keirw wrote: ↑20 Aug 2019, 05:03
It is amazing how differently loses are treated in boxing compared to MMA.
Look at Stipe Miocic, he has been knocked out 3 times in his UFC career but it didn't stop him from beating an ATG at the weekend.
Yet a boxer loses one fight and people start calling him a hype job and sometimes even call for him to retire.
I've said this before about boxing. I can't think of a single sport where the top person never lose. Look at tennis, all the greatest players have lost numerous times and sometimes to rank outsiders but no one says 'oh but remember when Sampras lost to that unseeded player'. UFC is a good comparison as a combat sport though, sometimes the difference in a win and a loss is very slim.
Its also funny that Pacquiau has been knocked out a few times, even early in his career to a nobody, but that rarely is mentioned by anyone when he fights or in his overall assessment as a fighter.
.
The difference is in those sports, even UFC, the athletes HAVE to face each other. In boxing, the fighter at the top level 100 percent can choose every opponent. When they lose, it's like "ha ha, you lost even though you picked your opponent."
I get really annoyed about ignorant fight fans openly declaring their admiration for MMA fighters that lose, whilst they repeatedly criticise boxers for losing and then subsequently proclaiming them as being utterly garbage that were exposed.
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑20 Aug 2019, 19:20
I get really annoyed about ignorant fight fans openly declaring their admiration for MMA fighters that lose, whilst they repeatedly criticise boxers for losing and then subsequently proclaiming them as being utterly garbage that were exposed.
It reeks of hypocrisy!
I don't follow MMA but it seems that they rarely go undefeated. It's so easy to take a loss by a quick toss or punch.
My guess is that we are slowly coming out of this Mayweather era of unblemished records. Our top and most respected fighters (respected among pugilist purist's) are the likes of Canelo, Golovkin, lomachenko, Jacobs...etc, all with losses now. This is a change for the better. I can also understand the AJ criticism, it was the manner in which he lost, it was the hype and delays of mega fights. If AJ can win again, which is not unlikely, he'll come out of this dark place of criticism (mostly).
1. Losses like Pacquiao's are less criticized than AJ's as Ruiz wasn't considered a top guy going into the fight (and maybe still isn't...?) Look at Tyson's record and nobody complains about the Holyfield or Lewis losses, it's the Danny Williams and Buster Douglas on the resume that get criticized. Lomachenko has a loss but it's so early in his career that it's not an issue. AJ losing in his 3/4/5 fight against low level opposition wouldn't be an issue. UFC guys fighting similar level oppo can take a loss. The trend has been for boxers' records to be padded and manufactured with the '0' in mind to generate mainstream appeal - when one loses against a heavy heavy underdog, it's noteworthy.
2. There may be 'no such thing as a lucky punch', but if I threw a basketball over my head from the half way line a hundred times and it went into the basket once, I'd say it was a lucky shot regardless of my intention to score. That said - Ruiz's wasn't a lucky punch, he clearly set up to get in the pocket and trade short hooks. IMO there are lucky punches but this wasn't one of them.
sharpei_louis wrote: ↑21 Aug 2019, 03:58
My take on a few strands of this thread:
1. Losses like Pacquiao's are less criticized than AJ's as Ruiz wasn't considered a top guy going into the fight (and maybe still isn't...?) Look at Tyson's record and nobody complains about the Holyfield or Lewis losses, it's the Danny Williams and Buster Douglas on the resume that get criticized. Lomachenko has a loss but it's so early in his career that it's not an issue. AJ losing in his 3/4/5 fight against low level opposition wouldn't be an issue. UFC guys fighting similar level oppo can take a loss. The trend has been for boxers' records to be padded and manufactured with the '0' in mind to generate mainstream appeal - when one loses against a heavy heavy underdog, it's noteworthy.
2. There may be 'no such thing as a lucky punch', but if I threw a basketball over my head from the half way line a hundred times and it went into the basket once, I'd say it was a lucky shot regardless of my intention to score. That said - Ruiz's wasn't a lucky punch, he clearly set up to get in the pocket and trade short hooks. IMO there are lucky punches but this wasn't one of them.
Top post
The luckiest punch I saw - as I agree with you, there is such a thing, was Danny Green Roy Jones. Danny's right hand hit Roy in the shoulder then bounced off it and hit him in the left ear. Fight over. Lucky.
