Timothy Bradley vs Ruslan Provodnikov Scorecard by Gold

scorecard by GOLD



Timothy Bradley

Ruslan Provodnikov

We do need help growing, please share:


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.

Champion97's picture

Had the Pacquiao fight a draw, but I think he lost the last two.

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.

Champion97's picture

Terrible commentary from Lederman, Lampley etc, Showtime is much, much better, "three lefts down the pipe from Pacquiao", at the end of round one, dear me, two definitely missed, that is an exmaple. Bradley calmly admits he lost the second and third fights, so if he thought he lost the first, why not admit that as well?, obviously, not saying that means he won, but I am saying that that takes away the 'even the other guy knows he lost'.

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.

Champion97's picture

I think Lederman is overrated. Well, 119-109 Pacquiao, Mayweather losing to Castillo wide, Kovalev beating Ward 8-4. Well that's your opinion, and in mine, that is what you have been lead to believe, here is my strong opinion which I understand I have a less than 1% chance of convincing you to share, that is that Steve Farhood is far, far better at covering boxing than that joker Lederman, Kellerman, Lampley, those fools, are not half the pundit Malignaggi and Bernstein are! I stand by this, Malignaggi is the best analyst on the planet! That's his accent and voice tone, haha, come on man, let's keep this mature. When's he ever been biased? He has always had a grudge against Canelo, because he knew all this time he was unclean, not like us, not learning of it until recently. In my opinion, Malignaggi and Bernstein do not do that at all! I know exactly what you mean, but no, for me, they stick to the fight, without fixating too much on small details, they give you a bit of background breakdown, but they don't sidetrack. Paulie Malignaggi, Tony Bellew, two people I have learned a lot about boxing from listening to! I disagree again, he keeps it respectful, is a nice guy, knows boxing, but he is no mug, Kellerman, I don't like him, and whilst a respect him as a person more after finding out about his past, it doesn't change my opinion on him as a pundit. Again, disagree! My opinion, your opinion, that's it.

Don't try to excuse this one away like with the Pacquiao vs Horn thing, this is simple, it isn't complicated!
No the concensus is that the second was much closer than the first, it wasn't, but your man Lederman had it 8-4 second time, 11-1 first time. What I'm getting at is, given that the word of mouth is that the second was the closest and the first might have been the most one sided (certainly according to big old Harold), he wouldn't look any worse for saying he won any of the three fights, than for saying he won the first, I'm saying, he maintains he won the first, admits he lost the other two!, at the very least, the "even the guy thought he lost" thing is not a card the biased people can play anymore!

I think we can agree on one thing, Julie Lederman is poor, 7-5 for Porter against Alexander, Chaves beating Bradley 8-4!

BTW, with all due respect, when you corrected me by flat out ruling out the idea of Lomachenko vs Beltran, you may have been off, because there are serious talks of it now, and Inthink that is a good match!

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.

Champion97's picture

Well I say 3 miles isn't a long way to run, someone else says it is, this is just dispute, because I'll tell you now, based on 7 years following boxing, learning about how to score a fight, those 3 scores are all wrong! I don't have any objective evidence, but I stand by that 100% 4 rounds conclusively? What is conclusively in terms of it being unanimous, that isn't quantified, and neither is the business about close rounds, because in most 12 round fight, 8, 9, even 10 rounds are heavily disputed, but you don't see a good judge giving every round to one fighter. It isn't about criteria and outright reason for scoring, but ask yourself if there was enough aggression from these fighters, enough activity, what I'm saying is, if I land the best shot of the round, it is the only shot I land, you land far, far more, I am the more aggressive, but I don't hurt you, I don't win the round, if I landed more than that but fewer, it's subjective, says who?, says me, those 3 scores are legitimate for these sort of reasons, says you, there is no secret book we haven't read yet which gives us an ironed on right or wrong answer, if there is one thing I've learned in boxing, it is that.

Oh I know, so has Adalaide Byrd, C.J. Ross did her fair share!

