Boxing News

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
Re: Boxing News

Okay, well I just flat out disagree with everything you say regarding Miller. I think he will beat Pulev but I don't think he will put real opposition up versus Wilder or Joshua.

I personally don't watch boxing for the morals of the fighters, as long as they don't do anything terrible I could care less what they say. Just my opinion though. I would be very surprised if any of those guys could get anywhere near Fury's peak level, he was a special talent which is why it is disappointing he may have wasted it. That isn't an indictment on those prospects either.

I don't think he does. I think he will be back and do a tune-up and cash out. He isn't going to return in August either, I believe I have heard September mentioned at the earliest. I think he should be stripped of the WBA Super title personally. The WBA has called a mandatory once on him in 2016 and I believe he was allowed to delay it because of the unification with Garcia. So what the hell has the WBA been doing? Why haven't they at least named a new mandatory since then considering he has never fought a mandatory in three years of holding their belt? I wouldn't even mind them making Pacquiao vs. Matthysse for the legitimate belt if that fight happens. At least there is a good chance they will defend the belt. I think Matthysse is shot honestly, he looked quite bad versus Kiram and has a boatload of miles on him from years of wars. Matthysse hasn't put in a good performance in years either since he fought Ruslan. Pacquiao may be further over the hill, but his "hill" was much much greater than Matthysse's and I think he still has enough in the tank to beat Matthysse. Pacquiao has a great chin, he got sparked by Marquez but over his career, I think he has proven he can take a punch. Matthysse is just too slow at this point in my opinion and moving up to Welterweight at his age can't be optimal for him. I think Khan would beat Matthysse, Matthysse had a lot of issues versus Postol who boxed him on the outside. I think Matthysse has a chance of catching Khan punching in combination but it would be difficult.

Re: Boxing News

look I respect your opinion, and if Joshua fights Miller, overpowers him from the outset, I'll eat humble pie, but you do the same if Miller overpowers Joshua for a few rounds, is simply stronger in the early stages, but ultimately, we argue paragraphs about one aspect, not actually a whole result, we both agree Miller will not beat Joshua

I don't think he is, he didn't lose a round, destoryed Emanuel Taylor, and Kiram made him look poor because Kiram had height, activity, and 10 years on his side, Kiram was 38-0, his level is why he isn't the best in the division, not saying it is a small detail, not saying Kiram is top 10 at 147, not saying he is top 100 in the world, but he is not a bum, and a young fighter who is tall, aware, moving, and a winner, he is always a test of someone's power, you have to take something from that, and Matthysse won that, sparked Kiram, nevermind what that idiot Jim Lampley said, that was brutal. Matthysse is slower, less resistant than he used to be, he isn't as good, I understand that, never suggested he wasn't substantially past prime, because he is, but he can still punch.

I agree with that, prime on prime, Pacquiao was in the same class as maybe not Crawford and Lomachenko, but Santa Cruz, Thurman, Davis, Tete, Ancajas, but Matthysse was never on that level, he was probably as good as Lipinets, Granados, Imam, Jessie Vargas, Horn, these sort of guys I think, but Pacquiao is a few years older than Kiram, he is the less natural, more experienced ahd adapted (granted), but less natural welterweight, he has more miles, because he has been a pro since 1995, he has taken more punches, suffered more knockdowns, knockouts, he is coming off a loss, Matthysse is coming off a win, mentally, I doubt Pacquiao is the right place, and you have to remember, you can get away more with being old, when you have Matthysse's level of natural power.

Pacquiao has a decent chin, but not a granite chin, not a career with 0-2 knockdowns suffered, he was dropped by Cotto, Barrera, knocked out 3 times, and if you look, against Bradley the last two times, even though he won, the shots just shook him a bit more than they would have done earlier in his career, same with Vargas as well, I don't mean shook him as in hurt him, I just mean the impact of the punches against the resistance of Pacquiao, his resistance is almost definitely weaker now than even then, not a lot weaker, he take the damage against Horn that he inflicted on him, even though he lost the fight.

I think Pacquiao will gave success, show us brief shades of a poor man's old Manny, or maybe even a second or two of basically the old Manny, maybe be ahead, but I think, and I could be wrong, I think in maybe round 7, he will get caught, and that will be that, highly, highly likely that Pacquiao will leave the arena safe, and that is what we all really!, hope happens, safety is always, always the priority. If you ask me, a 23 year boxing career shouldn't be allowed, the limit, in my humble, very arguable and unimportant opinion, should be 18 years.

Re: Boxing News

Okay, I can agree with that.

Saying he beat Taylor easily doesn't really mean much to me, Taylor was meant to be a tune-up for Matthysse. Kiram was outboxing Matthysse for a few rounds, and Pacquiao will bring a good pace as well. Kiram had a really inflated record only fighting in Thailand, I don't recognize a single name on his resume. I think Kiram wanted out of there personally after the first knockdown.

I think in his prime Pacquiao was better than Crawford and Lomachenko (at least at this point). Pacquiao is a top 15-20 all-time great in my book because he beat numerous ATG's by wide margins which Crawford and Lomachenko haven't done yet. Both of them have a ton of miles, I agree Pacquiao probably has more. I don't think either of them are fully committed mentally, they are fighting for checks at this point, I don't think they believe they can beat legitimate world class opponents anymore. The thing is that Matthysse has to be able to set up his shots and he may not be able to do that versus Pacquiao who still has decent movement and speed even though he is aged.

Pacquiao has a great chin, some of the stuff you said is false. If you watched Barrera vs Pacquiao you would know that he slipped because of the orthodox vs southpaw matchup and it was incorrectly called a knockdown by Lawrence Cole. He won nearly every round and battered him in his two bouts versus Barrera who is an ATG. He was never knocked down by Cotto, he beat Cotto up and won nearly every round. He was knocked out twice before he ever met Freddie Roach and came to the US, I don't think that is fair to count against him. He was only ever really knocked out by Marquez who is an ATG himself and one of the best counter punchers of all time. I disagree that he really felt Bradley or Vargas's power.

I agree he should have retired many years ago, it is unfortunate someone as successful as himself has to fight for money still.

Re: Boxing News

I'm not saying he should be considered great because he beat Taylor, that was in response to you criticising his recent form. Yes, advantages, activity, levels mean a lot, obviously, but don't underestimate the ability of a 25 year old with 38 fights, yes they were all in Thailand, that's why Matthysse always had a good chance against Kiram, but give Matthysse credit for finding a way against a guy 10 years younger than him, the fact that he was being out boxed shows you how good Kiram was, and look at how Matthysse finished that fight, to be honest, I don't think Pacquiao will be a more difficult opponent for Matthysse than Kiram, your argument is based on history and levels, mine is based on timing. That's only because of what that fool Lampley said that you think that.

I strongly, strongly disagree. So you think they are not as good because of what they don't have the privilege of the opportunity to prove? If you believe they would do the same as Pacquiao, then why rank them lower on those grounds?, or do you not think they would have beaten those guys? And by the way do you seriously think Mayweather could come back now at 41 and beat Lomachenko?

Matthysse is probably more commited, and I'll tell you why, because if this is a serious comeback, then that sets up above Pacquiao in this aspect. Pacquiao has got rid of Roach, he is talking about retiring, has been for years, for crying out loud, just like Haye, this whole 'we'll see, if I look bad in this fight I retire' thing is just a terrible state of mind to be in, it gets a fighter closer, but for his chances of winning, I mean, he is considering himself unable to win.

Interesting, listen, I agree, you can't hit what is not in front of you, but, as Pacquiao has aged, he hasn't been able to sustain his work and movement anymore, the minute isn't enough for him anymore, this is what happens to fighters who go on too long, that goes for his flurries, nearly finishing Horn in round 9 but not picking it back up in 10, but also in terms of movement, you think he can sustain that against Matthysse? who will take risks, is prepared to swing, miss, get countered at the advantage of making Pacquiao work hard, I think it is 99% physically impossible, sooner or later, Pacquiao is going to be static, it only takes one punch, he might know what to do in terms of ring location, but his legs will let him down, Matthysse has experience finishing fighters, a lot of it, he isn't a guy with 11 fights, 11 KOs, Matthysse has knocked out Peterson, dropped Judah, Alexander, he can set you up, look at the right hand he hit Garcia with, Pacquiao isn't taking that if he gets hit with it, I'm not saying Matthysse is the best at setting up opponents, but he has enough method to knock out a worn down 39 year old who is a former flyweight champion, it takes 1 single punch, Pacquiao making one mistake, a little bit of ring rust, being static, fatigue, delayed movement he isn't used to, once he is hit, he is finished against Matthysse, I'm 99.5% certain Pacquiao can't take Matthysse's power.

What was false? The two knockdowns? My apologies, I was off there.
I think you misunderstand me, the knockdown topic, from me, has nothing to do with Pacquiao not being as great, not being as high achieving as you say, it is all about damage, he got kncoked out early, damage, every shot he has taken in all those fights, it is damage, that's what I mean, nothing to do with him not being good once upon a time. Pacquiao has been down twice against Marquez, I've counted 6 knockdowns on his boxrec, and also, all that weight changing, Margarito, Bradley, Morales, Marquez, all thise fights,just gruelling, taxing, there are a lot of miles.

Just look at how the shots landed, what I'm saying is, momentarily, as they land, they move him back just a little bit more, he doesn't hold up quite as well, he didn't struggle to withstand the punches, it's just like a garden gate, brand new, if you hit it, kick it, you don't damage it, but 15 years later, a kid kicks, punches it, it might rattle, you don't have to tell me the difference between a garden gate, and a boxer, I'm just trying to make my point, and that is what as fighters who have had eternity length, toll taking careers, do not hold up as well against punches as they used to. Pacquiao has done 455 rounds, at a certain point, you just have to wonder how long before he is so far past prime he loses badly to a fighter who he would have beaten prime on prime, it happened with Horn, narrowly.

