BoxRec

gp. wrote:

Kalan wrote:The way I describe it: everything being equal -- a boxer beats a puncher... a puncher beats a fighter... a fighter beats a boxer

Who has the best of all worlds??? ... A boxer-puncher who can attack well and mix well: Errol Spence... Gennady Golovkin... Vasyl Lomachenko... Anthony Joshua... Sergei Kovalev... Oleksander Usyk... Keith Thurman... Terence Crawford... MIkey Garcia... Chris Eubank... Nicholas Walters

They haven't lost or drew any fights except for 3 cold blooded robberies and a SD.

Who is a disaster looking for a place to happen??? ... Amir Khan... Manny Pacquiao... Joseph Parker... James DeGale... Leo Santa Cruz... Lee Selby... Lucas Browne... Tony Bellew...

Manny Pacquaio had better hurry up and have that disaster before he retires.

Oh MAN!!! Did you see Pac-JMM 4??? ... When you take a year off to heal your brain after getting iced that's about as hard as you can be hit... Pac has been knocked out 3 times... almost as often as Amir Khan... And going into the May-Pac fight with a badly ripped rotator cuff assembly assured his defeat... Plus he's been a public relations disaster with his odious right-wing comments in the media... Nike and other top brands dropped him like a hot rock... Serves him right for ducking Thurman, Spence, Brook, Porter, and Crawford for years.

BoxBuzz wrote:Kalan,

Sounds like you made a good case for my theory that the First George Foreman at 217 would have been a massive nightmare for almost anyone IF he had been able to combine the maturity and thought processes of his older slower self.

He would have done better in the '70's...especially versus Ali and Young, if he could slip a punch better and took a lot of juice off his jab so he could land them. You pink with the jab. You don't make a power punch out of it.. He was too damned tensed up and looked in horrible condition for those fights.. Foreman jabbed pretty fair against Norton because he was so confident and relaxed.. He eased a couple nice ones in there.. He even slipped under a couple loaded hooks and Norton couldn't land crap. He was so tense and nervous.. Norton was scared stiff so Foreman relaxed even more in the 2nd round.. When your opponent is fretting and pressing it loosens you up.

But I still see guys with great jabs, like Holmes, Lewis, the Klitschkos, and David Haye beating Foreman... Like Young said, that's how you beat him.

Kalan wrote:

gp. wrote:

Kalan wrote:The way I describe it: everything being equal -- a boxer beats a puncher... a puncher beats a fighter... a fighter beats a boxer

Who has the best of all worlds??? ... A boxer-puncher who can attack well and mix well: Errol Spence... Gennady Golovkin... Vasyl Lomachenko... Anthony Joshua... Sergei Kovalev... Oleksander Usyk... Keith Thurman... Terence Crawford... MIkey Garcia... Chris Eubank... Nicholas Walters

They haven't lost or drew any fights except for 3 cold blooded robberies and a SD.

Who is a disaster looking for a place to happen??? ... Amir Khan... Manny Pacquiao... Joseph Parker... James DeGale... Leo Santa Cruz... Lee Selby... Lucas Browne... Tony Bellew...

Manny Pacquaio had better hurry up and have that disaster before he retires.

Oh MAN!!! Did you see Pac-JMM 4??? ... When you take a year off to heal your brain after getting iced that's about as hard as you can be hit... Pac has been knocked out 3 times... almost as often as Amir Khan... And going into the May-Pac fight with a badly ripped rotator cuff assembly assured his defeat... Plus he's been a public relations disaster with his odious right-wing comments in the media... Nike and other top brands dropped him like a hot rock... Serves him right for ducking Thurman, Spence, Brook, Porter, and Crawford for years.

A disaster in this context is surely losing to someone who isn't very good. Not losing to Marquez.

golden oldie wrote:

gp. wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
I thought he already had in Marquez 4.

Bit of an odd definition of a disaster.

Asleep before he hit the canvas from ONE shot, and would have stayed there all night if they hadn't revived him. It doesn't get much more disastrous than that, particularly when you are being touted as the best fighter in the world.

Adding laughing faces to your post doesn't add to your argument, you know.

As above, surely a disaster means you lose to someone who isn't very good, not lose one fight out of four to someone who is also held to be one of the best fighters in the world.

Losing on points to some unknown nobody is a lot more disastrous than being knocked out by someone high up in the P4P rankings.

gp. wrote:

Kalan wrote:

gp. wrote:

Manny Pacquaio had better hurry up and have that disaster before he retires.

