BoxRec

I think the Khan who beat Kotelnik(if he still exists) could beat him.

What I'm taking away from the fight on Broner:

Good points - handspeed (landed a lot of lead rights), combinations (frankly blistering at times), power, chin (Malignaggi's no puncher, but he looked entirely unfazed by anything that landed, not even for a split second)

Bad points - footwork (plodding), workrate (poor for this level), defence (leaky - he cannot slip jabs)

First guy he faces with a good stiff jab, some power and some workrate (Ponce De Leon with a jab, if you like) will give Broner absolute nightmares. Let's not forget that Paulie was 1 swing round away from a draw. But you have to give Broner credit for jumping up to 147 and winning a title, even if it's against by far the weakest champion in the division.

Paulie deserves credit for saying things as he sees it, and how it is.
Connections rule.

Trojans44 wrote:I think the point is that if Broner was as good as some are claiming he is he would have won last night with ease. Khan, Hatton and Cotto all completely dominated Malignaggi. Hatton took him apart at his (i.e. Paulie's) peak and as you note a few posts back this is far from a peak Malignaggi.

I dont think the comparisons with Mayweather against Judah or Castillo quite work either. Castillo was the best LW in the world and on many people's P4P list and Judah, in spite of his surprise loss to Baldomir, was regarded as one of the best welterweights in the world. Malignaggi is no-where near in the class of those two.

I think that Judah was over-rated and the Castillo fight just highlights that a fighter can have close fights but that doesn't mean that he is a busted flush or a hype job. Broner is 23 years of age and is still a work in progress. He has come up through four weight divsions pretty quickly, though he missed out teh 140lbs divsion all together. He was coming up two weights to fight Paulie. The only problem (excuse the pun) for Broner is his lack of work rate. His success perentages far outweighted Paulie. He was way more accurate than Paulie and did the better quality of work. Paulie threw a hell of a lot of punches, but a lot didn't land or were blocked, but he looked the busier fighter and that is why the scores were close, despite that ridiculous 117 card. Paulie didn't out-smart Broner, he just out worked him, but Broner's quality made up the difference. It's teh one thing that Broner has to improve upon. He must and has to up his work rate and get into fights earlier. It's imperative he does this. If he had increased his punch out put by 25%, he would have been out of sight of Paulie. His lack of work rate makes him look lazy and when the other guy is throwing 50% more punches it has a tendancy to look a close fight.

dookus wrote:What I'm taking away from the fight on Broner:

Good points - handspeed (landed a lot of lead rights), combinations (frankly blistering at times), power, chin (Malignaggi's no puncher, but he looked entirely unfazed by anything that landed, not even for a split second)

Bad points - footwork (plodding), workrate (poor for this level), defence (leaky - he cannot slip jabs)

First guy he faces with a good stiff jab, some power and some workrate (Ponce De Leon with a jab, if you like) will give Broner absolute nightmares. Let's not forget that Paulie was 1 swing round away from a draw. But you have to give Broner credit for jumping up to 147 and winning a title, even if it's against by far the weakest champion in the division.

Out of everything that is negative or could be criticised with Broner, the three things he needs to change are his work rate, his stance and to alter the defensive posture when on offense. His work rate is the major thing. He needs to up his work rate considerably. His stance is two wide, especially when using the shoulder roll defence. It means he can't do much work of it and can't counter. That defensive style is fine when your opponent is coming forward and throwing combo's, but offensivly, he needs to switch to a hands high style, which is what he started doing in the second half of the fight. His stance needs to be smaller, because he can't slip a a jab or a straight right hand. He is still a work in progress and despite the level of his opponents to date, he hasn't done bad for a young fighter who is still learning and maturing.

Quixall wrote:

dookus wrote:What I'm taking away from the fight on Broner:

Good points - handspeed (landed a lot of lead rights), combinations (frankly blistering at times), power, chin (Malignaggi's no puncher, but he looked entirely unfazed by anything that landed, not even for a split second)

Bad points - footwork (plodding), workrate (poor for this level), defence (leaky - he cannot slip jabs)

First guy he faces with a good stiff jab, some power and some workrate (Ponce De Leon with a jab, if you like) will give Broner absolute nightmares. Let's not forget that Paulie was 1 swing round away from a draw. But you have to give Broner credit for jumping up to 147 and winning a title, even if it's against by far the weakest champion in the division.

