BoxRec

stujones wrote:If thats the case - Bob Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis aside, we have never produced anybody decent in the UK. We've never had a three weight world champion.

Japan have only had one, Koki Kameda. Like Broner Kameda's 3 weight titles were as "legit" as Jordan's tits.
Although, wasn't Duke a 3 weight world champion?

columbo wrote:I'm not saying these guys dont rely on their athleticism to a large degree but to come to the conclusion that they have no boxing ability at all is naive IMO. Athleticism plays a large part in sports generally. That's why a more athletically gifted Dawson beat Hopkins.

You are missing the point, as is Stu. In your case, as ever, seemingly wilfully.

It's not that they don't have boxing ability, it is that the proportion of physical ability to ring knowledge & generalship is waaaaaaaaay out of whack.

& importantly, in their development, their reliance on same has meant that no-one ever bothered to teach them what to do when it doesn't get them out the shite.

Datsue wrote:

columbo wrote:I'm not saying these guys dont rely on their athleticism to a large degree but to come to the conclusion that they have no boxing ability at all is naive IMO. Athleticism plays a large part in sports generally. That's why a more athletically gifted Dawson beat Hopkins.

You are missing the point, as is Stu. In your case, as ever, seemingly wilfully.

It's not that they don't have boxing ability, it is that the proportion of physical ability to ring knowledge & generalship is waaaaaaaaay out of whack.

& importantly, in their development, their reliance on same has meant that no-one ever bothered to teach them what to do when it doesn't get them out the shite.

No need for the dig. What about Maidana then? He's not exactly a text book boxer. I'm sure if you were teaching a kid the fundamentals, you wouldnt look at someone like Maidana.

Also, as you brought up Curtis, may I point out that he is blindingly obviously not the case we're talking about here, Lefty.

Because he is a good honest pro rather than a meedja-created entity who happens to box, who people go "OMNOMNOMNOMWhat a great boxer" when they are obviously, in fact, not great boxers & overly reliant on their physical gifts.

Or to put it another way:

If Chad & Bernard were the same age & natural size are you seriously telling me you'd still favour Chad?

Maidana is a caveman. But these days he's a caveman that has been taught the rudiments of head movement & cutting off the ring, & the useful tactical employment of a jab.

People like Maidana have always boxed. No-one has ever confused them with a great boxer.

People like Broner now infest the sport. People all too readily confuse them with great boxers.

Datsue wrote:Also, as you brought up Curtis, may I point out that he is blindingly obviously not the case we're talking about here, Lefty.

Because he is a good honest pro rather than a meedja-created entity who happens to box, who people go "OMNOMNOMNOMWhat a great boxer" when they are obviously, in fact, not great boxers & overly reliant on their physical gifts.

Or to put it another way:

If Chad & Bernard were the same age & natural size are you seriously telling me you'd still favour Chad?

Maidana is a caveman. But these days he's a caveman that has been taught the rudiments of head movement & cutting off the ring, & the useful tactical employment of a jab.

I can only assume, again as ever, that you are being deliberately disingenuous. If you seriously think Maidana is the kind of superstar athlete I'm talking about then there is simply no fvcking point talking to you any further.

No, the reason I brought up Curtis is you were saying how big a factor Athleticism is in boxing in regards to certain fighters and you quoted Richardson talking about how Berto was a wrestler in the past and how he'd used his athletic abilities to succeed in boxing. Well unless I imagined it i'm pretty sure Curtis played premiership football at one point in time. Regarding Maidana, of course im not saying he's a great athlete, the point im making is athleticism alone doesnt get you to a certain level by itself. Roy Jones, yeah you can argue that was a big factor but then he was freakishly athletic, not exactly the norm.

columbo wrote: No, the reason I brought up Curtis is you were saying how big a factor Athleticism is in boxing in regards to certain fighters and you quoted Richardson talking about how Berto was a wrestler in the past and how he'd used his athletic abilities to succeed in boxing. Well unless I imagined it i'm pretty sure Curtis played premiership football at one point in time. Regarding Maidana, of course im not saying he's a great athlete, the point im making is athleticism alone doesnt get you to a certain level by itself. Roy Jones, yeah you can argue that was a big factor but then he was freakishly athletic, not exactly the norm.