Re: Boxing News

I'm criticizing his recent form because he hasn't beat anyone of note in three years. It is definitely up in the air what his level is in 2018. I disagree, both Kiram and Matthysse looked bad in my opinion. Kiram was brought in by Golden Boy to be a can for Matthysse to crush, he was not meant to be a competitive opponent. It seems a lot of Thai fighters either have massively padded records and are cans or they are very good, tough opponents that have deceiving records. That is simply ridiculous to say Kiram will have put up more opposition than Pacquiao, Kiram is an absolute nobody, if he was really a good fighter he would have graduated beyond only fighting at a domestic level. We know Pacquiao is not a world championship level fighter in 2018, but he still has the skills to beat some contender level guys unlike Kiram. The timing was great for Matthysse to fight Kiram, he had a padded record and very little was known about him. I didn't watch the HBO broadcast so I don't know what Lampley said about Kiram.

Well, I know how Pacquiao did versus those opponents, I can only theorize how well Lomachenko/Crawford would do versus them. I don't think Lomachenko could do as well as Pacquiao did versus his lower weight opponents. I definitely think Lomachenko loses to Erik Morales who is a toxic stylistic matchup for Lomachenko and I think he loses to Marquez as well. I think he has a decent chance at beating Barrera but I don't know if I would favor Lomachenko. I think Crawford at Lightweight would probably lose to Marquez, he didn't have enough experience yet and old man Marquez was a beast at Lightweight. At Welterweight I strongly believe Crawford wins unless it is the Pacquiao vs. Marquez IV version, Marquez wasn't big enough to be a legitimate Welterweight. I think Crawford vs. Cotto would have been a great competitive fight. Pacquiao was a truly special fighter in his prime. I don't know if Mayweather could at this age but I think both versions of Mayweather beat Lomachenko.

Is it really a serious comeback? If you say yes, how do you know? To me, it seems like a money grab that will have worked if Pacquiao's team actually comes through with Matthysse's 2.5 mil for this fight.

Yeah actually I do think it is possible Pacquiao maintains it. Horn was a lot more physically imposing than Matthysse is going to be and honestly Horn probably will have brought better movement to the table than Matthysse. Matthysse knocked out or down those guys many years ago though. As I said, it is about being able to set up the punches. For example, old man George Foreman still had unreal power but he had trouble setting his power up versus moderately mobile opponents. To say he is a former Flyweight champion, that former Flyweight is not much smaller than Matthysse.

You seem to be basing a lot of your prediction off Pacquiao not having a good chin and Matthysse being able to land on him. Pacquiao has a ton of miles on him, he is much less athletic than he used to be, but he is not a chinny fighter. Since Pacquiao came to America he was only downed three times fighting almost exclusively elite competition. I personally think Marquez is a much better puncher than Matthysse. Matthysse is a bigger puncher of course but Marquez has many times over better boxing skills and put some really high quality KO's on his resume.

No, I get what you mean, I just simply disagree that guys who aren't punchers like Bradley and Vargas were pushing him back because of their power.

Re: Boxing News

I respect your viewpoint, you're too harsh? I'm not honest?, we have different ways of seeing this. Often, it is hard to get great opponents, wins that would satisfy a critic like you, and that is the likes of Crawford, Taylor is not Salka or McGregor, he is not poor by a warm/tune up standard, and Matthysse was destructive that night, did damage every time he threw a shot. Ok, well here's the thing, you don't know whether they were both bad or both good, not for sure, they were only in against each other, but based on the focus and awareness of both guys, Kiram's movement, patience, Matthysse's calm, collective pressure, and of course the finish, they were not both bad.

Is it? You can call me ridiculous, I thought you would, you like Pacquiao don't you?, you are very defensive when it comes to Pacquiao. That's way out of line, a nobody, look, some fighters do great at a certain level, within their own country, do brilliant, win absolutely everything with ease, they are 38-0, that's activity, and 100% wins, they obviously couldn't step uo to the highest level and win just like that, but who knew how far a 25 year old Kiram could go in boxing? You had a pop at Rungvisai about his opposition, look where he is. Kiram is not a nobody, has done a lot at a young age, won so many fights, stepped up a level, fought Matthysse, boxed well. Call Kiram a nobody? That is the problem with you over critical glory hunters, you forget just what all these fighters strive to achieve. To beat a fighter who has defended a PABA title 24 times, is 25, big for the weight, shows good boxing ability, that is impressive! Kiram was likely to be able to take a lot of his ability up the levels, not straight to Crawford, but maybe Matthysse, had he built up consistently, he could have been great. Kiram for Matthysse, in my opinion, was more difficult than Pacquiao will be because he is 14 years younger, has activity, size on his side, was unbeaten, was a very successful fighter, at PABA level? Yes, that's why it's even questionable! You call Kiram a nobody? Ridiculous.

I think Lomachenko and Crawford are better than Pacquiao ever was, and that is a strong opinion of mine! Styles make fights, but often, styles make the sort of fight more than who it suits better, there are reasons to think Lomachenko's style is toxic for Morales. I do not think any of these guys were ever as good as Crawford, Lomachenko, I think Mayweather was better, but only him, in that era anyway, Robinson, Leonard, Louis, Chavez Sr might have been as good or better. Now, Mayweather would have no chance, he would never lose, because he doesn't take fights he can't win, he knows he can't beat Lomachenko, Crawford now, because of the timing aspect, if he was less proud, he'd probably admit it.

Oh I don't know, I didn't say I knew, but what I'm saying is, there is more reason to question and doubt Pacquiao's mentality.

In my opinion, crazy, never, not now, he doesn't have it in him anymore. It's funny Pacquiao was 'shot to hell', 'a shadow of his former self' before, when it suited you...
Highly unlikely, Matthysse is very imposing, there is a reason he was such a heavy favourite to beat Garcia, he has so much experience as a pressure fighter, Matthysse knows how to play to his strengths, that means he knows how to use his power. Also, as I said, Matthysse will make Pacquiao work, throw shots and be prepared to get countered, not so many fatuige is more of an issue for him than Pacquiao, but he will not be stuck in the mud. No way Pacquiao can keep up the movement at his age, his legs will slow down.

What you do is you take it into limbo, rather than countering to swing it in your favour, no proof he can't do that now, interesting you mention Foreman, Matthysse still has as much power as ever, and he can set up opponents like be did against a 38-0 opponent in Kiram. And as I said, Matthysse can set up punches, that's why he has achieved all he has achieved, and still has 36 KOs, that's why he knocked out Peterson. Matthysse is good at seting guys up, definitely enough to set Pacquiao up, Pacquiao always gets tagged with the odd right hand or two in fights, he isn't the most polished, and against Matthysse, he can't afford an error. Remember as well, what we are talking about here, all this natter can be a waste of time, you know why?, because sometimes, a guy can punch terrifyingly hard, the other guy gets hit with a shot he doesn't see coming, and he is out, or maybe it is just a shot which hits him clean, he can't revover from, he is old, he is finished, the puncher wins for these simple reasons. Matthysse is by far the biggest puncher Pacquiao has ever faced I think, I might be wrong about that, but Matthysse's power is simply not to be underestimated, but what you have to understand about my point is this, it isn't only about chinny or durable, an old fighters punch resistance weakens, a fighter full of miles, at 39, doesn't have his natural resilience, his chin, legs, whole body can't hold up like before, Pacquiao isn't durable now like he used to be. I think you are biased for Pacquiao.

Marquez is better at setting guys up than Matthysse, good point, but Matthysse hits so much harder, it takes one, and although not as much as Marquez, the fact is, Matthysse has 36KOs, so he must be be capable of using his power quite well, it is important what you are saying in terms of whole fights, skill, fighting guys who can evade and take what you throw at them, but in the crucial moment, one shot, the finish, what you are saying is not very important.

I won't be shocked if Pacquiao wins, but I'm 70% sure Matthysse wins. I respect your argument, if you are right, props, but either way, I wish Pacquiao a happy retirement when he retires win or lose, whenever he does retire. Pacquiao is a boxing legend, I agree on that, I just don't think he was ever as good as Crawford and Lomachenko.

Re: Boxing News

I'm not necessarily saying Taylor was an inappropriate level of opponent for a tune up, I'm just saying Taylor is not someone who Matthysse's actual level in 2018 can be gauged on and neither is Kiram. Sure you can have a fight where both fighters look poor. Kiram's movement looked good because Matthysse has bad movement at this point in his career.

I sure don't like 2018 Pacquiao. Pacquiao beat Vargas, a credible then world champion with ease less than two years ago and arguably should have got the decision versus Horn. To say I took a shot at Rungvisai's record before he beat Estrada...okay? He had only faced one actual world level opponent other than Gonzalez who may or may not have been a shot fighter, we still don't know. Rungvisai at least held a world title at one point before he faced Gonzalez. We learned when he faced Estrada it wasn't just that Gonzalez was shot if he was, Rungvisai is an elite level fighter despite his obvious limitations. Kiram has done absolutely nothing in his entire career to show that he is even of a decent level. Saying a domestic Thai welterweight, a very thin division in Thailand holding a regional title versus competition no one has heard of is comparable to what "Old Man"ny Pacquiao has done recently is ridiculous which is why I said it. If Kiram was able to take his ability up levels, he would have fought a credible opponent in his career before Matthysse, but he didn't. He is actually a nobody, only Asian boxing experts had even heard of this guy before Golden Boy found Kiram to feed to Matthysse. Paper records mean nothing, resumes are the true measure. Sven Ottke went "34"-"0" and robbed people constantly in Germany to keep his title. Orlando Salido was a top-level Featherweight with double-digit losses. Kiram was a fighter with a padded record that made him seem much better than he is in reality at first glance.

