The Boxing Thread

[DieselDaisy]

A lot of people suddenly become boxing fans yesterday, formed an opinion and were perfectly willing to express that opinion, and will now bugger off back to premiership football, MMA and WWF wrestling where they belong.

[Len Cnut]

Literally Floyds only fault is that he's not really a finisher...and apparently thats enough to indictment as near on worthless as a fighter in some peoples eyes, which is ridiculous.

Every all time great, to a man, with the exception of Ray Robinson who just was perfect in every concievable way, had a weak spot. Ali didn't have a knockout punch really. Didn't shoot any body shots. He had his weaknesses. Rocky Marciano, undefeated 49-0, certified great, didn't have no fuckin' footwork, no speed. Tommy Hearns had a questionable chin sometimes. Every fighter has shit about them where they lack, no fighter in history has ever been perfect...except as i say, Ray Robinson who had one punch knockout power, skill, speed, technical ability, aggression, knockout power in either hand, great defence, a piston of a jab, he had everything. But historically he's the only one.

I rate Floyd not on the level of an Ali or a Ray Robinson but he definitely belongs in the category just below with your Pernell Whittakers and Aaron Pryors and so forth.

[DieselDaisy]

Hearns had a balance problem. He sometimes had wobbly legs.

[Lithium]

What do you think of Deontay Wilder, Len?

[Len Cnut]

Emmanuel Steward said that he was a little weenie in Detroit, this gangly kid that came to the Kronk gym to learn to fight so the big boys wouldn't steal his coat. I'd liked to've seen the big boys have a go taking his coat in 1984

[DieselDaisy]

I would say Sugar Ray Leonard was a fairly complete fight. He could dance like Ali but had more punching power, body shots etc. He fought a slugfest against Duran and was marginally defeated.

[Len Cnut]

What do you think of Deontay Wilder, Len?

I think he's a very good fighter in a somewhat poor division that, when he faces elite competition, will get found out, simply because he's just wild and swings from the rafters and isn't ever so technically inclined. Those wild winging punches look great on the telly but it takes the most basic of boxing techniques to hold off a fighter like that and thats a good jab. Wlad Klitschko would keep him at bay all night and, if he decided to commit himself, maybe put him away in the later stages.

I like him though, he's good, he comes to fight, he ain't afraid of no one, he offers everyone out and he seems a really nice guy too. Go to youtube and type in Deontay Wilder fights internet cupcake, it's really funny, it's this twat who'd been caning the shit out of Wilder on Twitter, offering him out for a fight, saying all types of wild shit about his baby daughter, check out the vid, see what happens In fact, here it is:

The same guy btw, managed to get in a spar with Mayweather Snr, lost and ends up waiting til he's not looking, socking him in the face and running out of the gym full pelt

I would say Sugar Ray Leonard was a fairly complete fight. He could dance like Ali but had more punching power, body shots etc. He fought a slugfest against Duran and was marginally defeated.

Didn't really have quite the one punch knockout power of a Ray Robinson but honestly, I wouldn't argue this point with you much. It's 99.9% accurate i reckon.

[Black Sabbath]

Every time Pac wasn't jabbing, he was losing the fight. So that was practically the whole time.

While I was rooting for Floyd, I was hoping the fight would have been more exciting. Definitely not worth any of the anticipation. The only reason this fight will be remembered is for how overhyped and boring it ended up being.

[DieselDaisy]

In the 1980s you had these fights every few years and they nearly always lived up to the hype:

Leonard v Duran I and 2 (both 1980)

Leonard v Hearns I (1981)

Hagler v Hearns (1985)

Leonard v Hagler (1987)

Four of the greatest fights of all time in the space of seven years. Unbelievable.

[Len Cnut]

In the 1980s you had these fights every few years and they nearly always lived up to the hype:

Leonard v Duran I and 2 (both 1980)

Leonard v Hearns I (1981)

Hagler v Hearns (1985)

Leonard v Hagler (1987)

Four of the greatest fights of all time in the space of seven years. Unbelievable.

Cuz the people demanded the bastards fight, i could set you up any number of great match ups offhand in boxing just begging to happen...but they won't. And this fight sets a dangerous prescedent too, avoiding the key match til the twilight of your career.

[J Dog]

Len, I agree with you as well as the nay sayers. Is Floyd an all time great? Yes, I think he had earned that right. Is he boring as Hell to watch fight? Yes he is. He is great at what he does, but the problem is what he is great at isn't all that impressive. I'm not saying it isn't impressive to be a great defensive fighter, because that is impressive imo. But he uses the rules of boxing in order to do just enough to win. As I said last night, he doesn't want to beat the other fighter, he just wants to win the fight. That's a major difference. All the old greats wanted to actually beat the man they were fighting, that's why people are disappointed with him. Just doing enough to win, is all he wants to do. Which at the end of the day, he still wins, so you have to respect that about him.

