BoxRec

Would you favor the versions of Martinez that fought Barker, Macklin, and Murray?

crusader wrote:Would you favor the versions of Martinez that fought Barker, Macklin, and Murray?

I think he'd find a way, as he seems to do. Murray would've been the most doubtful given the injuries he sustained, though; that version would've had a very tough time.

SouthpawStephen wrote:

crusader wrote:Would you favor the versions of Martinez that fought Barker, Macklin, and Murray?

I wouldn't favor any version of Martinez against GGG.

Me neither

Rover wrote:

crusader wrote:Would you favor the versions of Martinez that fought Barker, Macklin, and Murray?

I think he'd find a way, as he seems to do. Murray would've been the most doubtful given the injuries he sustained, though; that version would've had a very tough time.

Who did he seem to find a way against though? No one on GGG's level.

If he's fighting on virtually even terms with guys like Macklin and Murray, and struggling significantly with a guy like Barker, I'd have to favor GGG over him.

crusader wrote:

Rover wrote:

crusader wrote:Would you favor the versions of Martinez that fought Barker, Macklin, and Murray?

I think he'd find a way, as he seems to do. Murray would've been the most doubtful given the injuries he sustained, though; that version would've had a very tough time.

Who did he seem to find a way against though? No one on GGG's level.

If he's fighting on virtually even terms with guys like Macklin and Murray, and struggling significantly with a guy like Barker, I'd have to favor GGG over him.

He stopped Macklin, and I had him up 4 points through 11. I thought he beat Murray 8-4 (115-112 with the KD), and I gave Barker one round.
I never thought he was in danger except in Murray later in the fight, but he won the last 2 to cement the win.

SouthpawStephen wrote:

Rover wrote:

crusader wrote:Would you favor the versions of Martinez that fought Barker, Macklin, and Murray?

I think he'd find a way, as he seems to do. Murray would've been the most doubtful given the injuries he sustained, though; that version would've had a very tough time.

Comon man. You are just hating at this point. Chavez Jr, a guy with no AM experience almost had Martinez out of there. GGG would run through Sergio. He has struggled through his last few outings. Golovkin is not only young, but he's got a ton of experience and an incredible ring IQ to boot. It's basic math. you are just hating man. I know you are more knowledgeable than this.

Again focusing on the am experience. JCC had almost 50 pro fights, and I think a lot of Martinez's problems that round were due to the knee. And he survived--and let's not forget JCC couldn't have won that fight anyway.

BTW, here are the positions I've taken, and I don't think this constitutes "hating":
1. I'd confidently pick Ward over Golovkin--the #1 or 2 P4P fighter in the world over a guy who hasn't fought in that division.
2. I don't think GGG would demolish Froch, Kessler and Bika, especially Froch.
3. If healthy (his knee doesn't get torn again in the fight), I'd favor Martinez (though less confidently than I would Ward) over GGG--a fight which won't take place for another year if ever.

He stopped Macklin, and I had him up 4 points through 11. I thought he beat Murray 8-4 (115-112 with the KD), and I gave Barker one round.
I never thought he was in danger except in Murray later in the fight, but he won the last 2 to cement the win.

If you had him up by 4 points though 11 against Macklin, whom was destroyed by GGG, you had it a 1 point fight after ten; that's virtually even terms for most of the bout. I thought the Murray bout could go either way, and I'm yet to see a strong argument that it would've been unfair if Murray got the decision. Murray also landed, overall the higher quality punches and had Sergio looking weary for several of the later rounds. Sergio's nose was broken against Barker, and he landed almost no notable punches until the 11th. While I had Sergio comfortably ahead, I think a score as close as 96-94 for him would've been fair.

More importantly, do you think fighters such as Macklin and Murray are close to GGG's level? Based on tonight I don't, yet they pushed him very close and most, including me, think the latter had a reasonable case for winning. If they aren't on his level, I don't see much basis for arguing that since Martinez found a way to win against them, he would do so against GGG.

