Timothy Bradley vs Ruslan Provodnikov Scorecard by Gold


scorecard by GOLD
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
TIMOTHY BRADLEY
9
9
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
9
9
8
113
RUSLAN PROVODNIKOV
10
10
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
10
10
10
114

Fight:



More:

Timothy Bradley

Ruslan Provodnikov



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Gold's picture

I was never that high on Tim Bradley, he certainly was a good fighter with a lot of heart but he got some questionable decisions like this one and the absolute highway robbery that was the first Pacquiao fight.

Gold's picture

I'll have to score it officially on here, I remember having it by a comfortable margin to Pacquiao when I last watched it. Bradley vs. Marquez is another I'd like to rescore.

Gold's picture

Lampley can be pretty biased, Pacquiao was definitely HBO's top guy so I won't disagree with you about that. Lederman scores pretty consistently but he favors activity and aggression which in and of itself doesn't make him a bad judge. You won't find many fights where he has scored what is considered a terrible scorecard. Showtime has a kind of poor broadcasting team in my opinion, In my view, Paulie Malignaggi is completely worthless, first of all as a broadcaster is able to talk in a coherent way that people can listen to is important, Paulie's voice is like nails on a chalkboard and he is very hard to follow. He also at times shows his own biases against people who don't fit what he believes the sport should be, but to his credit, I didn't think he was biased against Broner versus Vargas when he could have been. Mauro talks like he is reading out of a pop culture thesaurus and takes over the action. Commentators should describe and accent the action instead of drawing away from it which I think Malignaggi and Mauro do. Steve Gray does very little, he doesn't ask hard questions and seems generally disinterested when doing interviews. Farhood and Bernstein are quite good for my money though. Really that's all just a tangent though. HBO probably still has the best commentary team out there despite it getting progressively worse.

Everyone knows he lost the second and third fights, he'd look like an idiot if he said otherwise. A lot of these guys are very prideful, Pacquiao is his best "win" and the public backlash about the scoring made him dig in even further on his position. Not that it matters either way if he says he won or lost.

Gold's picture

11-1 Pacquiao is not impossible if I remember correctly Bradley barely won any conclusive rounds. 8-4 Castillo is not unreasonable either, Mayweather won four rounds conclusively. 8-4 Kovalev is not impossible either. All of these scores make sense in the style a lot of American judges use that prioritize aggression and activity. Lederman has scored hundreds of actual bouts as a judge and many title fights, Farhood is knowledgeable but his experience is far less than Lederman's. Do you actually think the way people talk in a medium where talking is the way of conveying information doesn't matter? Paulie is biased against people he sees as cheating even if he doesn't have any hard evidence. That is fine if that is his opinion but as a broadcaster, he has to keep that out. Getting mad about McGregor when he is going to cover him because he is too prideful to let it go is unprofessional. I'm not saying they sidetrack away from the fights, but their discussions overpower the actual fight.

The fact is that two people managed to score the first fight to Bradley when it was a clear win for Pacquiao, CJ Ross, who is one of the worst judges of all time and is de facto banned from judging, and Duane Ford who was a bad judge and frequently was on the wrong side of many split decisions retiring shortly after this Pacquiao Bradley bout. Bradley did do better in the second fight, but they managed to find three people to score the fight correctly. 11-1 is an okay score, 8-4 is a good score for the second fight certainly. He looks worse for saying he won the first fight because no one actually thinks he won the fight. The second fight was closer in reality but it is harder for people who are biased to score a fight to Bradley when Bradley had two 10-8 rounds against him.

Julie Lederman is usually a decent judge, she has a few decisions I disagree with but she works a lot of title bouts in New York and gets the vast majority of them right on the mark.

I definitely never ruled out the Loma vs. Beltran fight, I have always said that Beltran would be a logical fight for Lomachenko for a few reasons. First, Beltran has a belt and he likely wouldn't be able to hold it long, it makes sense for Arum to do an in-house showcase fight where he promotes both of the fighters, makes money, and increases the profile of Lomachenko. It won't be an interesting fight at all, Beltran is game but he is really a contender level fighter, he will lose 12-0 to Lomachenko like he did to Crawford. It is also interesting after Beltran lost to Crawford he started juicing out and ripped off five KO wins in a row, but that isn't the narrative ESPN/Top Rank wants to sell viewers.