Out of everything that is negative or could be criticised with Broner, the three things he needs to change are his work rate, his stance and to alter the defensive posture when on offense. His work rate is the major thing. He needs to up his work rate considerably. His stance is two wide, especially when using the shoulder roll defence. It means he can't do much work of it and can't counter. That defensive style is fine when your opponent is coming forward and throwing combo's, but offensivly, he needs to switch to a hands high style, which is what he started doing in the second half of the fight. His stance needs to be smaller, because he can't slip a a jab or a straight right hand. He is still a work in progress and despite the level of his opponents to date, he hasn't done bad for a young fighter who is still learning and maturing.

I'd agree with all of that. I also noticed how he changed his defensive position to hands up when coming forward in the last few rounds and this worked well for landing lead rights more consistently, although he was still not throwing enough to take advantage of his improved stance.

I honestly think this is because he may not have great stamina; despite throwing only about 45 shots a round, he was noticeably breathing very hard and waiting until the last second to get off his stool in the last few rounds.

Quixall wrote:

Trojans44 wrote:I think the point is that if Broner was as good as some are claiming he is he would have won last night with ease. Khan, Hatton and Cotto all completely dominated Malignaggi. Hatton took him apart at his (i.e. Paulie's) peak and as you note a few posts back this is far from a peak Malignaggi.

I dont think the comparisons with Mayweather against Judah or Castillo quite work either. Castillo was the best LW in the world and on many people's P4P list and Judah, in spite of his surprise loss to Baldomir, was regarded as one of the best welterweights in the world. Malignaggi is no-where near in the class of those two.

I think that Judah was over-rated and the Castillo fight just highlights that a fighter can have close fights but that doesn't mean that he is a busted flush or a hype job. Broner is 23 years of age and is still a work in progress. He has come up through four weight divsions pretty quickly, though he missed out teh 140lbs divsion all together. He was coming up two weights to fight Paulie. The only problem (excuse the pun) for Broner is his lack of work rate. His success perentages far outweighted Paulie. He was way more accurate than Paulie and did the better quality of work. Paulie threw a hell of a lot of punches, but a lot didn't land or were blocked, but he looked the busier fighter and that is why the scores were close, despite that ridiculous 117 card. Paulie didn't out-smart Broner, he just out worked him, but Broner's quality made up the difference. It's teh one thing that Broner has to improve upon. He must and has to up his work rate and get into fights earlier. It's imperative he does this. If he had increased his punch out put by 25%, he would have been out of sight of Paulie. His lack of work rate makes him look lazy and when the other guy is throwing 50% more punches it has a tendancy to look a close fight.

That is good analysis, also Broner ought not to promise knock outs and beat downs and not deliver; my wife watched the bout with me and said that he couldn't be that good when he resorted to fouls. I can understand a boxer promoting a bout and having confidence in themselves etc but Broner was in a pretty hard bout v Paulie last night and that was despite Malignaggi being a non puncher at world level. Broner didn't ought to promise the world and scrape through and expect a whole lot of respect from non believers.

I've got to say quixall that you really should be more objective about broner - I reckon you thought he was going to blast paulie out quick and youre trying to cover up your boys failing with blather. you point to 3 things that AB needs to improve on, but would you do that with any other up and coming fighter? no, because you sincerely believed that broner was going to be the next big thing and the evidence that he aint as good as you thought is stark.

you should have held fire and not got caught up with the broner hype

Do people forget he was boxing Rees at lightweight in his last fight! Look most fighters look inneffective when the step up one class let alone two!
Broner is a talent & should concentrate on ruling his division. I said malinaggi was a master stroke in claiming a welter championship.i ain't seen the fight yet but from reports it seems broner never controlled the pace as malunaggis workrate made it close. One of my reservations was that broner relies on his power getting respect to give him time he requires despite posturing like floyd he like everyone else ain't blessed with that timing & accuracy.
Quixall was lusting over broners nutbags I agree

dookus wrote:

Quixall wrote:

dookus wrote:What I'm taking away from the fight on Broner:

Good points - handspeed (landed a lot of lead rights), combinations (frankly blistering at times), power, chin (Malignaggi's no puncher, but he looked entirely unfazed by anything that landed, not even for a split second)

Bad points - footwork (plodding), workrate (poor for this level), defence (leaky - he cannot slip jabs)

First guy he faces with a good stiff jab, some power and some workrate (Ponce De Leon with a jab, if you like) will give Broner absolute nightmares. Let's not forget that Paulie was 1 swing round away from a draw. But you have to give Broner credit for jumping up to 147 and winning a title, even if it's against by far the weakest champion in the division.