So what was Berto's success based upon then if not his athletic abilities?

How much of Broner's success--having seen in his last two fights how he does with limited physical advantages & the application of basic boxing fundamentals like lateral movement & being countered to the body--would your sage counsel parcel up & ascribe to his athletic ability (& these days you've got to add ability to be a massive weight-drainer to that)?

How much of Cintron's?

Datsue / Columbo.

As much as Nazim Richardson is a fantastic coach - not sure I entirely agree with what he is stating. People are athletic in different ways and when they start to slip it will effect them differently.

His most famous student is a genetic freak in his own right.... yes not as athletic as a Jones I can see that, but clearly has some good genes.

His examples - yes Roy Jones is a good one and the prime one.... but to say he is an athlete who happens to box is a bit harsh. He learned the trade was a masterful amateur boxer and made a daft decision with the heavyweight business which made ruined his body. Did it affect his chin or his reflexes - if you say just his reflexes, then he must have had some fine defensive skills because he must have taken some shots during his prime years.

Sugar Ray leonard - was he just an athlete? Look back to the Floyd Mayweather thread how many say that Floyd couldn't live with him.... when he slowed down - he lost more than he won. Hearns 2, Norris, Camacho - why couldn't he adapt.... was he not a boxer?.... was he just an exceptional athlete. He was only 32 when he fought Hearns and hadn't had a particularly tough career.

Even Chavez - when his old legs speed wasn't what is was, he mainly fed on lesser opponents post Frankie Randall.... and lost the big ones.... was he just an Athlete? Could he not adapt his style to overcome his dimishing athleticism.

Probably the greatest "adapter" I've seen a bit of (on tape etc) was Ali.... he freaking was still world champion whilst on medication for Parkinson's.... absolutely amazing that he could even hang with Ken Norton in the third fight. Sugar Ray Robinson off course, Archie Moore etc.... and modern day you have Hopkins.

However, unfortunately for Nazim's analogy I feel you would have far more "greats" falling into the "athlete" bracket... or alternatively we'd be littered with geniune world champions in their 40's.

All my post was saying was lets not write off Broner yet.... he lost against a bigger guy and he suffered a broken jaw (by the sounds of it) early.... ask Ricky Burns and Muhammad Ali how tough it is to win a fight with a broken jaw. He's young and fairly inexperienced in relation to amateur pedigree but he can come again. Argueably the greatest boxer of the all, using Nazim's definition, Bernard Hopkins, didn't have a stellar early career.... and admits to still learning at 48. Lets not consign Broner to the Berto's and Lacy's of this world yet. To say he is not a boxer or a fighter is a bit harsh when he has just fought 12 hard rounds with a broken jaw.

Datsue wrote:

columbo wrote: No, the reason I brought up Curtis is you were saying how big a factor Athleticism is in boxing in regards to certain fighters and you quoted Richardson talking about how Berto was a wrestler in the past and how he'd used his athletic abilities to succeed in boxing. Well unless I imagined it i'm pretty sure Curtis played premiership football at one point in time. Regarding Maidana, of course im not saying he's a great athlete, the point im making is athleticism alone doesnt get you to a certain level by itself. Roy Jones, yeah you can argue that was a big factor but then he was freakishly athletic, not exactly the norm.

So what was Berto's success based upon then if not his athletic abilities?

How much of Broner's success--having seen in his last two fights how he does with limited physical advantages & the application of basic boxing fundamentals like lateral movement & being countered to the body--would your sage counsel parcel up & ascribe to his athletic ability (& these days you've got to add ability to be a massive weight-drainer to that)?

How much of Cintron's?

