd and Nicolino are more defensive fighters, so they lack the ability to score a knockout punch, meaning the fight will likely go to the judges. Although PRO had some convincing points about Nicolino's superior physique, as well as conservation of energy, he also dropped CON's points about Floyd's stamina (due to better training) as well as Floyd's ability to score points with the judges. In addition, the fundamental problem is that PRO failed to really show how Nicolino would win, and the BoP is entirely on him, so he can't do better than a tied argument.

I was leaning towards CON on arguments for this reason, but he also dropped a lot of important points, such as Floyd's calcium deficiency (PRO did a good job exploiting the time-frame mentioned in the title), as well as Nicolino's defense. Also, CON's second-round forfeiture really hurt him - he was basically stuck playing catch-up for the rest of the debate.

So, arguments are tied.

Conduct is to PRO, since CON forfeited.

Overall, this was a great debate by both sides. I think that the BoP being entirely on PRO, however, was just too much of a disadvantage to overcome. CON's forfeiture helped PRO, but since fundamentally I never saw a clear way for Nicolino to win, it didn't really affect arguments.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD (Reason for decision) in the comments, it was too long for the box.