Could you be more specific (e.g. compare/contrast abilities) about would you favor those iterations of Martinez over GGG? Given that those account for three of his past 4 performances, I think it's more likely that GGG fights one of those versions than a sharp and healthy Martinez.

crusader wrote:

He stopped Macklin, and I had him up 4 points through 11. I thought he beat Murray 8-4 (115-112 with the KD), and I gave Barker one round.
I never thought he was in danger except in Murray later in the fight, but he won the last 2 to cement the win.

If you had him up by 4 points though 11 against Macklin, whom was destroyed by GGG, you had it a 1 point fight after ten; that's virtually even terms for most of the bout. I thought the Murray bout could go either way, and I'm yet to see a strong argument that it would've been unfair if Murray got the decision. Murray also landed, overall the higher quality punches and had Sergio looking weary for several of the later rounds. Sergio's nose was broken against Barker, and he landed almost no notable punches until the 11th. While I had Sergio comfortably ahead, I think a score as close as 96-94 for him would've been fair.

More importantly, do you think fighters such as Macklin and Murray are close to GGG's level? Based on tonight I don't, yet they pushed him very close and most, including me, think the latter had a reasonable case for winning. If they aren't on his level, I don't see much basis for arguing that since Martinez found a way to win against them, he would do so against GGG.

Could you be more specific (e.g. compare/contrast abilities) about would you favor those iterations of Martinez over GGG?

I evaluate a fight as a whole, not in parts, so I had him up 4 through 11 against Macklin. I don't separate and say how I scored it after 10.
GGG beat Macklin, who'd had one round in 15 months, and he was almost universally picked to win. Both Martinez and GGG decisively beat Macklin. GGG's having done so earlier doesn't tell me that Martinez couldn't handle him.
I don't know how GGG/Murray would play out; I haven't thought about that. I thought he was beating Barker handily and didn't think he was in danger of losing. (Same for Macklin.)

You may not say it, but it's a fact that you had it almost even after 10 rounds, which is possible only if Macklin had success in several rounds. Conversely, he was heavily stopped early and had no success against GGG. That suggests to me that GGG is a much better fighter than Macklin, even if Macklin's only fight in the past 15 months was a 1st round KO of a former world champion coming off a good win; do you agree?

Compared to Macklin, Murray had slightly better success against Martinez, slightly worse success against Sturm, and his other performances weren't generally more impressive than Macklin's other performances. This suggests to me that Macklin and Martinez are on a very similar or the same level, and that both are significantly worse than GGG is. As mentioned, I don't think Martinez pulling through in tough fights with these two suggests the versions of him that fought them could do so against GGG.

That doesn't mean there are no reasons to favor those versions of Martinez against GGG, but you'd have to look outside recent results per se. Could you be more specific (e.g. compare/contrast abilities) about why you favor those iterations of Martinez over GGG? Given that those account for 3 of his past 4 performances and since he is nearly 40, I think it's more likely that GGG fights one of those versions than a sharp and healthy Martinez.

Martinez is in Mexico greasing up to and sucking Jose Sulaimans cock so he can fight the winner of Floyd and Saul, quite rightly line his pockets and therefore quite happily get the fornicate out GGGs way and retire I hope with a legacy of sorts intact

crusader wrote:You may not say it, but it's a fact that you had it almost even after 10 rounds, which is possible only if Macklin had success in several rounds. Conversely, he was heavily stopped early and had no success against GGG. That suggests to me that GGG is a much better fighter than Macklin, even if Macklin's only fight in the past 15 months was a 1st round KO of a former world champion coming off a good win; do you agree?

Compared to Macklin, Murray had slightly better success against Martinez, slightly worse success against Sturm, and his other performances weren't generally more impressive than Macklin's other performances. This suggests to me that Macklin and Martinez are on a very similar or the same level, and that both are significantly worse than GGG is. As mentioned, I don't think Martinez pulling through in tough fights with these two suggests the versions of him that fought them could do so against GGG.

