BoxRec

Cleverly did win it late on maybe by a round or so

Bellew was winning when he fought at range. Cleverly is very good up close with his fast combos but at range seemed to do nothing

I was hoping Bellew will see this...... but this is what I mean Bellew needs more fights at this level, he can match Cleverly and defo has more pop than clev, will beat him in a rematch but need to go for euro first for the experience

114-114 and Tony bellew is the better fighter IMO

Bigger puncher, better skills, more versatile - last nights loss was down to lack of experience in competitive fights- he lost his way in a couple of important rounds and he would have been more reliant on the jab had he been a little more seasoned!

Final round wrote:

zero wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Bellew made alot of the rounds close enough for me to worry the judges could be swayed by the crowd.
But luckily this didn't happen.
That said. Bellew himself knew Cleverly had done a number on him. Bellews body language as the final bell went spoke volumes.

Very good fight though. With the right trainer/coach Cleverly can eclipse Calzaghe without a doubt ... but Vince Cleverly isn't the right guy for the job.

Bellew can have other big nights. His style will always make for exciting fights. Maybe he can win a title along the way too.

Spread thickly

Fukin classic.

tonyevs wrote:

G0mez wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:I feel I won 6 rounds no doubt in my mind but like I say it was a close fight, I give him respect but would love to do it again, I've proved a lot of people how good a boxer I can be at times and I feel my jab was really doing the job most of the time, I feel Parrish is a disgrace an should be reprimanded!

They favoured quantity over quality.

It seemed all the hurtfull punches were landed by you (with the exception of Clev's cheap shot in the 12th round and the numerous nut-shots he threw).

I think the tempo hurt you more than any punch you took.

Come on Gomez
Re-watch the fight ..

Tony/Bomber. I think you gained alot more fans after lastnights bout with your sensible and honest after fight interview. I think you sell yourself cheap with the bad-boy/yob character some say you play to.
Good luck in the rest of your career.

That last bit about the bad boy bollocks, I agree. Be a gentleman, the scouse scally act doesn't have to be you, it gets a bit tiresome too, to be honest. However the humility you showed after was much more what I expect a pro boxer to be like, generous in defeat. Credit to you for that.

Bomber 1 wrote:I feel I won 6 rounds no doubt in my mind but like I say it was a close fight, I give him respect but would love to do it again, I've proved a lot of people how good a boxer I can be at times and I feel my jab was really doing the job most of the time, I feel Parrish is a disgrace an should be reprimanded!

You would have won the title I think If you kept pumping out that great double jab, you could tell Nathan didnt like it one bit, it was offsetting his boxing bigtime.
When Paris gave you the lecture you should have told tha fat wank to fuk off, he was in your house acting like a tool.
Biased fat prick does my head in he does.

Jon Saxon wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:I feel I won 6 rounds no doubt in my mind but like I say it was a close fight, I give him respect but would love to do it again, I've proved a lot of people how good a boxer I can be at times and I feel my jab was really doing the job most of the time, I feel Parrish is a disgrace an should be reprimanded!

You would have won the title I think If you kept pumping out that great double jab, you could tell Nathan didnt like it one bit, it was offsetting his boxing bigtime.
When Paris gave you the lecture you should have told tha fat wank to fuk off, he was in your house acting like a tool.
Biased fat prick does my head in he does.

Richie Davies, actually.

crusader wrote:It's a shocking day when Terry O'Connor is turning in the most accurate scorecards.

ha ha I had it 114-114 too

To be fair, I think Nathan just shaded it by one round, the last one.

Easily could have been a draw. No doubt some tit will show up here and tell us we are all wrong and Nathan won clearly. Then again those same people said Nathan would win by KO

Also to add, Tony was outboxing him, at range (the double jab had Nathan bemused, to say the least), sound fundementals, amateur pedigree is what you call that. The very thing, some people dismissed.

Nathan has average boxing skills, lots of grit, a good chin and stamina to burn. He will develop into a very good fighter, but he needs a few tests, like this one, now and then. Not the usual Allegedly fodder.

