What fights are we missing?

812 posts / 0 new
Last post
Re: What fights are we missing?
Re: What fights are we missing?
Re: What fights are we missing?
Re: What fights are we missing?
Re: What fights are we missing?
Re: What fights are we missing?

Thank you so much again for adding all these fights!

Re: What fights are we missing?

My pleasure!

Re: What fights are we missing?

What's your prediction for the big fight tonight?

Re: What fights are we missing?

Obviously with his age and size advantage, Lomachenko is favoured to win.

Most of us are excited about this fight because both men are arguably going to face the toughest opposition in each of their careers, and because both men are the most decorated amateurs in modern boxing history.

No doubt this fight is going to be highly technical, but I don't think it will happen the way some people imagine.

Both Lomachenko and Rigondeaux are technicians with some unique styles. However, their unique styles are unlikely to be apparent in this fight, at least not immediately.

Sometimes, Rigondeaux is practically a left-handed fighter. Jabs are hard to land in southpaw-orthodox match-ups, so instead of trying to land his right jabs Rigodeaux just paws slowly with his right and lull his opponent into a slow rhythm, before jolting them with quick and hard left hand.

Rigodeaux's modus operandi is not going to be as effective here as Lomechenko himself is another southpaw.

Sometimes Rigodeuax's defense involves bending at the waist to avoid punches.

While bending at the waist gives you upper body mobility, it sacrifices feet mobility, which might be dangerous against an opponent like Lomachenko who is active at taking angles.

Lomachenko is a fighter with a very high output, which is partly why casuals embraced him while they denigrate Rigondeaux as boring. However, among Lomachenko's output, many of them are pitter-patter punches for Lomachenko hide his hard shots amidst a sea of light punches. Watch any highlight reels of Lomachenko, most of it will be him raining punches on an opponent desperately trying to cover up with a high guard. Many of his opponents intimidated by his high output just put up a high guard. Ironically, the more you cover up the more Lomechenko will batter you, for his light punches obscures vision (which is already obscured when you put up an earmuff) and distracts kinesthetic senses, allowing him to set up his hard shots which most opponents had no idea where it would come.

Lomachenko cannot intimidate Rigondeaux with such a strategy. Rigondeaux does not use a high guard, in fact I rarely see him ever use any kind of guard. Such was his mastery of distance. Furthermore, I think a master boxer like Rigondeaux should be able to tell when Lomachenko is bluffing with his hands and when Lomachenko is really going to punch hard. So if Lomachenko bluffed too much or too obviously with his pitter-patter punches he would be countered to death by Rigondeaux.

Another reason why Lomachenko is so beloved is his fancy footwork. The hype surrounding it is making me sick. 'Is this the matrix fighter from the future' et cetera. Right now I feel it is hard to tell how much of his footwork is substance and how much is flash. If I am not mistaken Gary Roach is somewhat of a critic of Lomachenko's footwork, and personally sometimes I feel he moved more than necessary. Lomachenko does showboat occasionally and do some unnecessary moves, he should not showboat against Rigondeaux. The downside of Lomachenko's angles and pivots is that if Rigondeaux sees them coming, Rigondeaux can time them and nail Lomachenko. I cannot think of a better time to nail Lomachenko than that, if Loamachenko got hit with a hard shot mid-pivot he can be knocked down.

For all the differences in their usual strategies they have one stunning similarity: absolute confidence in one's own ability and absolute disdain for their opponents'. Rigondeaux does this by fighting down to his opponent's level, doing the barest minimum to cruise to a decision he is 100% certain he will win. Lomachenko does this with his showboating, which puts him at unnecessary risk.

Ultimately, both fighters have such distinct styles because they are fighting against inferior boxers and almost all these boxers are orthodox fighters.

Long story short, expect the fight to start conventionally and both fighters to fight more conventionally for their usual styles or strategies will not be effective against each other. Southpaw-southpaw match-ups are basically orthodox-orthodox match-ups in mirror image, so that means a battle of right jabs at the beginning. Both fighters are counter-punchers at heart, so whoever can bait the other to lead will have the upper hand.

I suppose one strategy that might work against Lomachenko is to run.