No no, 'experience', I mean, I don't know how old you are, but you admitted Teddy Atlas was a moron, you said the same thing about Angel, they may have been following boxing for longer than you, I mean, this is what Skip Bayless says to defend himself and his comedy, bec0he is either mentally ill, or a comedian, obviously! 30 years of sitting around being worshiped for so called knowledge and being backed up by yes men, is less valuable than 10 years listening, learning, Adam Smith as well, over here, he is a good example, he knows his stuff, because he has learned from Johnny Nelson and Carl Froch about boxing, Lederman is a phoney!

"Do you actually think the way people talk in a medium where talking is the way of conveying information doesn't matter?", I don't understand the question, sorry, too illiterate, haha.

Paulie tells it like it is, he is brutally honest, he cares about the well being of the sport and it's competitors, he had plenty of potential evidence to back up the Pacquiao theory, and let's be fair, does he sit at commentary desks saying that stuff on air?, no, it was always accessible to us on YouTube, not on TV, Malignaggi is not biased, he is brutally honest! Pet what go? McGregor called Paulie out, and Paulie showed more stones than that pussy McGregor ever could! Went to his gym unarmed, no back up! Toughed it out, probably whopped McGregor, but here is the point, I have no idea what you mean by "Getting mad about McGregor when he is going to cover him because he is too prideful to let it go is unprofessional", again, behind the cameras, that is the point of having those videos, they are all about stuff like that. During MayMac, was Paulie biased?, no he wasn't, not at all, he is not unprofessional at all! I disagree, they inform you on the fighters, I've seen a lot of it, and I think HBO talk about every single detail, often takk about stuff that is meaningless, "trying to describe every punch like ot is radio", Showtime talk tactics!, Showtime talk about what is happening in the fight, but what adjustments the fighters should make! I don't understand exactly what your criticism is here.

Nope, draw for me, could have gone either way! To say it was a clear Pac win is wrong, says me, but we will not agree. No, 11-1 is way off! They do, not many, but there are around. You are out of order saying that, and Kellermen was way, way out of line laughing at him, you are not getting the point! He admits he oost the second fight! If the first fight was what you and many others insist it was, why does he admit he lost the second?!! Don't criticise Bradley for saying he won, because that is his 100% right! Could still do it, but ok, haha, if the first fight was as kne sided as you say and Brad can think he won, surely he could think he won 8-4 third time, certain 7-5, so maybe a draw or he thought hs won, but the point is, don't use the KDs to sidetrack and make it harder for me to make my point. This is irrelevant, what I'm saying on that is, without sidetracking, Bradley admits he lost 2 and 3, but not 1, and you cannot think of an explanation to throw back at me, but I know the answer! This is not about people who are biased for Bradley, this is about Bradley himself admitting he lost 2 and 3, but maintaining he won 1. Jerry Roth and Duane Ford knew what time it was! They got it right! Pacquiao hype is irritating, just like with the Horn fight, he lost to Bradley, and he lost to Horn, if you don't believe me, look at their records.

Haha, nah, she stinks! When?, scores you disagree with, now you are doing the opposite of exaggerate, the examples I gave you were terrible.

Not what I remember, you tried to give me a schooling on the business aspect of boxing, yoh definitely said something along the lines of it being unrealistic and a sign of my lack of knowledge on that subject. I think at his age, with all the wear and tear, Beltran might not last 12 against Lomachenko, Lomachenko can do damage, I could definitely see him stopping him. I hope Beltran is not on drugs, but many people who know a lot say he might be, crying shame!

On a more positive note, Canelo has agreed to VADA.

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.

Champion97's picture

'but I interpreted that you said people like Lampley and Lederman were bad in an objective way'
I criticise them as forcefully as you criticise Paulie. This is the point, that is by your reckoning, and roughly, that is bound to be about right, but someone will either correct you or think they are regarding some of those rounds. One thing I've learned from following boxing is not to fixate on this like that and don't categorise each round, and also, don't criticise me for giving Broner round 1 against Vargas, don't criticise Trella for giving Canelo round 7 against GGG, because that is nitpicking, and it is not constructive at all, and also, you gave GGG round 12, well that is as unpopular as the other two examples, you can have it one way or the other.

You and the word 'certainly'
No the fight should not be scored 115-111! Just like in boxing, boxers have more of a right than you or I to talk about the dealing of drugs, I have a valid argument Crawford should have stayed at 140, and Canelo should be banned for life, and last but not least, Joshua is not on drugs.

