He was rarely in reach to bang hard, and knew that when he over committed he got tagged. AJ isn’t much of a holder either. He doesn’t really have this in the locker in my view. Not yet anyway.KiwiRider wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:16Or just bang hard. He failed to use his size at allBoxing Prospect wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:15I can't believe Joshua didn't hold at EVERY opportunity. Force Usyk to take his weight, tire him out, then come on... It's like... THE GAMEPLAN to beat a fast, mover from a division below...Monte Fisto wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:08
Agree, he couldn’t control the distance whatsoever. This whole AJ needs to bully him next time and let right hand go is farcical to me. My only concern for Usyk losing tonight was that he would get too greedy but he boxed perfectly taking very few risks and won by a landslide.
Round-by-Round: Oleksandr Usyk vs. Derek Chisora - 31 October 2020
-
Monte Fisto
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 15:36
Re: Round-by-Round: Oleksandr Usyk vs. Derek Chisora - 31 October 2020
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Round-by-Round: Oleksandr Usyk vs. Derek Chisora - 31 October 2020
Good to see you around mateBoxing Prospect wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:15I can't believe Joshua didn't hold at EVERY opportunity. Force Usyk to take his weight, tire him out, then come on... It's like... THE GAMEPLAN to beat a fast, mover from a division below...Monte Fisto wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:08Agree, he couldn’t control the distance whatsoever. This whole AJ needs to bully him next time and let right hand go is farcical to me. My only concern for Usyk losing tonight was that he would get too greedy but he boxed perfectly taking very few risks and won by a landslide.Boxing Prospect wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 18:46 Chisora lost clearly to Usyk...and was still a tougher fight than Joshua...as were Hunter and Breidis... Joshua had no answer
Re: Round-by-Round: Oleksandr Usyk vs. Derek Chisora - 31 October 2020
i think usyk caught aj with a counter left straight away buzzed him , aj more or less keepet that right hand to himself all nightKiwiRider wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:16Or just bang hard. He failed to use his size at allBoxing Prospect wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:15I can't believe Joshua didn't hold at EVERY opportunity. Force Usyk to take his weight, tire him out, then come on... It's like... THE GAMEPLAN to beat a fast, mover from a division below...Monte Fisto wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:08
Agree, he couldn’t control the distance whatsoever. This whole AJ needs to bully him next time and let right hand go is farcical to me. My only concern for Usyk losing tonight was that he would get too greedy but he boxed perfectly taking very few risks and won by a landslide.
Re: Round-by-Round: Oleksandr Usyk vs. Derek Chisora - 31 October 2020
Monte Fisto wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:21He was rarely in reach to bang hard, and new that when he over committed he got tagged. AJ isn’t much of a holder either. He doesn’t really have this in the locker in my view. Not yet anyway.KiwiRider wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:16Or just bang hard. He failed to use his size at allBoxing Prospect wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:15
I can't believe Joshua didn't hold at EVERY opportunity. Force Usyk to take his weight, tire him out, then come on... It's like... THE GAMEPLAN to beat a fast, mover from a division below...
It was the wrong tactical approach from the start. Not sure what the right one was though
-
Monte Fisto
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 15:36
Re: Round-by-Round: Oleksandr Usyk vs. Derek Chisora - 31 October 2020
Hahaha. I agree, And as such I wouldn’t be taking the rematch. If the hunger is there then he needs to work on a lot to avenge that defeat.KiwiRider wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:23Monte Fisto wrote: ↑25 Sep 2021, 19:21He was rarely in reach to bang hard, and new that when he over committed he got tagged. AJ isn’t much of a holder either. He doesn’t really have this in the locker in my view. Not yet anyway.
It was the wrong tactical approach from the start. Not sure what the right one was though![]()