BoxRec

We all know hes tough as nails, but Paulie was very lucky to get the win in his last fight against the fairly mediocre Pablo Cesar Cano. He was beaten up badly as age is finally starting to catch up with him. Broner is head and shoulders above Canos level.

Paulie will start well and Broner will take a few rounds to get a feel of the fight. However, he'll soon feel comfortable and hit the afterburners just like he did with Rees. Accuracy and power will have the New Yorkers head snapping back once too often for the corners liking and the towel will come in by the 10th.

Paulie should have been a career lightweight.

Broner will be a natural career welterweight .

Agree with what people have said on both sides here. At the moment, broner is overrated and unproven at this weight, paulie is and has always been underrated. That said, paulie looked bad last time and broner has the financial backing. Who makes the 'man' more $$$ if its tight, unfortunately its broner and he will take a decision. I hope paulie lasts the distance and so will probably have a lump on the tough sob going 10 or more at 4/5 with laddies

Broner 5'7" - Malignaggi 5'8".

Fight night, Malignaggi goes up to 156-157lbs. Broner was around 150lbs for his last fight against Ree's.

Broner may come in around 152lbs on the night, if not slightly heavier.

I love Paulie but he's gonna get walloped in this one. As has been pointed out he's not a natural welterweight himself and even when he was nearer his peak he couldn't land a shot of note on a defence as leaky as khans or a way past his prime Hatton (who was defending with his face at that point) so i don't see how he's going to put a dent in Broner. Paulie is what he is, defensively he's difficult to pin down but offensively he offers nothing. For a supposed 'slickster' he's not even that accurate a puncher. Think he'll make Broner look bad for 5/6 rounds without actually winning many (similar to the way McCloskey did against Khan) but Paulie will get pulled out anytime from 9th onward.

I just think it's a matter of how long Paulie can survive. My guess would be until the middle rounds, say 6-9 as he will frustrate Broner and get on his bike when he finds out he could be in trouble.

Malignaggi has always been well beaten when he has faced someone decent. Both Hatton and Khan easily handled him. I think, Broner, who I just don't warm to, will stop him around the 9 round mark.Malignaggi simply can't punch and Broner can. It's an easy fight for him, this one. Malignaggi is great with the rhetoric, but less than great in the ring!!

No way Broner loses to Paulie, Broner looks somat special IMO and Paulie is just Paulie. PM might frustrate and befuddle him for a bit, but can't see any way he wins

I think it's worth a small punt at those odds.

Malignaggi still has movement and can someone tell me who is the most mobile pure boxer that Broner has beaten? Also i think the difference between Broner fighting someone his own size rather than a relative midget will be noticeable.

Paulie is on the downside but i think this is a genuinely interesting. If Broner can deal with him with similar ease as in Rees fight i'll become a believer (above LW).

Broner stoppage for me - Anything Paulie throws will not have enough meat behind it and I think Broner wears him down and stops him between rounds 4-6

well the first thing is this - if broner wins comfortably he still does not earn the acclaim that a few on here are ready to garland him with. paulie has not set the world on fire in his career and so I ask those broner nuthuggers to be a little real about his talents - he has not been tested yet and what test can PM ask of him? until a mover who can really dig fights him I will remain a non-believer.

keep your tenner safe

Another thing to think about is, that the actual publicity for this fight and the fact that Broner is moving up two weights could be clouding a lot of people's judgement.

Broner has been fighting smaller guys. Why? We don't know. Maybe he is chinny but from what I've seen in the lower weights, as hard to judge as it is, I'd say not.

Paulie is steady enough but Broner is the next big PPV star. Khan stopped Paulie in 11. Every time Paulie has been in a big fight against potential PPV fighters, he's lost - 'Cotto, Hatton, Khan'. Broner looks about right on the end of that list.

Regarding Broner's weight.

Q. Since when did walking around weight become the same as fighting weight?

A. It didn't.

8-1 is it me or is the smart money trying to tell us something?????? DD even harrison fought one of the klitches you get better odds on that lol

Paulies way past it, too many hard fights.

freddydoesdallas wrote:Agree with what people have said on both sides here. At the moment, broner is overrated and unproven at this weight, paulie is and has always been underrated. That said, paulie looked bad last time and broner has the financial backing. Who makes the 'man' more $$$ if its tight, unfortunately its broner and he will take a decision. I hope paulie lasts the distance and so will probably have a lump on the tough sob going 10 or more at 4/5 with laddies

My only winning bet of the weekend and it still left me down thanks to the aussies choking.