I'm sorry, what?, I can't believe you think that, look, just look around you, evefy 12 round fight, hiw many unanimous rounds? Mayweather vs Pacquiao, Joshua vs Parker, go on, have a look. For Joshua vs Parker for example, there are no unanimous rounds, and at least 7, probably 8 or 9, are heavily disputed, this happens in every fight! That is a different topic, but here are two things, first, you do not see close shutouts, because a fighter who can make a round genuinely close, can win a good 4 rounds, also close round? Debatable? Just narrow? Mayweather won narrow rounds against Canelo, most were his, because he nullified the argument that Canelo won the round in question. Here is the difference between my scoring and pity scoring, pity scoring extends to giving a fighter a round for missed punches and toughness, just general aggression even if it is just the other guy taking a rest, I try to give a guy a round if I haven't given him a close round already, and that 100% makes the scoring more fair, understand? Because Mickey Bey 119-109 over Vazquez, 115-113 Canelo over GGG, round by round, they got a case, bjt giving every close round to one fighter, that's bias, that's extra motivation on one side. If you give the benefit of the doubt to the fighter who is losing, it makes the points much more meaningful, now, of course, the scoring still has to be valid, but in a classic lands more, other guy lands better, close, 50/50 round, there is no conclusive winner. What do you mean about 10-7s?

He does not, he is just a celebrity, he is not what he is made out to be! Became old and senile, he has always been like this! Well, good trainer, mouthy, a bit of a prick, yep, a moron, no. He is not! He is better to learn from than you ir I will ever be, because he has been there, seen it, done it, he does great with fight breakdowns!! No no no, what is it with some of you Americans? If the round is even, the round is even, it is in rounds where there is no right answer, scoring it even is just accepting it is a stalemate rather than making up your mind, and even if he isn't the best judge himself, he knows boxing inside and out, better than we ever will! scoring it live as well, multi tasking, not easy, man, know where you stand!

Yes, and Showtime do not do that! You could find something to complain abput in a 5 star hotel.... :) so he isn't a good commentator because of his accent.. They know basically as kuch as each ither, but this is the point! Malignaggi does that better than anyone!! I've learned so much from listening to him talk, and you could learn a lot from him too if you listen, during fights, he educates you brilliantly! For being an analyst, Paulie is the man!

Paulie had a theory, he was asked, he gave an answer, lighten up, and I'm sorry if Paulie upset you, well guess what?, drugs in boxing is something I get upset about! With all due respect, you are not Paulie, you don't have his inside knowledge, the evidence is not the sams either! That's behind the scenes, you don't have to look at that, on air, at tne commentary table, he keeps it professional! Are you serious? It is so stupid I don't even know hiw to respond, course there was! Never seen it get so personal behind the cameras between a commentator and fighter, after all the beef, course there was reason to be biased against that fucker! Creates his own narrative, no he doesn't, he tells the truth, tells it like it is, uses his experience, explains his opinion, he explained what the problem was eith the stoppage, but no amount of explaining can trump your stubbornness.

You are not psycho analysing this simple fact to try to dispute the outright fact I gave you, Bradley says he won 1, but not 2, not 3, no harder for him to admit he lost a fight everyone says is wider than to admit the others. There is! HBO go mad for Pacquiao and get over exited. Hey, I do the same for Pacquiao, I only say he lost two fights he lost! Look at his record, he lost, 'level appropriately', no I give Pacquiao, assive credit for his success in boxing, his wins over Cotto, Barrera, Morales etc. We agree, but where is the incomp and corrupt? that's what you are flawed on.

Once more, Manny Pacquiao lost to Bradley, SD, then beat him twice, UD, he DID lose to Horn, UD!! Did not beat Bradley in 2012, did not beat Horn!

Corruption, is Helenuis vs Chisora, Sturm vs Macklin, Holyfield vs Lewis!

I could say the same about Ross, two famously terrible cards from her, I just gave you three exaplmes from Julie, what's the difference here?, I know, you've made up your mind, and you won't accept I'm right on anything.

If I didn't think you were going to belittle a great promoter who went to Harvard and has more boxing experience than your pal Lederman, I would say that Bob Arum says Horn is at a bigger weight advantage against Crawford than Linares was at against Lomachenko!