Yeah definitely agree about Tony's jab, was dominating Clev when he threw it rather than looking for big shots.

Gomez - is it true that Tony Bellew KO-ed Froch in sparring?

I guess that would explain your bias if so...

bengulnaci1 wrote: No doubt some tit will show up here and tell us we are all wrong and Nathan won clearly.

Well, he did.

It is no good getting personal on a boxing forum because someone doesn't agree with your take on things - grow up.

My take, Bellew threw a lot of shots but a lot of them missed or landed on Cleverly's gloves. If you see the faces of both fighters at the final bell - Bellew was more marked up - If Bellew had landed what he had thrown - Cleverly would have looked like Ken Buchanan after his second fight against Ismael Laguna - but considering what Tony threw - Nathan was pretty much unmarked.

Simply put - Cleverly outfoxed him in there and he deserved to win the fight, it was a close but but clear win. Then again, I grew up watching Herol Graham and probably appreciate the subtleties more than the average poster on here. If you think the number of punches thrown should be scored despite lots of them missing or being blocked by the gloves - then Bellew clearly won.

tonyevs wrote:

lefthook82 wrote:

tonyevs wrote:With the right trainer/coach Cleverly can eclipse Calzaghe without a doubt ...

Lighten up little fella. Your prediction that Bellew would KO Cleverly wasn`t as bad as your Haye easily Ko-ing Wlad ... so they are getting a tiny bit better

I honestly don't recall predicting either of those outcomes.

bengulnaci1 wrote:To be fair, I think Nathan just shaded it by one round, the last one.

Easily could have been a draw. No doubt some tit will show up here and tell us we are all wrong and Nathan won clearly. Then again those same people said Nathan would win by KO

Also to add, Tony was outboxing him, at range (the double jab had Nathan bemused, to say the least), sound fundementals, amateur pedigree is what you call that. The very thing, some people dismissed.

Nathan has average boxing skills, lots of grit, a good chin and stamina to burn. He will develop into a very good fighter, but he needs a few tests, like this one, now and then. Not the usual Allegedly fodder.

Get over the facts bengulnaci and your world will seem fine Nathan took Bellews BEST shots (not bad for a chinny fighter) and outboxed a 3 times ABA champion. Yes Tony did a hell of a lot better than a lot of us thought he would, is that down to he is better than we thought or is it down to Nathan is not as good as we thought? Does it really matter? All I know is that we were ALL treated to a much better fight than a lot of us expected and that both fighters gave 100% and are both OKAY with no lasting injuries. Yes I think Nathan clearly won and felt the same after watching the fight back.

G0mez wrote:

Bomber 1 wrote:I feel I won 6 rounds no doubt in my mind but like I say it was a close fight, I give him respect but would love to do it again, I've proved a lot of people how good a boxer I can be at times and I feel my jab was really doing the job most of the time, I feel Parrish is a disgrace an should be reprimanded!

They favoured quantity over quality.

It seemed all the hurtfull punches were landed by you (with the exception of Clev's cheap shot in the 12th round and the numerous nut-shots he threw).

I think the tempo hurt you more than any punch you took.

good post, Gomez, though add in some good bodypunching from Clev in the middle rounds.

Tony's boxing loooked very very classy at times but IMO clev just upped the pace enough.

tonyevs wrote:Gomez - is it true that Tony Bellew KO-ed Froch in sparring?

I guess that would explain your bias if so...

Tony said on Twitter that there is no truth to that rumour. Don't fall for things like that.

Fat Git wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote: No doubt some tit will show up here and tell us we are all wrong and Nathan won clearly.

Well, he did.

It is no good getting personal on a boxing forum because someone doesn't agree with your take on things - grow up.

My take, Bellew threw a lot of shots but a lot of them missed or landed on Cleverly's gloves. If you see the faces of both fighters at the final bell - Bellew was more marked up - If Bellew had landed what he had thrown - Cleverly would have looked like Ken Buchanan after his second fight against Ismael Laguna - but considering what Tony threw - Nathan was pretty much unmarked.

