Rocky Fielding vs Saul Alvarez Scorecard by Gold


scorecard by GOLD
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ROCKY FIELDING
8
8
16
SAUL ALVAREZ
10
10
20

Fight:



More:

Rocky Fielding

Saul Alvarez



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Gold's picture

Not surprising, Rocky Fielding is who we thought he was, a domestic level fighter. Canelo made it entertaining for a showcase fight, didn't take damage, and got an easy payday.

Champion97's picture

This is how I think Alvarez vs Jacobs will play out.

I think this will be a very competitive fight, I think in the first couple of rounds, Alvarez will be patient, will apply educated pressure, Jacobs will land power shots off the back foot, in variety. I think in the early-mid rounds, Alvarez will walk Jacobs down, and attack in spurts, at the right times, attack the body predominantly, and Jacobs will struggle to land clean, Alvarez will slip the shots well, and land the heavier shots. I think in the middle rounds, Jacobs will try to impose his natural size, turn Alvarez when he attacks, try to put him on the ropes, and if he does that, he won't take the bait when Alvarez is trying to set him up, will stay focused, and attack Alvarez if an opening is there, Alvarez will slip and counter, but if one of them lands clean with a big shot, they will start to gunsling, and it will be entertaining for the fans.

I think in the mid-late rounds, Jacobs will box going backwards, but he will attack in variety, won't go back in straight lines, Alvarez will struggle to pin him down, but will walk through everything he is hit with, cut off the ring well, and at the right time, let 4 or 5 shots go, attack from body to head, but Jacobs will keep moving. I think in the late rounds, both will be struggling for pace, but Alvarez more so, and Jacobs will finish slightly stronger, won't have a big rally, Alvarez will keep defending well and landing clean shots, and maybe 2 of the last 3 rounds will be anybody's, but Jacobs will have a good late round, maybe the last round, he'll go for the KO, take centre ring, land hard, clean shots, but won't hurt Alvarez, and Alvarez will still fire back.

Gold's picture

I don't know, I definitely think Jacobs will be the one who gasses if someone gasses. Canelo is an excellent body puncher and Jacobs defense is questionable. Jacobs also won't put pressure on him as well as Golovkin did. Canelo has really slick upper body movement so I think he'll be able to close the distance on Jacobs. It will be a competitive fight but it would really be shocking if Jacobs won.

Champion97's picture

Good points, but Jacobs has brilliant stamina, and Alvarez has always had stamina issues, he did gas against Golovkin, not until about round 9, but he did tire at that point. I dont think it would be shocking if Jacobs won, but a fair bit of an upset. If this fight was taking place 18 months ago, I would say Jacobs wins, he was in his prime then, now he slightly past it in all liklihood, Alvarez was less adapted to 160 than he is now, and I think Jacobs did every bit as well against Golovkin as Alvarez did the first time. Timing is very important in boxing, I think Alvarez wins, let's hope Jacobs wins, but I think Alvarez will win, still, Jacobs shouldn't be written off. I think a lot of the uncertainty regarding how much Jacobs has left is about us not knowing how good Sulecki and Derevyanchenko are. If Jacobs can repeat the Golovkin performance, be has a great chance in my opinion.

Gold's picture

There is a rehydration clause in this fight that will likely effect Jacobs stamina if he can't rehydrate to the high ring weight he usually has. He didn't really gas in the rematch in my opinion. My point is that Alvarez is by far the best body puncher Jacobs has fought in his career, and Jacobs isn't the best pressure fighter Canelo has fought despite Jacobs being big. So the narrative that Alvarez has gassed before and Jacobs has great stamina will likely not apply here. I don't rate Jacobs as highly as some people even though he is likely the #3 Middleweight, I wouldn't be super surprised if he was stopped in this fight. He has been rocked and downed multiple times and stopped once. I don't really know how much Jacobs has declined but I don't think it was really that much, he underperformed Sulecki in my opinion. I think Canelo at this point is a worse style matchup for Jacobs than Golovkin was. Golovkin headhunted too much while Canelo will break Jacobs down.

Champion97's picture

I don't know, the vegan diet will help that. Agreed, Alvarez is an outstanding body puncher. No, but he is versatile, illusive, and Alvarez will have to be patient, also, I am not a believer in ring weights having a big impact on the fight, natural size is much more important, and even ligher, Jacobs will be able to impose his strength on Alvarez, still, not much of a strength different because Alvarez is adapted to and strong at 160. We have had this conversation before, I know about rehydration clauses, the A-side has a lot of power, but I think Jacobs's weight is an overused explanation as to why he gave Golovkin such a tough fight, I think Jacobs will do a better job of rehydrating without putting on too much weight, if you rehydrate the right way, Jarrett Hurd puts on 5lbs between the weigh in and the fight and look at how strong he is in the ring.

I think it will, but not until late in the fight, let's also consider that it is hard to work the body against someone who doesn't let you pin them down, Alvarez can do more damage if Jacobs's back touches the ropes, which will not happen often. I disagree on that, because Jacobs's chin isn't that bad, not so bad he has to avoid necessary risks to keep the chin safe, and I am not convinced Alvarez can slow him down enough to inflict a sustained beating. I agree, a bit, but not much, and yes, he under performed against Sulecki, but Derevyanchenko as well, he was tested against Jacobs, but a fighter is only ever tested, in one fight, against their opponent, how high do you rate Derevyanchenko?