Now that's not what happened, you got high and mighty with your head for business, and you talked down my idea of the fight, you were wrong, but that's fine, doesn't mean you don't have a lot of knowledge, you have much more knowledge than me on boxing history, and business, everything else in boxing, is a different story.

Lomachenko has a lot of power, but more importantly, he can set you up, he times you, catches you cold, look at what he did to Martinez, Beltran is not young ans fresh, you telling me you couldn't see Lomachenko setting him up? Sometimes it isn't the simply hardest punches, it is the shots that are particularly well executed, it is the shots you don't see coming that really hurt.

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.

Champion97's picture

I don't know about you, but I'm absolutely pigsick of all this, later, I will send a short reply, answering a few questions, the only questions I haven't answered or are constructive in any way.

Champion97's picture

At least you aren't a hypocrite, that is what I'm getting at. The point is, don't fixate on one round, you cannot simplify it like that and categorise it as clear, debatable for each round, well, you can, but I've learned how pointless it is.

In a fight that could go either way, never score more than a 2 point margin unless it is a 7-5 with a knockdown, in that case, 3, but no, 2 or less is a narrow margin, 4 points is quite wide, 'well no because that is just round by round, I can score it how I want, close fight because all the rounds were close, I just kept edging one fighter because I kept preferring his work', well, haha, Levi Martinez (Canelo vs Lara), Stanley Christodoulou (Canelo vs Trout), Ian Scott (Joshua vs Parker) could use that as defence for them scoring wide margins in close fights. Be fair with your scoring, and submit a score you feel represents the fight, now, that is round by round, obviously, Maidana won the two most one sided out of the 24 rounds against Mayweather (5, 1st, ans 4, 2nd), but how well he did within these rounds has no affact on the other rounds, or the scoring for the reason of the basic scoring system, however, keeping disallowing a judge from justifiably giving the other guy the round, winning narrow, but clear rounds, that is not the same as a judge genuinely struggling to score the rounds, seeing how either could win, and giving them all to one fighter, because that is using the subjectivity of the sport as a weapon against a fighter, and that is not right!

Knows too much about the sport for your liking.

No, I didn't say he might do it, he had already made his decision, I expressed a humble and justified opinion, that 140, and 47 were good options, but 140 was slightly better, and he should have (PAST TENSE) stayed at LWW/SLW and you responded by telling me I was "certainly" wrong. Again, I said a convicted drug cheat shkuld be banned for life, and you came at me with your 'certainly', and when I tried to back myself up by telling you exactly who and hiw many agree with me, you basically started saying that even from a moral point of view, boxers aren't at analysing and shouldn't have their opinions on it taken any more seriously than a man on the street, complete bullcrap.

"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". Every round on here is disputed!

"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". Every round is disputed.

You want to waste time picking at my examples, dear me. Thurman vs Porter, Thurman vs Garcia, Garcia vs Herrera, random examples, most rounds are disputed, you are not being constructive with your argument.

No, it is not pity scoring, it is called being fair, scoring it legitimately, and it is what prevents wide cards, here is the difference, when you have given say 3 close rounds (close means could go either way in this context) to a fighter, you have already given him the benefit of the doubt, trying to give a fighter a round, AS LONG AS it is one of those where you can score it 50/50 each way, all you are doing is giving him the benfit of the doubt, to keep it fair, pity scoring would be giving a fighter a round because you feel sorry for them, not because you genuinely believe the fighter has worked to win the in doubt rounds, do you understand the difference?

No that's fair enough, Floyd Mayweather Jr doesn't agree with scoring 10-6, you can on here, I score them, but don't try to tale charge of the sport, everything you are saying is only an opinion.

The disagreement here, is close rounds, we will get nowhere until we are unanimous on that! That is crucial, because by your logic, it would be much more simple, but, again, most rounds on here are well split, Canelo vs Golovkin, 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, ok, that's 5, somewhere in the middle, let's try Canelo vs Lara, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, that's 6. Understand that in these fights, most rounds are disputed, some are 50/50 rounds, some see things and make interestimg points others don't, like Thurman vs Porter round 9, Lara vs Hard round 2, 90-100% disagreeed with 2 judges, but no, understand what I'm saying here.