I read an absolutely spot on article today that compared Floyd to a basketball team that shoots 95% from the free throw line and always finds ways to get to the line. So basically they are winning by shooting to free throws a game and playing defense. Yes they still won, so you have to give them credit, but they also played the most boring game ever to watch. I know basketball isn't very popular over there, so let me say it's like a soccer team that scores 1 quick goal every game, then just plays keep away the rest of the game and is always winning 1-0. Yea they won, but if they would have tried more than perhaps they could have scored more goals, but instead were happy with their 1-0 victory. That has been Floyd's entire career in a nutshell. He could have done more, he has the ability to be a good if not great offensive fighter, but he chooses not to. He is happy to do just enough to win. That's not the Tyson way, or Ali way, or Sugar Ray way. Its effective yes, and within the rules, but not what I like in fighters.

Having said all of that, Floyd has to be in the conversation for greatest welterweight of all time. Is he #1? No. But I do think last night ensured he is top 5. Just like Marciano isn't considered the greatest, but most do out him in the top 5.

Now I agree, just on his record and titles he will always be in the conversation. I'd probably say top 10 before I say top 5 but that's right now without thinking hard about it. If you want to play the whole fantasy thing like people do with, what if Tyson vs Ali in their prime and all that jazz, I can think of numerous guys that I think could beat Floyd. Hell, Sugar Shane got some real nice punches in on him and almost got the home run hit and that was with Shane way past his prime.

As bad as I hate to say it since I don't like the guy or his style of boxing, Floyd is catching too much shit from everywhere. I don't mean here really, I haven't read all the comments, but from everywhere in general. Yeah he did his dancing and hugging like always, but he tagged Manny pretty good in damn near every round. Besides those few times when Manny got him in the corner and let loose, he really couldn't do much else. I was actually surprised at how aggressive(if you call it that) Floyd was in those first few rounds.

Thing is though, in his recent fights, he hasn't been moving a lot. Roach was saying his legs were shot and he couldn't move as well as he used to. Proved that wrong, didn't he?

He looked pretty damn quick to me.

[DieselDaisy]

Does anyone know why the WBO welterweight, the belt Manny lost to Mayweather, is now vacant?

[Len Cnut]

Does anyone know why the WBO welterweight, the belt Manny lost to Mayweather, is now vacant?

Cuz Money vacated all the belts having won them, saying that its time to give the youngsters a chance.

[Iron MikeyJ]

I can't sit here and say that I'm confident that Wilder will beat Wlad, I will say I think it will be a lot closer than most realize. I watched both Wilder and Wlads last fights and here is what I took away from them; wilder is vastly inexperienced but is an underrated athlete. He suprised me with his foot speed. He is no Ali, but he isn't Chuck Wepner either. I do think his punching power is slightly exagerated, yes he can punch, but Tyson he is not. Honestly as far as punching power goes, id rate him with guys like Frank Bruno or ken Norton. Big strong guys, hard hitting but not devastating.

Wlad on the other hand is in a very similiar boat with Floyd. Both are aging, use the jab, clintch in close, and would rather not mix it up, happy to win by points. But what separates the two of them is that Wlad is primed for an upset. The man is Butterbean slow, his feet look like they are mud. He also really struggles with moving, athletic fighters. But he does have a big right hand, that the entire division appears afraid of getting hit by.

So in conclusion, yes I do think Wilder can beat him, but he needs to fight a couple of other guys first. It would be a mistake to get in the ring with Wlad right now, Wilder needs more experience against top contenders first. Of he does that, he can indeed beat him. Will he beat him? That's up to Wilder, it won't be easy, he will have to stick and mmove, out speed him with his feet and hands. But he does have the tools to end Wlads reign.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ

[DieselDaisy]

Does anyone know why the WBO welterweight, the belt Manny lost to Mayweather, is now vacant?

Cuz Money vacated all the belts having won them, saying that its time to give the youngsters a chance.

He is still WBA and WBC according to their websites.

[Len Cnut]

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/12811515/floyd-mayweather-says-vacate-titles-give-other-fighters-chance

[DieselDaisy]

He is not the WBO champion though. According to them it is vacate. Ahh fuck it. Sanctioning body bollocks. Why does nobody want to be undisputed champions any more. Floyd would only need to fight Kell Brook for the IBF?