I don't believe that at all, I believe at this level, the stylistical aspect mostly affects the entertainment aspect, what sort of fight we will see, because at the end of the day, fighters don't win because their styles are wrong for their opponent, they win because they are good enough, I think a boring or entertaining fight is more dependent on a good stylistic combination, I think their styles will gel well, but not better than Golovkin's and Alvarez's.

Gold's picture

Why would that help him? That is just mental, as long as he is getting a proper diet it shouldn't make a difference. Derevyanchenko was able to pressure him and he is about the same size as Alvarez. I'm not going to rehash the same arguments but I am 100% sure I am right on the ring weight issue. The IBF waived their same day rehydration limits for unifications as far as I know, but guys like Hurd can still rehydrate the day of. I guarantee he does not come in the ring at 159 lbs, the guy looks massive.

Again, Jacobs defense is leaky, Derevyanchenko was able to pressure him well. Did he really underperform against Derevyanchenko? To me, that is just his level. If he underperformed in that fight it brings a lot of questions about his mentality as a fighter. That was the second most important fight of his career, if he lost that he may have never won a world championship. Derevyanchenko is good, I think he can beat everyone outside the top guys. Maybe he could beat Andrade by exposing his chin but I wouldn't bet on that.

This is just flat out wrong. A lot of the time it is about levels but style is extremely important in high-level fights. Ali beat Foreman easily, but went 45 extremely hard rounds with Norton and 44 rounds extremely hard with Frazier who Foreman blew out in 4 combined rounds (9 if you count the Foreman rematch). Ali is the better pound for pound boxer than Foreman without a doubt, but Foreman's style was a terrible matchup for Norton and Frazier while Ali was a good style matchup for Norton and Frazier. Probably the best example is how Mayorga fought a great stylistic fight versus Forrest and beat a way better fighter. Golovkin was not simply better in the first fight and that's the reason for the differences in the fights, Alvarez adjusted his style and caught Golovkin off guard in the rematch. He exploited Golovkin's relatively poor game backing up and his stamina as an aging fighter. Ward also changed tactics versus Kovalev, it wasn't just about who was better and who was worse.

Champion97's picture

Mental? No, because I am an advocate that a vegan diet is a great way of getting the nutrients you need without the negatives of a lot of other things, he had breakfast before the weigh in recently Jacobs, making the weight is easier for vegan fighters, don't call me mental when you don't understand my argument. Vegans are good at keeping up the strict diet, but not being deficient, therefore, they can do a better job of being lighter, without being malnourished, I think more fighters should be vegan.

You're not right on that, I stand by what I said before. That seems like stubbornness more than anything, fighters can look bigger or smaller than they are, I will also point out that, although we know 140 was wrong for Linares, he was 153 against Lomachencko, at 135, which throws your argument out the window. Crawford might well be a natural welterweight, but he is not a big welterweight, and against Horn, he was at a disadvantage because it was his first fight at 147, he isn't at a disadvantage vs Khan because he has been past 8 rounds twice at 147 and has had enough time to build into the weight.

Did you read my analysis?, of course Alvarez will pressure him, he will box on the back foot. I didn't say he under performed against Derevyanchenko, I explained that assuming he didn't under perform, seeing how well Derevyanchenko does against Culcay will give us an idea of how good he is, therefore, give us an idea of where Jacobs is at. If you think he could beat Andrade, you must rate him, because however lacklustre his last two fights have been Andrade, he got the job done, and did not struggle, not to make it one way traffic for the most part.

It isn't wrong. You win a fight because you are better on the night, styles being wrong for a fighter is a factor, but much less so than people think in my opinion. Yes, but I don't think that is about styles so much, I think Ali's inactivity was a big factor in the first Frazier fight, Ali was an underdog for the Foreman fight, for a reason, some fighters are not the most dominant, but they have that hidden adaptability we don't find out they have until they step up, that was the case with Ali. To an extent, styles can be wrong for fighters, but I also think that nowadays, fighters are more prepared for different styles. Good point, but I think that is the case with a lot of punchers, because they end fights early and definitely change the fight as soon as they land something, they don't really get tested, until they fight a fighter who is a notch up, and can take away their ability to do damage, and in the end, turn the tables on them, which is what Ali did to Foreman.

Not seen those fights, but what I do know is, a hunter can often beat a hunted fighter, sometimes a champion can get civilized, think he is more prepared to put it all on the line, and he comes accross a hungry challenger of an opponent.

Don't believe that for a second, he was simply better in 2017, he declined slightly, and Alvarez just edged past him. He didn't exploit Golovkin's poor game, both boxed differently in the rematch, were both impressive like Paulie says, as far as I'm concerned, the age aspect was the real factor.

Gold's picture

There are negatives to eating too much red meat, I am not a dietician but to my knowledge, there is not a performance advantage of one over the other. It is mainly about ethical concerns in one over the other. I'm not calling you mental lol, I am saying it is a mental (psychological) advantage for Jacobs if he thinks it makes him better. Many fighters are not vegans and have no issue making weight or with dietary discipline.

It doesn't throw it out the window, it is stylistic. There is a reason Linares has been stopped five times, and it isn't all because of weight.

Andrade is really good in some ways and exploitable in others. There is a big size difference between Andrade and Derevyanchenko so the question is if he can close the distance to expose Andrade's chin. I think it would be a competitive fight but I would pick Derevyanchenko, I think Jacobs is better and similar stylistically and Derevyanchenko did well versus Jacobs.

The fighter can be worse but overcome that because of stylistic matchups and limitations of the opponents. Frazier and Norton gave Ali hell in all three of their respective fights. It wasn't that he underestimated Frazier and Norton and didn't with Foreman. Those were all huge fights for Ali. So you are saying it is stylistic that Ali was able to go beat Foreman while Frazier and Norton couldn't?