Oh MAN!!! Did you see Pac-JMM 4??? ... When you take a year off to heal your brain after getting iced that's about as hard as you can be hit... Pac has been knocked out 3 times... almost as often as Amir Khan... And going into the May-Pac fight with a badly ripped rotator cuff assembly assured his defeat... Plus he's been a public relations disaster with his odious right-wing comments in the media... Nike and other top brands dropped him like a hot rock... Serves him right for ducking Thurman, Spence, Brook, Porter, and Crawford for years.

A disaster in this context is surely losing to someone who isn't very good. Not losing to Marquez.

NOPE!!! I always saw Pacquiao as a disaster looking for a place to happen. I thought he was lucky in a few of his fights to escape disaster, but he's very fast.

It's the way Pacquiao sometimes leaps in with his right hooks. Roy Jones used to do that occasionally with left hooks, but never got nailed. Roy led a charmed life in that respect and sometimes you slide through. Maybe nobody you fought could throw very well. But Roy did get nailed as he threw a left hook at Tarver while his guard was wide. He was looking for a left hook counter. That was something he did occasionally and his number came up vs an A-lister ... But it doesn't have to be an A-list boxer catching you - they're not the only boxers who can throw very well. You can't rely on speed.

If your defense has holes in it Buster Douglas could riddle you.. It doesn't matter who hits the Hell out of you.. Amir Khan got nailed by a C-lister... a B-lister---Garcia wasn't a big deal yet, Khan was a big fav... and an A-lister... It's not pretty whoever pops you - so close those holes.

golden oldie wrote:

gp. wrote:

golden oldie wrote:



Asleep before he hit the canvas from ONE shot, and would have stayed there all night if they hadn't revived him. It doesn't get much more disastrous than that, particularly when you are being touted as the best fighter in the world.

Adding laughing faces to your post doesn't add to your argument, you know.

As above, surely a disaster means you lose to someone who isn't very good, not lose one fight out of four to someone who is also held to be one of the best fighters in the world.

Losing on points to some unknown nobody is a lot more disastrous than being knocked out by someone high up in the P4P rankings.

I strongly believe what you are writing would be known in the world of politics as " SPIN " Pac was the favourite going into the fight, having beaten Cotto, Clottey, Margarito,Mosley, and Marquez himself, and by general consensus " robbed " in the Bradley fight, but he didn't just lose. He got fukked. One shot, fast asleep. THAT my little friend was, and always will, be a disaster.


Sorry, I forgot.

You're a bit of a prick, aren't you, my little friend?

You can have your definition of disaster, I'll have mine.

think people are overthinking the "styles makes fights" thing, 2 sluggers may make a great fight or then again they may not depending on whether the individual boxers personal styles and quirks gel with each other, its not as generic as people are thinking because styles really do make fights

If you have two great fighters who can do everything you get a great fight... Some people loved Foreman-Lyle. I thought it was a mess... Many people thought Corrales-Castillo 1 was the greatest fight ever. I thought it was a career ender for both... For some Hearns-Hagler was a classic. I thought it was a brutal beat down of a skinny kid... I enjoyed Toney-McCallum 1 about as much as any fight. Two guys who knew what they were doing. Tremendous absorbers who could box and punch. McCallum was 35, but for their first he could still throw thunder.

Why do these fannies bother? I've got more folk on ignore now than ever before. Still some excellent, interesting posters on here but it's about bloody time a new mod was appointed and the mess cleared out.

All the good posters are sick of it, I know that much from PMs.

golden oldie wrote:

gp. wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
I strongly believe what you are writing would be known in the world of politics as " SPIN " Pac was the favourite going into the fight, having beaten Cotto, Clottey, Margarito,Mosley, and Marquez himself, and by general consensus " robbed " in the Bradley fight, but he didn't just lose. He got fukked. One shot, fast asleep. THAT my little friend was, and always will, be a disaster.


Sorry, I forgot.

You're a bit of a prick, aren't you, my little friend?

You can have your definition of disaster, I'll have mine.

