BoxRec

Is that Robert Garcia brushing Broners hair at the end of the fight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12x6OQpuxo0

I agree columbo, you don't get to the level them guys are without very good boxing ability as well, but I think they get away with being technically flawed because they are athletically special, still very very good but not greats because they neglect the basics because they can get away with it as to speak

curtis wood wrote:I agree columbo, you don't get to the level them guys are without very good boxing ability as well, but I think they get away with being technically flawed because they are athletically special, still very very good but not greats because they neglect the basics because they can get away with it as to speak

Well unless your Roy Jones before the heavyweight stint

Coco wrote:A consensus would say the 40 something he had a hard fight with and beat is an ATG

Coco, I'm well and truly playing devils advocate here based on the posts rubbishing Broner as someone who "cannot box" and is an athlete.

Of course I am with you here (although Joe lost that fight IMO).... to say Hopkins didn't have the "gifts" of some of his contemporaries is a rediculous.... as well as criminaly underated hand speed (Hopkins beat Joe to the punch time and time again) - another gift he had.... something you cannot train is incredible gene's.

All world class boxers have certain "gifts" - things that you cannot train etc. Some have more gifts than others.... but likewise all world class boxers have the basics and fundamentals otherswise they would not be able to execute their gifts.

Joe had an engine and a punch output and no matter how dedicate a fighter you had in the gym it would be almost impossible to match. I would suggest whilst training improved this, this was something he was born with not something that Enzo amazing training techniques and boxing fundamentals taught him... otherwise all Enzo fighters would be like that.

To say that Broner, Jones and I'll add Hearns and Leonard (two other fighters who didn't seem to do so well when their gifts were no longer a clear advantage) didn't have the fundamentals is rediculous. As I said, Nazim talked about Chavez Snr also.... when started losing his gifts he became easy to hit and lost some decisions against fighters he would have had for breakfast.... why because he has lost his advantages - so to say he has less gifts etc than these athletes come fighters is a little over the top.

stujones wrote:

Coco wrote:A consensus would say the 40 something he had a hard fight with and beat is an ATG

Coco, I'm well and truly playing devils advocate here based on the posts rubbishing Broner as someone who "cannot box" and is an athlete.

Of course I am with you here (although Joe lost that fight IMO).... to say Hopkins didn't have the "gifts" of some of his contemporaries is a rediculous.... as well as criminaly underated hand speed (Hopkins beat Joe to the punch time and time again) - another gift he had.... something you cannot train is incredible gene's.

All world class boxers have certain "gifts" - things that you cannot train etc. Some have more gifts than others.... but likewise all world class boxers have the basics and fundamentals otherswise they would not be able to execute their gifts.

Joe had an engine and a punch output and no matter how dedicate a fighter you had in the gym it would be almost impossible to match. I would suggest whilst training improved this, this was something he was born with not something that Enzo amazing training techniques and boxing fundamentals taught him... otherwise all Enzo fighters would be like that.

To say that Broner, Jones and I'll add Hearns and Leonard (two other fighters who didn't seem to do so well when their gifts were no longer a clear advantage) didn't have the fundamentals is rediculous. As I said, Nazim talked about Chavez Snr also.... when started losing his gifts he became easy to hit and lost some decisions against fighters he would have had for breakfast.... why because he has lost his advantages - so to say he has less gifts etc than these athletes come fighters is a little over the top.

The best fighters have a combination of both. I think that's the bottom line.

yeah, thats the point.... and Adrien has them also. There is more to boxing fundementals than defence - got to be able to work those openings etc effectively and Broner has at world level consistently.

Classic example of this... I remember much of the sky team picking Ensley Bingham over Ronald Wright - Wright was supposedly chinny (didn't he get smashed early in his career) and Ensley was considered a world class puncher.... Wright off course dominated... Ensley didn't have the fundamentals (at that level) to use his offense effectively. Similarly Adrian Dodson, one of our most talented, gifted, fighters we have ever produced IMO... didn't have the fundamentals.

Broner must have fundamentals otherwise he would have lost to the likes of De Marco, Escobedo, Rees etc - irrespective of his apparent gifts.

Roy Jones the same, he wouldn't have won the Olympics (and he did win that) and beaten some fabulous fighters without fundamentals - even if defensively he appeared to be doing it all "wrong".... Carl Froch the same... Naz etc.

Lets see how Adrian Broner reacts to punches without a broken jaw before judging.

Brilliant athletic ability + brilliant boxing ability = Great fighter

Take either of those away and you have a good fighter like Broner, not a great one like Mayweather.

stujones wrote:yeah, thats the point.... and Adrien has them also. There is more to boxing fundementals than defence - got to be able to work those openings etc effectively and Broner has at world level consistently.