It was stylistic why Mayorga won, especially in the first fight he got in Forrest's head and made him punch with a puncher, but even in the second fight he was able to get Forrest to fight his fight. Forrest is a hall of very good type of fighter, Mayorga was never near his level in a peak pound for pound sense but he won anyways.

So when Golovkin gassed because Canelo went to the body and backed Golovkin up which was a total change of game plan and swung the fight in his favor, that wasn't a stylistic difference? I don't think Golovkin was much different, still too much headhunting, still too many jabs versus power punches. The fights were not mirror images but with Golovkin being slightly worse. They were both impressive but Alvarez was more impressive because of the adjustments he made to win the fight.

Champion97's picture

That's an opinion of mine, I am a strong advocate of veganism in sport, and I am confident more people will eat a vegan diet in boxing as time goes on, but if you ask a fighter if making weight is easier, if they can be stronger at a certain weight, on vegan diets, I'm confident they would tell you it is beneficial. Oh ok, apologies. It is a strong opinion of mine, but an opinion I stand by and am confident of being true, I do acknowledge that veganism is rare in boxing, and it certainly not a requirement.

It would be a good match up, very interesting. I think Andrade is underrated, he is very offensively skilled, but he is one paced, and he would have to show us a lot more against a Jacobs or Derevyanchenko.

I just don't believe that is as true as people think, I think the timing aspect is overlooked, as so is the fact that the more dominant fighter isn't necessarily the better fighter, but I am not saying it is a complete myth. I'll tell you what I do believe, it is popular that Khan's style is wrong for Mayweather and Crawford, but I think he is only as stylistically bad for them as they are for him, because although he would have speed and possibly range control they have rarely or never seen before, and Mayweather wasn't the biggest puncher, Khan would also suffer stylistically because his speed, range control, these aspects he is used to always being better in, he would not be better in any more, and he would end up losing because Mayweather, Crawford are great, and Khan is not great. I know he didn't, bit the inactivity was bound to be a factor. No I'm not saying it is stylistic, I'm saying Ali made all the difference from taking away Foreman's ability to be so dangerous. Are you saying if he could do that against Foreman unrelated to styles he should have done the same against Norton and Frazier?, because that is a good point, but I still believe that although there is a stylistic aspect in that, it is also about Ali being a fighter who gets better and better with more of a challenge, it is also about Foreman's power leaving certain questions unanswered, for example, had he not done so much damage, would Frazier and Norton not have given him problems?, what I'm saying is, Ali was good enough to disallowed Foreman making it a showcase of his power, because he was that notch up, better than the others, and that made all the difference, and it took not an awkward style but a great fighter with a great game plan to beat him.

Mind games work in boxing sometimes, but they shouldn't, I think Groves getting to Froch mentally, and his personal issues with Whyte made Joshua fight recklessly, but I don't believe Fury's mind games which annoyed Klitschko were a factor, and I think his skill, Klitschko's own awareness and lack of confidence that he could land, was what got him mentally, I think the fight would have been the same had Fury been nice to him.

It was, but so was Alvarez's inferior defence, and increased number of shots taken, Golovkin had more in the tank in rounds 9-11, he was stylistically bad for his rival just as vise verse, and because they are great fighters, they both changed their tactics. Golovkin, the second time, did a great job on the back foot, he hit Alvarez harder the second time because rather than just out landing a moving target, he walked Alvarez onto clean shots. Two close fights, Alvarez beat Golovkin the second time, in all liklihood, because of the age, had Golovkin been a bit younger, maybe he could have taken that last round from Alvarez, just a couple of things would have been different, Golovkin was still not too far past his prime, he also won 5 rounds.

The reason there were so many jabs as opposed to power shots is because Alvarez is great at telegraphing punches, and it is easier to land the jab than it is power shots in a lot of scenarios. They weren't mirror images, agree on that, both made great adjustments, bith gave each other problems for different reasons, but that isn't why Alvarez won in my opinion, the tactics that won Golovkin 5 rounds would have won him 7 had he been younger, in my opinion.

Gold's picture

I don't know if Andrade is underrated or overrated, I think he is properly rated by most as a champion that is vulnerable to high-level guys.

It's not about timing in the examples I gave you though. I personally don't think Khan is that bad of a style matchup for either of them, it is just that he can get out of the gates and win rounds because of his speed. Boxers who are fast but don't have the gears or boxing IQ are dangerous in early rounds versus boxers who like to take their time to figure out their opponents. Zab did well versus Mayweather early and Gamboa did versus Crawford. Yes, Ali's style allowed him to take away Foreman's ability while Frazier and Norton couldn't. Frazier and Norton fought Ali extremely closely but couldn't do anything versus Foreman. It is just stylistic. I am saying that if it was simply about levels he should have beat Norton and Frazier as easily as he beat Foreman but he couldn't because it was a different stylistic matchup. Again, the Frazier and Norton fights were huge for Ali, it wasn't that he was undertrained. The only fight you can legitimately make that argument for was the first Frazier fight, which all of the other fights were close as well. Ali's gameplan was stylistic, Frazier and Norton couldn't do what Ali did because Ali had insane punch resistance.

