BoxRec

Horse wrote:

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:It was enjoyable I thought. Didn't have the ferocity of the first but I still enjoyed it.

There wasn't much eye-catching work.

A couple of times I was very impressed with LSC work. Frampton I can't think of a particular time I was hugely impressed.

Horse wrote:

sammy95 wrote:I had Frampton by 2, but anywhere between 2 to Frampton and 2 to Santa Cruz is fair for me. Bring on the trilogy.

I'm usually a big fan of Adam Smith and think he does a great job for UK boxing, but his commentary tonight was poor, very bias. Without the check and balance of Froch and Haye, who spoke very well, you would think Santa Cruz walked to a 12 round shut out.

Adam Smith has a major anti-British/Irish bias.

Revolting man.

Revolting is a little harsh.

Thought Haye came across superbly tonight though, humble and spoke about exactly what the fans needed to hear. Gone up a few notes in my book.

Horse wrote:

sammy95 wrote:I had Frampton by 2, but anywhere between 2 to Frampton and 2 to Santa Cruz is fair for me. Bring on the trilogy.

I'm usually a big fan of Adam Smith and think he does a great job for UK boxing, but his commentary tonight was poor, very bias. Without the check and balance of Froch and Haye, who spoke very well, you would think Santa Cruz walked to a 12 round shut out.

Adam Smith has a major anti-British/Irish bias.

Revolting man.

He's a cheerleader for boxers from the British Isles.

Cholo_cws wrote: He's a cheerleader for boxers from the British Isles.

No, he isn't.

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:A couple of times I was very impressed with LSC work. Frampton I can't think of a particular time I was hugely impressed.

Santa Cruz had the better moments, but I wasn't impressed with either of them.

Horse wrote:

Kilsby wrote:Ok. Your entitled to your opinion.

Frampton himself said he felt Santa Cruz won. Said the brawler outboxed the boxer.

Frampton doesn't know what he is on about.

Yeah you know more than the guy who actually had the fight hahahhahahhahahhh

sammy95 wrote:

Horse wrote:

sammy95 wrote:I had Frampton by 2, but anywhere between 2 to Frampton and 2 to Santa Cruz is fair for me. Bring on the trilogy.

I'm usually a big fan of Adam Smith and think he does a great job for UK boxing, but his commentary tonight was poor, very bias. Without the check and balance of Froch and Haye, who spoke very well, you would think Santa Cruz walked to a 12 round shut out.

Adam Smith has a major anti-British/Irish bias.

Revolting man.

Revolting is a little harsh.

Thought Haye came across superbly tonight though, humble and spoke about exactly what the fans needed to hear. Gone up a few notes in my book.

Agreed thought the addition of haye half way through the fight at first was odd but he spoke a lot of sense. I do generally think he's a very good pundit.

I do wish they'd stop yapping for the ring entrances. It's pretty ironic as half the time they're telling us the place is going crazy yet we can't really tell because we are listening to them prattle on.

Adam smith is deffo revolting- horrible, snivelling wee twat that offers no insight- just incessant noise. However he isn't anti British he just tries to paint every issue as black and white for dramatic effect to try and fool the public that what they're watching is better than it is. He's a slimey wanker.

Not a classic by any stretch, but a decent enough fight.

Had Santa Cruz by 2 to 3 rounds. Frampton is not as effective coming forwards and looked lost for ideas at times. Not that fussed on a re-match, at least not straight away.

I`d prefer a Frampton v Selby first.

Had LSC by 3, thought Frampton struggled with his jab n seemed to be looking for a big shot, wasn't happy they talking bout a third fight before the second happened, all about the £££'s

Cholo_cws wrote:

Horse wrote:

sammy95 wrote:I had Frampton by 2, but anywhere between 2 to Frampton and 2 to Santa Cruz is fair for me. Bring on the trilogy.

I'm usually a big fan of Adam Smith and think he does a great job for UK boxing, but his commentary tonight was poor, very bias. Without the check and balance of Froch and Haye, who spoke very well, you would think Santa Cruz walked to a 12 round shut out.

Adam Smith has a major anti-British/Irish bias.

Revolting man.

He's a cheerleader for boxers from the British Isles.

Not a huge shock the head of sky boxing "cheerleading" one of his biggest assets. I put it on mute around the 4th.

Cholo_cws wrote:I guess I want Frampton to win but I wouldn't mind McGuigan's nose being put out of joint.

I like Frampton but i'm glad the McGuigans have had their smug grins wiped off their faces,they really pissed me off with the Scott Quigg build up and changing room crap.