Out of everything that is negative or could be criticised with Broner, the three things he needs to change are his work rate, his stance and to alter the defensive posture when on offense. His work rate is the major thing. He needs to up his work rate considerably. His stance is two wide, especially when using the shoulder roll defence. It means he can't do much work of it and can't counter. That defensive style is fine when your opponent is coming forward and throwing combo's, but offensivly, he needs to switch to a hands high style, which is what he started doing in the second half of the fight. His stance needs to be smaller, because he can't slip a a jab or a straight right hand. He is still a work in progress and despite the level of his opponents to date, he hasn't done bad for a young fighter who is still learning and maturing.

I'd agree with all of that. I also noticed how he changed his defensive position to hands up when coming forward in the last few rounds and this worked well for landing lead rights more consistently, although he was still not throwing enough to take advantage of his improved stance.

I honestly think this is because he may not have great stamina; despite throwing only about 45 shots a round, he was noticeably breathing very hard and waiting until the last second to get off his stool in the last few rounds.

He always waits until the last seconds to get off his stool. He did that in the Rees fight and a few others. I think his stamina was fine, it's just his work rate that needs to improve drastically along with the other things we mentioned.

palooka wrote:

Quixall wrote:

Trojans44 wrote:I think the point is that if Broner was as good as some are claiming he is he would have won last night with ease. Khan, Hatton and Cotto all completely dominated Malignaggi. Hatton took him apart at his (i.e. Paulie's) peak and as you note a few posts back this is far from a peak Malignaggi.

I dont think the comparisons with Mayweather against Judah or Castillo quite work either. Castillo was the best LW in the world and on many people's P4P list and Judah, in spite of his surprise loss to Baldomir, was regarded as one of the best welterweights in the world. Malignaggi is no-where near in the class of those two.

I think that Judah was over-rated and the Castillo fight just highlights that a fighter can have close fights but that doesn't mean that he is a busted flush or a hype job. Broner is 23 years of age and is still a work in progress. He has come up through four weight divsions pretty quickly, though he missed out teh 140lbs divsion all together. He was coming up two weights to fight Paulie. The only problem (excuse the pun) for Broner is his lack of work rate. His success perentages far outweighted Paulie. He was way more accurate than Paulie and did the better quality of work. Paulie threw a hell of a lot of punches, but a lot didn't land or were blocked, but he looked the busier fighter and that is why the scores were close, despite that ridiculous 117 card. Paulie didn't out-smart Broner, he just out worked him, but Broner's quality made up the difference. It's teh one thing that Broner has to improve upon. He must and has to up his work rate and get into fights earlier. It's imperative he does this. If he had increased his punch out put by 25%, he would have been out of sight of Paulie. His lack of work rate makes him look lazy and when the other guy is throwing 50% more punches it has a tendancy to look a close fight.

That is good analysis, also Broner ought not to promise knock outs and beat downs and not deliver; my wife watched the bout with me and said that he couldn't be that good when he resorted to fouls. I can understand a boxer promoting a bout and having confidence in themselves etc but Broner was in a pretty hard bout v Paulie last night and that was despite Malignaggi being a non puncher at world level. Broner didn't ought to promise the world and scrape through and expect a whole lot of respect from non believers.

I suppose the "i am going to knock you the fukk out" stuff is the ticket selling stuff. I think Broner will mature into the 147lbs division, but he won't be bowling over as many fighters as was the case at lightweight. Having said that, Paulie is known for taking a shot, so we will have to see over the next few fights if he has retained his power.

He isn't the next big thing. He isn't anything special.

Quixall wrote:

G0mez wrote:He will lose in due course.

It almost happened against Ponce De Leon.

Lets see how he fares against a measuring stick like Paulie first. I think he's going to have his hands full.

Yeah, i thought Ponce De Leon won that fight.

Seems neither of us are that impressed with the guy.

Last night showed us he basically has ZERO jab and threw it something like 31 times over 36 minutes of action. He just plods forward and unloads his hardest punches.

If he had a couple of legit point deductions like he should have done, then he could have actually lost last night.

PS - Im not a Broner hater at all, he is interesting but his debut at 147lb was nowhere near the splash of a Pacquiao or a even Cotto.