Alvarez had a really good defense in that fight, but he was moving forward and pushing the action so he was going to take more shots. Golovkin didn't do a great job on the back foot, he looked very confused and had difficulty exchanging with Alvarez when he was backed up. Golovkin knew he couldn't take chances throwing power shots and trading with Alvarez. Golovkin should have known he wouldn't have won a decision off the jab. I strongly believe Abel Sanchez was a terrible choice of a trainer for Golovkin. He had great amateur fundamentals and was much more well rounded which would have served him better in big fights even if it made him less of a draw early on.

Champion97's picture

It is to a degree, Ali vs Frazier 1, in the rematch Ali was better but Frazier was worse, but also, Frazier wasn't at his best against Foreman in at least one of the fights, posibly both, says who? Says me?, no, Muhammad Ali. I think they are only as bad stylistically as each other, like I said.

Yes, and they do well at the time they do well, and unravel at the time they unravel, partoy because of their styles, good point, speed is at it's best early, in the mid rounds, timing starts to take over, but, they don't so well simply because of their styles, they do well because they are good enough to do well.

That's because Ali is better than Foreman, Frazier and Norton, not because his style was wrong for Foreman. Ali beat all 3 either twice or once but wasn't beaten by them. I know, but that is more about how dominant fighters look being a bad metric as to who is better, rather than it being about styles, I think Wilder vs Szpilka was about styles, Wilder hadn't sparred a southpaw in years, I'm not saying styles don't make a difference in terms of who does better against who, just smaller difference than people think.

It isn't just about styles, I maintain that, Ali beat Foreman because to a lot of people's surprise, he was that good, maybe you could criticise Ali not for his style but at times, his lack of consistency, and at times, brave before smart mindset, sometimes, you can't have your cake and eat it, Klitschko won fights often every bit as one sided as he should have done, wasn't entertaining for the fans, didn't transend the spirt the way Ali did, but on the other hand, not only did Ali take more damage, but he also made those fights harder than they potentially could have been. If it was about styles, I think there would be more examples of Ali's style being worse for opponents than Foreman's, and there are some exmaoles of fighters doing better against Foreman than Ali, Jimmy Young for example, but I think more than it being about styles, I think a lot of it is to do with the gamble punchers always take, at that high level, a Frazier, Norton, Young, can give a Foreman or an Ali problems, but a puncher can throw all that out the window with his power, but if for whatever reason he doesn't inflict the decisive damage, then a Young, Norton, can trouble him every bit as much as he can trouble an Ali, which shows it is less about styles and more about them all being good match ups but Foreman's power making it look like a bad match up when it isn't.

I dont think he under trained, I didn't say that, wasn't implying it, I think he fought more with his heart than his head, was less tactical against Norton and Frazier. I think the rematch was one sided, but Frazier wasn't at his best in that fight, still, I nelieve the Thrilla in Manilla, Ali made harder for himself than it needed to be. Was that the key in the Foreman fight?, more than knowing his opponent well and having the perfect game plan?, better than his blocking abilities? I don't think so.

Nowhere near as good as in the first fight. He did in my opinion, because for a start, like Paulie said, his back hardly ever touched the ropes, but also, that jab, the timing and accuracy on that uppercut, I think boxed very well on the back foot, and if he didn't, why did he make it a draw on your card? He used his jab because in his mind, the jab was the difference, he hit Alvarez with power early, but Alvarez has an absolute granite chin, he did trade power shots with Alvarez late, and probably came off better, however, after 8 rounds, he had thrown the jab more than anything else, and the jab wins you fights when your opponent isn't landing, not when your opponent lands the same amount but lands power shots. You don't think Abel Sanchez is a good trainer?

Gold's picture

Would you believe styles make fights if Paulie said it?

Champion97's picture

Would I believe I am wrong if Paulie said what I say is wrong? I would accept that, I would want to get other people's take on it, but yes. You are not Paulie, he is a great analyst, you and I have no authority over each other, I respect you as a knowledgeable fan, but you do not know as much about boxing or understand it like any two-time world champion.

I already believe styles make fights, I believe it is mostly about whether or not the stylesof the fighters will make it a good fight, I accept that some certain strengths are easier to use against certain weaknesses, than others, but in my opinion, based on a lot more thinking than you realise, it is less of a factor than most fans think, styles make fights, but they don't make outcomes, that's what I am saying, timing, mentality, issues, size, all these aspects can mean a better fighter loses, much more so than a fighter being at his best, losing to a lesser fighter because of styles.

I'm confident that wouldn't happen, my opinion is based on following boxing for 7-8 years, I don't know how long you have been following boxing, but if you read what I say carefully, you will at least acknowledge what I say as valid, whether you agree or not. Would you believe I was right if a different former boxer said something along the same lines?

Gold's picture

http://www.fighthype.com/news/article21255.html
Here is Paulie saying styles make fights, there is a video of it as well. When people (such as Paulie in this instance) say styles make fights, they mean how well they do, not the entertainment aspect. I can find more as well.

Probably not, but it is a case by case basis. I disagree with you about how much stock should be put in what boxers say. Many are extremely biased and cannot honestly reflect or articulate themselves because of biases they have. A good example of this is Ring Magazine's Best I Faced series. They rarely give credit to those who beat them or beat them the easiest.

Champion97's picture

I'm not going down this road again, I'm battling a a self harm addiction, I can't get myself worked up, if I have to, I will stop talking to you, but I would like to have one more try at explaining exactly what I mean.

What Paulie says does not contradict what I said, not at all, just said style wise Mora can give Jacobs some problems, he also said he expected Jacobs to make the necessary adjustments, the same adjustments I believe Lomachencko would make to overcome Morales's 'toxic style'.