I've been a long-time admirer of Andy Ruiz Jr’s and was repeatedly and aggressively mocked a few years ago when I claimed he was capable of beating Joseph Parker. I was proven right.
Lots of boxing pundits also appreciated Ruiz Jr’s talents during the build-up to the AJ fight.
And in fact, Anthony Joshua himself claimed that he regarded Andy as a serious threat.
Did you listen to Robert McCracken’s orders and strategy he conveyed to AJ? It was solely focussed on avoiding the Ruiz Jr’s fast hands and powerful combos.
I understand that ignorance, coupled with Andy’s physique, compels many people to believe that the Mexican-American should have been an easy opponent for the Brit, meaning that the outcome was somehow a “fluke”, but to those that follow the sport closely surely appreciated the severity of the challenge posed by Ruiz Jr.
For sure, Anthony Joshua CAN win the rematch, but the outcome should not be considered as being a foregone conclusion by any means, because Andy Ruiz Jr. won't be intimidated by AJ's physique, athleticism, power or boxing ability.
He was in the corner for the upset of the year and his guy had his hand raised. His guy did what many folks was unthinkable. Manny Robles saw it firsthand, as close as anyone but referee Michael Griffin and the main eventers at Madison Square Garden on June 1. And wait…was what he saw the product of luck?
That is what the dethroned heavyweight king Anthony Joshua has said.
Andy Ruiz beat me, he stated, compliments of “a lucky punch.” More specifically, “a punch sent by the Gods.”
The 22-1 (with 21 knockouts) Brit, age 29, said this to Anna Woolhouse on “AJ: The Untold Truth,” a Sky Sports offering, when discussing what went wrong against Andy Ruiz Jr., and what he believes will happen in the rematch in December.
The program isn’t available to watch online in America.
I checked in with Robles, who was working with clients in his gym, in California. What is his take on “AJ’s” declaration?
“I don’t think anything of it,” said Robles, who can snag “Trainer of the Year” honors if or when Ruiz repeats the task in the rematch on December 7. “What is there to think of? We know exactly what happened. AJ must have hit Andy with a lucky one too, except Andy got up!”
If you recall, on June 1, the 268-pound Ruiz went down in round three. The “composed and ferocious finisher” kept at it, looked to finish the flurry but Ruiz fired back…and returned the favor. A left hook sent the Brit to the mat. Was that “lucky?” The second knockdown scored by Ruiz in round three…More luck? The knockdown in round seven, off a flurry, a nasty barrage…Luck did it? That third one because Ruiz was enjoying more “luck?” The flurry later in that round, the fourth time Joshua went down. Luck explains it?
“Ready to box?” Griffin asked AJ, whose body language screamed “Not at all!”…C’mon, rhetorical question: Was this about luck or more so about skills and preparation and fire and desire? And yeah, maybe AJ came in with a half-rung bell. Maybe he’d been whacked around too much in training. However that wouldn’t be about luck; that would be about an outcome correlating with circumstances. It would be about reality aligning with the trajectory of actions and deeds leading up to the crucial moment.
“Andy took several hard shots from Josh, was able to withstand it,” Robles continued. He made his point but stayed classy and dignified in saying, “We take nothing away from AJ. I’m not and Andy won’t be offended (by AJ’s “lucky” punch theory). We just gotta get ready for the fight. May the best man win again! We will work to ‘get lucky’ again,” he said, with a wry chuckle.
“Luck is what happens when opportunity and dedication meet,” the tutor stated. “We’ll be ready for the challenge once again…We respect Joshua; he’s done a lot for boxing, won that Olympic gold medal. But we got time on our side and Andy is coming back to the gym this week!”