You would have a very very difficult time finding anyone to agree with that statement. What Manny Pacquiao did versus opponents such as Barrera and Cotto showed he is a true all-time great. Barrera and Cotto are Hall of Fame level guys. Arguably, there are zero active fighters who have beat an in-prime fighter of that quality. Shutting out Jason Sosa and shutting out Marco Antonio Barrera are on entirely different levels. The fact Pacquiao was able to beat all-time great fighters in their primes shows he was an incredible talent. Lomachenko is a top pound for pound fighter and will be in the Hall of Fame, but for example, I am very confident Pacquiao would have easily beat and shut down Linares while Lomachenko was tested by Linares. There are levels even when you are talking about Hall of Famers. There is quite a list of fighters I believe could do well or I would pick to be favorites versus Lomachenko at Super Featherweight or Lightweight historically.

He is shot to hell in comparison to his peak level, his peak level is a top level all-time great. Matthysse was such a heavy favorite to beat Garcia because of Garcia's questionable performances at the time and Matthysse's hype because of his knockouts. He was a very imposing 2013. This is 2018. Matthysse is not the fighter he once was. Even "Old Man"ny Pacquiao has better movement than Matthysse in 2018. To say that Matthysse can take Pacquiao's punches over twelve rounds, I'm not sure if that is a given either considering how Postol was able to break him down over time.

38-0 domestic level Thai welterweight, sure. He was able to set up punches years ago, but he definitely has problems with movers which is why he lost to Postol for example. Matthysse in 2018 simply does not have the movement or speed to be able to set up punches at a high level. Pacquiao can certainly get tagged with the straight right given the southpaw vs. orthodox matchups. Just remember Matthysse has not knocked out a top level opponent since 2013. When you are talking about Matthysse you are giving him the benefit of the doubt and looking at his entire career to talk about now, but when you talk about Pacquiao you are only talking about the now which is fair. Marquez and Morales were certainly better punchers, I would argue Cotto, Hatton and Barrera were greater punchers as well. Pacquiao's chin has held up fine to this point, if he was getting hurt I'd agree with you, but he hasn't recently which is what matters. I am talking about 2018 Pacquiao and 2018 Matthysse, we aren't talking about 2013 version Matthysse versus 2018 Pacquiao.

He has used his power well, but as I have said before it is hard to say if he can still do that in 2018. He has not faced top level opposition and has shown he has slowed significantly.

I wouldn't be super shocked if Matthysee won either, I would give Pacquiao around a 70-75% chance of winning. If you are right I'll have to eat crow on it. It would really suck if the fight gets cancelled because of money issues, I am actually looking forward to this fight and the undercard even if Pacquiao and Matthysse are well past their primes. Again, I very strongly disagree, Pacquiao is considered at a minimum a top 25 fighter of all times by nearly everyone. Lomachenko and Crawford will be lucky if they are top 50 fighters of all time by the end of their careers because they likely will not have the resumes to be placed in that echelon. If Lomachenko beats Mikey Garcia and Crawford beats Spence I think they will be considered to be all-time greats though. You have to take into consideration the number of fighters that are all-time greats is very small, from boxers that began in the 2000's only a few fighters can really claim to be all-time greats.

Re: Boxing News

Ok, well I think we can say, on an offensive basis, he was brilliant FROM WHAT WE COULD see against Taylor. I'm 100% disagreeing on Kiram, or 80% disagreeing, yes there was the issue of levels, simply, just levels, and that is why there can be no complaints about the 25 year old unbeaten fighter being underdog against the smaller 35 year old fighter with 4 losses, but it doesn't mean you can ignore the general ring experience, age advantage, activity upper hand. Yes, didn't say you couldn't, but we are going round in circles, I'm saying that from my viewpoint, they were good in different ways and troubled each other, you are saying neither were good, who's right?, what do other people think?, if a lot of people tell me I'm wrong and you are right, I accept that, but I'm confident I'm right and you are a bit of an extreme, picky critic, but I suppose you could argue you are honest and I'm not. Also, it might be about what sort of scale we are talking about, you comapre everything to the highest level, whereas I comapre it to what the fighters themselves at their lower level are capable of. I think without doubt, Kiram made Matthysse look bad like Taylor couldn't, boxed well, but it was just an inexperience issue, not a lack of rounds, but lack of quality experience, wasn't ready, and he was unfortunate to be facing the biggest puncher in the world or one of them. Understand this though, or, don't forget this, some fighters, step up a level, when they are experienced at a lower level, have wantd to step up for ages, and they have a better figyter brought out of them, they bring a lot of their ability up a level, obviously it is nearly impossible to go from Kiram's victories to beating Terence Crawford, but it was Matthysse, who is past prime, and was never as good as Crawford, because as much as levels matter, so does size, age, activity. I strongly disagree about Kiram not being a good test of Matthysse's capability.

All you are doing doing is swinging it your way, I think you are not understanding that in sport, timing, training, mentality matters, of course leauges, levels, matter a lot, obviously, but they do not just stop the discussion and decide the outcome. Nothing to confirm nor deny Kiram is as good as Rungvisai, or there wasn't anyway, so it's even, a stalemate, a pointless discussion. I'm saying a 25 year old who is bigger than you, unbeaten, fresh, more active than you, is more difficult than a 39 year old who is smaller than you, 8 losses, full of miles, coming off a year out, see, we can both make this unnecessarily one sided, without factoring everything in and evaluating it rationally, when in fact, based on my 5 reasons there Kiram is definitely more difficult than Pacquiao, but you have to factor in what you said, which if you ask me, balances it out, because it is 5-1, but your reason, on it's own, might be the most important, but, don't get carried away and consider PABA levels a once a week fight club, and don't underestimate and disregard my argument, because activity is so important for your whole rhythm, size is predominantly strength, age is resilience, reflexes, desire, stamina, speed, I mean, on top of everything I've said, factor in the mental aspects of boxing. That is where you are wrong, he was 25, a lot of fighters spend a long time at thier own country level, Kell Brook, Jaime Munguia, Jose Uzcategui, Callum Smith, the list goes on, don't assume a young fighter definitely can't promote up to another level and bring up his ability just because he hasn't confirmed it yet and been a lower level for longer than ideal. You are very wrong to call Kiram a nobody, you have to have your first big fight at some point, everyone has to start somewhere, is it because he had so many PABA title fights?, so because he was so under challenged, dominant at that level, active, that makes him a nobody at world level?, cut that out, what you are doing is, yiu don't want to give Matthysse credit, so you are taking advantage of Kiram's lack of evidence of being a good fighter to build to your argument, you are very wrong to call Kiram a nobody and he is much better than you say. Hey, 5 minutes ago, nobody had heard of Jaime Munguia outside of Mexico, now, you are all saying he should fight Charlo and Hurd. They do mean something, they mean you are used to winning, tney confirm so far so good, and it is more of a 'let's see what you can achieve', situation, GIVE THEM A CHANCE, rather than confirming anything, also, don't forget, if I stpoke about resumes to favour a fighter, you would pick it apart by complaining about it being names not fighters, and exaggerate, if I was in favour of Pacquiao, you would make it ridiculously one sided and complain about De La Hoya and Hatton being leftovers for Pacquiao. Sometimes resumes can be 'padded' as well as records, as we both know all too well, and you have made loud and clear when it has suited you. Like you did with Lomachenko, with what I think was just stupid, you could do that, make a special effort to be as critical as you can, about any fighter, including Pacquiao, because to think that fighter can beat a lot of guys, right in their prime, not coming off a loss, etc, where you have nothing to belittle the wins with, that is very unrealistic, in other words, for any legend, you could take their best victories, and 95% of the time, find reasons to say the win was overrated.

Re: Boxing News

Okay, Taylor was a fighter brought in for Matthysse to beat and he beat him. Taylor was not meant to be a challenge to Matthysse so taking anything from that and applying it to how he will do versus Pacquiao makes no sense. Repeating Kiram was undefeated when he hadn't beat a single even remotely notable opponent doesn't really mean a lot to me. The consensus seemed to me to be that Matthysse was not the fighter he once was, but I could be wrong about that. Kiram made Matthysse look bad like Taylor couldn't because Taylor was even worse than Kiram. Doesn't mean that either of them were meant to be challenges for Matthysse. Understand this, quality domestic level fighters will be brought up to world level guys before they have twenty some odd regional title defenses if they are meant to be good. Kiram has literally never faced another opponent of note so you can't argue that Kiram was a good test.

Both Pacquiao and Matthysse are on near level footing in my view regarding the timing, training and mentality. It's not good for either of them. Nothing to confirm or deny Kiram is as good as Rungvisai?? Other than the fact Rungvisai had actually won a world championship before he faced Gonzalez and Kiram had faced absolutely nobody who even has a name? There is a reason Rungvisai was fighting for actual sanctioning body regional titles instead of bogus regional titles, because they actually believed his career could go somewhere. Kiram was undefeated and active versus no actual opposition. To repeat again, Pacquiao's last two opponents were Jessie Vargas and Jeff Horn. Okay, I don't think Jeff Horn is good, but he can at least compete at a title eliminator level in my view. Kiram's last two opponents are the world famous Vinjender Kumar and Ramadhani Shauri. The domestic Thai welterweight scene really is garbage, it's not an exaggeration to say Kiram fought nobodies. Being active versus nobodies doesn't push fighters so it isn't meaningful to "tune up" with early KO's versus absolute bums like Kiram did. All of those guys you listed with the exception of Uzcategui were built up to be legitimate world championship fighters. That is the difference between Kiram who exclusively fought bums to pad his record and be a dummy opponent, not building up a fighter, and actual quality prospects. Kiram was with M80, same as Rungvisai, so if he was an actual talent he would have been built up fighting for actual sanctioning body regional titles instead of facing actual bums. If no one knows who Kiram is, he is by definition a nobody. No one knew who he was before he faced Matthysse. If Matthysse fought actual quality contender level opponents, I would give him the credit he deserves, but Golden Boy brought these guys in for Matthysse to beat. You will never hear of Kiram again after the Matthysse bout. Munguia was Ring Magazine's prospect of the year in 2017. To say he wasn't considered quality before he beat Ali is wrong. If someone like Kiram faces absolute bums, doesn't build themselves up as a prospect and is gifted a chance, they don't deserve respect until they actually beat a quality opponent. That is not true, I respect fighters who step up to challenges, you won't see me complaining about Andre Ward for example, why? Because he fought high quality opposition and deserves the praise for it. De La Hoya was a shot fighter versus Pacquiao and Pacquiao deserves little credit for that win just like if Lomachenko beat a weight drained Pacquiao. Hatton was a good win for Pacquiao but Hatton isn't in Pacquiao's top five wins. I agree, resumes can be padded, fighting names that appear better than their in ring abilities are, Matthysse and Pacquiao are good examples of guys who have better reputations and names than their abilities in the ring today. That is not true, there are some fighters who have wins versus in prime all time great fighters that simply cannot be reasonably debated.