I did not say that one style being bad for another was a myth, I acknowledge that Liam Smith was stylistically good for Alvarez because of similarities, I acknowledge southpaws can cause extra problems because there are less of them, do not misunderstand me, all I am saying is, when people say "Khan will only beat Mayweather because his style is wrong for him, Trout only beat Cotto because his style was wrong for him", is giving 'styles make fights' too much importance, I believe styles don't make outcomes, because if a fighter is good enough to use any stylistic advantage well enough to win, he is better than the guy he beats, in boxing, it is about using stylistic advantages, overcoming stylistic disadvantages, these stylistic advantages and disadvantages, I never denied they exsist in boxing, but they are tackled by a fighter's ability to use or overcome them, therefore, a fighter wins a fight because he is better on the night, and that goes back to the basics, the better fighter on the night wins.

In conclusion, I do not believe styles are more improtant than who is better than who, I believe more often than not, stylistic issues are addressed in camp, and if a fighter can't beat a fighter simply because his style is wrong for him, then he isn't the better fighter, certainly not if there is a rematch. I believe Marquez's style was bad for Pacquiao, but I believe this much less well known fighter who had 3 very close fights with Pacquiao, did so more because he was good enough, because look at what he did in his career. Basically, you can have a style which is wrong for an opponent, but you have to be good enough to take full advantage.

I believe if 3 fighters are right on the same level, nothing to split them, a possible stylistic factor could be the difference, but a good fighter does not beat a great fighter became his style is wrong for him, and a fairly good fighter doesn't beat a very good fighter because his style is wrong for him, but he does give him more problems.

Do you understand what I am saying?

Gold's picture

Morales?

What you are saying now is different than what it seemed like you meant earlier. Obviously, Khan wouldn't beat Mayweather simply because of levels. Style was definitely important in Trout vs. Cotto but size was also very important. The problem with what you are saying is that when you get to the top level, the difference in the level of skill is relatively small, so something like a stylistic advantage can make a big difference.

I agree that levels are more important but styles can also be really important for reasons I mentioned previously. Disagree with that, going back to the Forrest and Mayorga example, Forrest was the much better head to head and more accomplished fighter but lost twice to Mayorga, which a lot of it was stylistic. Marquez's style was definitely bad for Pacquiao, for whatever reason he just had his number, but if he had that same style and was worse he would have lost uncontroversially, so I agree in that respect.

Not necessarily, like I said with the Forrest example, it can happen where a much better fighter can lose because of a stylistic difference. I understand what you are saying overall though and don't really disagree with that much of it.

Champion97's picture

You said Erik Morales had a toxic style for Lomachencko, which I think is blowing what is true, well out of proportion, and if Lomachencko wouldn't be good enough to overcome that style, he must not be better. I think Saldio beat Lomachencko not much because of his style but more because Lomachencko was so professionally inexperienced, then again, it was very close, so had Salido not had a style which is probably bad for Lomachencko, Lomachencko would still have lost at least 4 and probably 5 rounds due to inexperience, but because the Salido fight was so close, had his style not been bad for him, maybe his inexperience wouldn't have cost him his unbeaten record.

Well it isn't different. It was a factor, and yes, size was a factor, Trout is big for the weight, Cotto is not even a big welterweight.

That's where we disagree, 'it can happen where a MUCH better fighter can lose because of a stylistic difference', I would agree that occasionally, a slightly better fighter might lose because of styles, I agree, that the fight can be noticeably closer because the better fighter fights a stylistically bad opponent. I also agree that if a bunch of fighters are very closely contested then styles could be the difference, if one simply isn't significantly better than the other based on other evidence, but one of them wins non-controversially, not saying that isn't due to styles.

I think the best card coming up is May 18 in Scotland, Rodriguez vs Inoue, Baranchyk vs Taylor, battles of the unbeatens, champions are the underdogs. What do you think?

Gold's picture

It is toxic for Lomachenko, head to head I would say Morales is the better fighter anyways so it doesn't really matter to me. Watch the fight again, Lomachenko gets outskilled by Salido in the early part of the fight, that wasn't where the inexperience came in. Top Rank has done a good job of matching Lomachenko stylistically so he hasn't had the difficulty he had in that fight. Lomachenko had more experience than any fighter in his "second" professional fight in history. It wasn't prime Salido either, it was an older version of Salido. Lomachenko will be a HOF but he's not going to be an ATG. If Davis fights Lomachenko in 2+ years he'll probably win and I can't see Loma ever getting the Mikey fight.

Forrest beat #1 pound for pound undefeated prime Mosley twice in a row and lost to Mayorga twice who never beat a top opponent again. It is rare but it has happened.

We'll see if that card even happens with the WBSS's finances, and we could see another good card get built in the interim. I think the champions are rightful underdogs. I think Baranchyk has a better chance of winning though.

Champion97's picture

I accept that Morales's style is bad for Lomachencko, but I think Lomachencko is better, would adapt to and find a way to overcome Morales's style, the better fighter would win, not the guy with the bad style, but the fight would be closer, still, one thing I do believe is that when two fighters are roughly as good as each other, often there are positives and negatives for both fighters, not saying it compensates, but Lomachencko has the great footwork, positioning, work rate, variety, Morales would struggle with that, because he would be matched in aspects he isn't used to being matched in, still, if Morales was as good as he was, but similar to Lomachencko, that would be a better style for Lomachencko, because that wouldn't disallow Lomachencko from fighting his fight.