I wouldnt exactly say that Demarco was a small lightweight. Rees won a world title at 140 himself aswell. So if fundamental win you big time fights, how did Jones beat Hopkins, when they were both in their pomp might I add?

stujones wrote:If thats the case - Bob Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis aside, we have never produced anybody decent in the UK. We've never had a three weight world champion.

Ha! And both men abandoned England and learned their trade elsewhere.

Lennox only reluctantly returned to our small island for financial reasons.

The UK will always have Jimmy Wilde and Ken Buchanan however. Other than those two. . .

iamasadlittleboy wrote:

stujones wrote:If thats the case - Bob Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis aside, we have never produced anybody decent in the UK. We've never had a three weight world champion.

Japan have only had one, Koki Kameda. Like Broner Kameda's 3 weight titles were as "legit" as Jordan's tits.
Although, wasn't Duke a 3 weight world champion?

Oh yeah, forgot about Dukey's world titles.

Yeah we can question Broner's titles - agree there... for me he was the #1 Super Feather and Lightweight fighter during his reign there. But undoubtedly he fought at world class at those weights.

On a complete side, dissapointed that Boxrec have moved Broner down to lightweight in their rankings.... bit premature that!

Well just watched that fight and seeing Broner get manhandled and beaten up, after years of owning every advantage and beating up smaller guys, was satisfying.

Storming out of the ring at the end was childish and immature. You got beaten up, be a man and accept it with grace.

All this size advantage thing is nonsense in my eyes. You could argue that a ton of fighters have an advantage when it comes to that. I mean how much does Kell Brook weigh come fight night? I guess all his success is down to his size aswell then. I mean JCC jnr's size gave him a huge advantage when he fought the small middleweight Martinez.

columbo wrote:All this size advantage thing is nonsense in my eyes. You could argue that a ton of fighters have an advantage when it comes to that. I mean how much does Kell Brook weigh come fight night? I guess all his success is down to his size aswell then. I mean JCC jnr's size gave him a huge advantage when he fought the small middleweight Martinez.

I assume that you believe people gain ridiculous amounts of weight not to give themselves an advantage but because they're afraid of dehydration-related brain damage?

Datsue wrote:

columbo wrote:All this size advantage thing is nonsense in my eyes. You could argue that a ton of fighters have an advantage when it comes to that. I mean how much does Kell Brook weigh come fight night? I guess all his success is down to his size aswell then. I mean JCC jnr's size gave him a huge advantage when he fought the small middleweight Martinez.

I assume that you believe people gain ridiculous amounts of weight not to give themselves an advantage but because they're afraid of dehydration-related brain damage?

I'm not saying that it doesnt help but to downplay all success on the fact they're beating up "small men" is a stretch.

columbo wrote:

Datsue wrote:

columbo wrote:All this size advantage thing is nonsense in my eyes. You could argue that a ton of fighters have an advantage when it comes to that. I mean how much does Kell Brook weigh come fight night? I guess all his success is down to his size aswell then. I mean JCC jnr's size gave him a huge advantage when he fought the small middleweight Martinez.

I assume that you believe people gain ridiculous amounts of weight not to give themselves an advantage but because they're afraid of dehydration-related brain damage?

I'm not saying that it doesnt help but to downplay all success on the fact they're beating up "small men" is a stretch.

& to completely ignore it because you don't like the sound of the idea is fvcking moronic.

Please, bring up another non-sequitur to argue your "point" with. I'm getting the hang of this now.

PS: The answer to your last stupid fvcking question was "Martinez was the first bloke JCC jr fought good enough to overcome his physical disadvantage."

You've got to wonder who Broner was sparring for this fight? He just couldn't keep Maidana off him. Big difference between Gavin Rees and Marcos. Too many fights where he has boiled down in weight and then come in massive against smaller fighters. He was 156-157 last night.

It's also a case of his own team blowing smoke up his back side and him thinking he was going to be the next Mayweather and be unbeatable.

I don't think Broner will be the same fighter again and if he does come back at this weight, let's hope this defeat humbles him. He did congratulate Maidana at the end before that long lonely walk.