Gold's picture

Yes I agree, it is subjective if you like HBO or Showtime, but I interpreted that you said people like Lampley and Lederman were bad in an objective way. Following the scoring criteria, Mayweather clearly won rounds 1-4, Castillo clearly won 6-7, 11-12 and the rest can go either way but I remember most being slanted towards Castillo. The fight can certainly be scored 115-111 Castillo. It is not true that the vast majority of rounds are always hard to score, most fights are actually quite easy to score from my experience. Most rounds usually have someone who clearly has a better combination of effective punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. In my opinion if a boxer does worse than the other boxer in all twelve rounds, they should lose 12-0. Pity rounds and scoring 10-7 on three knockdowns have no place in boxing.

Lederman has quality experience, Atlas had quality experience but became old and senile. Angel Garcia has always been a moron. Froch is an absolutely terrible person to learn how to score a bout from, he scores an unreasonable amount of 10-10 rounds to anything he views as remotely close.

In broadcasting, the broadcasters main job is to convey what is happening to the viewer without making the show about themselves, correct? When people talk with accents that are hard to listen to and/or talk quickly like Paulie Malignaggi or Dick Vitale, that makes it questionable to if they are a good broadcaster or not regardless of if they know a lot about the sport. Lennox Lewis surely knows more about boxing than Paulie Malignaggi but he wasn't a good broadcaster because he didn't convey information in an efficient way.

From my experience, most of the time people say they are "brutally honest" they are really just using that as a cover to talk without being informed while trying to avoid criticism. Not to go back to this, but his "Pacquiao theory" has the same level of evidence as Joshua taking steroids. Paulie went on interviews, on twitter getting in arguments with someone and/or about someone who he is getting ready to cover as a broadcaster. That is not behind the cameras, that is out in public for everyone to see. There wasn't really anything to be biased about in the MayMac fight. One good example of Paulie analyzing something wrong and Roy Jones analyzing the same thing correctly was the Ward vs. Kovalev 2 ending. Paulie, of course, creates his own narrative, goes on and on about it being a low blow to end the fight while Roy Jones took an educated stance and waited for the replay to analyze it. Mauro reading out of a thesaurus and Paulie's yelling voice is not interesting to me, we will just have to agree to disagree.

You can just look up the scores of credible judges and scorers that scored this fight. It is not an exaggeration to say 99% of them scored it to Pacquiao, many 117-111 or greater. He says he won the first fight because he is the only person who actually believes it alongside CJ Ross and Duane Ford. It would be a pretty big hit to his ego to accept that everyone who went against him was right and he was wrong. There is no way anyone can logically score any of the fights to Bradley, that is the end of the conversation. Knockdowns are relevant because they are automatically 10-8 rounds so no one can say the round was subjective and Bradley could have won it. Duane Ford and CJ Ross are legitimately terrible judges, if you don't believe me look it up yourself. You know CJ Ross is terrible yourself. There is no hype around Pacquiao just like there is no hype around Mayweather, they are both all-time great fighters. You are just backlashing against the hype around them. I don't like the same kind of hype around Lomachenko but I still score his fights and talk about his level appropriately. He definitely didn't lose to Bradley or Horn in reality, we all know boxing has a lot of incompetence and corruption if you want to say he lost some of the Marquez fights that is up for debate, but Pacquiao clearly beat Bradley and Horn even if he was much more faded.

I would have to watch those fights again to say for certain, look at her record, she scores consistently right the vast majority of the time.

I would never say two Top Rank fighters fighting is unrealistic. Bob Arum loves in-house fights. You must be mistaking that with something else. Beltran is tough, maybe he won't last twelve rounds and lose on cuts or a corner stoppage but I don't think Lomachenko has the power to knock him out.

Hopefully he is going to be tested frequently considering he failed a test, a lot of guys under VADA aren't tested frequently enough simply because there isn't enough money to do it.

Gold's picture

Broner winning round 1 and Canelo winning round 7 is wrong, I was wrong about Golovkin winning round 12 but I haven't rewatched the fight since a few weeks after it happened so I haven't rescored it.