I disagree about Salido vs Lomachencko, inexperience was the biggest factor there, 1-0, you cannot fight at that level when you have done so little as a professional, professional boxing is not amateur boxing. I can believe styles played a part early in the fight, because Salido's style is not a style you would often come across in the amateurs, but Lomachencko is easily good enough to beat Saldio, if they fought now and Saldio was still the same guy who beat Lomachencko, Lomachencko would adapt to his style and beat him one sided. Yes, but no 1-0 professional, including Lomachencko, is ready for a Salido fight. The Saldio fight was the making of Lomachencko if you ask me, it was a great learning fight. The problem I have with that, is that Lomachencko has fought whoever has the belt, his career, overall, has been easy, he has come across plenty of different styles and it hasn't made that much of a difference, which goes back to what I said about a fighter overcoming bad styles if he is good enough. Mikey won't go back down to 135 I dont think, I think Mikey only has about 3 fights left, the Garcias and Top Rank have bad history.

It is rare, is what I'm saying, not that it has never happened, but I still struggle to believe that it was purely about styles if Forrest was that much better, and not that Mayorga might have wanted it more, been in a better place mentally, I find it hard to believe styles was the only factor in the much better fighter losing.

One thing I will say I believe about styles is that the less conventional but still effective, the better.

We'll see, I think Inoue is great, but let's see him do the rounds at 118, Rodriguez's is good, I think Inoue will win, but Rodriguez will make it a competitive fight.

Gold's picture

He wasn't used to being matched in those ways? Lomachenko is a poor man's Pacquiao in a lot of ways and prime Morales beat Pacquiao. A slick outside boxer is the best matchup against Morales, not someone who will pressure like Pacquiao and Lomachenko.

He had 6 WSB fights before turning pro, while those are not perfect professional analogs it is not like he jumped straight from the true amateur system to the pros. He was also 26 years old with nearly 400 amateur fights. To write it off as inexperience is underselling Salido. Salido's style is bad for someone like Lomachenko, he has struggled to put in his best performances with guys who were physically larger, but neither Linares or Pedraza could pressure like Salido or had the inside boxing skills of Salido. Prime Salido would give Lomachenko a hard fight regardless. Come on man, Lomachenko was meant to beat Salido, it was not supposed to be a "learning fight". Top Rank and Klimas got arrogant and thought Lomachenko was good enough to beat someone as good as Salido, but he couldn't. He would have won with more experience but Top Rank created the narrative that the number of pro fights to win a title is the ultimate measure and their gamble failed. It's not the end of the world but people shouldn't write the loss off entirely.

Okay, you may find it hard to believe but it is true.

Agree 100%, make it as hard for the opponent as possible to prepare for.

It is difficult to find win conditions for Rodriguez, but he can be competitive for sure. The only thing I am concerned about for Inoue is overtraining due to the postponements of this fight.

Champion97's picture

He isn't a poor man's Pacquiao, he has more ability than Pacquiao in terms of footwork, positioning, has a similar level of variety, is not relentless in the same way Pacquiao is, but he is active for 3 minutes, more so than Pacquiao, Lomachencko doesn't hit as hard as Pacquiao, but he goes to the body better. Possibly, but that goes back to what I was saying, a slick outside boxer who is good enough, can give Morales problems by fighting his fight, a fighter more similar to Morales, who is also good enough can give him problems by at times beating him at his own game, that's why I stand by who is better than who being much more improtant than styles, and although like we agree, some styles are bad for certain fighters, I believe stylies are no explanation for losing to a fighter you are much better than, Jeff Horn's style is bad for a lot of fighters because he is somewhat unorthodox and unconventional, more so against such a small welterweight, so Horn was stylistically bad for Pacquiao, but I think a younger Pacquiao would have dealt with him better earlier, and stopped him when he had him close to gone, therefore, the timing aspect is a much more likely explanation for Pacquiao losing to a fighter he is much better than, than styles.

I know, that's worth noting, but it isn't a substitution for proper professional fights, good preparation for the pro game, but at the end of the day, 1-0, 5-0, if you have had a single figure number of fights, it is likely you are not ready, not saying it is definite you are not ready, it depends on who you face, but number of professional fights at a level which is increasing gradually or not, is improtant. I'm not going to agree on that, no way, you can have as many amateur fights as you want, it will help, but you can't rely on that, I think professional boxing is more different than you think, I mean, WSB, amateur boxing, it is not the same, 1-0 is just not enough.

That's because they didn't fight a professionally inexperienced Lomachencko. Like I just said, his style was bad, but I believe that was a much smaller factor than inexperience, still, in all fairness, because the fight was so close, a small factor not being factor, might have been enough for Lomachencko's inexperience not to have costed him the fight.

A hard fight?, I don't know, not really, somwhat competitive, but it would be a landslides UD in my opinion. Exactly! In boxing, you often learn more from fights that aren't supposed to be learning fights, just because he was meant to beat Salido because people overlook the value of professional experience, doesn't mean it wasn't a great learning fight, you telling me that wasn't the making of him?, come on man, why did he beat Russell after, slip under the radar to keep learning as a professional and then prove how good he was between Martinez and Pedraza?, that was the learning fight he needed.

They thought he was ready to beat someone like Salido, that is the crucial point. I'm much more of a believer in experience than you are, that much is clear. I agree on that, it was a gamble, it did fail, and fighters don't win world titles in their second fight for a reason. I agree, credit to Saldio, he used his experience, took full advantage of a great amateur boxer's lack of professional experience.

If that is a possible issue for Inoue, would that not also be an issue for Rodriguez?