Re: Boxing News

Very negative, Taylor did well against Algieri and Broner, comapre that to how Matthysse dominated him, he didn't just beat him, he dominated him, you are so unrealistic, Taylor isn't bad by tune up standrads, you can't fight great fighters every time around, maybe Taylor was the best they could get. So really, no matter what Matthysse did, if he has done it in one round, you wouldn't have been impressed no matter what, because he was fighting Taylor. Even worse than Kiram, show some respect, you are arrogant, pompous, two losses between them. We will get nowhere until you control your ridiculous nitpciking and obsession with what fighters have had the chance to prove. Ok, but how did they know how good Kiram was, understand this, and please, read this, and learn what I'm explaining, because we could have a good, rational discussion if you just give me a chance, unproven can work two ways, we didn't know hiw Kiram would improve when he stepped up, how can an a young, active, unbeaten fighter who is the best 147lb in his country be made for Matthysse?, when Matthysse is old, at that point, not active?, Kiram was dominant, we had no idea how he was going to improve.

Ok, that is a good point, but I am not convinced, because maybe Kiram was avoided, I mean, you saying that when fighters are stuck at a low level for while, struggling to get opportunities, that they are not good enough?, I think you need to use your brain? What sort of impression did Kiram have to make against Thai opponents to get promoted to a higher level, that he didn't make? I can argue he was a good test, for a reason I will state one more time, unbeaten, 38 fights, only 25, PABA level, that's a continent, not just a country, right, big for the weight, active, dominant, under challenged at PABA level, on those grounds, he was a good test for Matthysse! The level is why I struggled to make a prediction despite most aspects being on Kiram's side, the fact that he hadn't proven himself just meant that he hadn't had the chance to, and if you ask me, the reason why Matthysse won, was because Kiram leaped up too quickly, maybe should have been more consistent, and he was unlucky he fought such a damn dangerous puncher, maybe even that had been Chris Algieri, Lamont Peterson, Devon Alexander, he would have won, but against Matthysse, you don't make a mistake, I think that's why Kiram lost, but based on what he showed us against Matthysse, he is not a bum, he is not a nobody, and you are very wrong to say he is, you are a glory hunter, intelligent and articulate, but you only like to read and pay attention when it backs you up, you need to give people a chance. I believe Pacquiao will be less difficult for Matthysse than Kiram, and I have given you 5 reasons why. Experience in quantity and quality backs up what you say about Pacquiao still being better than Kiram, but I don't believe that the historic, back in the day aspect is enough to trump my argument, and you being pig ignorant won't change my opinion. You can argue Kiram was a good test, but you can argue he wasn't because of the not just step up but leap up in level.

No, I was talking about Kiram, mentality, training, desire, a young, determined fighter who trains well, when it is his time, can pull out an upset, even if a fighter is at a lower level, loads of fighters can step it up. There was nothing, I suppose now he has lost to Matthysse, but before that, he had never lost, never beaten anyone of note, what?, balanced.

Some fighters are underrated, just because Kiram didn't have the support and reputation, in terms of results, he delivered, and I think you underestimate how tough some of these Thai guys with nothing to lose are. So is Kiram, because Matthysse is far better than you say, because you try to make this more complicated than it is, neglect the basics, because Matthysse is better than you say, Kiram did well to box so well against him considering his lack of quality experience, Kiram is good enough to box in a world title eliminator, I think he could cruise past Bailey, Funeka, and against Horn, I like that match up. I just have more respect for this sport than you do, I am a fan who supports fighters at variosu levels, don't hide behind words like domestic and nobody, call them nobodies if yiu like, fighters who you don't know anything about, but are within their own continent, that's all you know. That's just a stupid thing to say, they are not nobodies, you can't have it both ways, you can't one minute say Kiram can't do better than that level and call him a bum, and then admit he is under challenged, if he wasn't being pushed, he was under challenged, if he was under challenged, he belonged at a higher level, like Brook before Porter, like Munguia before Ali. Being active, fighting regularly, general fighting experience, getting rounds, not carrying opponents, that counts for a lot! Comapred to being out of the ring.

That's a point, but you don't that for sure, and you can't be 90% certain, he coukd have been jnderrtaed, there are all kinds of reasons why some get more opportunities than others. Who had Munguia fought before Ali?
For all you know, Kiram could have been another Dogboe, Munguia, Davis, who has he fought before Pedraza? He was unproven, that's the thing, and also, to be fair, Rob Brant, Cletus Seldin, unproven, and then proven not be good, but you don't know.

We'll see, I think we will, he is only 25, he is a good fighter, I think he is very underrated, he just lept up, fought a 1/1000 puncher.

Contender level opponents? We are going round in circles, look, you will always find something to complain about, if it had been Alexander, Matthysse would have beaten an over the hill fighter, because it was Kiram, he hadn't proven anything, be realistic, and also, just use your brain, when a figher comes back fro, a break, a loss, will they jumo right back to tough opposition? No they won't.

It is true, for example, Clay beat Liston past his prime, Mayweather beat Gatti past his prime, Pacquiao beat Morales and Barrera past their primes, it was an off night for Cotto, Lewis got lucky against Klitschko and won because of Klitschkos skin density, MARTINEZ IS THE WORST 3 TiME WORLD CHAMPION, you can throw all this ridiculous crap around all day and find some ridiculous excuse for every win in history.

These discussions are pointless, trying, and we are getting absolutely nowhere, you are a nightmare, you won't be told, and are impossible to have a discussion with sometimes, I will respeond to the ither half, I'm settibg myself a 15 line limit!

Re: Boxing News

Taylor is just a tune-up opponent, he was not a terrible opponent for Matthysse but not a lot can be taken from fighting tune-up guys like that, it is just important to get past them. Essentially yes, Taylor is not a good enough opponent where I would have been impressed by Matthysse's performance regardless. Kiram really is a can, there is not a lot else to say other than that. It is not nitpicking, it is simply being realistic and not inflating the worth of fighters like a promoter. Matthysse was a massive favorite to beat Taylor and Kiram for a good reason. No one rated them or gave them a chance to beat Matthysse. If someone hasn't proven their worth, you shouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do it until they actually do it. Saying Kiram is the best Thai welterweight means absolutely nothing. Thailand has never had a champion above super lightweight. Kiram had only fought cans, there was no reason to think he could challenge Matthysse. Golden Boy simply found a good opponent on the most basic on paper level and you took the bait.

He was not avoided lol, the Thai welterweight scene simply doesn't exist. If you don't believe me actually look at his record instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt over and over. If he was a good fighter, his group would have taken him on the road to try to win regional sanctioning body titles, but they didn't do that. He clearly did make a good impression versus bums because he tricked you into thinking he is a decent opponent. PABA level means nothing when he held the title in Thailand only defending versus bums. Yet again I will reiterate if he was a good opponent, he would have been moved up the levels, but he was facing bums over and over. There is absolutely no argument to say that Kiram was a good test or will have been a better test than Pacquiao. You are simply reading numbers off of a piece of paper. There isn't a single name you can look at other than Matthysse that Kiram fought to gauge his true level.

Kiram was looking for a way out so I don't think you can say he was determined. Yet again, he had never lost prior to Matthysse because he had only fought legitimate bums.

The Thai welterweight scene does not exist, I would agree with you if we were talking about Flyweight, Super Flyweight, Bantamweight, etc. Kiram boxed well against Matthysse because Matthysse is not a world level operator at this point in his career. If you put Kiram in versus Horn, Horn would stop Kiram easily. It is simply true that Kiram is a nobody who only fought cans at a domestic level. You can not honestly tell me you know of a single person Kiram has faced or a single Thai welterweight outside of Kiram. It is easy for someone like Kiram to beat absolute bums like he did, that isn't having it both ways. He never fought a single decent opponent before he fought Matthysse. Brook before Porter was being brought up, albeit poorly, and Munguia was being brought up as well. Fighting bums over and over like Kiram only pads records, it does not improve fighters.

I simply do not understand why you are defending Kiram of all people. The guy has proven nothing in this sport. Munguia got accelerated to the top level by coming in on short notice versus Ali and was a known prospect before he got the fight.

You think he is very underrated why? Because he made a fight difficult versus an old man who hasn't won a notable fight in years? Let me know when Kiram faces another opponent with a name.

If it had been Alexander, Matthysse would have lost.

Okay, I will indulge you and break down all of these: You could argue Ali beat a past prime Liston, Liston was quite old, but Liston was an extremely feared and ducked puncher. No one gave Ali a chance in that bout. Mayweather beat a shot Gatti, that's true. He would have beat the best version of Gatti too though. Pacquiao beat Morales who was only a little over a year removed from the very close third fight versus Barrera and Morales went on to fight an extremely close fight versus Maidana, arguably should have drawn Maidana and won a world title albeit not versus a very good opponent. Barrera was in his absolute prime versus Pacquiao the first time. I think Morales won the first two bouts versus Barrera but they were very close. Barrera had beat Hamed and Tapia convincingly before the first bout. After that, he beat Ayala, Morales, fought a competitive fight versus Marquez before losing to Pacquiao the second time. Definitely not a shot fighter. Cotto was boxing well versus Pacquiao, he just couldn't land on Pacquiao outside of a few isolated incidents. Cotto went on to win multiple world titles after losing to Pacquiao. Lewis did get lucky to open the cut, but he made the cut way worse over the next few rounds and was in a very competitive fight. Martinez very well may be the worst three time world champion in boxing history.