Why shouldn't it have been scored 115-111 Castillo? It can also be scored 115-111 Mayweather, there are only four definitive rounds each. Sometimes there has to be distance to be able to analyze things, people like Paulie are too invested in the sport to be completely unbiased which is naturally going to happen. You can argue those things but Crawford isn't going to stay at 140, Canelo won't be banned for life, and Joshua isn't on VADA 365 so who knows. If Joshua gets on VADA 365 and passes the tests that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doping either, but I won't criticize him for it if he can pass the best testing out there.

I didn't watch Joshua vs. Parker very closely but Joshua clearly won 1, 3-4, 8, 10-12 while Parker at least won 5-7 so that is 10 out of the 12 rounds that should be scored one way or the other. Mayweather vs. Pacquiao was not a hard fight to score either. A fight can be competitive and be a shutout, sure that is possible. Someone can come close the entire fight but fail to actually win any rounds, it would be very rare though. Mayweather won extremely wide and arguably a shutout because he dominated in the generally accepted scoring criteria. Pity scoring is exactly what you are describing, giving a fighter a round if you haven't given them one yet because they are doing comparatively better and are fighting closer than they did in previous rounds. There is a difference between scoring swing rounds to both fighters and that. In almost every round there is a winner that can be chosen if you have your own scoring criteria and style preferences. A lot of old school judges won't score 10-6 in general because they believe it is too difficult to come back from that deficit. Well like with pity rounds, if a fighter does worse in all twelve rounds, they should lose 12-0. If they get knocked down three times, they should get a 10-6. Otherwise, that is just punishing the better fighter for doing too well.

There is almost always a winner in a round if you actually are paying attention and follow generally accepted scoring criteria because there are enough qualifications that can win you the round. To have a round where the fighters are dead even in effective punching, effective aggression, defense and ring generalship would be very rare. There is a good reason they don't have scorecards for the commentators on HBO and Showtime, like you said it just adds more to their job.

It isn't necessarily just his annoying voice, which is more of the way he personally talks rather than a New York accent, it is the inefficient way he communicates information which often overpowers the broadcast.

Paulie is very biased on the drug topic, it doesn't matter if people like Pacquiao and Mayweather took steroids, there is absolutely no way that someone like Paulie can be as good as them with steroids. They are once in a lifetime level boxers. Paulie got baited into the trash talk and became a part of McGregor's promo for the fight, it made him look pretty stupid honestly. Paulie saying "Some of those shots are low, wait a minute, wait a minute, no, no" saying punches were clearly low before watching a replay and when he watched the replay which is inherently creating a narrative without having full information. Paulie asked why Weeks stopped the fight, well maybe because Kovalev was being held up by the ropes and wasn't punching back? Where Roy Jones explains that because Kovalev was wearing his trunks above his navel and Weeks called the belt line good at the beginning of the fight, it is very hard to call it a low blow.

It is harder for him to admit he lost the first fight. Again, everyone backlashed against him and the decision so for him to go back and say he didn't win it when it is his best "win" on paper would be much harder for him to say he lost the second and third fights. No one has gone mad for Pacquiao since the KO loss to Marquez, after that he has clearly been on the decline. The incompetence and corruption is in decisions like Bradley and Horn.

No one actually thinks he lost to Bradley and the vast majority of people think he beat Horn. Horn was aggressive but not effective for the majority of the fight.

Pacquiao vs. Bradley I is near the same level as those fights honestly.

The difference is Ross's cards were very well known and controversial. I would have to rewatch the Lederman fights to say if she was totally off the mark or not. For example, I disagreed with her scorecard for Chocolatito vs. Rungvisai I but it was a possible scorecard. One notable good scorecard she turned in was 116-111 Rigondeaux over Donaire when the Stewart scored it 114-113 and Shreck scored it 115-112 which were both too close, especially 114-113.

I'm not belittling Bob Arum, he has had some questionable stuff in his past but he is certainly one of the most successful promoters of all time and has brought us a lot of great fights. For a while Top Rank was garbage, not doing any deals with other promoters and trying to run their own little circuit, but now they are doing a much better job again. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Bob Arum said that, he has to give fans some reason to think that Horn could actually beat Crawford, he is the promoter afterall.

