Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 18:02
by jamamb
i will say that mesis ko blitz of davvaryl williamson was brutal and explosive. only a 90 second watch if your pressed for time. messi was a fun fighter but the barret fight showed his limitations and then of course jirov gave him a brain bleed. actually its very remarkable that he managed to last the distance against jirov because he was totally out of it.
Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 18:03
by tiny_acres
Syntax Error wrote: ↑09 Feb 2018, 15:26
Dominick Guinn - Looked great & looked like he was going to be the man to fill the void left by Lennox Lewis, but alas not.
Man was I on the Guinn bandwagon.
Never felt so wrong after.
Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 18:05
by jamamb
i still believe that guinns problems were more in motivation and mindset. his skill was pretty solid and he had a pretty good combo of speed and power. i think he couldve at least been an eddie contending type if motivated. but with his mentality its not surprise at all that he eventually became a cover up and do nothing, give em rounds journeyman
actually guinn is a good contrast with tony thompson, who seemed far less gifted but still beat him. thomas was mentioned in this threads sister (more effective then they look)
Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Posted: 10 Feb 2018, 09:40
by Des1
Richard Evatt
Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Syntax Error wrote: ↑09 Feb 2018, 15:26
Dominick Guinn - Looked great & looked like he was going to be the man to fill the void left by Lennox Lewis, but alas not.
Every time he's mentioned I think its a legal requirement to post this
I just threw 15 years worth of the ring magazine in the skip the other day.
And 20 years of Boxing News...
Was kind of sad, but they really were just taking up space.
Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Syntax Error wrote: ↑09 Feb 2018, 15:26
Dominick Guinn - Looked great & looked like he was going to be the man to fill the void left by Lennox Lewis, but alas not.
Man was I on the Guinn bandwagon.
Never felt so wrong after.
Me too.
I used to tell my two best mates, who are not aficionados of the sport, but will watch the big fights like most lay people, that Guinn was going to be the next great HW in that period after Lewis retired.
How wrong I was.
Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Posted: 10 Feb 2018, 13:50
by skanksta
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑06 Feb 2018, 16:30
Good thread. Brings to mind the phrase 'flatters to deceive', what fighters flatter/flatter to deceive?
Tyrone Nurse?
Gavin
Going back
Alex Arthur looked to have all the tools but underperformed with them
Umm.
He'd be my first pick, every fight he has, he'll have a "wow" spell - just ducking punches and effortlessly countering. He looks so smooth and accurate. He's huge-at-the-weight, awkward, rangy and has a good chin - I just can't fathom why he's never gone beyond British level.
There's some..., sort of 'oomph' desire, spite, workrate missing, he eases off, fights down to his opponent's level, switches off - whatever it is, he just can't seem to put his obvious talents together.
Frankie Gavin is another one - but at least we can see why he flatters to deceive - with Nurse it's a mystery.
Re: boxers who looked more effective than that are / were.
Posted: 10 Feb 2018, 16:02
by jamamb
tbh ive never thought of nurse as being good defensively and he does seem to lack power. hes a guy who with the way he carries himself its easy to lump him into the slick category if you have just a quick look, but imo hes actually not. a bit upright and easy to hit at times tbh.