I agree, it is a nightmare to try to have a discussion when you are making every excuse for a nobody like Kiram to back up Matthysse.

Re: Boxing News

I think Matthysse would beat Alexander! Prime on prime, in my opinion, Matthysse was better than Alexander, and he is now, both are over the hill and faded, BOTH.

'Okay, I will indulge you and break down all of these: You could argue Ali beat a past prime Liston, Liston was quite old, but Liston was an extremely feared and ducked puncher. No one gave Ali a chance in that bout. Mayweather beat a shot Gatti, that's true. He would have beat the best version of Gatti too though. Pacquiao beat Morales who was only a little over a year removed from the very close third fight versus Barrera and Morales went on to fight an extremely close fight versus Maidana, arguably should have drawn Maidana and won a world title albeit not versus a very good opponent. Barrera was in his absolute prime versus Pacquiao the first time. I think Morales won the first two bouts versus Barrera but they were very close. Barrera had beat Hamed and Tapia convincingly before the first bout. After that, he beat Ayala, Morales, fought a competitive fight versus Marquez before losing to Pacquiao the second time. Definitely not a shot fighter. Cotto was boxing well versus Pacquiao, he just couldn't land on Pacquiao outside of a few isolated incidents. Cotto went on to win multiple world titles after losing to Pacquiao. Lewis did get lucky to open the cut, but he made the cut way worse over the next few rounds and was in a very competitive fight. Martinez very well may be the worst three time world champion in boxing history.'

At a certain point, I just wonder what to think, it is an endless circle, you can make excuse after excuse when it suits you.

You show a lack of class there, I know more about this than you because I know where I stand, I am prepared to learn from other people, your attitide towards fighters stinks! You are wrong about what you say about Kiram, and you cause such a problem over nothing.

I don't know everything, but I know life is too short for this!

Change of topic.

My take on Saunders vs Murray.

Saunders pulled out because he got injured.

Here is what I think is 99.9% impossible.

News article,
'Saunders has pulled out of Murray fight, it has been CONFIRMED for 2 months, they are both in camp, venue, bill, all organised, thee is no injury or drugs scandal to stop the fight but it is off, because Saunders, on not that long notice, has decided at this inconveniet time, he would rather fight Golovkin'.

THAT, is what I said, would NEVER happen, and you suggested should and would happen, or I thought that's what you said.

Here is what I think is still very unlikely.
The articles as they were, but really, there is no injury, and Saunders pulled out to get Golovkin.

That is what I'm 80% sure didn't happen.

Has Saunders got a fight confirmed?
There is no proof Saunders tried to get Golovkin once the Murray fight was confirmed.
Really, when there is an accusation like that, you would expect evidence from the accuser, not the person who thinks there was no plan to change from Murray to Golovkin.

Re: Boxing News

Matthysse beat Alexander in my opinion, but Matthysse is farther over the hill than Alexander. Matthysse has taken a ton of damage.

Too bad I wasn't talking about Tony Bellew, Anthony Joshua, Jeff Horn, Tewa Kiram, then you could make excuses.

I know more about this than you because I'm not invested in trying to make Matthysse look good like a promoter. I understand that someone who fights exclusively bums in Thailand as a Welterweight is not a top fighter but rather someone who has padded a record to be cashed out.

Not quite sure what you are saying, the facts are that Fat Dan and Steve Kim, legitimate journalists, specifically said Saunders was in an agreement to fight Golovkin while he was scheduled to fight Murray and Fat Dan straight up said what you could interpret from Saunders pulling out of a fight with a "hamstring injury" to sign a fight months later, that it was a fake injury. The reason why Saunders doesn't have a fight scheduled is that he was supposed to fight Golovkin but Golovkin got the fight with Canelo so Saunders got rightfully screwed. Saunders is just like Tyson Fury but loves to pull out of fights too, I'm not sure why you hate Tyson Fury and like Saunders. At least Tyson Fury has one very high quality win on his resume.

Re: Boxing News

Don't agree, Alexander is way over the hill, lost to Aaron Martinez.

I have never made any excuses for any of them, I have stopped you making excuses for their achievements to belittle them, I'm right about those fighters, and you are wrong, I was right about the weight topic, and you were wrong, and the whole 'Loma couldn't spark Beltran' was silly.

Klitschko was not in his prime against Povetkin, it was when he beat Chris Byrd probably around that time, Samuel Peter. Povetkin was not in his prime against Takam. Linares vs Crolla II was a good rematch because Crolla won 4 rounds or even 5, Kovalev vs Pascal II wasn't because Pascal was losing 5-2 with a KD and got stopped in 8.

Two things, Fat Dan knows nothing about boxing, neither does Steve Kim, they are just like you, never boxed in their life, winge, moan, cry, kick, have a tantrum.

Where's the evidence the fight wasn't for after the Murray fight?, that's the answer, was it even after it was confirmed? All that is speculation! Don't buy that BS for a second!

They are both nasty, I don't like Saunders!, I said he didn't fake an injury because he didn't fake an injury, just like I said Fury was the best before he fucked it up for himself, Fury had the potential to be the best heavyweight that ever lived!

And AJ is clean, Pacquiao wasn't, Pacquiao moved up 10 weights, he is unnatural, his head increased in size, tried to get toradol against Mayweather

Re: Boxing News

The fact that you are bringing up Alexander losing to Aaron Martinez shows you just look at Boxrec, assume and then stick to your guns. Alexander was a drug addict at the time which is why his career went downhill, lost to Martinez and didn't box for two years. He has actually looked like a decent gatekeeper level Welterweight since he came back.

Stay mad I guess, you made plenty of excuses for all of the guys I listed as well as Matthysse. You don't even know 100% factual elements such as when you said Cotto knocked down Pacquiao. Loma very likely won't spark Beltran, Loma's not a big puncher. His career has shown that to this point. You mean when Boxing Knowledge raged about a single round difference in score with the same outcome and you defended him? That was funny.

Haha, I know many objective details you simply do not know, this Alexander thing is one of many great examples. That's just my preference, I don't like Paulie, so what? Guys like Groves and Bellew are biased and therefore they shouldn't be involved in doping, that's objectively true and they aren't involved thankfully. Eubank is a limited fighter, I don't think you would find a lot of people who would disagree with that, I was wrong to predict him to win based on his success versus low level opposition. I was right about Crawford, he pushed Horn around and you had to make up an essay to defend Horn. Crawford specifically made it a point to show he was stronger and you still say otherwise. To say Klitschko was in his prime just a year or two after he lost to Brewster is ridiculous, Steward hadn't got him to his peak yet. Povetkin definitely was in his prime when he beat Takam, before he faced Wlad he had a questionable win versus Huck and he went on a great streak after he beat Wladimir until he popped and lost his WBC Mandatory. The reason why Linares vs Crolla II was a bad rematch is because Crolla had no reasonable way to win a rematch, Linares won comprehensively and even wider in the rematch. Linares did the rematch for the money. Kovalev vs. Pascal II was a better rematch because in the first bout Pascal hurt Kovalev to the body and had Kovalev backing up which no one had done to that point. It was by far Kovalev's most competitive fight up until Ward.

Hilarious you would say that, Fat Dan and Steve Kim are respected journalists, do you think they made this stuff up? They have inside sources and often journalists are used as mouthpieces to release information from promoters and fighters. You don't have to know shit about boxing itself to report business information like how Saunders pulled out with a fake injury.

The proof is that they got it from an inside source who said he was negotiating the fight while the Murray fight was scheduled lol. They have integrity as journalists, they aren't promoters who have an angle of making money.

AJ is not on VADA 365 so why even bother talking at this point. If he cared about being the most clean athlete he can be he would be on VADA 365 like Golovkin has done. Pacquiao began his career at eighteen in 1995 while extremely impoverished, he wasn't even close to being a developed fighter when he was in the Phillipines. In 1994, Floyd Mayweather was a Flyweight amateur. Did Floyd roid out?? Paulie is mad he doesn't have much natural ability, he always compliments feather fisted boxers because he can relate to them. Paulie did well in his career considering how poor his power was, he should be happy with that instead of trying to compensate all the time. If Paulie juiced out he would never even come close to Pacquiao's ability, muscles don't build boxing ability. Pacquiao was a natural power puncher, it is evidenced by how good of a puncher he was at lower weights early in his career. If it was as simple as taking steroids to be one of the greatest fighters of all times, there would be many other fighters who would have been able to replicate what Pacquiao did. Instead, the reality is that Pacquiao was an extremely gifted natural talent who developed great boxing skills which is why it hasn't been replicated.

For someone accusing me of "winge, moan, cry, kick, have a tantrum", you sure seem angry.

Re: Boxing News


Re: Boxing News

Based on the advice of my father, a wiser man than you or I will ever be, I am going to stop this, and tempted as I am to in a futile way respond to you and drop more logic on your nitpicking and ridiculously one sided, and ultimately sometimes quite stupid analyses, I'm going to stop this discussion, because I've had enough, maybe some new topic.

Klitschko learned from, bounced back from the Brewster loss well, Steward started training him in 2004, get your facts straight before you call me ridiculous. Klitschko was 28 when he beat Peter, he was in his prime at that point, all the way up until probably Thompson second time, then he started to decline I think, when he was about 34, which would already be old, but heavyweights last longer usually, but no, forget weights, a 37 year old is never in his prime, end of story, that's sport science.