Gold's picture

Lomachenko's footwork is more flash than substance. Part of the reason he wasn't able to do what he usually did versus Pedraza was because Pedraza negated a lot of his footwork and made it difficult for Lomachenko to step around and use his angles. I have no idea why you continue to repeat that Pacquiao in his prime didn't work for three minutes each round. In his prime he put incredible pressure on hall of fame fighters, used his unorthodox movement, angles, and combinations to outwork them. The reason why he picks his spots now is that he is old, and yet he still threw 568 punches versus Broner. Pacquiao was also a better body puncher than Lomachenko, even when he was still relatively unrefined versus guys like Barrera and was landing regularly with the straight left, he still remembered to go to the body. I agree regarding Morales, Barrera is a HOF with a similar style to Morales and gave him trouble. I mostly agree regarding Horn and Pacquiao, but I also don't think he was properly trained for that fight.

Top Rank, Klimas, and Lomachenko thought it was enough and they were proven wrong. Obviously, it is not a perfect substitution, but the way some people make it seem is that Loma was young and completely inexperienced, which is not true. Salido deserves more credit than most give him.

The way Lomachenko would have improved in my opinion is by doing better versus the rough and tumble tactics and trying to start earlier. However, I think Salido would have still outboxed Lomachenko for stretches in the fight as he did when they fought, and if Salido was younger, he likely wouldn't have gassed. Salido was a better fighter than Russell at the time and Russell's amateur-like style was much better for Lomachenko than Salido's rough and tumble style. Lomachenko could have learned the same way if they would have taken it slower with him and worked him up, they tried to jump him up and it didn't work.

Great boxers can be born and they can be made. Lomachenko is a little of both. To bring this point up again, Wilfred Benitez had very little relevant experience when he beat Cervantes at 17, that is being born with the ability. He didn't need the experience to be jumped up to the absolute highest level.

Yes, but I specifically bring it up for Inoue because he's been sparring and training on social media, so he may be preparing harder right now than Rodriguez.

Champion97's picture

Is it? So why is it so effective? Why are so many fighters unable to touch him? I saw him do that very well against Pedraza, it looked to me more like Lomachencko's shoulder was a factor, which is why at times it was somewhat a one handed performance. Pacquiao has never been the best 3 minute worker, he often does enough for a couple of minutes, springs into life in the last minute, very explosive, his opponents rarely want to engage because his speed is intimidating and they respect his power, he throws a phenomenal amount of punches in a short space of time. Not saying he never went to the body, I have seen his fights against Barrera, but Lomachencko is a better body puncher. Good point about his age, but Pacquiao has always been explosive, not the most consistent. I don't think he wanted it as much as Horn, just that shadow boxing after the last round, and his demena, he didn't go out there and get it like Horn did.

Like Horn or not, you have to respect his effort in that fight, he didn't slack off the way Broner did, because when the minute isn't enough for the old fighter, you should do what Horn did, jump all over him, don't let him breathe, keep throwing punches, but Broner, after Pacquiao punched himself out, backed up and gave Pacquiao extra recovery time, useless. We should respect Broner, because although he is 3-3-1 in his last 7, he would be 7-0 against a 60 year old non-boxer.

He was not completely inexperienced, and if he was, the win would mean nothing for Saldio, but it was a great win, that level of amateur pedigree, WBS as well, sure, gives you a boost and somewhat a head start, but Lomachencko was still 1-0, still very inexperienced, but that doesn't mean Saldio shouldn't get credit, given how much preparation Lomachencko had for the pros, and how good he was proven to be.

He started slow against Pedraza, but look how he took control, I don't see him starting slow very often, he does take a round to work his opponent out, but he takes control quickly.

Definitely a talent aspect, there are hard workers out there who are not talented, like Crolla. there are talented fighters who don't make the most of their talent, like Gavin, but top fighters have both, can't disagree on that.

Gold's picture

It was effective versus guys at Featherweight and Super Featherweight. Now that he is fighting guys who are bigger than him it isn't working like it used to. His shoulder definitely held him back, but his movement and specifically his step around move got limited by Pedraza. Really? If Pacquiao is not a three-minute worker, what is he and what is Lomachenko? Look at these statistics:

Pacquiao vs. Barrera: 309 of 838 thrown (11 rounds), Pacquiao vs. Marquez I: 148 of 639 thrown, Pacquiao vs. Morales I: 217 of 894 thrown, Pacquiao vs. Barrera II: 249 of 667 thrown, Pacquiao vs. Marquez II: 172 of 511 thrown, Pacquiao vs. Cotto 360 of 780.

Lomachenko vs. Salido: 164 of 441 thrown, Lomachenko vs. Russell Jr: 183 of 597 thrown, Lomachenko vs. Pedraza 240 of 738 thrown.

So why is Pacquiao a fighter that only works for part of the round and Lomachenko has better activity when prime Pacquiao threw similar or more punches versus Hall of Fame opponents as Lomachenko did versus worse opposition? Lomachenko isn't a puncher at Lightweight, Pacquiao had great power at that weight and had become a great variety fighter, no question who is the better body puncher for me, it's Pacquiao.

Horn brought his best effort, no question. Broner just doesn't have that style though and he never will be that fighter. I agree, credit to Broner for taking hard fights but that's also his most profitable fights, so I can't give him too much credit.

I agree that Lomachenko would do better now and he was inexperienced, you are giving Salido more credit than most even though you like Lomachenko, so I appreciate that honesty.

I was never that high on Pedraza, as I have said before I don't think the performance was really a negative or a positive for Lomachenko. If he has the same issues throwing versus Crolla I will be concerned because it isn't likely to get better if it hasn't at that point.

