Page 1 of 1
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 09:42
by Poncey
Yes, a monaing mildred.
I'd say Haye v Macca had excitement, as did Mayweather Hatton, which are my last two fights.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 09:54
by Poncey
Terry D wrote:Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Yes, a monaing mildred.
I'd say Haye v Macca had excitement, as did Mayweather Hatton, which are my last two fights.
I had loads of specific examples. Cannot recall them now. I mean the very cream of the sport. Oscar's fights are always events, very rarely competitive or fought hard. Hopkins, self-evident. Floyd, the Hatton fight was pretty poor, Floyd provided the highlight by landing the shots but you then look at the Baldomir fight and others that were pretty dismal.
There just seems less derring-do at the higher level in sports. I'm not getting all misty-eyed but you do wonder if modern fighters at the very highest level would be capable of producing an Ali-Frazier style war of skills and wills.
It is either negation of a equally matched guy, leading to a SD, or a gimme where you slap the piss out of an overmatched guy.
Nowadays there's more onus on a fighter staying unbeaten, plus the amount of money means there's more to lose by fighting the best.
Ah, the old days.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 09:56
by Goz
Terry - Do you think that modern fighters have become so skilled and tactically adept at negating each other that something needs to be done to ensure boxing remains entertaining at the highest level?
Much like the 3 points for a win introduced to football all those years ago?
Not sure what I would actually suggest, perhaps a revised scoring system that rewarded aggression? Horsehoes in the glove?
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 10:03
by Poncey
Trinidad wraps.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 10:14
by Old bones Ian
Or is it because TV is obsessed with the USA, and they just don't produce that many exciting boxers as they used to.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 10:26
by Poncey
Terry D wrote:Goz wrote:Terry - Do you think that modern fighters have become so skilled and tactically adept at negating each other that something needs to be done to ensure boxing remains entertaining at the highest level?
Much like the 3 points for a win introduced to football all those years ago?
Not sure what I would actually suggest, perhaps a revised scoring system that rewarded aggression? Horsehoes in the glove?
Not sure Goz. Part of this problem is that this old-school 'style' is used to fool modern audiences and take them for fools.
Basically a guy like Hopkins, who I do like and have picked in fights before, has taken a few moves from older fighters and talks about what he picked up from them.
By my reckoning most of these guys refer to the Marciano-Walcott I bout (there are other Walcott fights but this one shows his complete range) but all they take do is adopt a few moves used to negate Marciano but they miss the crunching counters Walcott showed in the fight, one of the most exciting fights ever in my mind. Plus the fact he did fight within range a lot.
Older fighters could box and still land late in a fight so why not these ultra-conditioned athletes who have NASA dictating their training regimes?
Personally I think they need to fight more often to keep sharp. Once or twice a year seems to lead to guys who either are not sharp early or lack stamina late. Consequently the fights are not cohesive wholes.
I don't know. I'm a traditionalist and think that such is the judging ineptitude and lack of consistency in boxing that there is no way we could hope for these senile old fools to apply new scoring rules.
If these well trained guys are fighting like better conditioned Walcott's then why are they in such shockingly poor bouts?
Reading Robinson's biography I was amazed at his level of physical fitness (he almost died during the Maxim fight) and his activity.
I don't think it's good for a fighter's mental health to fight as much as they did, but we have to admit that if a fighter fights 3 times a year now, we're impressed.
That should be the standard.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 10:55
by Goz
Remember Calzaghe himself went from 'they can't handle the power' to 'actually they mostly can handle the power unless they are off that Contender series'.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 10:58
by Phenomenal-Nutrition
We don't any longer have the powerpunchers likethe 90s such as:
McCellan
Benn
Hamed
Corrales
Trinidad
Tua
Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Who compares to those punchers today? Haye and Pavlik are not quite up there imo
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 11:29
by MightyWarrior
Haye is up there with that lot, in terms of lights out punch power. Valero certainly - anyone seen his title winning effort? A stone cold classic.
Miranda provides some big hitting for sure, and Pavlik is the most exciting middle champ we've seen in 10 years or so.
Plus we saw some big hitting slugfests with Cotto/Judah/Torres.
All is not lost
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 12:20
by Asterix
Haye is definitely there.
I'm a great lover of boxers who fight offensively, and I tend to hate defensive boxing, so KO wins are what I like to see.
Kelly Pavlik
David Haye
Edwin Valero
Herbie Hide
Edison Miranda
Kermit Cintron
..are all hard punchers.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 13:32
by Poncey
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 13:43
by Autobarn
Haye and Pavlik look like they are up there. They are both also holding legitimate - not fractured - world titles and both have proven they can knock good, world class fighters out.
Cotto is a nice fighter to watch, who puts a lot into stopping a fighter. Though he doesn't have the 1 punch power, or because he doesn't, he works constantly on engineering the KO (or TKO). I think his title fights with Judah and Quintana are a great example that top fighters can deliver on value for money explosiveness at a high level.
And you have amazing fights like Juan Manuel Marquez vs Pacquiao, which really are fought with an epic amount of guts, skill and dedication: pure intensity.
We do get value for money fights with power in there to boot, but these are seldom mainstream fights. They're mostly for the hardcore crowd, as with the Vazquez-Marquez trilogy.
Also, when you have this "star system" of aged names, like the one Calzaghe seems to have joined with prospective names like Jones and Tarver after squeaking by Hopkins, what you get is little action, and a tenedency for the aged name to save himself for the next "PPV Spectacular." Which is utter shite for boxing.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 17:37
by Autobarn
Terry D wrote:I guess I'm looking at a glass half-full. Seems that a lot of big fights fail to deliver after the bell goes.
I like good defensive boxing but like it to be mixed with effective aggression.
Cotto-Margarito should live up to all the hype, and then some!
I know what you mean. If only more fights were like Toney-McCallum 1. That was just sheer class and very tough at the same time. The recent fights in the 154-175 lbs classes have paled in comparison.
What is needed is a killer instinct to go with the skills. Some of the most skilled fighters just turn up with not getting hit for 36 mins as their priority.
Cotto-Margarito will be fantastic. Especially with the 8oz gloves which Nevada are allowing.
Posted: 25 Apr 2008, 19:06
by Old bones Ian
Terry D wrote:I guess I'm looking at a glass half-full. Seems that a lot of big fights fail to deliver after the bell goes.
I like good defensive boxing but like it to be mixed with effective aggression.
Cotto-Margarito should live up to all the hype, and then some!
That one should be a classic, niether boxer likes to clinch, both come foward punchers, think it will come down to who has the better chin, i'm leaning toward Margarito.
Terry have you seen that Eromosele Albert is taking on hot prospect James Kirkland, i know its not a 'super fight' or even for a title, but Kirklands manager must have confidence in his boxer to let him anywhere near Albert.