Povetkin was 34 against Takam, doubt he was in his prime, don't think he was at all far past it, but no his prime was probably before he fought Klitschko, probably from Chis Byrd to Rahman. Age is age to an extent, and to a high enough extent, that a 34 year old is likely to be slightly declined as a cruiserweight/heavyweight, it might be not at all old or even young for a big heavyweight, but no, 37 years old, not always shot at that weight, not always even far past prime, but your peak time is 99.99% definitely behind you at that age.

Re: Boxing News

Saying he "bounced back" from the Brewster loss isn't really true, his style was completely different before then. Steward's first bout was Wlad vs. Brewster which they obviously lost. Sam Peter and Chris Byrd were "one or two years" respectively after Wlad lost to Brewster which is what I said. Heavyweights generally have later primes than other weights, they take longer to develop into quality fighters as well. Wlad took some time to really get Steward's system down entirely. Saying a fighter can't be in their prime at 37 years old is wrong. Archie Moore and Bernard Hopkins are great examples of top quality old championship fighters.

So you think he was in his prime when he arguably drew or lost to Marco Huck, a cruiserweight, and beat an old man in Hasim Rahman rather than stopping five fighters in a row including Charr, Wach, Duhaupas and Carlos Takam who AJ couldn't legitimately knock out?

Re: Boxing News

It isn't wrong, not unless a fighter is so delayed, so fresh, but in that case, they can't be as good at 37 as they would have been, but no Moore wasn't at his best at 37 years old, and neither was B-Hop, it is nyon impossible to be as good as you once were when you are 37, that's a fact. Not sure I agree heavyweights take longer to develop, maybe, but look at Daniel Dubois, I think he will be a world champ in 3 years time, that's a good point though, I'm not sure, I'm just not convinced, because I've seen young heavyweights develop fast, Tyson Fury, Joseph Parker, AJ beat Klitschko at 27. I'm not saying Wlad was far past his prime, but he was past it all the same against Povetkin, and I think B-Hop declined at a snail's pace, but no he had already started declining by 37 I think.

Yes I do, Marco Huck is his best win by far, look at Huck's resume, and look at how many world title fights he won, Povetkin himself is a very small heavyweight, so the weight advantage wasn't that big, and Huck was in his prime at that point as well, no Huck, like Abraham, like, Braehmer, like Zeuge probably, German or German based, very underrated. Huck won 13 world title fights, beating him at all was impressive.

Re: Boxing News

You are saying it is impossible, I am providing you examples where it happened. Moore was 37 when he won the world Light Heavyweight title versus Maxim, beat Harold Johnson at 38 and held the Light Heavyweight title until he was 45. When Hopkins was 37 he was the undisputed Middleweight champion, beat Trinidad at 36, a boxing masterclass, beat Tarver at 41, another unbelievable performance, beat Pavlik at 43, took him to school. He was in his prime at 37. Vitali Klitschko was 32 when he won the title off Sanders, was in his prime in his 30's. Lennox Lewis was 31 when he regained the title versus McCall and really entered his prime with Steward. Evander Holyfield fought the majority of his prime in his late twenties and early thirties but was still a top level guy into his late thirties. Most Heavyweights take time to develop, there are some exceptions like Mike Tyson who fought his last great fight at 22, but because of the Super Heavyweight era with bigger guys that take longer to develop and advances in training, nutrition and recovery, guys are going to stay in their primes longer.

Huck is a very underrated fighter, didn't fight the best opposition but was consistent in his victories. However, he really is a Cruiserweight. He was only 209 versus Povetkin and Povetkin was 229. Povetkin is a stocky guy. Still think knocking Takam out was by far his best win, Takam is a natural heavyweight, never really got KO'd outside of Povetkin and fought tough versus Parker. To say Huck is Povetkin's best win, well he arguably drew or lost the fight so it certainly wasn't his best performance.

Re: Boxing News

I'm not the best historian, but I don't believe they were at their best on their late thirties, what I do believe in that that is when they got the recognition they deserved, got the opportunities they were after, doesn't mean they were better than when they were younger, that's based on 8 years following boxing, I've heard people who know boxing very, very well explain how fighters age. I agree about big heavyweights, but not to that extent, yes they last longer, but not so much that they can be 37 and in their prime, I do not believe that at all!, but I think a 34 year old can be at their best at 250, wheheras at say 135, a fighter is always declining by then, but with heavyweights, they can decline more slowly, and what I will say is, Klitschko was not far past his best at 37, so no shame in Povetkin losing to him, but I just think you are exaggerating.

But that's it, best win, not the best performance. Povetkin is a dominant fighter, when are his performances not good?, he has looked great in every fight apart from Klitschko, but I just think in that fight he got found out as everything but great at world level, he just couldn't seem to pick it uo that extra notch, but that referee, he was terrible, he rewarded Klitschko for wrestling Povetkin to the floor.

I don't believe Joshua is on steroids, I'm 99% sure he isn't, I think Pacquiao was, but I don't go around saying it is certain he was a PED cheat, so don't say that about Joshua again, ok?

Re: Boxing News

I'm not an expert on Moore, I know he was ducked quite a bit when he was younger but he got his best wins at 37, 38. Maxim and Johnson were very good opponents. I do however know that Hopkins was in his prime in his late thirties, he had a very long prime, one of the best boxers of all times certainly due to that outstanding trait. Lennox Lewis was 36 years old when he beat Hasim Rahman in the rematch, one of the best performances in his career for my money. He totally chinned Rahman. Vitali Klitschko was 37 when he beat Sam Peter, 38 when he beat Chris Arreola, both very good performances. Povetkin was the best opponent Wlad fought in my view, the fight was super ugly but Wlad won extremely wide.

Some people don't even think it is a win for Povetkin though. He hasn't looked as good since he popped when he was Wilder's mandatory. I don't think Povetkin has the ability he once had.

You did say Pacquiao did well because he used steroids. I never even said that about Joshua, I specifically said I think he would do better if he had less muscle.

Re: Boxing News

So? Most fighters have the odd disputed win or two, it happens, and beating Huck at all was impressive.

He absolutely doesn't, he isn't much worse, but he has definitely dipped, he is 38, it is that simple. I don't think Povetkin was a hardcore PED user, I think he was a small, old fighter who wanted a little boost, did a 'technically legal', did what he could get away with, took a minor substantce, but didn't keep up with the law, and there was overlap, and itbwas outlawed before he could stop using it, still, to an extent, a PED is a PED, and any fighter who commits that crime, should be punished, like with shoplifting, you get punished, whether it is 200 from the till, or a bag of candy, but I think with Povetkin failing the test, what happened after was more of a punishment for Wilder than for Povetkin, he could really have done with that name, that win on his resume, it was opportunity he lost out on through no fault of his own, and because of that, lost the ahcne to prove himself on a level he hadn't proven himself on before.

Now there is no need for that, 'Joshua is certainly on steroids', you have said that. If you rescind it, great, no need to deny you said it though. Like I said, it goes both ways, I'm 70% sure Pacquiao was unclean, but I'm not going to tell people it is certain.

Re: Boxing News

Someone's best win shouldn't be one that is considered to be disputed though.

I do believe he is certainly on steroids. Doesn't change his boxing ability though.

Re: Boxing News

Winning is winning, the emphasis has nothing to do with it. Salido's win over Lomachenko is disputed, that not his best win? Frampton's win over Santa Cruz is disputed, not his best win? Golovkin's win over Jacobs was disputed, not his best win? Canelo's win over Lara was disputed, not his best win? (Was Cotto his best win though I suppose) Usyk's win over Briedis was disputed, not his best win?

You believe he is, I disagree, neither of us van be sure we are right, let's leave it at that.

Re: Boxing News

Overall I disagree with this sentiment. To use similar examples from earlier, Bernard Hopkins nearly shut out Felix Trinidad before knocking him out in the final rounds. If he won 115-113 x3 and Trinidad was hurting him with the left hook repeatedly it wouldn't be the great win it was. Using Trinidad again, Trinidad got the majority decision versus De La Hoya. If a win was just a win regardless of how you get it, that would be held in high regard for Trinidad, but it isn't because Oscar was winning clearly before he got on his bike and likely should have at least got a draw. Danny Garcia vs. Lamont Peterson is a similar fight to that where the winner isn't really seen as being the better fighter that night. When we are talking about Povetkin and Huck, we are talking about Povetkin being the favorite, Huck coming up in weight and it is still a disputed decision. With the exception of Canelo vs. Lara, in a lot of your examples, the fighters were seen as relatively evenly matched and/or the decision was not that disputed.

Re: Boxing News

It would be exactly the same win, not the same exact achievement, not the same performance, not the same dominance, when being analytical, a narrow win is not a one sided win, but in terms of legacy, history, it doesn't matter, and winning is winning.

No I don't think so, I understand that argument, because you argue that the win isn't legitimate, but, I think sometimes, a controversial decision does down as a robbery when it isn't, then again, when there is obvious corruption, like Holyfield vs Lewis, I agree with you to an extent, but even then, all you can do is make that point, sport is sport, results remain, and a win on someone's resume never goes away unless it is overturned one of the 4 organisations. This is the way it is, you can't change a fact, and a win is a win.

A lot of that is psychological, Peterson battering Garcia for a few rounds, Garcia clearly nicking several, anyone's fight though, because Garcia won I think 5-7 rounds.

Ok, but how much of that is about Huck being underrated? The weight difference wasn't so much, Huck is taller than Povetkin, might even be naturally bigger. At that point, Huck had done more at world level, and was just underrated, Povetkin won, and that's his career victory in my strong opinion, because Huck is his second best opponent. As much as I don't think Takam is as good as Huck, I agree that he is underrated, I found people saying he was going to get smashed by Joshua early, ridiculous, I predicted a UD, and I think he will beat Chisora, because I think he is more skilled, the better athlete, and Chisora is an old 34 year old.