Not as good as the first but thought Frampton was well beaten and Santa Cruz looked a class above. I feel a third match would go the same way.

Adam Smith is rubbish...everyone is a warrior and he mentions the Barrera Morales fight about 50 times during these events.

TheLeprechaun wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Are people staying up for this? I don't have Sky Sports anymore, but it's such a good card that I'm tempted to get a Now TV weekend pass. Trouble is, I wouldn't be able to record it and staying up til Vegas time will probably ruin my sleep for the entire week. I wish I was young again.

What age are you if you don't mind me asking? Thank god I'm not old. I can stay up til 5, sleep in til about 11 or 12 and all is normal.

I'm 35, but I have a 2 year old son and a 6 week old daughter, so sleep is at a premium at the best of times at the moment!

Santa Cruz definitely won, Frampton didn't really get going. Given that Santa Cruz finished the 1st fight stronger and won the rematch more comfortably, he'd have to be a big favourite in a rubber match.

There has to be a third match! I thought LSC knicked it but I didn't have it as wide as some folk! Maybe I'm a bit biased? I thought Frampton was excellent tonight even in defeat! The guy is a total class act and deserves the third fight over here!

Best fighter we've had on these shores since Calzaghe IMO...

Stuarty30 wrote:There has to be a third match! I thought LSC knicked it but I didn't have it as wide as some folk! Maybe I'm a bit biased? I thought Frampton was excellent tonight even in defeat! The guy is a total class act and deserves the third fight over here!

Best fighter we've had on these shores since Calzaghe IMO...

^this

Frampton seemed a bit more erratic than usual, trying the to plant the big shot too often

LSC was excellent tonight, making him miss

Surprised Santa Cruz was able to land so many jabs. I think this shows why Frampton wanted no part of Rigo, he would have been totally outboxed and wouldn't have got near him.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Surprised Santa Cruz was able to land so many jabs. I think this shows why Frampton wanted no part of Rigo, he would have been totally outboxed and wouldn't have got near him.

Horses for courses mate. That fight has no relevance to a Rigo fight.

Stuarty30 wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Surprised Santa Cruz was able to land so many jabs. I think this shows why Frampton wanted no part of Rigo, he would have been totally outboxed and wouldn't have got near him.

Horses for courses mate. That fight has no relevance to a Rigo fight.

Why not?

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Surprised Santa Cruz was able to land so many jabs. I think this shows why Frampton wanted no part of Rigo, he would have been totally outboxed and wouldn't have got near him.

Horses for courses mate. That fight has no relevance to a Rigo fight.

Why not?

Because it's a different fight and different fighters.... Just because A beats B doesn't mean he beats C! You're a fan of the sport mate so you know how it goes....

Gutted for Frampton there were a lot of close rounds but I thought Santa Cruz was the deserved winner and credit to Carl and his team for acknowledging that, 116-113 was my final score, Frampton just never really got going and I never had him ahead at any point I don't think,i thought Santa Cruz showed a different side to him other than just ploughing forward throwing both hands, he was a lot more patient,picked his punches a lot better than he normally does, he was able to use his height and range to not only outbox Frampton on the outside but was quicker to the punch on the inside too, Frampton did look a bit flat but I think he was a bit short on ideas and felt his title was slipping away from him

Stuarty30 wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:
Horses for courses mate. That fight has no relevance to a Rigo fight.

Why not?

Because it's a different fight and different fighters.... Just because A beats B doesn't mean he beats C! You're a fan of the sport mate so you know how it goes....

No of course it doesn't mean that. But you can still assess a fighter's skills and draw conclusions as to how a prospective match-up would go.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:
Why not?

Because it's a different fight and different fighters.... Just because A beats B doesn't mean he beats C! You're a fan of the sport mate so you know how it goes....

No of course it doesn't mean that. But you can still assess a fighter's skills and draw conclusions as to how a prospective match-up would go.

Of course you can but it's hardly an exact science. I happen to think that Frampton beats Rigo but it's a subjective sport. There's a lot to think about when two top level guys face off. It comes down to more than who's the better boxer or who punches harder... Frampton has the tools to beat Rigo and Rigo has the tools to beat Carl. It all comes down to the night they fight ( if they do)

I wonder if Santa Cruz's fast start maybe played into how Frampton fought on the night,Leo hit Carl with some flush shots in the opener and Frampton tried his best not to let him get a foothold in the fight and found himself fighting slightly erratic and that set a pattern for the rest of the night