[DieselDaisy]

The WBA recognizes the title holders from the WBC, WBO, and IBF organizations. The WBA refers to a champion who holds two or more of these titles in the same weight class as an "undisputed champion" or "super champion". This applies even if the WBA title is not one of the titles held by the "undisputed champion".[5][6] In September 2008, Nate Campbell was recognized as lightweight "undisputed champion" for his WBO and IBF titles, while the WBA's own champion was Yusuke Kobori.[7]

If a fighter with multiple titles holds the WBA's title as well, the fighter is promoted to "Super Champion" and the WBA title becomes vacant for competition by other WBA-ranked boxers. As a result, the WBA tables will sometimes show a "WBA Super World Champion" and a "WBA World Champion" for the same weight class, instead of "WBA Champion".[8] The WBA has even been known to recognize three different fighters as one form of champion or another in the very same weight class (Interim, Super and Regular Champion) and there have been occasions where on the same night in two different parts of the world two different WBA "World" Champions are defending their versions of same WBA weightclass titles.

A WBA champion may be promoted to "Super Champion" without winning another organization's title: Chris John, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and Anselmo Moreno are examples. The WBA will promote their titlist to a "Super" champion when he successfully defends his title five times.[9]

Are you any wiser haha? You need an university degree to understand that. I am sure they just pull this stuff out of their arse.

[Len Cnut]

They just made a fuckin wank-sack of this title thing, they really have.

[Iron MikeyJ]

It's a b.s.. They can call it whatever they want, but it's just a way to have more guys they can call champion, which is crap.

[Len Cnut]

This documentary got list is the avalanche of posts here today but i think any fans of boxing will love it, particularly if you like Bernard Hopkins or Mike Tyson, its brilliant, takes you through their life story, story on the streets etc, reccomend it to everybody. Brand new too

B-Hops story is particularly interesting, if only because I've only ever read about it before, as opposed to from the gee gee's mouth.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Bono]

I'd have more respect for the guy if he fucking pushed the pace. He doesn't,. For fuck sakes unless Manny or anyone goes after him he won't engage. It's fucking hilarious that you think he dominated. he simply won on the scorecard. And yeah yeah blah blah blah tha's what it's all about I know you think it's a patty cake contest or soemthing. I've seen guys win on the score card but actualy dominate. there's a big fucking difference. Clearly you don't know the difference.

*sigh*

This is just getting tedious, again, i don't know how many ways i can say this til it gets through to you, 9 rounds to 3 IS domination. Now if in your mind domination means its got to 9 rounds to 3 or more with some serious pounding going on in those 9 rounds or more then I'm sorry but i am not responsible for that presumption. This isn't rock band criticism, it isn't about interpretation, it isn't subjective, there are factual rules to this shit and when you beat someone 9 rounds to 3, that is referred to as domination and it has been for as far back as you wanna go in the sport. The fact that you can't reconcile yourself to this fact is not really my problem.

It's amazing how you can disect every fucking word I say yet not even remotely understand what I'm saying. It's fucking hilarious how you sit there and preach to me about how the sweet science is scored in some weak attempt to make yourself look knowldgable about the sport while trying to prove I know nothing about it. No fucking shit 9 rounds to 3 is domination in a numerical sense but there was no damage done to either guy. As I watched the fight I knew Manny was way behind on the scorecard but also knew he was never in any danger. Nobody dominated anybody. The fight could be 10-9 for Mayweather for all 12 rounds and it would just be a points win. Did he dominate on fluff points? Yes nobody denies that but you go on and on like he dominated Pacquiao to the point of it being a squash match. The way those guys fight they could've gone 20 rounds and Floyd would win on points every time. It's exactly what I expected to happen but he didn't dominate Manny the way you try to paint it. It's not dominating when your opponent is never in any danger whatsoever. the fact your'e preaching about the rules shows how butthurt you are over what I'm saying. I know the fucking rules. It's you who clearly has no grasp on what I'm saying. And the FACT is many boxing fans agree with me. They understand how it's scored they understand that 9-3 is a win but they also understand that Floyd, although technically great fights like a bitch and fought that fight never to win but rather not to lose. It's a reason a LOT of boxing fans don't like him and he will never be of the staure of the past all time greats. You can throw stats out all you want it won't elevate him to the heights of his "peers" He's at the bottom of the list when it comes to the best fighters ever. Anyways I look forward to you being a whiner and taking this to other threads and sections of the forum like you did last time.