That doesn't mean there are no reasons to favor those versions of Martinez against GGG, but you'd have to look outside most of his recent results. Could you be more specific (e.g. compare/contrast abilities) about why you favor those iterations of Martinez over GGG? Given that those account for 3 of his past 4 performances and since he is nearly 40, I think it's more likely that GGG fights one of those versions than a sharp and healthy Martinez.

I consider the fight as a whole, not just parts of it, so the scoring after one part doesn't mean that much to me. Chavez was only up by a point over Fuentes through a good portion of their fight; so what?
I put Martinez on a different level than Macklin. Martinez doesn't dominate throughout, but he wins in the end.
Different fighters win in different ways, but Martinez gets the job done.
JMM didn't dominate MAB like Pac did. I doubt Pac/Juan Diaz would've been as competitive. And yet JMM, though in some difficulty, found ways to win. Martinez strikes me as that type.
That's as specific as I can be.
Now, if he isn't healthy, of course that changes the equation.

Given Golovkin's performance tonight, Quillin's proclivity for taking flush shots, and Sergio's overall physical disintegration, Gennady has to be considered the front runner in the division at this juncture.

macaca wrote:Martinez is in Mexico greasing up to and sucking Jose Sulaimans cock so he can fight the winner of Floyd and Saul, quite rightly line his pockets and therefore quite happily get the eff out GGGs way and retire I hope with a legacy of sorts intact

Sulaiman can't make that fight happen if Floyd especially and Canelo won't move up.

Rover wrote:

macaca wrote:Martinez is in Mexico greasing up to and sucking Jose Sulaimans cock so he can fight the winner of Floyd and Saul, quite rightly line his pockets and therefore quite happily get the eff out GGGs way and retire I hope with a legacy of sorts intact

Sulaiman can't make that fight happen if Floyd especially and Canelo won't move up.

Sergio down is the key though isn't it?

macaca wrote:

Rover wrote:

macaca wrote:Martinez is in Mexico greasing up to and sucking Jose Sulaimans cock so he can fight the winner of Floyd and Saul, quite rightly line his pockets and therefore quite happily get the eff out GGGs way and retire I hope with a legacy of sorts intact

Sulaiman can't make that fight happen if Floyd especially and Canelo won't move up.

Sergio down is the key though isn't it?

I don't know if 2014 Sergio can get town to jr. middle. Maybe he can, but I have doubts he can do so without starving.

Rover wrote:

crusader wrote:You may not say it, but it's a fact that you had it almost even after 10 rounds, which is possible only if Macklin had success in several rounds. Conversely, he was heavily stopped early and had no success against GGG. That suggests to me that GGG is a much better fighter than Macklin, even if Macklin's only fight in the past 15 months was a 1st round KO of a former world champion coming off a good win; do you agree?

Compared to Macklin, Murray had slightly better success against Martinez, slightly worse success against Sturm, and his other performances weren't generally more impressive than Macklin's other performances. This suggests to me that Macklin and Martinez are on a very similar or the same level, and that both are significantly worse than GGG is. As mentioned, I don't think Martinez pulling through in tough fights with these two suggests the versions of him that fought them could do so against GGG.

That doesn't mean there are no reasons to favor those versions of Martinez against GGG, but you'd have to look outside most of his recent results. Could you be more specific (e.g. compare/contrast abilities) about why you favor those iterations of Martinez over GGG? Given that those account for 3 of his past 4 performances and since he is nearly 40, I think it's more likely that GGG fights one of those versions than a sharp and healthy Martinez.

I consider the fight as a whole, not just parts of it, so the scoring after one part doesn't mean that much to me. Chavez was only up by a point over Fuentes through a good portion of their fight; so what?
I put Martinez on a different level than Macklin. Martinez doesn't dominate throughout, but he wins in the end.
Different fighters win in different ways, but Martinez gets the job done.
JMM didn't dominate MAB like Pac did. I doubt Pac/Juan Diaz would've been as competitive. And yet JMM, though in some difficulty, found ways to win. Martinez strikes me as that type.
That's as specific as I can be.
Now, if he isn't healthy, of course that changes the equation.