Simply put - Cleverly outfoxed him in there and he deserved to win the fight, it was a close but but clear win. Then again, I grew up watching Herol Graham and probably appreciate the subtleties more than the average poster on here. If you think the number of punches thrown should be scored despite lots of them missing or being blocked by the gloves - then Bellew clearly won.

Well I disagree but that is down to opinion. You obviously don't, that's fine.

I too, watched Herol Graham, in my youth, and can appreciate what your saying, however 80% agree with me and 20% agree you and that is also fine. I get your point, you think Nathan won clearly, I and others don't. Nothing wrong with that.

taffytoon wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:To be fair, I think Nathan just shaded it by one round, the last one.

Easily could have been a draw. No doubt some tit will show up here and tell us we are all wrong and Nathan won clearly. Then again those same people said Nathan would win by KO

Also to add, Tony was outboxing him, at range (the double jab had Nathan bemused, to say the least), sound fundementals, amateur pedigree is what you call that. The very thing, some people dismissed.

Nathan has average boxing skills, lots of grit, a good chin and stamina to burn. He will develop into a very good fighter, but he needs a few tests, like this one, now and then. Not the usual Allegedly fodder.

Get over the facts bengulnaci and your world will seem fine Nathan took Bellews BEST shots (not bad for a chinny fighter) and outboxed a 3 times ABA champion. Yes Tony did a hell of a lot better than a lot of us thought he would, is that down to he is better than we thought or is it down to Nathan is not as good as we thought? Does it really matter? All I know is that we were ALL treated to a much better fight than a lot of us expected and that both fighters gave 100% and are both OKAY with no lasting injuries. Yes I think Nathan clearly won and felt the same after watching the fight back.

I haven't got a problem with your opinion. It's just I and quite a few others disagree. It does not mean you are 100% correct. You have to accept that some people are going to disagree. It was a great fight and I don't recall anyone mentioning Nathan being chinny, in fact, I have stated on many, many occasions, his chin, bottle and stamina are to be admired.

PS He most definitely did not outbox Bellow, he outlasted him, due to his great stamina. Big difference.

Having followed and witnessed quite a few of Cleverly's performances over the last 3 years. I personally was expecting a more dominant performance than what I witnessed on Saturday. I certainly wouldn't feel to confident if he was put in with Dawson and Cloud next. If any thing I can see Bellew going on and having a more succesful career.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

taffytoon wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:To be fair, I think Nathan just shaded it by one round, the last one.

Easily could have been a draw. No doubt some tit will show up here and tell us we are all wrong and Nathan won clearly. Then again those same people said Nathan would win by KO

Also to add, Tony was outboxing him, at range (the double jab had Nathan bemused, to say the least), sound fundementals, amateur pedigree is what you call that. The very thing, some people dismissed.

Nathan has average boxing skills, lots of grit, a good chin and stamina to burn. He will develop into a very good fighter, but he needs a few tests, like this one, now and then. Not the usual Allegedly fodder.

Get over the facts bengulnaci and your world will seem fine Nathan took Bellews BEST shots (not bad for a chinny fighter) and outboxed a 3 times ABA champion. Yes Tony did a hell of a lot better than a lot of us thought he would, is that down to he is better than we thought or is it down to Nathan is not as good as we thought? Does it really matter? All I know is that we were ALL treated to a much better fight than a lot of us expected and that both fighters gave 100% and are both OKAY with no lasting injuries. Yes I think Nathan clearly won and felt the same after watching the fight back.

I haven't got a problem with your opinion. It's just I and quite a few others disagree. It does not mean you are 100% correct. You have to accept that some people are going to disagree. It was a great fight and I don't recall anyone mentioning Nathan being chinny, in fact, I have stated on many, many occasions, his chin, bottle and stamina are to be admired.