Ok, but you get my point, I could think of more examples, but also, all those decisions were disputed, and even if they were evenly matched, still, doesn't have to be an upset, some fighters are tabbed for world level success at a young age, and people have high expectations of them, if they fight another good world level fighter, and win, whether it is a touch and go SD, or a dominant win, that is likely to be the best win of their career, and if it isn't, then the better win is better because the opponent is better, therefore so is the achievement, not because it is more dominant.

Re: Boxing News

Okay, not sure how much that really means though. It's a "W" on paper but if the consensus is that it was a robbery or at least a disputed decision it won't count as much in their legacy. Every time someone talks about the Canelo Lara fight or the Canelo Golovkin fight the scorecards are inevitably brought up. Saying that margin of victory and quality of performance doesn't affect legacy or the perception of the fight is simply false.

It doesn't just have to be a robbery, no one considers Lara to be Paul Williams best win. Sanctioning bodies and commissions essentially never overturn results because of scorecards so it isn't fair to set that as criteria.

People don't rate Peterson as being a good win for Garcia because it was a close fight that could have went either way and the perception is that Peterson would have won cleanly if he stepped on the gas earlier.

20 lbs is a lot. Huck is certainly not naturally bigger, is Easter bigger than Canelo because he is taller? Obviously not. I don't think you really understand how to analyze resumes, if someone is the favorite like Povetkin, they are supposed to win versus someone coming up in weight and escape with a disputed decision, that isn't going to be their best win if they are a good boxer. Since you bring up Chisora, his figth with Whyte is another good example of this. A lot of people thought Chisora drew or won that fight and Chisora has a ton of miles on him, Whyte should have beat him cleanly. The only way that could be considered Whyte's best win is because his resume is bad.

Outright disagree, I don't think you will see a lot of people saying Canelo's best win is Lara because of the perception around the fight for example. The whole point is that boxing is a sport where people analyze the smallest details and do care to read into things beyond what the official scorecards say when rating best wins.

Re: Boxing News

I've had enough of all this crap.
I'll talk to you about boxing, about a separate topic.

I don't believe in Kim and Rafael as reliable sources, and I think Saunders is injured.
I stand by what I have said 100%.

Re: Boxing News

Okay, believe whatever you feel to make your narrative seem correct. Doesn't make you less wrong.

Re: Boxing News

You are wrong, and in an ideal world, you would have admitted it, arrogant people never learn, and you arrogance is the reason why you don't know anywhere as much as you think you do.

Re: Boxing News

Considering you believe you know more about the behind the scenes business details than actual journalists because it doesn't fit your narrative, perhaps that statement would fit you better.

Re: Boxing News

Behind the scenes journalists, pal, you don't know boxing like you think you do, the statement fits the person who doesn't think boxers know boxing. So I don't know boxing just because I don't think a world champion faled an injury. These journalists are idiots, I know boxing better than them, they are busybodies, gossips. There is no proof the negotiations were meant to be for Ausgust, there is no evidence Saunders fighting Golovkin was in August was ever an option whilst the Murray fight was confirmed, and I don't believe it was. How you can all a fighter a nobody when they are 25, 38-0, have ruled their continent in their division for years, is beyond me, and how you think a 39 year old inactive, mentally questionable, washed up fighter is factually better at this time, is beyond me. You were wrong about what I said about belittling victories, you are an example of people who argue pointlessly, you can make a stupid excuse for every good win, if the opponent is in his prime, you can speculate, and there is usually some kind of factor you can throw in there, you don't like Lomachenko, you belittle all his wins, I could do the same about Pacquiao, both equally stupid. You act like my take on Pacquiao is disagreed with by everyone, it isn't at all, and even if it was, you'd be a hypocrite, Lomachenko is known as likely the pound for pound best.

Also, did you take a dig at Jose Carlos Ramirez as well? He's the best in the division in my opinion, he is definitely a strong candidate. Never write off one of Robert Garcia's fighters, he is definitely a brilliant trainer, and likely to be the best. Tim Bradley is a great commentator, knows boxing, like Paulid Malignaggi, and Dan Rafael is a moron with a big arrogant mouth, like you, like Steve Bunce, they think they know boxing, and they anger boxers, piece of advice, learn from professional boxers. Crolla deserved the Linares rematch, Pascal did not deserve the Kovalev rematch.

Re: Boxing News

Maybe you are used to UK journalists that just repeat whatever Eddie Hearn tells them, but Fat Dan and Steve Kim have journalistic integrity, that's why they are some of the premier journalists in boxing. You want to talk about arrogance? Read your own message. I'm not going to go over every single thing you've been wrong about over again.

Allow me to create a list of people that cannot be criticized at all on this site because you personally like them so that other people don't get their comments deleted: Paulie Malignaggi, Tony Bellew, Jeff Horn, Tim Bradley, Anthony Joshua (these are the most important ones not to criticize), Tewa Kiram, Lucas Matthysse, Gilberto Ramirez, Jose Ramirez and apparently anyone trained by Robert Garcia.

Re: Boxing News

First off, bear in mind that Pacquiao is SUSPICIOUSLY successful, I think he's a hardcore PED user, because his head size has increased, he tried to get toradol in system against Mayweather rather than cortisone. Also, I think nowadays, fighters don't get the credit they used to get. Lomachenko was flat out under challenged against Sosa, Pacquiao dominated Barrera, but not like that. I think Linares would have given Pacquiao problems. I think Pacquiao was great, but he was never as good as you think, he wouldnever have beaten Mayweather. Doesn't mean they would beat Lomachenko, and to be honest, I think people are too defensive of Ali and Foreman, Barrera, Morales, that they won't give Wilder, Joshua, Lomachenko, Davis a chance, I have a few ideas of the reasons.

Right, but not so shot to hell he can't beat Matthysse, at an activity, size, age disadvantage, can still move, good chin, you have changed your tune since the Horn discussion. Oh right course, come on, this is just excuses, excuses, we can all do that, well Garcia had beaten Khan, Holt, Morales, who's Garcia beaten since with bigger names? So either you admit you are just making excuses with no substance, or Matthysse must be what is making his resume, which would go against a lot of things you have said. He is still is an imposing fighter, has a lot of offensive method, plays to his strengths, again, hasnhe declined, yes?, has Pacquiao?, yes, pointless stalemate, we can do this all day long, and get nowhere. Yes, he was always a better mover, and also, how do you know how good Pacquiao's movement is now when he hasn't fought for a year, and according to you Horn is a bum, or at least, he isn't as good as some people say he is, isn't very good, that in a nutshell, you have said. Ok, Matthysse's resistance has weakened, and he has terrible facial and vision issues, but what can Pacquiao throw at him, can he use his legs the way he used to?, produce the volume he used to? Pacquiao is fast, explosive, but he was never instantly thunderous, he needs longer rests now between flurries.

We are here again, no evidence for him being limited or good at world level, no losses, dominant, under challanged at Thai level, if he has world level experience, he would have been the favourite against Matthysse, what you are doing, is taking the reason why Kiram was an underdog, which I acknowledged before talking to you, and using that to mke the case that he is a bum. I agree with that, but it only takes one punch, and sometimes early, movement looks great, the slower fighter looks frustrated, but really he is just letting the mobile fighter tire himself out with movement. He does, he has the brain, because as I keep saying he has knockouts at a high level, he has over 40 fights, come on, he does have enough use of his power agaisnt a 39 year old Pacquiao, and don't forget what sort of power we are talking about here either. Yes, but knocking out a top level opponent is not a regular occurance, it is a stand out a achievement, be realistic. You are doing exactly that with Pacquiao! That's hypocritical! You keep talking about resumes, well if you want to talk about timing, let's talk timing, who has been out for longer?, who is coming off a loss?, also, if it suited you, you would talk about Horn being older but having had half the fights of Kiram, not being proven at world level either, and struggling more than Kiram for his first 18/38 fights, who has more losses? Who has suffered more knockdowns, gathered more miles?, we can all make the timing aspect suit our argument.

Ok, he didn't go down against Horn, but look, Matthysse has more power than any of these guys, Pacquiao might still have a decent chin by a shot 39 standards, doesn't mean he has a good chin when it comes to taking Matthysse's power, remember who you are talking about, I suspect Matthysse has ruined careers, Danny Garcia says Matthysse hits harder than Thurman despite the size, and according to Bundu, Thurman hits harder than Spence.

I agree on some things, Matthysse doesn't have the counter and set up ability of Marquez, sustained volume of Morales, maybe not quite the head/body attacking of Hatton, and maybe not the precision of Barrera, I agree with that, but what I'm saying is, he is still capable in all these aspects, and in terms of simply natural power, he hits harder than all 4 of those guys, you seem to be referring to how often Pacquiao gets caught, well what if Matthysse's extreme power and Pacquiao's decreased resistance and recovery means he can't recover, then the point you are making doesn't even matter. Now, does Pacquiao have decreased resistance?, does he have a generally win threateningly vulnerable chin, my answers, yes, and no, but Matthysse does not need you to have a Rigondeaux, Khan, Groves chin to be able to punch through you. I do easily see how Pacquiao wins this fight, I just don't predict it to happen, two years ago, he would have beaten him I think, but not now.

The have both slowed significantly, although, I suppose Pacquiao's opposition since 2014 has been stronger overall.

I don't think they'd cancel it with 2 weeks to go, I mean, they are so far into their training camps. That doesn't mean they couldn't and aren't good enough to match Pacquiao, even if they don't get the chances to prove it, that's life I suppose.