I consider the fight as a whole, not just parts of it, so the scoring after one part doesn't mean that much to me. Chavez was only up by a point over Fuentes through a good portion of their fight; so what?

After 10 rounds Chavez led Fuentas by 4, 7, and 8 points, not by 1 point; those scores don't reflect an even fight. If it had fairly been as close as Macklin-Martinez was--Sergio up by 1 on a pair of cards and Macklin up by 3 on the other--I would consider them to have fought on roughly even terms after ten rounds, suggesting Fuentas's performance was superior in numerous rounds. It's also not as if Macklin had just a few good rounds before Sergio took over; he consistently won rounds until the 8th, which represents over half the fight.

Looking at fights only broadly, in my view, tells an incomplete story and leads one to ignore information reflecting on a fighter's strengths and limitations, which is useful information when assessing how that fighter will perform against certain opponents. We implicitly accept the idea that parts of the fight matter though, because everyone looks at similar results differently when the events leading to the results are very different, just as we would've looked at Martinez's performance against Macklin differently if the former had been losing 10-0 before winning in the 11th, or if he had been dropped and seriously hurt 3 times before winning in the 11th, or if he had won every round before winning in the 11h.

Martinez doesn't dominate throughout, but he wins in the end. Different fighters win in different ways, but Martinez gets the job done.

Lately he's gotten the job done against opponents who, based on their performances, are likely much worse than GGG. His ability to pull through in fights in which he generally struggled has been demonstrated only against Macklin level opponents, so I don't think it's appropriate to generalize that quality to a fight against GGG.

JMM didn't dominate MAB like Pac did. I doubt Pac/Juan Diaz would've been as competitive. And yet JMM, though in some difficulty, found ways to win.

Marquez was generally thought to have beaten MAB by several rounds, and I think the dominance disparity between JMM-MAB and PAC-MAB is smaller than the dominance disparity between GGG-Macklin and Martinez-Macklin. Additionally, JMM didn't look poor in most of his fights around the time, he didn't repeatedly suffer serious injuries, and he wasn't showing marked signs of decline. Because Sergio has looked poor over several recent fights, because he is nearly 40 and injury prone, and because he fights at a stable weight, I think it's less likely that his future performances will be significantly more impressive than his recent performances; he's less suited in my view than JMM was to drastically improve his performances. Marquez, while he struggled for a few rounds with Diaz, seemed to gain the upper hand after about the first three rounds, knocked out Diaz in 9, and outclassed him in the rematch, so I don't think there is much grounds to think Diaz-Pac would've been as competitive as the JMM-Pac bouts, especially since Diaz was stylistically made for Pacquiao and Marquez wasn't.

The mention of style leads me to my next point. I'm not trying to argue that GGG's superior showing against Macklin and Sergio's recent struggles mean that GGG beats Sergio; comparative results go only so far, and you were right in adducing cases demonstrating their limited utility. This is why an analysis must go beyond comparative results, just as it must go beyond other results per se. In this case, that means predictions of GGG-Martinez should account for factors other than their bouts against Macklin and Martinez's ability to 'find a way' against Macklin, Murray, and Barker. The factors that should be considered include style and ability, and whatever affects them. When I ask for something more specific, I'm wondering how you think these factors contribute to a certain result.

crusader wrote:

Rover wrote:

crusader wrote:You may not say it, but it's a fact that you had it almost even after 10 rounds, which is possible only if Macklin had success in several rounds. Conversely, he was heavily stopped early and had no success against GGG. That suggests to me that GGG is a much better fighter than Macklin, even if Macklin's only fight in the past 15 months was a 1st round KO of a former world champion coming off a good win; do you agree?