Well if you didn't delete the conversation, we could find out, but I guess we will never know. You can check my Lomachenko vs. Linares where I stated that I believed he would fight Rey Beltran next. Again, I would never say an in-house fight at Top Rank is impossible. If the conversation was if the fight was a good one or not, yeah I would talk down the idea of the fight, it is simply to get Lomachenko the WBO belt, there is almost no way Beltran can challenge Lomachenko.

He doesn't have a lot of power otherwise he would be stopping guys instead of getting corner retirements, Martinez is his only power KO he has and Martinez is not that good. His KO versus Linares was timing and punch placement. He was never going to KO Linares with headshots. I don't think Lomachenko will be able to stop him with a knockdown and knockout, I think it is possible he wins via cuts or corner stoppage. Lomachenko's style is not condusive to being a big power puncher, he doesn't sit down on his punches enough to be someone like Errol Spence.

Gold's picture

Of course, some rounds are very hotly debated and some fights are very difficult to score (e.g. Whitaker vs. De La Hoya). A lot of fights aren't like that though. In the end as long as the judges get the right winner by the right margin, the allocation of rounds doesn't matter as much.

That's not true at all, that is implying that there can only be a two-round swing in a close fight when Castillo vs. Mayweather is a great example of how there can be greater than a two-round swing. Again, most fights aren't like that though, people tend to talk about fights that are hotly debated which overstates how often that happens. All three of those are terrible and unrealistic scorecards, even if you prefer effective aggression or lower output ringcraft there are times where regardless of what you prefer you have to recognize the greater effectiveness of other styles. That is true to an extent that Maidana winning those two rounds doesn't have an effect on how he does in the other rounds, but if someone can win a round clearly, they usually win other rounds. If the rounds are close enough they can go either way they should allocate them fairly, I agree. However, sometimes judges do give "comparative"/pity rounds to boxers because they are down by a lot of rounds to keep the fight closer. I don't agree with that style of scoring in general, usually, it is better to look at the rounds in isolation so the winner of the round is getting a fair shake.

If you are talking about Paulie knowing too much for my liking, being a broadcaster isn't just being an encyclopedia about the sport, there is a craft to being a broadcaster as well.

I never said it was a worse option for him, he would be better off using his size advantage at Super Lightweight. However, we all know the money is better at Welterweight so it makes sense. I never said that Tony and George should be compared to people on the street, but rather the professionals in this area, drug testers, sanctioning bodies, and athletic commissions, should be and are deciding these matters. Having boxers decide it is like having the victim of a crime or a victim of a similar crime decide the punishment for the criminal, there isn't enough distance from the situation and expertise in that area to have an unbiased view. I don't want to expand this discussion any further so I would like to just leave it at that, you can have your opinion and I will have mine on those points.

Even if you look at fights that are very easy to score like Mayweather vs. De La Hoya which only has two real swing rounds, 3 and 8, 9 out of 12 rounds are "disputed". Hagler vs. Leonard is another good example. So put however much stock in that you'd like.

We are talking about different things, I am talking about where a fighter who is losing does comparatively better than they did previously in the fight even if the other fighter did better work. Two examples of this are round 6 Pacquiao vs. Margarito and round 7 (I think) Margarito vs. Mosley where Margarito was more effective than he previously was in the fight but still slightly less effective than his opponent in that round but still got the point on some scorecards. What you are talking about is fine, I agree that if the rounds are very close they should be allocated both ways.

I have never heard of Floyd saying that, do you have a source?

I think you are overselling how hard those fights are to score, Golovkin vs. Canelo was not that hard and Canelo vs. Lara had a lot of definitive rounds as well. Just because a round on here is "disputed" doesn't mean it is hard to score. If one person puts in a bad scorecard it is automatically "disputed".

Just because someone has a lot of knowledge doesn't make them a great analyst automatically. This example won't mean anything to you, but Shaquille O'Neal and Charles Barkley are two all-time great basketball players who are analysts for the NBA. However, you'd absolutely never want them to be full-time broadcasters because they don't convey information about the game in a way that is conducive to a broadcast. I feel like that's where Paulie is in my opinion if he was on the pre-fight and post-fight analysis I think he would be a lot more suited to that role.

