BoxRec

i found a new way i think it a freaking good way. i will try to do it, see of my new way of thinking is good.

you remember back than in school, when 2 guys where about to fight and in your head you were asking yourself who would win and very quickly come to a conclusion. well that is what i am gonne do. i ask myself, who would win right now in the streets and quickly come to an answer.

let me go...i will do some, lets see how many tims a will be right. underlined wins.

canelo-khan

chisora-pulev

wilder-povetkin

thurman-porter

crawford-postol

cruz-frampton

canelo-khan

chisora-pulev

wilder-povetkin

thurman-porter

crawford-postol

cruz-frampton

[quote="Chepppaaa"]i found a new way you remember back than in school, when 2 guys where about to fight and in your head you were asking yourself who would win and very quickly come to a conclusion. well that is what i am gonne do. i ask myself, who would win right now in the streets and quickly come to an answer"

All your picks are on solid ground (Thurman-Porter is close and a style matchup nightmare for Thurman) but your methodology is poor... In MMA your method would make more sense. The gloves are tiny and you can't hide behind them. Kicks, elbows, choke outs, hammer fists, and a million submission holds make playing that game more like a street brawl. Boxing is not a fight. Gene Tunney said "I would be a terrible fighter but I'm not a fighter. I'm a boxer not a brawler. My approach is using intelligence, footwork, deception, knowledge, and craft to play this game. I'm not looking for knockouts or even to hurt anyone. I enjoy reducing my opponent to a useless and frustrated swinger - or if he's a good boxer I enjoy the challenge of outsmarting him like a chess player." So my approach to picking winners is determining who has the best combination of toughness, speed, power, skills, and smarts - and determining if this particular opponent's style could throw a monkey wrench into his game.

yeah, but most boxers arent very good technicians, most work with basic power.

Kalan wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:i found a new way you remember back than in school, when 2 guys where about to fight and in your head you were asking yourself who would win and very quickly come to a conclusion. well that is what i am gonne do. i ask myself, who would win right now in the streets and quickly come to an answer"

All your picks are on solid ground (Thurman-Porter is close and a style matchup nightmare for Thurman) but your methodology is poor... In MMA your method would make more sense. The gloves are tiny and you can't hide behind them. Kicks, elbows, choke outs, hammer fists, and a million submission holds make playing that game more like a street brawl. Boxing is not a fight. Gene Tunney said "I would be a terrible fighter but I'm not a fighter. I'm a boxer not a brawler. My approach is using intelligence, footwork, deception, knowledge, and craft to play this game. I'm not looking for knockouts or even to hurt anyone. I enjoy reducing my opponent to a useless and frustrated swinger - or if he's a good boxer I enjoy the challenge of outsmarting him like a chess player." So my approach to picking winners is determining who has the best combination of toughness, speed, power, skills, and smarts - and determining if this particular opponent's style could throw a monkey wrench into his game.

Tunney was really poethic, actually he was the first World Champ who knew read and write properly-)))

But even he needed The Long Count to beat pure slugger Dampsey...

Kalan wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:i found a new way you remember back than in school, when 2 guys where about to fight and in your head you were asking yourself who would win and very quickly come to a conclusion. well that is what i am gonne do. i ask myself, who would win right now in the streets and quickly come to an answer"

All your picks are on solid ground (Thurman-Porter is close and a style matchup nightmare for Thurman) but your methodology is poor... In MMA your method would make more sense. The gloves are tiny and you can't hide behind them. Kicks, elbows, choke outs, hammer fists, and a million submission holds make playing that game more like a street brawl. Boxing is not a fight. Gene Tunney said "I would be a terrible fighter but I'm not a fighter. I'm a boxer not a brawler. My approach is using intelligence, footwork, deception, knowledge, and craft to play this game. I'm not looking for knockouts or even to hurt anyone. I enjoy reducing my opponent to a useless and frustrated swinger - or if he's a good boxer I enjoy the challenge of outsmarting him like a chess player." So my approach to picking winners is determining who has the best combination of toughness, speed, power, skills, and smarts - and determining if this particular opponent's style could throw a monkey wrench into his game.