Compared to Macklin, Murray had slightly better success against Martinez, slightly worse success against Sturm, and his other performances weren't generally more impressive than Macklin's other performances. This suggests to me that Macklin and Martinez are on a very similar or the same level, and that both are significantly worse than GGG is. As mentioned, I don't think Martinez pulling through in tough fights with these two suggests the versions of him that fought them could do so against GGG.

That doesn't mean there are no reasons to favor those versions of Martinez against GGG, but you'd have to look outside most of his recent results. Could you be more specific (e.g. compare/contrast abilities) about why you favor those iterations of Martinez over GGG? Given that those account for 3 of his past 4 performances and since he is nearly 40, I think it's more likely that GGG fights one of those versions than a sharp and healthy Martinez.

I consider the fight as a whole, not just parts of it, so the scoring after one part doesn't mean that much to me. Chavez was only up by a point over Fuentes through a good portion of their fight; so what?
I put Martinez on a different level than Macklin. Martinez doesn't dominate throughout, but he wins in the end.
Different fighters win in different ways, but Martinez gets the job done.
JMM didn't dominate MAB like Pac did. I doubt Pac/Juan Diaz would've been as competitive. And yet JMM, though in some difficulty, found ways to win. Martinez strikes me as that type.
That's as specific as I can be.
Now, if he isn't healthy, of course that changes the equation.

I consider the fight as a whole, not just parts of it, so the scoring after one part doesn't mean that much to me. Chavez was only up by a point over Fuentes through a good portion of their fight; so what?

After 10 rounds Chavez led Fuentas by 4, 7, and 8 points, not by 1 point; those scores don't reflect an even fight. If it had fairly been as close as Macklin-Martinez was--Sergio up by 1 on a pair of cards and Macklin up by 3 on the other--I would consider them to have fought on roughly even terms after ten rounds, suggesting Fuentas's performance was superior in numerous rounds. It's also not as if Macklin had just a few good rounds before Sergio took over; he consistently won rounds until the 8th, which represents over half the fight.

Looking at fights only broadly, in my view, tells an incomplete story and leads one to ignore information reflecting on a fighter's strengths and limitations, which is useful information when assessing how that fighter will perform against certain opponents. We implicitly accept the idea that parts of the fight matter though, because everyone looks at similar results differently when the events leading to the results are very different, just as we would've looked at Martinez's performance against Macklin differently if the former had been losing 10-0 before winning in the 11th, or if he had been dropped and seriously hurt 3 times before winning in the 11th, or if he had won every round before winning in the 11h.

Martinez doesn't dominate throughout, but he wins in the end. Different fighters win in different ways, but Martinez gets the job done.

Lately he's gotten the job done against opponents who, based on their performances, are likely much worse than GGG. His ability to pull through in fights in which he generally struggled has been demonstrated only against Macklin level opponents, so I don't think it's appropriate to generalize that quality to a fight against GGG.

JMM didn't dominate MAB like Pac did. I doubt Pac/Juan Diaz would've been as competitive. And yet JMM, though in some difficulty, found ways to win.

Marquez was generally thought to have beaten MAB by several rounds, and I think the dominance disparity between JMM-MAB and PAC-MAB is smaller than the dominance disparity between GGG-Macklin and Martinez-Macklin. Additionally, JMM didn't look poor in most of his fights around the time, he didn't repeatedly suffer serious injuries, and he wasn't showing marked signs of decline. Because Sergio has looked poor over several recent fights, because he is nearly 40 and injury prone, and because he fights at a stable weight, I think it's less likely that his future performances will be significantly more impressive than his recent performances; he's less suited in my view than JMM was to drastically improve his performances. Marquez, while he struggled for a few rounds with Diaz, seemed to gain the upper hand after about the first three rounds, knocked out Diaz in 9, and outclassed him in the rematch, so I don't think there is much grounds to think Diaz-Pac would've been as competitive as the JMM-Pac bouts, especially since Diaz was stylistically made for Pacquiao and Marquez wasn't.