Just give up on the Paulie thing, I can't even take it seriously anymore, admit he is a great analyst, or don't, but none of this crap is going to make me take your ridiculous argument on that any more seriously.

Stop talking waffle and making a simple detail so complicated, it is ridiculous!!! Bradley beat Marquez as well, one of the most honest athletes out there! If he thought he woukd have lost the first fight, he would say so, just stop looking for excuses to avoid the fact that not 100% valid points are made by you!

'The incompetence and corruption is in decisions like Bradley and Horn.'
I'm sorry that's wrong, thanks for playing :)

Thank your lucky starts I deleted it, because we both know what your point was, you looked like you were giving a kod a schooling amd tearing down his analysis, when really, there was nothing wrong with it.

There you go, when you said to me "Crawford is not at a weight disadvantage", you were wrong.

Winging and whining, Martinez was solid, that was some KO, you are nitpicking and looking at things which are not important, Lomachenko could spark Beltran, just like he did Martinez! Beltran is older than Martinez, more run down, and just as prone to being caught cold, you are arguing because you want to feel like some kind of superior mind, doesn't mean you are right.

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.

Champion97's picture

I'm done with these arguments, they raise my stress levels like no tomorrow, I will shorten my reply.
I will add the fight you asked for, shortly.

One thing I'll say on that, is that a judge's instinct, is to look slightly towards giving in doubt rounds to a fighter they haven't favoured already, and you can't simplify every round, look at Thurman vs Porter, the rounds were jumbled, same final scores. No a two point margin either way in a close fight, for sure, everyone gets upset with 117-111, 116-112 is a bif off as well.

I do do that as well, and in all actuality, if the rounds are that close, and the rounds are that tough to score, isn't it very likely that they will win a similar amount of rounds? That might explain why we differ so strongly on methods and routes to scores, but look at our scorecards, not too different are they?

He is the best broadcaster and someone I've learned a lot from listening to speak, you can think he's the worst thing since sliced bread, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you think you are changing mine, you're wrong.

Who says? Some fights have few swing rounds, but I'm confident even that fight has more than 2, I think you are trying to mathematically sum up parts of the sport which you just can't really. Yes, exactly, and look on here, how many have it wider than 2 points either way? Not many, for the reasons I've explained.

Ok, but I agree on that, if Canelo did a bit better in the 6th than the first 5 against Mayweather, and he looks like he is going to cry, sorry, but Mayweather still 'objectively' as you say, won the round by winning in every department or not letting Canelo win in any departments. We cannot get anywhere with this discussion until you acknowledge the amount of highly disputed rounds there are in some fights.

DeGale vs Jack post fight press conference, 'Don't tell me how boxing works, I'm the best, my whole life, all I did was eat, sleep, shit, box, like I was saying, you can score a 10-8, 7 round, but it don't go no lower', is basically what he said.

Tell me which of the 5 or 6 rounds in those fights had a clear winner? I'm not, I'm telling you, every fight is hard to score to some degree, just because the margins don't vary so much, doesn't mean the rounds are unanimous, this is a fact, look on here, or somewhere else with a bunch official or unofficial scorecards, and show me how many unanimous rounds you find. Most fights have at least 2 definitive rounds, thise fights had 6 or 7, but that is very different to what you said yesterday about there only being a couple of close rounds in most fights, that was way off. Canelo vs Lara was very hard to score, and Canelo vs Golovkin was not easy, there were no one sided rounds, even the narrow but decisive ones, to know that, you had to pay attention, be realistic.

I know, and once again, Paulie is great at explaining himself.

How's this for it? He nearly killed himself, same Pacquiao fans (who I am NOT comparing to you despite the Pacquiao bias from you) threaten to kill Jeff Horn and his family on twitter, pussy, coward skumbags!!!!!
How relevant is that? It isn't, it would be easier to argue for my point that yours, because if anything, with all the backlash, all the harder it would have been to stick to his belief he won the fight. I don't know why we are talking about this, this is what you do, you make stuff up, make something out of nothing to try to excuse a valid point I make, it's silly.

99% of people out there didn't score Broner only 3 rounds in the Vargas fight, we can all do that!