I wanted him to be the "next Mayweather" in the making, but he is more Jeff Lacy as far as I'm concerned. Flat footed and reliant on heavy punches.

misterpunch wrote:I've got to say quixall that you really should be more objective about broner - I reckon you thought he was going to blast paulie out quick and youre trying to cover up your boys failing with blather. you point to 3 things that AB needs to improve on, but would you do that with any other up and coming fighter? no, because you sincerely believed that broner was going to be the next big thing and the evidence that he aint as good as you thought is stark.

you should have held fire and not got caught up with the broner hype

Listen Misterpunch, you don't like my posts or perhaps how i write and perhaps don't like Broner. I never write "blather" on this forum. You may disagree, but i never write total crap. I know enough about boxing and Malignaggi to know that he could take a good shot. I felt that Broner would stop him by a referee intervention inside the last three rounds. If Broner had upped his work rate, there was a possibilty that could have happenned, but no, i didn't think Broner would "blast" Paulie. I happen to have a life outside of boxing and this forum. I choose certain fighters to watch, that is my perogative. I have seen Broner fight 14 times now and i like the slick style that he has, so i choose to study his fighting techniques. I don't particularly like a Brandon Rios type fighter or a Marcus Maidana type fighter, hence i don't watch as many of their fights or study their styles or make a critic of them. Is that ok with you ? You say i i believed that Broner was to be teh next big thing. Your talking in a past tense. I asked the question. I asked the forum what they thought. I gave a fair analysis of Broner in my original post. I have explained what i thought the Paulie fight was all about. I think you make too many assumptions based on not liking me or Broner lol. This jury is still out, as it was before. I never said that this fight with Paulie was the fight that would decide if he was the next king of boxing. You say i should have helf fire ? On what ? I just asked a question, i didn't declare him the next big thing in boxing and challenge people to refute it, i asked a question. Also, he won the fight. He has won three titles and three different weight classes, so the story goes on.

G0mez wrote:

Quixall wrote:

G0mez wrote:He will lose in due course.

It almost happened against Ponce De Leon.

Lets see how he fares against a measuring stick like Paulie first. I think he's going to have his hands full.

Yeah, i thought Ponce De Leon won that fight.

Seems neither of us are that impressed with the guy.

Last night showed us he basically has ZERO jab and threw it something like 31 times over 36 minutes of action. He just plods forward and unloads his hardest punches.

If he had a couple of legit point deductions like he should have done, then he could have actually lost last night.

PS - Im not a Broner hater at all, he is interesting but his debut at 147lb was nowhere near the splash of a Pacquiao or a even Cotto.

I wanted him to be the "next Mayweather" in the making, but he is more Jeff Lacy as far as I'm concerned. Flat footed and reliant on heavy punches.

Agreed. He's just not as good as everyone thought he was.

I think a puncher does him

Wrists wrote:Agreed. He's just not as good as everyone thought he was.

A lot of people already thought he was a massive hype job.

I don't know what people saw in him.

G0mez wrote:

Quixall wrote:

G0mez wrote:He will lose in due course.

It almost happened against Ponce De Leon.

Lets see how he fares against a measuring stick like Paulie first. I think he's going to have his hands full.

Yeah, i thought Ponce De Leon won that fight.

Seems neither of us are that impressed with the guy.

Last night showed us he basically has ZERO jab and threw it something like 31 times over 36 minutes of action. He just plods forward and unloads his hardest punches.

If he had a couple of legit point deductions like he should have done, then he could have actually lost last night.

PS - Im not a Broner hater at all, he is interesting but his debut at 147lb was nowhere near the splash of a Pacquiao or a even Cotto.

I wanted him to be the "next Mayweather" in the making, but he is more Jeff Lacy as far as I'm concerned. Flat footed and reliant on heavy punches.

But wasn't Pacquaio's splash at welterweight against a weight drained De La Hoya who hadn't fought for three years ? Hardly a splash. I think people were looking for Broner to stop or knock out Paulie. Sometimes it doesn't happen, but that doesn't automatically make someone bad overnight. He lacked work rate against Paulie, but his percentages were way higher, he was more acurate and did the quality work. If he has upped his work rate he would been way in front of Paulie. As i said earlier, Paulie didn't out smart him, Broner allowed himself to be out worked, but the quality was the difference. I state in the OP that Broner's best work comes from behind a jab, so he should use that more. He needs to shorten his stance, adopt a hands high offensive posture and up the work rate considerably. I don't think he is a Jeff Lacy. He has way more than just a punch. He blocked most of Paulie's punches last night. His main defensive weakness is that the stance doesn't allow him the movement to slip jabs and straight right hands. Broner is a marmite fighter, You either like him or you hate him. I like his fighting style, i think he will improve and has the base to do very well. I feel that some people dismiss him and will dismiss him because of his persona and character. He is one of those fighters that will be criticised unless he produces a flawless concussive performance every time he fights.