Classic example of this... I remember much of the sky team picking Ensley Bingham over Ronald Wright - Wright was supposedly chinny (didn't he get smashed early in his career) and Ensley was considered a world class puncher.... Wright off course dominated... Ensley didn't have the fundamentals (at that level) to use his offense effectively. Similarly Adrian Dodson, one of our most talented, gifted, fighters we have ever produced IMO... didn't have the fundamentals.

Broner must have fundamentals otherwise he would have lost to the likes of De Marco, Escobedo, Rees etc - irrespective of his apparent gifts.

Roy Jones the same, he wouldn't have won the Olympics (and he did win that) and beaten some fabulous fighters without fundamentals - even if defensively he appeared to be doing it all "wrong".... Carl Froch the same... Naz etc.

Lets see how Adrian Broner reacts to punches without a broken jaw before judging.

I dont fully buy the size argument either. De Marco was a massive lightweight himself and Rees won a world title at 140. Escobedo, yeah you could make the argument in his case.

expe wrote:Brilliant athletic ability + brilliant boxing ability = Great fighter

Take either of those away and you have a good fighter like Broner, not a great one like Mayweather.

How many fighters are like Mayweather though? Very few.

columbo wrote: I dont fully buy the size argument either. De Marco was a massive lightweight himself and Rees won a world title at 140. Escobedo, yeah you could make the argument in his case.

Rees is about 5 foot 3 though, I think he could make super feather to be honest if he did it properly.

columbo wrote:

expe wrote:Brilliant athletic ability + brilliant boxing ability = Great fighter

Take either of those away and you have a good fighter like Broner, not a great one like Mayweather.

How many fighters are like Mayweather though? Very few.

Yep, it's a rare combination to have, very few fighters have it, you could count on one hand the number of fighters that could be considered great right now.

expe wrote:

columbo wrote: I dont fully buy the size argument either. De Marco was a massive lightweight himself and Rees won a world title at 140. Escobedo, yeah you could make the argument in his case.

Rees is about 5 foot 3 though, I think he could make super feather to be honest if he did it properly.

He still won a title at 140 though. How tall is De Marco then? He must be 5'10 to 6ft odd.

Expe -

Like your analogy.

I personally would call Mayweather, Chavez Snr and Jones Jnr greats... and I would say that had both elements in spades... maybe not to the same level as Mayweather - but then thats why we've been debating him as one of the all time greatESTS

Hopkins, despite what his trainer says, has got both in spades.

Broner aint (yet - don't write him off though)

Brilliants athletic ability - no boxing ability = a Michael Grant or an Adrian Dodson not an Adrian Broner.

BTW - I am saying don't write him off yet... all I am saying because of his age. People wrote Ali off after Cooper floored him... look what happened after. One defeat does not signal the end. However, personally I do think he is such a confidence fighter that it will be difficult for him to return.

stujones wrote:Expe -

Like your analogy.

I personally would call Mayweather, Chavez Snr and Jones Jnr greats... and I would say that had both elements in spades... maybe not to the same level as Mayweather - but then thats why we've been debating him as one of the all time greatESTS

Hopkins, despite what his trainer says, has got both in spades.

Broner aint (yet - don't write him off though)

Brilliants athletic ability - no boxing ability = a Michael Grant or an Adrian Dodson not an Adrian Broner.

BTW - I am saying don't write him off yet... all I am saying because of his age. People wrote Ali off after Cooper floored him... look what happened after. One defeat does not signal the end. However, personally I do think he is such a confidence fighter that it will be difficult for him to return.

I also think though as much as people are saying he beat up on small guys I think the opposite is true now. I think 147 is too big for him. I'd be interested to see him at 140.

palooka wrote:

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:Broner is a fantastic scalp for Marcos who is a solid and strong welter; losing to Maidana doesn't make Broner crap - he didn't have the strength to keep Marcos off him - he gave it a hell of a go though. It was a good fight and hope both can go onwards - I don't think Broner should be at welter though.

I dont think he takes his boxing seriously enough. He goes round touring the states with rappers like Lil Wayne. There was a video of him leaked last week having a threesome with a couple of dancers/hookers.

I have to say that I watched the pre fight shows and though he was nobbish I didn't dislike Broner all that much; he seemed to put in hard work and it may be that he has to tone down the out of ring stuff - I imagine a fair bit of it is a confection, he'd decided he would be the man people wanted to see lose and acted up to it. I imagine he's devastated today and I wouldn't wish that on anyone - he's lost a hell of a lot by losing a fight, if he comes back well it'll say a lot about his true character, regardless of the silly things that come out of his mouth.