No no, I remember it, you definitely said something like that, I got annoyed, you responded, "don't get mad just because I understand the business aspect of the sport", me getting mad was wanting you to leave me to write my own analyses, without incorrectly trying to invalidate my points.

Beltran is bigger, granted, ok.
On the other hand, who are you to say that? He was a 3 weight world champion, that is a fact!
How do you know a knockout wasn't coming against guys who felt such little control they were driven to quit?
Martinez is teak tough, good fighter, did great against Salido, dropped Mikey Garvia, stop exaggerating and emphasising because you want to be right.
Ok, it is solitary, but that was a special KO, and you can look at it from that negative angle regarding any fighter, how many "highlight Kos' from Crawford?, even Mikey Garcia?, knockouts like that do not come every fight, your lack of realism is ridiculous!
When fighters get older, when they have a lot of miles, they become more fragile, their resistance goes, now, Beltran is very old, he has had a taxing career, look atbthe war he was just in, Beltran, with his style, and inabilites, you think Lomachenko couldn't set him up?, catch him cold?, with a beautifully timed shot?, I'm telling you now, he could, I'm not saying it is 90% going to be the way the fight ends if it happens, I'm saying, given that Lomachenko did that against Martinez, a guy who is very durable, surely you should consider that he could now (as an improved and more matured fighter) do the same against Beltran, who is just as if not more prone to being caught with a big set up and counter, who is old, who has been hurt before on the way in, and you try to rule that out and argue away the strong possibility that the fight could turn out that way, unbelievable.

About their styles, I understand that, they are both better at breaking guys down with accumulation, relentless precision, spiteful offence, pain inflcition that forceful, explosive finishes, for a number of reasons, but, they can still produce highlight KOs, when you have their styles and abilities, you can set guys up, catch them cold, and get a highlight KO with enough raw power, perfect timing, making your opponent vulnerable, just because it doesn't happen often and a lot of opponents have jumped before they were pushed, don't think that Lomachenko can't do to a fighter like Beltran, what he already did against Roman Martinez a couple of years back.

Crawford is at a weight disadvantage against Horn.

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.

Champion97's picture

No problem! I don't like beef and animosity, we're not going to agree on this, I'll send the odd one or two more, and I'll gladly have discussions with you on other topics.

I'm not disputing that for a second, but you have to look at the degree of subjectivity in your everyday fight. Here's the difference, you give a guy 8/8 rounds, in a fight that isn't outright one sided to the eye, and at the end of every round you say 'I want to give gne other guy an in dount round for his effort, but I can't, because in no rounds has he landed more, landed better etc', but that is different to giving a fighter 8/8 rounds, and keeping seriously struggling to split them, almost scoring 10-10s, and giving all the in doubt rounds to the same fighter, and don't go round in circles, because in certain rounds, there is not a right answer, and you can't factualise even the unanimous rounds.

Mayweather as well, Canelo tries too, it is smart, and hey, if a fighter steals the round with a late flurry, then they deserve the round, and if they do this in 4 rounds, they could win one sided, that doesn't go against my style of scoring.

Actually, Mayweather vs Canelo was a perfect example, because you didn't understand my point, I was using that as an example for the other scenario, e.g. that was a fight with narrow but clear rounds, different to fights packed with genuinely arguable rounds.

Ok, well that's why Joshua vs Parker, Mayweather vs Maidana, more, has not one single one sided round, sometimes you do get it wrong (and either one of us can be wrong as well), but there are many, many, which are highly disputed, 70/30 or closer, so you can't use the odd mistake as evidence of your argument. Also, don't assume that just because an EOTR scorer is outnumbered, that they are wrong, you might have been wrong and missed something when you watched the round, but to elaborate, Hurd vs Lara, I gave Hurd round 2, well 90% of EOTR scorers gave it to Lara, including you, well PBC, and two judges gave Hurd the round too, but we're wrong because you say so? What qualification, authority do you have over people who didn't perceive a round the way you did? Which one of us is wrong? Man, just accept that there are a lot of subjectuve rounds in boxing.