He seems to be a good guy and he is a decent broadcaster as well for ESPN, I don't really have a problem with him. He doesn't score the fights at the end of the day. I will have to score Bradley vs. Marquez, it was a very close fight if I remember correctly. If you would just acknowledge that Bradley faced a lot of backlash for the Pacquiao vs. Bradley decision and that would affect how he thinks about that fight, that would be great. It is very rare to come across a boxer that will be completely objective about their career. Ray Leonard is very objective about his career, but he is one of the greatest of all times regardless of if he beat Hagler or Hearns in their rematch. Ray Leonard has a lot better argument to beating Hearns in the rematch, even though I think he clearly lost, than Bradley's argument of beating Pacquiao.

Only 99% of media and relevant boxing figures scored the bout to Pacquiao but I'm sure there wasn't any incompetence with CJ Ross and Duane Ford.

Don't know what you are talking about, for the final time, I would never say an in-house fight at Top Rank is impossible. Check my Lomachenko vs. Linares pre-fight analysis where I state Lomachenko vs. Beltran is the most likely route for Lomachenko.

Beltran is comparatively bigger to Lomachenko than Martinez was. The fact people have to talk about his KO of Martinez, who has to be one of the worst three-time champions out there, does show something about his power. Guys like Lomachenko and Usyk do not have styles that are good for getting big highlight knockouts. You can ask anyone who knows about boxing and they will agree, that isn't really a debatable subject.

Gold's picture

Thanks for adding the Gonzalez fight!

Yeah, I am aware of that, but judges also should only be doing that when it is a true toss-up round. If someone wins eight or nine rounds according to the general scoring rules they should get eight or nine rounds.

It is possible that they may win a similar amount of rounds, it depends on the style of the judge though. Someone like Sugar Ray Leonard was very good at stealing very close rounds at the end, Oscar De La Hoya did this to an extent as well. That is an example of how they can sometimes become more lopsided.

If you don't believe me rewatch De La Hoya vs. Mayweather. Some scored it 115-113 De La Hoya which is a very bad scorecard in my opinion.

Of course, there are some fights that have many highly disputed rounds, that's why I gave the example of Whitaker vs. De La Hoya. Mayweather vs. Canelo just isn't a good example of having that.

Can't say I agree with Floyd, all that does is punish the boxer on the scorecards for doing too well.

Right, I am saying that just one or two people scoring a round incorrectly, makes the round disputed on here which makes the scoring seem more complicated than it actually is. In Canelo vs. Lara I think you have to give Canelo 4 and 7-9 while you have to give Lara 1-3, 10-11 which leaves 5, 6 and 12 as swing rounds. In Golovkin vs. Canelo I think you have to give Golovkin 4-9 while you have to give Canelo 2, 3 and 12 which leaves 1, 10-11 as swing rounds. Not a whole lot of margin either way in each fight. There were certainly one sided rounds in each fight. That is why Martinez 117-111 and Byrd 118-110 is ridiculous, even if Martinez and Byrd like Canelo's style they have to acknowledge the effectiveness of the other opponent when it is more effective.

In actuality, when people believe something strongly at first and they are shouted down, they are more likely to entrench further into their opinion than to change their mind. That is what I am saying with why Bradley thinks he won the first bout even though he didn't.

That's not true, you can find 9 rounds for Vargas, you cannot find 7 rounds for Bradley. Also that goes back to the point of that finding the right winner being more important than the actual scorecard margin itself. There is a much better argument for Vargas winning than Broner.

So even if we posit that is true, why would I go completely counter to that in my prediction for what would be next for Loma in my Loma vs. Linares prediction? That wouldn't make any sense. Yet again, there is no way I would ever predict against an in-house fight at Top Rank.