I lost a tenner but feel vindicated in taking the punt.

deadpan wrote:I lost a tenner but feel vindicated in taking the punt.

Me too. After 5 rounds Skybet's livebet had it at 17/2 for Malignaggi to win even though he was clearly 4 rounds up at that point; when I heard it was an SD I had more than a fleeting hope I would turn out to be right. At those odds, it was definitely the right choice.

dookus wrote:

deadpan wrote:I lost a tenner but feel vindicated in taking the punt.

Me too. After 5 rounds Skybet's livebet had it at 17/2 for Malignaggi to win even though he was clearly 4 rounds up at that point; when I heard it was an SD I had more than a fleeting hope I would turn out to be right. At those odds, it was definitely the right choice.

When I heard it was an SD I also thought we were in for a shock result and it did look like that 8-1 was the right bet. But alas....

freddydoesdallas wrote:Agree with what people have said on both sides here. At the moment, broner is overrated and unproven at this weight, paulie is and has always been underrated. That said, paulie looked bad last time and broner has the financial backing. Who makes the 'man' more $$$ if its tight, unfortunately its broner and he will take a decision. I hope paulie lasts the distance and so will probably have a lump on the tough sob going 10 or more at 4/5 with laddies

Isn't that pretty much what Paulie said post bout?

deadpan wrote:I lost a tenner but feel vindicated in taking the punt.

I don't, i just feel robbed, Malignaggi won that fight. But the fix was in for the hype-job as per usual.

crusader wrote:

Andypittcov wrote:I'm not

Me neither.

I didn't.

I always wonder why people feel vindicated when placing a losing bet.
Weird.

Parson Cross wrote:I always wonder why people feel vindicated when placing a losing bet.
Weird.

I don't always; sometimes you've just made a silly choice. But the fundamental rule of gambling is that if someone offers you odds of 10/1 and the real odds of it coming off are actually more like 3/1, you'd be foolish not to take the bet.

In this situation, the odds that were given to me were 17/2; Malignaggi was 3 or 4 rounds up and showed no signs of slowing down yet. While that didn't make him favourite to win the fight overall (given the way that Broner pours it on from round 5), it made his odds of doing so considerably better than 17/2; probably more like 2/1 given Malignaggi's excellent chin. The fact that the fight went to an SD (and was deemed very close on one of Broner's cards) suggests my analysis was correct at the time.

Therefore, I was risking £5 to win £42.50, when in fact there was only about a 33% chance of losing at the point I made the bet. Repeat that situation over and over again and the 33% of the time you win makes you a lot of money.

That's what I mean by feeling vindicated in having made the bet.

dookus wrote:

Parson Cross wrote:I always wonder why people feel vindicated when placing a losing bet.
Weird.

I don't always; sometimes you've just made a silly choice. But the fundamental rule of gambling is that if someone offers you odds of 10/1 and the real odds of it coming off are actually more like 3/1, you'd be foolish not to take the bet.

In this situation, the odds that were given to me were 17/2; Malignaggi was 3 or 4 rounds up and showed no signs of slowing down yet. While that didn't make him favourite to win the fight overall (given the way that Broner pours it on from round 5), it made his odds of doing so considerably better than 17/2; probably more like 2/1 given Malignaggi's excellent chin. The fact that the fight went to an SD (and was deemed very close on one of Broner's cards) suggests my analysis was correct at the time.

Therefore, I was risking £5 to win £42.50, when in fact there was only about a 33% chance of losing at the point I made the bet. Repeat that situation over and over again and the 33% of the time you win makes you a lot of money.

That's what I mean by feeling vindicated in having made the bet.

Thats pretty much it, seeing through the hype and giving yourself a chance based on knowledge. As someone else posted the 5/2 on the broner points was the no brainer due to malignaggi's chin. The bookies priced it wrong and got lucky. I'm happy with my 4/5 win on 10+ rounds

If anyone backed this fella to beat Federer at the huge price you would put that down to luck.