[DieselDaisy]

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Your argument would be valid if, the only way to win a boxing match was to beat the other guy up. It is also however, number of rounds in the bag. Ali, never the heaviest hitter anyway, basically didn't have a decent fight again after Manila, scraping together cynical points accumulators, but it worked and extended his reign until Spinks.

[Bono]

I don't post in the work out thread either so I guess if I started posting in there people would tell me to learn something about working out haha.

What do you squat, brah?

haha! I'd tell ya but I always laugh at the guys who tell how much they lift haha

[Len Cnut]

It's amazing how you can disect every fucking word I say yet not even remotely understand what I'm saying. It's fucking hilarious how you sit there and preach to me about how the sweet science is scored in some weak attempt to make yourself look knowldgable about the sport while trying to prove I know nothing about it.

Well then instead of just gobbing off like a fucking twat why don't you actually go back and dispute the points I made, if they're so weak, prove me wrong. I point to specifics and facts pertaining to the precise letter of what you say, you spout off about your own opinion and/or your own interpretation of what certain pugilistic concepts mean, I can't be held accountable for that.

But I know you won't address any specifics because you don't know anything specific, I mean come on, they're weak points right, i don't know what I'm talkin' about right? Well then address something specific otherwise you're just pissing in the wind with broad nonsense. And i don't go on about the sweet science for your benefit, I been doing it in this thread since this thread came into being, believe it or not the world doesn't revolve around you and your odd personal logic.

No fucking shit 9 rounds to 3 is domination in a numerical sense but there was no damage done to either guy.

What other sense is there upon which you'd like me to judge a sport that is judged upon a numerical scoring system? 'numerical sense', what other sense am i supposed to approach it with, a spiritual sense perhaps? What in GODS name are you talking about you odd little person.

As I watched the fight I knew Manny was way behind on the scorecard but also knew he was never in any danger. Nobody dominated anybody.

Right, so he dominates the fight as according to the point system upon which the game is scored, i point out 'he dominated' to which you reply that he did not dominate...then after a few hours of pointless arguing with me you concede that it was in fact domination but you're not gonna call it that based on your own criteria which demands significant damage to a person before a fighter can be said to've dominated? Well sorry but my assessment was based on the accepted notions of the boxing world, not the 'what Bono feels like the rules are according to whether or not he's in love with the fighter in question', apologies for that.

The fight could be 10-9 for Mayweather for all 12 rounds and it would just be a points win.

See now the boxing term for that is also domination, taken a step further, known as a shut out. But again, we're dealing with the Unified Rules of the Bono Boxing Commission so apparently it's not, OK.

he way those guys fight they could've gone 20 rounds and Floyd would win on points every time.

What guys?

the fact your'e preaching about the rules shows how butthurt you are over what I'm saying.

But why would i be 'butthurt'? Like i said, I'm not a Floyd fan, despite your persistently insisting that I am, I'm not. As this thread in months and months gone by will illustrate. Unless you're suggesting that all that was an elaborate set up by me cuz i knew that months down the line I'd be having this conversation with you, in which case you're stupider than you look.

It's you who clearly has no grasp on what I'm saying.

It's not domination because Manny was never in any real trouble, it was just slick points scoring with no sustained attack ergo does not constitute domination, am i close? Also Mayweathers a boring overrated fighter than has no business being considered a great based on the fact that he's fought evasive battles where he's never decisively beat anybody and instead won a bunch of glorified Olympian points scoring sessions and the few good fighters he has fought he's either ducked until they're old or handicapped in some other way? Am i close?

And then i go and prove how each aspect of that has serious holes in it and is wrong and your response is refusing to address any of the specific references to your points that i highlight...the reason for that you'll have to explain to me.

And the FACT is many boxing fans agree with me. They understand how it's scored they understand that 9-3 is a win but they also understand that Floyd, although technically great fights like a bitch and fought that fight never to win but rather not to lose.

Uh..if you don't lose and it's not a draw then what else do you wanna call it if not a win?

You can throw stats out all you want

And all the facts and all the names of the opponents and all the specific fights that stand contrary to your position...but it still won't matter cuz Bono knows best.

Anyways I look forward to you being a whiner and taking this to other threads and sections of the forum like you did last time.

And i look forward to you repeating the same shit over and over and over in any and every discussion like a senile old lady despite constantly and consistently being made to look a fool by virtue of your own lack of understanding and knowledge about the things you choose to discuss. I apologise if pertinent aspects sometimes cross between threads and in your mind that makes this forum into some kinda Dynasty type soap opera where I'm trying to destroy you or something but trust me, that is not the case, its just a little corner of the internet where strangers like to discuss things together. And nothing more.