Uninformed casual fans call Rigondeaux a 'runner' but a runner he is not. Rigondeaux is extremely economical with his movements, he mostly takes small steps forward or backward or occasionally make pivots around his left foot.

If Rigondeaux really starts back-pedaling and move laterally with his back on the ropes he could give Lomachenko fits. Every boxing prospect or titlist looks awesome until the fans realise he cannot cut off the ring. Erislandy Lara gave Canelo fits simply because Canelo has no idea how to cut off Lara. As far as I am aware of in Lomachenko's short career so far his ring-cutting ability has not been really tested.

Of course, it is unlikely for Rigondeaux to break character and starts running, as Rigondeaux is a man of absolute integrity in his approach to boxing; he never breaks character. But if Floyd Mayweather could break character and fight Conor like a Mexican, why not Rigondeaux?

As to what strategies they will actually employ against each other, I have no idea. No doubt, this fight will involve a lot of feints. Feints are keys to finding out an opponent's habits and from there they can devise their own game plan. Just very generally speaking, which I think applies to just about every fight, whoever trained more appropriately and was smarter in the ring will come out of winner.

However, even if Rigondeaux proves to be the superior boxer he might still be overpowered by Lomachenko.

The Cuban is going up two weight classes, while he clearly bulked up physically whether his power and stamina carries up is another question. In recent memory, Juan Manuel Marquez fared disastrously when he climbed to meet Floyd Mayweather. We are far removed from the days of Harry Greb whipping opponents who outweighed him by like 20 pounds. If Rigondeaux cannot make Lomachenko respect his power, he is going to be in deep trouble. Rigondeaux is also pushing 40, and he is a smoker, plus he is climbing 2 weight classes, if he starts having stamina issues or starts slowing down he is a sitting duck.

Furthermore, there is that Bob Arum factor. The saying goes 'WBO' stands for 'Whatever Bob Orders'. If Arum somehow found a way to mess up Pacquiao-Horn scorecards as some boxing fans seem to believe, then Arum can potentially mess with the scoring of this fight too. My pessimistic gut feeling is that, if the fight does to a decision and if Rigondeaux does not dominate Lomachenko in a Donaire-esque performance then Rigondeaux will be badly screwed on the scorecards.

Which goes back to why I said Lomachenko is favoured to win.

However, I desperately want Rigondeaux to win this one. The man is an absolute maestro, the finest boxer to grace the pro scene since Floyd Mayweather. He left his entire life behind in Cuba just to pursue a career in the world of pro-boxing, and yet pro-boxing f***s him over. He put on a masterful performance against Nonito Donaire, only for be dismissed and insulted by reporters and his former promoter Bob Arum. They called him 'boring' and 'a pain in the ass to deal with' blah blah blah. Absolutely disgusting, reporters are supposed to understand the intricacies of boxing! How can watching a master ply his craft be boring? A promoter is supposed to promote his fighters! Arum's comments and actions against Rigondeaux are utterly disgraceful. Then there is all the ducking shenanigans, the Featherweight division is full of cowards who wanted no part of Rigondeaux.

On the other hand, I want to like Lomachenko but I am having a hard time liking him. The morbid marketing hype surrounding him and his fans who eat up the marketing wholesale is putting me off. He is not the greatest fighter since Muhammad Ali, he is not the next Pernell Whitaker, he is not a revolutionary fighter from the future. Dude only has 10 pro-fights under his belt, sure he is a two-divison world champion but titles come more easily in this era of alphabet soups, please stop comparing his greatness to all-time greats in the past when his career is still in its infancy. Lomachenko does have some interesting footwork, but cutting angles is nothing new under the sun, Orlando Canizales was doing it way before it was cool and I am sure there are even older fighters I do not know who can cut angles too.

If Rigondeaux beat Lomachenko, despite all the disadvantages, I would consider Rigondeaux Pound-for-Pound number one. If Lomachenko beats Rigondeaux, I would say good job he finally had a good name on his career.

I am really just ranting now, so I'll stop here.

Tl;dr-Both fighters fight conventionally, a good tactical battle, Lomachenko likely to win.

Re: What fights are we missing?

Easton zahradnik

Re: What fights are we missing?

Missing Haye vs. Maccarinelli and Haye vs. Fury should be removed

Pages