The mention of style leads me to my next point. I'm not trying to argue that GGG's superior showing against Macklin and Sergio's recent struggles mean that GGG beats Sergio; comparative results go only so far, and you were right in adducing cases demonstrating their limited utility. This is why an analysis must go beyond comparative results, just as it must go beyond other results per se. In this case, that means predictions of GGG-Martinez should account for factors other than their bouts against Macklin and Martinez's ability to 'find a way' against Macklin, Murray, and Barker. The factors that should be considered include style and ability, and whatever affects them. When I ask for something more specific, I'm wondering how you think these factors contribute to a certain result.

I think these fights do show Martinez's toughness, which will be needed v. GGG. When his difficulties in these fights were cited, I brought that up because it shows he can gut it out to win in a dogfight (Murray especially--I just didn't think Barker was very close, and Chavez had one tough round for him).
Regarding other factors (and I agree regarding comparative analysis, as they have one common opponent whom they both stopped), I think a healthy Martinez can give enough movement (unlike the guys GGG's been facing) to lessen GGG's offense. I think GGG will land some shots, but he won't hit Martinez regularly like he did Rosado, Proksa, Macklin, etc.

Lets see where GGG goes from here. The guy is a beast and his ring smarts is up there with the very best. Not sure Martinez evades him for 12 rounds. I also doubt Ward manhandles him for 12.

GGG is a master of distance and that accuracy and power is just something else.

bengulnaci1 wrote:Lets see where GGG goes from here. The guy is a beast and his ring smarts is up there with the very best. Not sure Martinez evades him for 12 rounds. I also doubt Ward manhandles him for 12.

GGG is a master of distance and that accuracy and power is just something else.

x2.

He appears to be the goods, but he still has significant work to do. I am not interestd in what he could do. I want to see what he does.

bika was wobbled in his last fight v periban a few times.
after dropping codrington in the 1st 30 2nds of the 1st round, bika was floored by codrington 30 2nds later
and got up very wobbly and staggered around grabbing codrington and taking shots the rest of the round.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCuOqjboPxU go 6 minutes in for start of 1st round
granted, bika went 12 with ward, but bika is hittable, and he can be hurt.
GGG is not easy to hit with a clean shot, and is one of the hardest hitters one division down.
I think GGG would get to bika pretty early, but we would get to see GGG in against a real slugger for maybe
a few rounds

Some guys don't carry their power up to the next division. It just depends on the fighter. Bika would be the easiest of the three opponents (Froch and Kessler the other two) for GGG.

DetroitHxC wrote:The Fight Game is on now, and this guy just said that he thinks Mayweather's ENTIRE appeal is his undefeated record, and basically implied that nobody would watch his fights if he lost once.

I don't think he'd go entirely off the radar, but I do think his PPV buys would dip dramatically after suffering a loss. Well, following the exception of the obviously big bank an immediate rematch would draw. Floyd trying to avenge his one and only loss would probably be every bit as big if not bigger than the first fight was with said opponent, but if he loses twice to the guy (whomever he may be) I think his standing and drawing power drops dramatically. If he avenges his loss and wins the rematch, he probably regains most of his status that the loss took from him.

gilgamesh wrote:

DetroitHxC wrote:The Fight Game is on now, and this guy just said that he thinks Mayweather's ENTIRE appeal is his undefeated record, and basically implied that nobody would watch his fights if he lost once.

I don't think he'd go entirely off the radar, but I do think his PPV buys would dip dramatically after suffering a loss. Well, following the exception of the obviously big bank an immediate rematch would draw. Floyd trying to avenge his one and only loss would probably be every bit as big if not bigger than the first fight was with said opponent, but if he loses twice to the guy (whomever he may be) I think his standing and drawing power drops dramatically. If he avenges his loss and wins the rematch, he probably regains most of his status that the loss took from him.

I tend to agree. His personality and persona will still mean he makes a lot of money but I think losing would dip pretty badly as part of the appeal of Mayweather aside from the persona is his mythical unbeaten record. You take that away and he becomes more like regular world class fighters IMO.