Re: Boxing News

Just remember that the level of proof that Pacquiao used steroids is the same that Joshua is using steroids. Both have never tested positive. Just remember Mayweather used an IV versus Pacquiao which was against the rules and is often used to mask steroid usage. Pacquiao won every round versus Barrera except for the first where he was incorrectly given a knockdown. I don't think you will see a lot of people debate that. How could Linares challenge Pacquiao? Pacquiao is essentially a better version of Lomachenko. He has a better chin, more efficient movement, better stamina, far better power and pressure. Linares collapses versus pressure fighters, Pacquiao would have cut him up and finished him. He certainly could have given Mayweather a good challenge if the fight happened in 2011 or earlier. As I said, Pacquiao is considered to be one of the top 25 greatest fighters of all time. He beat numerous quality all-time great fighters, Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Cotto. He beat numerous quality champions as well, guys like Hatton, Bradley, Ledwaba, Clottey. Let me know when Lomachenko gets a resume that can even begin to compare with that. Guys like Ali, who won twenty-two world title bouts and had some of the greatest victories of all times are correctly given priority over current boxers who haven't compiled the resumes to even begin to be considered all-time greats. Once they do fight other elite champions and win, then you can start to argue that they can begin to be called all-time greats.

Yes, I think Pacquiao is shot to hell but Matthysse is totally shot and had a worse peak level to begin with. To say he has a size and age advantage over Pacquiao, is true, but it doesn't really matter, they are of similar sizes and are at similar points in their career. Matthysse cannot move, we saw that versus Postol three years ago at Matthysse's natural weight. Garcia beat Khan, who is a limited fighter who is elite in some areas, and Morales who was absolutely ancient and way out of his weight class. That's why people didn't think he would beat Matthysse along with the aura around Matthysse's punching ability which you still believe in 2018. To say Matthysse is still an imposing fighter who has a lot of offensive method, you have essentially no proof of that because you have to either discuss guys who are cans like Taylor and Kiram or talk about 2013 like it applies to his ability today. Pacquiao's movement likely is worse than it was versus Horn, but Matthysse has worse legs than Horn. Horn isn't very good but I don't think he is a bum like Kiram for example. What can Pacquiao throw at him? Well he can still throw decent and moderately fast combinations. He doesn't need to chin Matthysse to win, he just needs to wear him down over time.

I already addressed why there is absolutely no reason to believe Kiram is a good fighter in my previous message so I'm not going to go over it again. Just so you know, Matthysse was an 8 to 1 favorite to beat Kiram. He was certainly a massive underdog considering he was brought in for Matthysse to beat him. Matthysse does not have the movement to wear Pacquiao down and make him tire at this point in his career. He had knockouts at a high level five years ago, but he isn't going to be doing that today. I am talking about how Pacquiao can perform now based on how he did versus Horn, not how he did versus opponents years ago. Matthysse has only fought bums since he came back, he has not actually been pushed yet still looked mediocre versus Kiram. That is bad. To say Pacquiao is coming off a loss, I guess he is? I would say he looked far better versus Horn given Horn is of title eliminator level than Matthysse did struggling versus a bum like Kiram.

Matthysse has more power theoretically, but he isn't going to be able to land it on Pacquiao because Matthysse can't fight guys who can move, and that was proven years ago when he had better movement at a better weight for him. Danny Garcia says that because he beat Matthysse and was beat comprehensively by Thurman. Bundu got sparked by Spence, so I don't know how he can argue Thurman has better power. Just illogical in general by both of them.

You can't say he is still capable in those aspects in 2018 at Welterweight because there is no legitimate evidence to say so. Matthysse does not have the speed of those guys to be able to land his shots.

It will be canceled if the money isn't right which it allegedly isn't, but if Oscar says it is fine I am inclined to believe him.

Pacquiao has the proof that he could beat all-time great in prime opponents, Lomachenko and Crawford don't at least yet.

Re: Boxing News

"The IBF ordered a purse bid Monday for its mandated super middleweight title bout between champion James DeGale and interim champion Jose Uzcategui.

Handlers for DeGale and Uzcategui were given 30 days from May 23 to come to an agreement on their own. Once they couldn’t compete a deal by Monday’s deadline, the IBF scheduled a purse bid for July 5 at the sanctioning organization’s headquarters in Springfield, New Jersey.

England’s DeGale regained the IBF 168-pound championship April 7, when he beat Minnesota’s Caleb Truax by unanimous decision in their immediate 12-round rematch in Las Vegas. Truax (29-4-2, 18 KOs) recorded one of boxing’s biggest upsets of 2017 when he traveled to London and defeated DeGale (24-2-1, 14 KOs) by majority decision December 9 to take the IBF super middleweight championship from him.

Venezuela’s Uzcategui (27-2, 23 KOs) won the IBF’s interim title from Andre Dirrell (26-3, 16 KOs) in their rematch March 3 at Barclays Center in Brooklyn. Uzcategui battered and bloodied Dirrell until Dirrell’s cut man, Jacob “Stitch” Duran, instructed a New York State Athletic Commission official to tell referee Ricky Gonzalez to stop their bout before the ninth round started.

Dirrell pleaded with Duran to allow him to continue. Duran, concerned for Dirrell’s health, still stopped the fight.

Dirrell defeated Uzcategui by disqualification in their first fight in May 2017.

Uzcategui was winning that bout on two of the three scorecards through eight rounds. Referee Bill Clancy disqualified him, though, because Uzcategui hit Dirrell after the bell sounded to end the eighth round.

Dirrell said he couldn’t continue once Uzcategui crushed him with a flush left hook to the jaw after the bell. That punch sent Dirrell to the canvas, face-first.

The situation worsened when Lawson sucker-punched Uzcategui in the ring following their fight. Felonious assault charges against Lawson were downgraded to a misdemeanor assault charge in Prince George’s County, Maryland."

This is a fight I've been waiting for. I think Uzi is the real deal, and could be a force at Super Middle. Hope this fight gets made.

Re: Boxing News

I would be surprised if James DeGale allowed for this fight to be made. Uzcategui is a high risk and low reward opponent, James DeGale should be a betting underdog as the champion if this fight is made. I think DeGale will likely try to pay step aside money if possible or drop the title if he can secure a rematch with Groves.

Re: Boxing News

I also heard Degale may fight BJS. Don't know if a catch or at Super Middle, but that fight would be a dud.

Re: Boxing News

DeGale dropped his title, almost certainly going to fight Groves or BJS now

Re: Boxing News Was just about to post about this. I keep hearing him and BJS, but don't know if at Middle, Super, or a catch. Again, outside of England, I don't know who is clamoring for this fight.

Re: Boxing News

I doubt DeGale would be able to make Middleweight but I could be wrong. The fight kind of loses its intrigue for me considering BJS won't be able to win a title from DeGale. I think the fight would sell well in the UK and it is in-house for Frank Warren so I'm sure he'd love to make that happen. I can't really see a way DeGale wins at this point in his career though.

Re: Boxing News

Yeah, I guess he should look for his biggest payday or two, then cash out. 168 is only getting younger. I saw that Gilberto says he is moving up to 175 within 2 years, as his team has expressed issues with him making weight. You think that is the right move? I think he needs to learn to fight taller and use his height before he moves up against even bigger, and stronger guys.

Re: Boxing News

Definitely don't think it is the right move, one of his best traits at 168 is his size and if he goes up to Light Heavyweight he's going to run into the problems you mentioned, it will be much harder for him to fight at his pace and box guys. He would also have to challenge for a belt and I don't think he can beat any of the belt holders at 175, even Beterbiev who in my view is the weakest of the four belt holders would probably beat him.

Re: Boxing News

I agree with that. Unfortunate for him that he would need to try to quickly unify, if he is the guy to do it, and do it while fighting against his body not wanting to cut as easy...Trouble looming for sure. I think Benavidez will have the same issues. Uzi seems like the only champ who is natural and easily makes 168, while also having the height, reach, power to be dangerous. I haven't seen or heard of the weight issues with him like I have the others. I hope he doesn't become the most avoided guy in that division, and not able to get a decent fight as a result. His first opponent I heard will be Caleb Plant. Sounds like dinner time for Uzi.

Re: Boxing News

I don't agree with that, Plant is unbeaten, coming off a good win over Medina, we don't know how good he is, but let's give him a chance, he could be another top fighter at 168.

Re: Boxing News

I don't think he is bad, but watching a bit of footage on him, I just question his power, and if he will be physically imposing enough to stop Uzi from stalking him. The kid has good hands, and can be slick off the back foot, but gets drawn into engagements too often, and I think that would end his night. But we will see. Just glad to see Uzcategui back in action finally.

Re: Boxing News

I read that earlier, interesting, at 6'2, that's tall for a super middleweight, it isn't short for a cruiserweight, so he has enough natural size to carry the weight, as for fighting tall, I agree, it is a case of whether that is an immaturity thing, inexperience thing which he will adjust over the next year or two, something he does in the gym but just hasn't really brought it into the ring yet, or whether it is a genuine weakness. I think Ramirez is a brilliant inside fighter, versatile, has a lot of variety, great stamina, and he hits hard, he is a very good offensive fighter, he blocks quite well, but I think defensively, and in terms of using his advantages, it isn't fair to say he's poor in my opinion, because he doesn't completely neglect it, he does show brief times when he uses his reach, and he is 26, he should improve over the next 2 years or so, but in terms on what we see now, it has to be said, he's quite sloppy. Maybe it is also worth considering what his motivation is to move up to 175, because it could be business related, seems like a manageable career move which is worth doing, but it could also be not about the divisiom itself, but maybe he is seriously struggling to make 168, the harder it gets to make the weight, the more it is a case of him being too big for 168, the better chance I think he has of succeeding at 175.

Re: Boxing News

"The WBO have stated that Demetrius Andrade will likely become Billy Joe Saunders' next mandatory challenger."

Re: Boxing News

I like this fight even though I am not high on Andrade. He ducked Lara when he was Lara's mandatory, but he was with a bum promoter who mismanaged him up until now. I think Andrade will at least devalue Billy Joe and has a chance to win, I would rate him as the best opponent Saunders has faced honestly. Saunders isn't going to be able to move and box consistently like he did versus Lemieux. What a trainwreck for Saunders though, he went from almost getting a big payday and opportunity versus Golovkin to having to fight Andrade who is not a draw at all as a mandatory.