Aah, yet another Pacturd. Crawl under the same stone as the rest of the freaks.

a 'dis - aster' is literally an ill-starred event; a catastrophe blamed on an ill-fated astrological misalignment of the stars and planets

BoxBuzz wrote:Kalan,

Sounds like you made a good case for my theory that the First George Foreman at 217 would have been a massive nightmare for almost anyone IF he had been able to combine the maturity and thought processes of his older slower self.

god yes - if you could combined the two he would have been unbeatable (for a while) - all he had to do was out jab Ali (and he could have; movement would have had nothing to do with it) and he would have walked away with an easy UD

elmersalsa wrote:I never got it. What do you mean by the statement "Styles Makes Fights" crap?

Please, explain?

The best explanation I can give is that something that works against another fighter may not work against another.

Ken Norton's style for instance was hopelessly ineffective against George Foreman

George Foreman's style was not successful against Muhammad Ali

Muhammad Ali always had absolute hell with Ken Norton, arguably deserving to lose all 3 of their fights.

That's the best example I can think of.

Some guys have a style that is effective against certain fighters while it's not effective against another fighter who has bested that guy.

On how to use 'styles makes fights'

I am not convinced the phrase 'styles makes fights' is meant to covey a particular fighter's effectiveness against another, but instead is meant to predict how the action of a fight will likely play-out. E.g. Leonard-Benitez was bound to be fought the way it was because the fighters' styles, being so similar, dictated the limited action. Yet another example, which played out differently for the fan, would be the 29 rounds of fighting between Bramble and Mancini, with round after round once again repeating the same action, but this time with exciting action.

Styles do make fights, but the 'make fights' should be used to denote how the fight will likely be fought, not who has an advantage.

I think much more the the outcome of the fight it also can explain how 2 exciting fighters can have such a dull fight.

APerno wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Kalan,

Sounds like you made a good case for my theory that the First George Foreman at 217 would have been a massive nightmare for almost anyone IF he had been able to combine the maturity and thought processes of his older slower self.

god yes - if you could combined the two he would have been unbeatable (for a while) - all he had to do was out jab Ali (and he could have; movement would have had nothing to do with it) and he would have walked away with an easy UD

Foreman needed better sparring partners who could jab.. Ali had Holmes.. And you need to fight a few guys who can jab and keep their head back -- and you need a trainer who had an excellent jab when he was fighting.. You start to ease your jab and tap the rhythm if your sparmate pops you in the face when nobody else can get you.. It's all stance, balance, footwork, rhythm, and timing.. A lot of guys hate sparring good boxers because they're catching shots every day, but it's the only way you learn.. sometimes you see a boxer improve more in 3 fights than he did in 15 or 20 fights.. That's because he changed his environment and who he's working with.. You can't learn anything from people who don't know anything.

I've always thought the point of the phrase is that you only get good fights with the right styles, hence certain fighters always stink the place out because they have a style that kills the entertainment by stopping their opponent doing anything decent, while refusing to do much themselves, others, such as 2 guys willing to give/take makes an entertaining fight.

But I also agree with the points people are making about some styles are made for beating others.

I think of some as "boutique" fighters.

Tarver trained himself to be able to defeat a Roy Jones. Limited him in other ways.
And Futch managed to bring Norton into the " boutique" skills required to be incredibly competitive with Ali.

BoxBuzz wrote:I think of some as "boutique" fighters.

Tarver trained himself to be able to defeat a Roy Jones. Limited him in other ways.
And Futch managed to bring Norton into the " boutique" skills required to be incredibly competitive with Ali.

Typical BuzzBox comment... Tarver trained himself to beat anybody... He won 5 or 6 World Titles... The fact that Chad Dawson beat AT when he was in his 40's... and Bernard Hopkins beat him when he was 38 and came into camp weighing 220... That shouldn't distract from his wins over Reggie Johnson, Glen Johnson, Roy Jones X 2, Montel Griffin, Eric Harding X 2, and many other top fighters. His whole career wasn't beating Roy.

Norton didn't just beat Ali.. He beat Jimmy Young, Tex Cobb, Pedro Lovell, and Jerry Quarry.. Norton was a little awkward and chinny, but he was big, strong, mildly athletic, and effective.. If you can beat any ATG, there's other contenders out there who you can match up with.

Kalan wrote: Tarver trained himself to beat anybody...

Because he's a drugs cheat.

Not deliberately... I always told boxers never to take over-the-counter supplements of any kind.. Check all their meds against the PED list.. Cook their own meals and stay out of restaurants if possible.. buy food from organic markets to avoid hormones, steroids, and junk fed to livestock.. and avoid VADA like the plague because they're crooked.. Look how many boxers are flabbergasted when their PED tests are flagged and they have no idea how they ingested it.