Things that will stay with me from the fight -

Broner taunting Maidana before the name calls, 'I'm gonna kill ya'.
Maidana making him do the chicken dance in rd2.
Maidana reversing the back scuttling move in rd10 or 11.
Broner spouting off at his corner before looking broken on his stool before rd12.
Broner's dad trying to comb his hair while he his stood there looking like his world has just ended haha!
Maidana getting the UD.
Broner taking the long walk out of the arena on his own as a guy from his team waves at him from the ring, Broner looking broken, alone with only a few security men around him.

Was still a great fight!

columbo wrote:

Datsue wrote:

columbo wrote:All this size advantage thing is nonsense in my eyes. You could argue that a ton of fighters have an advantage when it comes to that. I mean how much does Kell Brook weigh come fight night? I guess all his success is down to his size aswell then. I mean JCC jnr's size gave him a huge advantage when he fought the small middleweight Martinez.

I assume that you believe people gain ridiculous amounts of weight not to give themselves an advantage but because they're afraid of dehydration-related brain damage?

I'm not saying that it doesnt help but to downplay all success on the fact they're beating up "small men" is a stretch.

& to completely ignore it because you don't like the sound of the idea is fvcking moronic.

Please, bring up another non-sequitur to argue your "point" with. I'm getting the hang of this now.

PS: The answer to your last stupid fvcking question was "Martinez was the first bloke JCC jr fought good enough to overcome his physical disadvantage."[/quote]

Martinez was the first top notch fighter that Chavez had fought. That could have something to do with it. Also, you didnt answer my earlier point. If fundamentals are so important and that's why these 'athletes' get exposed when they step up, then why did Jones beat Hopkins?

Datsue,

I hear what you are saying but I do feel you are being a bit too harsh in places.

Damn that Thomas Hearns for being tall for his weight - lets rubbish his abilities as he should only be fighting at Cruiserweight. Hearns must be proper crap he lost a few fights at Welter / Middle despite having all the physical and athletic advantages.

Damn that Mike Tyson for having a muderous punch.

The list could be endless... even Hopkins had some fantastic athletic traits.... at 40 something he had better handspeed than our own Joe who was supposed to be one of the fastest handed fighters around.

Infact Hopkins's best wins were against smaller and, in Trinidad's case, slower handed fighters. If Hopkins wasn't bigger or quicker than Trinidad would he have won?

Tuan_Jim wrote:

stujones wrote:If thats the case - Bob Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis aside, we have never produced anybody decent in the UK. We've never had a three weight world champion.

Ha! And both men abandoned England and learned their trade elsewhere.

Lennox only reluctantly returned to our small island for financial reasons.

The UK will always have Jimmy Wilde and Ken Buchanan however. Other than those two. . .

Joe Calzaghe

expe wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

stujones wrote:If thats the case - Bob Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis aside, we have never produced anybody decent in the UK. We've never had a three weight world champion.

Ha! And both men abandoned England and learned their trade elsewhere.

Lennox only reluctantly returned to our small island for financial reasons.

The UK will always have Jimmy Wilde and Ken Buchanan however. Other than those two. . .

Joe Calzaghe

Joe struggled against a 40 something who he was supposed to be naturally bigger than who Nazim Richardson has stated wasn't the most naturally gifted of athletes.... if Joe had all the boxes ticked in terms of natural advantages then why did he struggle.

Highlights my point for those saying Broner cannot box. Of course Joe can box, but so can Ardrian Broner.

A consensus would say the 40 something he had a hard fight with and beat is an ATG

expe wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

stujones wrote:If thats the case - Bob Fitzsimmons and Lennox Lewis aside, we have never produced anybody decent in the UK. We've never had a three weight world champion.

Ha! And both men abandoned England and learned their trade elsewhere.

Lennox only reluctantly returned to our small island for financial reasons.

The UK will always have Jimmy Wilde and Ken Buchanan however. Other than those two. . .