I agree on that, Crolla is someone who has overachieved relative to his talent level, Gavin the opposite.

Champion97's picture

First of all, you should know better than to take anything from these stats, they are garbage. Pacquiao threw a 10-punch combinations against Bradley, that wasn't even the same Pacquiao who beat Cotto, historically, Pacquiao is possibly the most explosions fighter in the world.

Because when Pacquiao lets the shots go, boy does he let them go, I'm not saying he always takes 2 minutes off, he certainly didn't against De La Hoya, but sometimes he does, but more than makes up for it punch count wise, he throws so many shots in one flurry of punches. I disagree on who is a better body puncher, but obviously, it takes less power to get a highlight body KO than a highlight head KO, body shots don't generate the same impact, there just powerful enough, timed perfectly, land right in the solar plexus, and they hurt more than head shots.

Pacquiao hits harder than Lomachencko, no doubt about that, the only reason he doesn't get many KOs is because of the weight I think, I think you can carry or increase strength, but your power is your power, it stays with you when you lose speed, agility, but once you have matured, your power is your power, you can't make yourself a puncher, which is why Pacquiao doesn't do the damage at 147 that he did at lower weights, I thought HBO's theory, "Pacquiao is too nice, lost his killer instinct, that's why he isn't getting the KOs", was stupid.

Part of it is stylistic, but whether you are a good pressure fighter or not, you do not back up and give the old man the extra breathing and recovery time he needs, and if you do, you are foolish.

Yeah sure, whether I like a fighter or not I have to give him credit, Kovalev impressed me against Alvarez, as much as I think there is too much hype, people getting carried away, I was very impressed with Teofimo Lopez's KO over Menard.

I don't think it will get better completely, I am no doctor, but I know a labrum injury is very bad. Just a theory, but if Lomachencko and his team know there is permanent damage, maybe they have decided they can never fight Mikey, maybe Robert Garcia was told the fight was never going to happen, and that's why he stopped being against Mikey moving up to face Spence.

Gold's picture

They are garbage for scoring rounds, fights, and counting with 100% accuracy. However, to outline general trends they are fine. Pacquiao in his prime was more of a volume puncher than Lomachenko. Pacquiao is one of the most explosive fighters of all time in his prime, no disagreement with that, but he would also work and pressure his opponent in his prime.

Him taking time off is a late career change and a good one. For an aging fighter it would have been impossible for him to maintain his style working three minutes each round.

A lot of Pacquiao's power came from his speed, he is naturally heavy handed but it was speed that did guys in. An extreme example would be Sergio Martinez, not a naturally heavy handed guy but he had incredible speed and shut Paul Williams off because of it. Pacquiao started at Flyweight and would have been a more natural Lightweight and Super Lightweight as he put weight on, but Welterweight is the money division so it makes sense. It isn't necessarily true you can't make a puncher. All of Manny Steward's best fighters could really punch, and Tommy Hearns wasn't a puncher at all as an amateur. However, if someone has already developed they aren't going to all the sudden become a puncher if they aren't already. Pacquiao was a natural puncher at lower weights, but that only goes so far.

Broner has never had good footwork, even when he was a pound for pound fighter he was criticized for his footwork. Broner apparently was a Pacquiao fan when he was younger, he certainly knew Pacquiao needed to be pushed for him to have a chance to win, but he couldn't and/or didn't do it.

Yeah it is, I think they just realize Mikey only has a few fights left and the bridge was permanently burnt between Mikey and Top Rank. I definitely think the Tank fight is the one to target down the road but Tank has the luxury of time. I have seen people talk about Lomachenko vs. Ramirez, but I think there is a good reason Lomachenko, Top Rank, and ESPN have never mentioned that fight. Ramirez is just too big for Lomachenko and will be able to effectively pressure him despite Ramirez's shortcomings.

Champion97's picture

I do not want to go down that road again, if this gets out of hand, one of us should leave the topic where it is, you'll get no more aggression or personal insults from me, I have too much at stake to make my own life harder than it has to be, and our arguments can inflame the unrelated issues I already have, that is my fault, not yours, but understand this, even if I have opinions which I 100% believe to be true, and those opinions are that a certain diet is sensible for athletes, or that 'styles make fights' is mostly about entertainment, and you think that isn't arguable to say the least, then the people all over the world who think GGG is a bum and a hype job because at 36, he got narrowly beaten by a 28 year old great fighter, must make your head explode.

Gold's picture

As I said, I am not calling you mental, simply a misunderstanding. You know I don't think Golovkin is a bum, but he didn't reach his potential as a professional in my opinion.

Champion97's picture

In my opinion, he wasn't matched well enough when he was in his prime, either way, he didn't achieve what he could have achieved, a shame, but although a great resume, sealing a legacy, very improtant, I think we can agree that Golovkin was great, Alvarez is great, and at an age disadvantage, Golovkin wins 5-6 rounds against a great fighter, if he isn't also great, Alvarez must be absolute bottom of the barrell great, which he isn't.

Gold's picture

He was ducked by Martinez, Cotto, and Sturm early in his career. Beating Martinez or Cotto would have gave him a signature win he doesn't have. However, Golovkin's team and coaching weren't as good as they could have been at publicizing him and giving him the best style to win big fights. Starting his career in Germany was a terrible mistake. Personally, I think Kovalev was a better prime fighter than prime Golovkin, not by much, but that may be a somewhat controversial opinion.

Champion97's picture

I very much disagree on Kovalev being better, but I respect your opinion, and that's what I expect from you when the boot is on the other foot.