He wasn't a three weight world champion lol, he was a three time champion at Super Featherweight. Other than beating a shot Orlando Salido, I don't think Martinez ever beat a former, current, or future champion, yet he was able to win a title three times. That shows how bad his title reigns actually were. He got a flash knockdown on Garcia who got up and tooled him. This is like arguing that Sven Ottke had a good title reign because it looks good on paper. Crawford has Gamboa and Indongo, Garcia has JuanMa and Zlaticanin. Neither Crawford or Garcia are huge power punchers, but they have a good punch, certainly more than Lomachenko. To say Martinez is very durable, well he never faced anyone worth a damn really other than Garcia and Lomachenko who both knocked him out, so I'm not sure you can come to that conclusion. He is also fighting Beltran at Beltran's natural weight class, two weight classes above what Lomachenko started at. I don't agree that Beltran has had a very taxing career, but we will have to wait and see what happens.

Right but there is a point where you have to have a baseline of natural power to get the job done, at Lightweight I think that is questionable for Lomachenko and I definitely don't think he will have it at Super Lightweight. I'm sure Paulie had plenty of times where if he had even average power he would have hurt or knocked down opponents but he had absolutely no power so he wasn't able to do that. Pacquiao is actually a good example of someone with a somewhat similar style to Lomachenko, having a high punch output, keeping the pressure on, using a lot of movement, but Pacquiao had a lot of natural power which Lomachenko doesn't.

Well we will just have to wait and see, we can argue in circles and get nowhere but I don't think that is a good use of time.

Gold's picture

Yeah, I agree, I would rather just discuss the scoring rather than anything else, we aren't going to agree on the other points.

If someone is having trouble scoring the rounds because they are that close they should split who they give the rounds to, we agree on that. In your first example I would agree, if someone wins all eight rounds they should be awarded all eight.

Yeah, Mayweather and Canelo as well. That is just an example of how a fight can be close and one boxer steals the rounds by doing just a little more with good work at the end which can lead to lopsided cards.

You can argue that to a point, but a good example of this actually happened recently that underlines my point. Someone put in a scorecard of Lomachenko beating Salido 9-3 which is simply an invalid scorecard, I don't believe someone can look at that fight objectively and score less than five rounds to Salido. That skews the round score average on EOTR. Hurd vs. Lara had some rounds that were really tough to score to be fair and a definitive stylistic divide, no one put in what I would consider a bad scorecard here or at the judge's table.

We will just have to agree to disagree, I don't think either of the fights is hard to score and I disagree with saying those rounds were debatable but there is no way we can come to a conclusive result one way or the other. Levi Martinez did more than just give the close rounds to Alvarez, he scored rounds that Canelo shouldn't have won like 10 and 11 to Canelo after scoring many consecutive rounds to Canelo. Canelo and Lara both more than three definitive rounds, but we will just have to agree to disagree.

It isn't an excuse, if you don't believe me you can look it up yourself, someone becoming more entrenched in views after receiving a harsh response is very common. He won the first fight by SD because CJ Ross and Duane Ford were the judges. Chuck Giampa scored the fight 118-110 for Pacquiao. When the WBO reviewed the bout all five judges scored it for Pacquiao. The only reason Ross and Ford were given that job is because of the corrupt Nevada State Athletic Commission.

When Broner does absolutely nothing, throwing and landing less, it is very hard for me to score rounds to him. Throwing flashy counters only goes so far when he gets outworked for the majority of the round. Vargas should have got the decision certainly. You can look it up yourself instead of making objectively false statements such as saying Bradley outlanded or was close to Pacquiao's punch output. Pacquiao outworked Bradley for the vast majority of the fight, the only rounds Bradley won were 10 and 12. There is a reason no one other than you, Tim Bradley, CJ Ross and Duane Ford think he won, because he didn't.

If you didn't delete the comments you could prove me wrong but you can't, I have proof of me saying otherwise before Loma and Beltran was discussed publically. It was a super obvious potential outcome.

Salido really was a shot fighter after beating Lomachenko, not sure why you would even debate that. Using the same logic, maybe we should all respect Sven Ottke for his achievements in winning so many title fights.

If Lomachenko has such great power, how come he has had such difficulty stopping and/or dropping overmatched opponents in the past? There is a reason guys like Sosa and Marriaga quit on their stools, they are overwhelmed by the volume but Lomachenko doesn't have the power to stop them.

Lomachenko will definitely not outweigh Beltran in the ring.