My three cents: Some are theorizing that AJ’s comments are mostly or purely about stirring the pot. Is he trying on a new “heel” persona, perhaps? If yes, he’s succeeding but, if not, it should almost go without saying but I will say it anyway – to explain away getting knocked down four times and getting stopped, that being because the other guy got “lucky” is defying common sense, when the other guy is 29 and has been boxing since he was seven years old. Ruiz (33-1, 22 KOs) didn’t beat Joshua because his fingers were crossed inside his gloves; he did so because he’s a capable professional. Only AJ knows why he trotted out the “luck” theory but, whatever the reason, you can be assured he is off-base – far off-base – with that assessment. And I’m sorry but if there’s anyone out there that thinks God plays favorites in prizefights and chooses to be hands-off regarding a little kid fighting cancer, he or she should re-think that silly notion right quick. Those things hitting you on June 1 were not thunderbolts from God and Lady Luck shining down on Ruiz, AJ; those were punches thrown by a skilled professional. To portray the win as coming because Ruiz got lucky is more than a bit disrespectful to the Mexican-American pugilist.
So many bandwagon jumpers are looking to write AJ off but he's going to iron out Ruiz Jr wherever the rematch takes place and make the haters look like mugs.
greg wrote: ↑22 Aug 2019, 11:42
AJ saying this, AJ saying that ..seems like we've got too many psychologists here ...I wouldn't read too much into it...
I know right, some people here are attached to his every word
greg wrote: ↑22 Aug 2019, 11:42
AJ saying this, AJ saying that ..seems like we've got too many psychologists here ...I wouldn't read too much into it...
Joshua is obviously is a paranoid schizophrenic with chronic achromatopsiac tendencies and suffers from ADD and ADDHD and whatever other letter things we've invented lately, and he needs to be put on Ritalin and other powerful psychoactive narcotics immediately and also lobotomized.
great! we live in a democratic country after all. No need to explain your reasons why.
there is obviously luck involved,
like the other guy moves his head
towards you while you throw and
thus increases impact. these things
do happen and sometimes to an
extent that justifies the term lucky
punch.
AJ claiming being hit by one is
unfortunately just silly.
great! we live in a democratic country after all. No need to explain your reasons why.
there is obviously luck involved,
like the other guy moves his head
towards you while you throw and
thus increases impact. these things
do happen and sometimes to an
extent that justifies the term lucky
punch.
AJ claiming being hit by one is
unfortunately just silly.
Don't agree.
A boxer is throwing the punch so no matter how it hits the other guy it was thrown in the direction where it was intended. I guess you would need many circumstances before it connects to determine that the punch was lucky. If there are a set of events out of one's control before it connected then I might go along with the term.
man wrote: ↑22 Aug 2019, 16:51
there is obviously luck involved,
like the other guy moves his head
towards you while you throw and
thus increases impact. these things
do happen and sometimes to an
extent that justifies the term lucky
punch.
AJ claiming being hit by one is
unfortunately just silly.
Don't agree.
A boxer is throwing the punch so no matter how it hits the other guy it was thrown in the direction where it was intended. I guess you would need many circumstances before it connects to determine that the punch was lucky. If there are a set of events out of one's control before it connected then I might go along with the term.
A boxer is throwing the punch so no matter how it hits the other guy it was thrown in the direction where it was intended. I guess you would need many circumstances before it connects to determine that the punch was lucky. If there are a set of events out of one's control before it connected then I might go along with the term.
Don’t agree.
By your logic every low blow is intentional.
Things can happen by accident. You couldn't say a low blow was a lucky punch or could you?
You can intend to do something and still be lucky with it's outcome. Bizarre to me how so many boxing fans use that argument.
Luck is in pretty much every aspect of life. The fact that people have intentions to do thing and therefore do them just means luck has even more situations to act on.
Boxing is not a special snowflake exempt from chance
AJ lost on a lucky punch if you consider every punch after the first one that hurt him to be a domino effect.
If the first punch didn't happen the rest wouldn't have happened.
Or he got a solid butt kicking in two rounds and was stopped in the second one.
So, he either needs to avoid the first punch (no problem) or the butt kickings (harder).
snake33 wrote: ↑23 Aug 2019, 12:58
AJ lost on a lucky punch if you consider every punch after the first one that hurt him to be a domino effect.
If the first punch didn't happen the rest wouldn't have happened.
Or he got a solid butt kicking in two rounds and was stopped in the second one.
So, he either needs to avoid the first punch (no problem) or the butt kickings (harder).
Yeah but that's stretching the argument to the extreme isn't it.? That would make the majority of wins classify as 'lucky'
..seems like we've got too many psychologists here 
...I wouldn't read too much into it...