Tunney was really poethic, actually he was the first World Champ who knew read and write properly-)))

But even he needed The Long Count to beat pure slugger Dampsey...

Understand the fighters strengths and weaknesses. It helps if you've seen them fight and know what you're watching. If not you can go based on their record which will work a great deal of the time, but not always. Sometimes a guy is a better fighter than his record would have you believe.

I pick 'em right 80% of the time so I do alright I figure.

Chepppaaa wrote:yeah, but most boxers arent very good technicians, most work with basic power.

Agree in part... but what I will say is... most boxers who get to the top and attain public acclaim try to learn how to box and be smart about their craft. The strongest, fastest, toughest, and meanest don't necessarily get to the top. The smartest, most diligent, craftiest, and most experienced are more likely to prevail in a boxing match. They may not win a street fight and wouldn't get involved in one. A natural born fighter is more likely to be attracted to MMA. A white collar type will gravitate towards boxing. But sometimes it's what's available and MMA has a short history.

As for bigman1986's comment on the "Long Count" Tunney shut Dempsey out in their first fight.. No long count.. In the rematch he could have gotten up at count 5 or 6 but he wanted to take advantage of the count... Dempsey had his head up his ass and delayed going to a neutral corner... He admitted that the neutral corner rule was explained in detail to him during his training camp and before the fight... Tunney took full advantage of Dempsey's less than clever behavior.

Muhammad Ali also delayed going to a neutral corner in Ali-Liston II.. In fact he never got there while Liston was on the floor.. That time referee Walcott had his head up his butt.. According to the rules the count should have been suspended and it wasn't.. In effect Nat Fleischer decided the fight by insisting the timekeeper counted Liston out though he got no count from the referee.. Walcott walked over and stopped the fight after it resumed.. Nobody knew the rule apparently.

Kalan wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:yeah, but most boxers arent very good technicians, most work with basic power.

Agree in part... but what I will say is... most boxers who get to the top and attain public acclaim try to learn how to box and be smart about their craft. The strongest, fastest, toughest, and meanest don't necessarily get to the top. The smartest, most diligent, craftiest, and most experienced are more likely to prevail in a boxing match. They may not win a street fight and wouldn't get involved in one. A natural born fighter is more likely to be attracted to MMA. A white collar type will gravitate towards boxing. But sometimes it's what's available and MMA has a short history.

As for bigman1986's comment on the "Long Count" Tunney shut Dempsey out in their first fight.. No long count.. In the rematch he could have gotten up at count 5 or 6 but he wanted to take advantage of the count... Dempsey had his head up his ass and delayed going to a neutral corner... He admitted that the neutral corner rule was explained in detail to him during his training camp and before the fight... Tunney took full advantage of Dempsey's less than clever behavior.

Muhammad Ali also delayed going to a neutral corner in Ali-Liston II.. In fact he never got there while Liston was on the floor.. That time referee Walcott had his head up his butt.. According to the rules the count should have been suspended and it wasn't.. In effect Nat Fleischer decided the fight by insisting the timekeeper counted Liston out though he got no count from the referee.. Walcott walked over and stopped the fight after it resumed.. Nobody knew the rule apparently.

Actually I believe Dempsey insisted on the Neutral corner rule. So that makes him even more of a dumbass for causing The Long Count.

There's a lot of people in Boxing who are the furthest thing from White Collar

Chepppaaa wrote:i found a new way i think it a freaking good way. i will try to do it, see of my new way of thinking is good.

you remember back than in school, when 2 guys where about to fight and in your head you were asking yourself who would win and very quickly come to a conclusion. well that is what i am gonne do. i ask myself, who would win right now in the streets and quickly come to an answer.

let me go...i will do some, lets see how many tims a will be right. underlined wins.

canelo-khan

chisora-pulev

wilder-povetkin

thurman-porter

crawford-postol

cruz-frampton

I have the same picks. I must be a boxing genius too.

I'd go Frampton over Cruz (but not with much confidence) and Povetkin to KO Wilder, but I am confident in that one.