He has good technique which can be enough to stop some guys at Lightweight through body attacks or cuts, but he is going to have a really tough time stopping anyone with head shots. Martinez is terrible compared to his resume in isolation. He got chinned by Garcia, what are you talking about. Salido was an old man.

Right, setting guys up is the only way Lomachenko will get KO's at Lightweight, he isn't a big puncher as you said. Power certainly plays a larger factor than you are giving it credit for, if someone like George Foreman or Matthew Saad Muhammad hit their opponent, it didn't matter that they didn't have Lomachenko's technique because they were going to hurt their opponent even if they didn't connect with the best punch possible. Saying Lomachenko is better at setting up opponents than Pacquiao is objectively false, flooring Hatton and sparking him cold was all technique and punch placement, flooring Cotto twice and stopping him was all technique and punch placement. Pacquiao was way out of his natural weight range, if Lomachenko faced someone with the resume of Hatton and Cotto going up in weight they would be the best opponents Lomachenko had faced.

Gold's picture

Seferi has a really padded record and fought the majority of his bouts at Cruiserweight but its better than Zumbano Love I suppose. What do you think?

Gold's picture

Yeah, Rudenko would have been better in my estimation as well. Theoretically he can punch, he has twenty-one knockouts in twenty-three fights, I've never watched him but the level of opposition he has faced is extremely low. Other than Charr who he lost to, I don't recognize any of his opponents. I am sure Seferi was examined and chosen intentionally by Warren to give Fury some rounds but not much trouble. I agree that Seferi will put up more of a spirited fight than Love though and if he made it ten rounds with Charr he will be able to give Fury at least a few rounds coming off such a long layoff.

Gold's picture

Lemieux was the mandatory, but yeah I agree in general. Tyson Fury was never going to sign with Eddie Hearn given their previous conflicts and the fact that he'd be playing second fiddle to AJ. Guys like Dubois and Yarde need rounds but beating absolute bums does very little after the early development stages. Worse of all is guys like Terry Flanagan who have beat absolutely nobody holding titles hostage and getting vacant title shots. How the hell is Flanagan versus Maurice Hooker sanctioned for a world title? And of course if Flanagan wins he will face Catterall which essentially makes the WBO world title a domestic level title. Hearn is good and he has a lot of monetary backing with the DAZN deal, I wouldn't be surprised if he made a lot of high profile signings with the increased budget, but I feel like a lot of his fighters don't get a lot of promotional push because the focus is mostly on AJ. I personally think Top Rank is the best promotion at the moment, they can both build fighters up and promote them on a top level.

Gold's picture

I agree and those abilities took him a long way. Perhaps Canelo should go vegan :)

Champion97's picture

Well he'd like the sound of it until you explained that he would have to fight fair, and then that would break the deal, I used to be a fan of Canelo, now I'm not, at all!

SalTnutZ1's picture

I used to like the kid, too. It is sort of like Michael Vick. I was a huge fan, but I also rescue animals, so when his story broke, I didn't need to know anymore about the guy, I was done with him. In sports where someone can get seriously injured, like any combat sport, or American Football, PEDs should be a one and done. Too much on the line in my opinion. IN games like Soccer(football), Basketball, or Baseball, I don't care as much, because the guys are only building stats and many of the drugs are used to stay healthy and on the field/court. No one is getting hurt physically due to another's drug use in those sports.

Champion97's picture

If you don't mind me asking, what is it you exactly do in Animal Care?

SalTnutZ1's picture

My family and I have long fostered animals in need of shelter and donated time/money to shelters, but many shelters here are kill shelters...Most now aren't, like the ASPCA, but also are inundated with animals, so they need help with space, donations, and people volunteering for things like TNR programs for feral cats and such. That is mainly what we do, when resources allow it. That is what made the Vick thing so much more real, when you've taken in abused animals. But I digress...Mainly, I understand what it feels like to be a fan of a guy, then have him do something so beyond the pale that you can't forgive it.

Gold's picture

That are current boxers? At a pound for pound level, Crawford, Mikey Garcia, Inoue, Spence. On a "prospect"/younger champion level Benavidez, Prograis. There are also established guys that aren't quite pound for pound I think are good of course, guys like Bivol, Jermall Charlo, Hurd, etc. I may have forgot some though.