Joe Calzaghe

Joe struggled against a 40 something who he was supposed to be naturally bigger than who Nazim Richardson has stated wasn't the most naturally gifted of athletes.... if Joe had all the boxes ticked in terms of natural advantages then why did he struggle.

Highlights my point for those saying Broner cannot box. Of course Joe can box, but so can Ardrian Broner.[/quote]

That's the argument im making. Yeah some fighters rely on their 'athleticism' but they also have skills aswell. Anyway of course Athleticism is a big factor in boxing, do you think guys like Mayweather, Pacquaio, Ward, Dirrell and so on would have the success if they didnt also have the speed aswell as the boxing ability?! Hell no they wouldnt.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Adrien Broner is an advert for boxing regulation. There are so many titles now we have become accustomed to 'world champions' being several years and many defences into their reign before they are put into a 50/50 fight. All these belts make it very easy for fighters, managers, promoters and TV channels to milk gullible hype-gobbling boxing fans for as much money as possible.

The horror in Broner's face as Maidana punched through his posturing and pitty-pat, and made a mockery of his shoulder roll 'defence', was something to behold. It looked to me the same nightmare Floyd Mayweather would experience, were he to find himself sharing a ring with Armstrong, Zivic, Robinson, Griffith, Leonard, Duran, Hearns et al.

too right. maidana is a solid top ten contender who trades on toughness, but was fighting a so -called triple world champion. tells us exactly what those titles are worth. there were plenty on here and current scene who fell for the hype, talking about broner as a superstar. the same kind of multi-titled superstar as khan was.....overprotected, and brought through on a diet of men half his size and twice his age.....backed up by the money men and a propaganda machine as out of touch with reality as the old soviets. broner was a scumbag and its so great that he;s been exposed as a bully. one in the neck for the evil empire of haymon is just the icing on the cake. well done maidana. wish i could shake his hand.

in my experiences people in any sports who are athletically gifted have a head start on others, but what ive also found out is that there is nothing better than learning the basics, it gives you a base to go back to if the "special" stuff just isn't working, I thought once broner started getting tagged and hurt he just didn't know what to do, he had no basics to fall back on, Mayweather is the best because he does the basics perfect AND has that athletic gift, the most athletically gifted normally find it easier than others so don't take the time to learn the boring stuff, i.e jab, defence and footwork so when it starts going wrong they are found wanting, without sounding like a ego maniac im a good athlete, not a "special" athlete but a good one, id like to think I managed to carve out a career in 2 sports as a professional because I mixed being a good athlete with a exceptional work ethic, when I was a kid if I ever moaned to my dad that it was hard work he always use to say to me "so is digging a hole son" that was my dads job for 40 years, god given talent is a great thing but not a patch on work ethic, Mayweather has both, ali had both, that made them the best

curtis wood wrote:in my experiences people in any sports who are athletically gifted have a head start on others, but what ive also found out is that there is nothing better than learning the basics, it gives you a base to go back to if the "special" stuff just isn't working, I thought once broner started getting tagged and hurt he just didn't know what to do, he had no basics to fall back on, Mayweather is the best because he does the basics perfect AND has that athletic gift, the most athletically gifted normally find it easier than others so don't take the time to learn the boring stuff, i.e jab, defence and footwork so when it starts going wrong they are found wanting, without sounding like a ego maniac im a good athlete, not a "special" athlete but a good one, id like to think I managed to carve out a career in 2 sports as a professional because I mixed being a good athlete with a exceptional work ethic, when I was a kid if I ever moaned to my dad that it was hard work he always use to say to me "so is digging a hole son" that was my dads job for 40 years, god given talent is a great thing but not a patch on work ethic, Mayweather has both, ali had both, that made them the best

The point I was trying to make Curtis is of course "athleticism" gives you an edge but I dont believe the likes of Broner, Berto and so on have got to that level in the sport alone. It's a combination of the natural athleticism they possess but also boxing ability.