I think he can do big things at l. Welter he is a big lightweight & if burns is the only challenge for him he may aswell move up. Welter is a step to far IMO.
Garcia would be a cracker even khan or Peterson

hurlock wrote:Do people forget he was boxing Rees at lightweight in his last fight! Look most fighters look inneffective when the step up one class let alone two!
Broner is a talent & should concentrate on ruling his division. I said malinaggi was a master stroke in claiming a welter championship.i ain't seen the fight yet but from reports it seems broner never controlled the pace as malunaggis workrate made it close. One of my reservations was that broner relies on his power getting respect to give him time he requires despite posturing like floyd he like everyone else ain't blessed with that timing & accuracy.
Quixall was lusting over broners nutbags I agree

No, i got under your skin with other posts on this site, so you couldn't help yourself with regards to your last comment

Was chuckling to myself that you might take the bait! Doh D

I think it's safe to say broner is a top fighter he just aint a welter!! I rate his skill set higher then that of a berto or Ortiz whom both would beat paulie to a pulp.

hurlock wrote:Do people forget he was boxing Rees at lightweight in his last fight! Look most fighters look inneffective when the step up one class let alone two!
Broner is a talent & should concentrate on ruling his division. I said malinaggi was a master stroke in claiming a welter championship.i ain't seen the fight yet but from reports it seems broner never controlled the pace as malunaggis workrate made it close. One of my reservations was that broner relies on his power getting respect to give him time he requires despite posturing like floyd he like everyone else ain't blessed with that timing & accuracy.
Quixall was lusting over broners nutbags I agree

that's an interesting point. I recall mayweather struggling badly in his 135 debut vs Castillo, and looking very slight at the weight and vulnerable vs Corley at 140 and Mitchell at 147 (his first fights at those weights). and also sugar shane mosley, welter debut v wilfredo rivera, would've been held to a draw without a final round KO.

I'm not certain whether broner will adapt to the new weight as those American stars rated above, and make adjustments both physical and tactical. or if he'll end up more like guzman (who incredibly failed to make weight in title fights at 122 and 135) who became less impressive the bigger the opponent. broner had a weight problem very early in his career, vs Escobedo, which could be a cause for concern. like guzman he could risk being outboxed, outworked etc. welter is quite high for such a compact guy.

broner was brilliant while he could make 135. let's see how brilliant he is after this career choice. broner could be a great opportunity for khan to re-establish himself, or for brook to establish himself. khan-alexander-brook-broner...there are some potential big fights here.

hurlock wrote:Was chuckling to myself that you might take the bait! Doh D

I think it's safe to say broner is a top fighter he just aint a welter!! I rate his skill set higher then that of a berto or Ortiz whom both would beat paulie to a pulp.

You can't kid a kidder Hurlock, i was right the first time

I think he can become a welter but i think it would have been more pragmatic to have stayed at 140lbs for a few years.

Broner is not the next big thing, he's a complete tool and cherry picker. His titles are pretty much BS. Three weight champ

i think Broner is skilled but lazy, however i don't think Pauli is getting the respect he deserves on here and as such Broner has a decent name (in my opinion) on his record.

I'd love to see Maidana vs Broner, or anyone that would force Broner to work harder. Broner still has bags of potential, that needs to be fulfilled. We must remember Broner is still Very young!! i almost feel bad wanting to feed him to Maidana.

Broner needs to get the fcuk out of the 147lbs division. I'd take Mayweather, Pacquiao, Bradley, Marquez Guerrero, Khan, Berto and Ortiz to beat him. At 140lbs he's also got his hands full with the likes of Garcia, Matthysse (and Khan) if he stays at the weight. Back down at lightweight i'd take Gamboa to do him.

Broner's not the future of boxing, which should be good news for us all. Watching paint dry is more exciting than his fights. Flagship fighters, ideally, should be exciting which helps draw more fans to the sport .

If his '0' is to remain he will need to be very carefully matched, which he is likley to be for his next couple of fights i reckon.