Same other than that, but most of those aren't hard to pick

Povetkin-Wilder is close to 50/50 for me, but I feel good about LSC beating Frampton. IMO Cruz's size and consistently high workrate are going to give Frampton hell, especially in the later rounds if it makes it that far.

crusader wrote:Povetkin-Wilder is close to 50/50 for me, but I feel good about LSC beating Frampton. IMO Cruz's size and consistently high workrate are going to give Frampton hell, especially in the later rounds if it makes it that far.

It'll make it that far. Santa Cruz is not a big puncher at all.

crusader wrote:Povetkin-Wilder is close to 50/50 for me, but I feel good about LSC beating Frampton. IMO Cruz's size and consistently high workrate are going to give Frampton hell, especially in the later rounds if it makes it that far.

i thought u were a boxing genius like me and hadd it for wilder...why 50 50 haha pov getting smashed badly..you ll see. easy

If Povetkin gets smashed easily then my prediction of a Wilder victory will be correct

Chepppaaa wrote:

crusader wrote:Povetkin-Wilder is close to 50/50 for me, but I feel good about LSC beating Frampton. IMO Cruz's size and consistently high workrate are going to give Frampton hell, especially in the later rounds if it makes it that far.

i thought u were a boxing genius like me and hadd it for wilder...why 50 50 haha pov getting smashed badly..you ll see. easy

Povetkin's gonna knock your boy out Cheppy

gilgamesh wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

crusader wrote:Povetkin-Wilder is close to 50/50 for me, but I feel good about LSC beating Frampton. IMO Cruz's size and consistently high workrate are going to give Frampton hell, especially in the later rounds if it makes it that far.

i thought u were a boxing genius like me and hadd it for wilder...why 50 50 haha pov getting smashed badly..you ll see. easy

Povetkin's gonna knock your boy out Cheppy

god, if pov beats wilder in any shape of form i am gonne make 50 push ups, although i am only able to make around 25, but i am gonne be so shocked that i wll have extra energy

I usually go by who's on the left of fight cards. Boxrec does that as well and most usually wins another crazy way I usually tell is which team carry more people to the ring.

"I found a new way..."

Your new way is no better than your old way.

...

The biggest problems you'll encounter when weighing up a fight is judges, refs, cuts swells and odd injuries.
I remember betting on Lara to beat Paul Williams and I was extremely confident even though he was a three an a half to one underdog, at the end of the fight prior to the decision my friends were congratulating me.
That was until I reminded them what sport we were watching ... and then came the decision.
They were more shocked than I was probably because I've read this script before.

gilgamesh wrote:

Kalan wrote: There's a lot of people in Boxing who are the furthest thing from White Collar

True.. and a lot of them aren't successful as well.. There's 19 thousand "professional" boxers you never heard of and will never see fight.. But I'm talking about guys who have success oriented attitudes and work ethics and plan their career paths meticulously.. They may hate wearing white shirts and ties and wear T's and jeans. The Boxing business is something you can have success in even if you're not a good athlete. If you learn the craft, present yourself as a likeable guy, and get the right opponents lined up. Freddie Roach was one of the worst athletes I've ever seen. I don't think this is true in MMA and a lot of other individual sports.

Whatever happened there I didn't write that. Gilgamesh did

.... Or just pick the opposite of who teddy atlas picks.

Kalan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

Kalan wrote: There's a lot of people in Boxing who are the furthest thing from White Collar

True.. and a lot of them aren't successful as well.. There's 19 thousand "professional" boxers you never heard of and will never see fight.. But I'm talking about guys who have success oriented attitudes and work ethics and plan their career paths meticulously.. They may hate wearing white shirts and ties and wear T's and jeans. The Boxing business is something you can have success in even if you're not a good athlete. If you learn the craft, present yourself as a likeable guy, and get the right opponents lined up. Freddie Roach was one of the worst athletes I've ever seen. I don't think this is true in MMA and a lot of other individual sports.

Most of the successful people in Boxing started out dirt poor and didn't turn to Boxing with plans of a career, they started out looking for a way to get something to eat, and just wound up getting good at it. If you think Boxing is filled with White Collar guys then I don't think you understand what White Collar guys are.

White Collar guys are like Wall St. bankers, and Accountants and Lawyers and sh*t like that. Guys that couldn't whip an angry 15 year old in a fist fight in most cases, and wouldn't try. They'd just call the Police