But Froch is beyond the pale?

curtis wood wrote:in my experiences people in any sports who are athletically gifted have a head start on others, but what ive also found out is that there is nothing better than learning the basics, it gives you a base to go back to if the "special" stuff just isn't working, I thought once broner started getting tagged and hurt he just didn't know what to do, he had no basics to fall back on, Mayweather is the best because he does the basics perfect AND has that athletic gift, the most athletically gifted normally find it easier than others so don't take the time to learn the boring stuff, i.e jab, defence and footwork so when it starts going wrong they are found wanting, without sounding like a ego maniac im a good athlete, not a "special" athlete but a good one, id like to think I managed to carve out a career in 2 sports as a professional because I mixed being a good athlete with a exceptional work ethic, when I was a kid if I ever moaned to my dad that it was hard work he always use to say to me "so is digging a hole son" that was my dads job for 40 years, god given talent is a great thing but not a patch on work ethic, Mayweather has both, ali had both, that made them the best

completely agree with you Curtis... its like many sports you must have good foundations and that as you called is the basics... I will say one thing he reminds of boxers like Mitchell who is talented but thinks that is enough to carry them through fights and like kevin career he lost a few he shouldnt have ... Kev now looks to have knuckled down he is starting to look like the fighter he should be... broner has some skill no doubt if he can go back and learn the basis and cut the cr*p he can a very good fighter.. however his antics and expectation makes him look like a fool if he cant deliver..

I have to say that I watched the pre fight shows and though he was nobbish I didn't dislike Broner all that much; he seemed to put in hard work and it may be that he has to tone down the out of ring stuff - I imagine a fair bit of it is a confection, he'd decided he would be the man people wanted to see lose and acted up to it. I imagine he's devastated today and I wouldn't wish that on anyone - he's lost a hell of a lot by losing a fight, if he comes back well it'll say a lot about his true character, regardless of the silly things that come out of his mouth.[/quote]

But Froch is beyond the pale? [/quote]

That wagging finger of yours will fall off through overuse.

palooka wrote:I have to say that I watched the pre fight shows and though he was nobbish I didn't dislike Broner all that much; he seemed to put in hard work and it may be that he has to tone down the out of ring stuff - I imagine a fair bit of it is a confection, he'd decided he would be the man people wanted to see lose and acted up to it. I imagine he's devastated today and I wouldn't wish that on anyone - he's lost a hell of a lot by losing a fight, if he comes back well it'll say a lot about his true character, regardless of the silly things that come out of his mouth.

But Froch is beyond the pale? [/quote]

That wagging finger of yours will fall off through overuse.[/quote]
Or he'll stick it up your bum hole.....

Curtis is blessed at digging holes

Broner is used to playing one role, he showed no diversity & it shows how much he used to rely on strength & size . He showed great calmness to weather the early storm despite his feathers been well & truly ruffled but he continued to stand his ground which was his undoing.he is a talented fighter but he
Needs to realise mayweather is an exception to the rule & you can't just leap up two weights

Ive just watched the broner knockdowns. . . . . .and im lovin it lovin it lovin it, lovin it like daaaaaaaaaaat!

Coco wrote:A consensus would say the 40 something he had a hard fight with and beat is an ATG

I suppose that depends on who you poll.

Does the 40+ Bernard Hopkins who gave Joe Calzaghe such a struggle with fit in with the pantheon of light heavyweight greats? Personally I would say no. I suspect there are a lot of boxing fans on the internet who would automatically call Hopkins an all-time great light heavy and not be able to tell you who, for instance, Charley Burley is.

rhino222 wrote:Ive just watched the broner knockdowns. . . . . .and im lovin it lovin it lovin it, lovin it like daaaaaaaaaaat!

Thanks for that! I've got that stuck in my bloody head now!

curtis wood wrote:in my experiences people in any sports who are athletically gifted have a head start on others, but what ive also found out is that there is nothing better than learning the basics, it gives you a base to go back to if the "special" stuff just isn't working, I thought once broner started getting tagged and hurt he just didn't know what to do, he had no basics to fall back on, Mayweather is the best because he does the basics perfect AND has that athletic gift, the most athletically gifted normally find it easier than others so don't take the time to learn the boring stuff, i.e jab, defence and footwork so when it starts going wrong they are found wanting, without sounding like a ego maniac im a good athlete, not a "special" athlete but a good one, id like to think I managed to carve out a career in 2 sports as a professional because I mixed being a good athlete with a exceptional work ethic, when I was a kid if I ever moaned to my dad that it was hard work he always use to say to me "so is digging a hole son" that was my dads job for 40 years, god given talent is a great thing but not a patch on work ethic, Mayweather has both, ali had both, that made them the best

Thank you Curtis, I appreciate your posting here mate & have nothing but respect for you, & I hope you didn't take exception to a layman talking about your profession, mate.

Dammit, I was considering betting on Maidana but didn't bother in the end. I probably would have had Marcos by stoppage though

no offence taken at all, its a great thread with some good points