PS He most definitely did not outbox Bellow, he outlasted him, due to his great stamina. Big difference.

totally agree bengul

taffy- if Clev outboxed Bellew i don't think Bellew would have been doing so well in the rounds where the pace was lower. who was landing the jabs, here? who was doing the feinting? who was dictating the tempo and position of the exchanges?

IMo Bellew was doing that in the slower-poaced rounds. it was when Clev upped the pace IE forcedthe fight as a pressure fighter, that he did better.

because thats what he is IMO. a pressure fighter

... In another week or two, this forum will no doubt be full of the typical newbie posters telling us that Tony Bellew was blatantly robbed ... that he had Cleverly on jelly-legs in 11 of the 12rnds .... that Bellew totally outboxed & outpunched Cleverly ... that Bellew is gonna go on to dominate the lt-heavy division and then the cruiser & heavyweight divisions ..

Get a grip people.
If you can't read a fight - then just take a look at Bellew when the final bell went. Tony knew he had lost by enough. Bellew didn't raise his hands in victory until after one of his cornermen told him to.
Tony Bellew knew he lost - so why do you lot find it so hard to accept?

If Cleverly was the one posting on here instead of Bellew, then you just know only Bellews close friends or family would be saying the daft things some on here are saying.

tonyevs wrote:... In another week or two, this forum will no doubt be full of the typical newbie posters telling us that Tony Bellew was blatantly robbed ... that he had Cleverly on jelly-legs in 11 of the 12rnds .... that Bellew totally outboxed & outpunched Cleverly ... that Bellew is gonna go on to dominate the lt-heavy division and then the cruiser & heavyweight divisions ..

Get a grip people.
If you can't read a fight - then just take a look at Bellew when the final bell went. Tony knew he had lost by enough. Bellew didn't raise his hands in victory until after one of his cornermen told him to.
Tony Bellew knew he lost - so why do you lot find it so hard to accept?

If Cleverly was the one posting on here instead of Bellew, then you just know only Bellews close friends or family would be saying the daft things some on here are saying.

In a nutshell

excellent, tonyevs can pretend that there are millions of us saying bellew won, and you can pretend he's right. you make a lovely couple

King Geedorah wrote:
It was close, one or two points either way, .

there it is. no rabid forum boxrec bounce saying tony was robbed. just a good old fashioned close fight with 1 or 2 swing rounds.

though there are some uneducated souls thinking Cleverley outboxed him.

King Geedorah wrote:
Raising your hands doesn't mean a huge amount. If both guys raise their hands does that automatically mean a fight is a draw?

It was close, one or two points either way, and one thing we can all agree on is that both guys have a bit to go before they're at the top end of the division. Cleverly could do with Cloud before he thinks of Dawson, Hopkins or Pascal. Cloud-Clev would be a great fight if Nathan traveled for it.

It was a point that Buncey picked up on also - the body language of Tony Bellew said it all. He knew he lost. We have all seem him celebrate winning fights before this .. think back people or just youtube it
If Tony thought he had won he would have been doing back flips atleast in celebration .. instead he looked atrabilious

Tony was honest in his interview after - no excuses. Cleverly hit him with more. Its that simple

Its laughable to hear the usual suspects come out with their usual drivel though..
Facts are .. Tony and Nathan put on a very good fight. A fight none of the judges had Nathan losing.
Tony is 28yrs old to Nathans 24yrs ... to say Tony will develop to be better than the guy who just beat him .. a guy who is 4 years younger than him ... is plain daft to say the least

There are some boxers who will never get a fair shake with the majority on here. Hatton and Calzaghe being the ones that spring to mind .. well it looks as if Cleverly will be added to that prestigious list now .. it ain`t so bad I guess

Anyways .. the fight is over. Nathan won .. its in the record books.

dude, you're arguing against a strawman you created yourself. anyone would think there have been 100s of people on here saying bellew won.

there haven't been.

its literally like you've picked a fight with your own echo in an empty room.

nobody wins, in that fight, just in case you're wondering. classic even-stevens encounter