You're saying there are just 3?, no 2, 9, 11, also very close, could have gone either way, 9 was just 50/50 split, 2 and 11, given to one fighter by most, but given to another by very, very expensive analysts, come to think of it, Barry Jones (best pundit in the UK in my opinion), gave Lara round 7, that was a very hard fight to score!
Again, no, 3, 6, they were very debatable! And that is just by my reckoning, you admitted you screwed up round 12, fair play, but others who know as much if not more than you and me, might argue that the fight was even more subjective than 5 swing rounds.
Very few one sided rounds in each fight!
You are proving my point! Levi Martinez gave all the close rounds to Alvarez, that is why it is a bad card to me, Lara didn't win any more than 3 individual rounds, but you don't instinctively want to lean towards a fighter who you have already given the benefit of the doubt to without bias, you say, well that is favouring one fighter, well you would had to have favoured the other fighter beforehand, you have to give the benefit of the doubt to someone in a round that close if you do not want to score an even round.

Ok therapist, haha, yeah no, not buying that, you dig like crazy for excuses on everything, just leave it be man, he won the fight by SD, lost the other two by UD.

Sorry, but that is not right, you are wrong, you cannot make it your game, do everything your way, so if someone else scores a card that is a bit of a shocker, sure you'll deem them wrong, but if it is you, different story, that's hypocrisy. Broner vs Vargas was a draw, very fair result, Vargas knows he didn't win 9 rounds, Broner is wrong thinking he got robbed, but if someone had given him just 3 rounds, with the way he boxed and fought in the mid-late rounds, man, he would have every right to make a fuss. Vargas did not win 9-3! Bradley beat Pacquiao, Bradley probably outlanded him or close to it, the first 2 rounds were very close, so was the 6th, Bradley clearly got the better of the last 3 rounds. Bradley beat Pacquiao the first time, what a career achievement he never got credit for!

You wanted to have that sense of superiority, and now you know you were wrong, you really want me to pretend you didn't say it, haha, ok.

I've had enough of all this nitpicking, winging and whining.
Look, you could have a good old winge and whine about anyone or anything in boxing, you are finding stuff to criticise on because you are looking for it.
Roman Martinez was a 3 time world champion, show the man some respect, he was tough as nails, beat Salido!, Martinez was teak tough, and for Lomachenko to knock him out like that was impressive, but but, Martinez is shot, so is Beltran! Still achieved, still beat tough opponents, defended, did great even in losing. Give Lomachenko credit for that knockout!

I'm sorry but you are talking nonsense there, he took a lot of hard shots from Mikey Garcia who hits very, very hard, he had had a gruelling career! Just admit I'm right when I say there is a chance Lomachenko could spaek Beltran, my argument is far more realistic, valid than yours, because you are nitpicking instead of just responding 'ok, good point', you are making no sense.

Oh yeah you agree on that now, but Lomachenko might have outweighed Beltran for ring weights :)

My argument is that Lomachenko is close enough to being a lightweight, he hits hard enough, has enough method, timing, precision, to set up an opponent as old and easy to trap as Beltran, catch him cold, like he did to Martinez (who proved to have a good chin against Garcia, beat Salido), scramble his senses, and spark him, now, that makes a lot more sense and is more realistic than just absolutely tearing into the guy who Lomachenko knocked out, especially after I acknowledged that because of the weight, way the fight might unfold, (and it depends on a couple of other things), Beltran could definitely do 12, but do not deem it highly unlikely that Lomachenko will spark him, don't use Roman Martinez as a punching bag to try to argue away and destroy the prediction that Lomachenko would knock him out cold!

Yes, and Lomachenko has enough power, there is no lack of power, just not a big puncher, getting knockouts like that, understand, are more about setting up your opponent, it os the ones that you don't see coming that hurt you the most. Lomachenko is better atseeting guys up than Pacquiao, this is what I', saying, the perfect, textbook KO, at a high level, is just as much about how you make the opponent vulnerable and catching them cold as it about power.

Mikey Garcia - Zlaticanan
Froch - Groves

More about the set up than the power, and Lomachenko has enough power even at 135, and as he adapts, he will carry more of his natural power

Champion97's picture

Bradley lacked in a lot of aspects at the top, but his toughness was incredible, his stamina, his output, nothing short of phenomenal. I think more boxers should eat vegan, very good athleticism wise.

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.

Champion97's picture

Who were/are you high on? Honest question, just interested because you are a critic.

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.