Erislandy Lara vs. Vanes Martirosyan Scorecard by mike25


scorecard by MIKE25
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
ERISLANDY LARA
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
9
114
VANES MARTIROSYAN
10
9
10
9
9
9
10
9
10
9
9
10
113

Fight:



More:

Erislandy Lara

Vanes Martirosyan



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

Champion97's picture

Hey Mike, by the looks of things, this was a very exciting fight, I haven't seen it yet but I will tomorrow, did you watch the other big two? I thought John Jackson boxed fantastically, I had him ahead 68-65, but what a finish from Jermell Charlo!, I thought it was a good performance from him overall, I have Jermall Charlo beating Austin Trout 39-37 right now, but it's such an interesting fight, they're both impressing me so far.

This has been one of my favorite fights of the year so far. I'm in the 10th round of Charlo vs Trout and I have it 86-85 Charlo, I still have to watch Charlo vs Jackson. I'm impressed by both of them. That's great that Jermell was able to get a stoppage when he was behind on the cards. Did you watch Parker vs Takam or Haye vs Gjergaj yet? Those were pretty good fights as well.

Champion97's picture

Awesome, so I have good rounds to look forward to, they're both boxing beautifully, the advice in both corners must gave been brilliant, because they're tactics are great, I can't watch any more until tomorrow now, but all the same, it will be great to watch. Absolutely, I really thought he was going to be comfortably beaten on points, but he pulled it out the bag, in great fashion, not only to have that power, but to use it with such intelligence in using it with such precision and at the exact right time, to be honest, he was a long way behind on all the judges scorecards, there was only one disputable round in that fight, and I just edged Charlo, Jackson was putting up the performance of his life, he made a massive statement, as well as his victorious opponent.

I did watch Parker vs Takam, well, the first 10 rounds of it, I missed the championship rounds, I'll catch up on them tomorrow, from what I saw, Joseph Parker looked good, not great, but to look good in beating (and legitimately beating) an opponent like Carlos Takam, at 24 years of age, is very impressive, and if you're as good as (never mind better) than a fighter as good as Carlos Takam, then you belong at world level, no doubt about it, there are a lot of things I could criticise about Joseph Parker, he made a lot of mistakes against Takam, but it was clear he has great talent, at times, he looked great against Takam, the fight must have been great experience for him, I'm sure he learned a heck of a lot, and the room for improvement that is clear to see, well there's no reason to think that that room won't be filled in good time. It is very interesting, because Anthony Joshua has never fought anybody as good as Carlos Takam, Dillian Whyte could have possibly compared (had his conditioning not negated the possibility of him being as tough an opponent as he could potentially be at the moment), and Breazeale (in my opinion) is (at this level) rubbish, it may sound harsh, but he's shocking in my opinion, I've never seen a fighter abuse his reach so badly, he neglects this extremely valuable advantage, what he has of a jab is uneducated, he likes to slap with the majority of his punches, his defence is awful, his conditioning is poor, the fight is a sham in my opinion, and Joshua will be taking a massive leap, from Breazeale to Parker. Joshua vs Parker should be fantastic, I think Joshua will win, but I believe Parker will make a fantastic account of himself, it will be great experience, I think he will give Joshua a lot of problems (even at this stage of his career, when he has a lot to learn), I think he might even go the distance with Anthony Joshua, the fight will be great experience for Joshua as well, and great for his career.

I didn't watch Haye, because unless the scoundrel is being knocked out, I have no interest in watching him compete, the news that Shannon Briggs has been round to Haye's uncle's house shouting 'let's go champ!' interests me a lot more than David Haye knocking out limited opponents, I would love to see Shannon Briggs derail the Hayefaker's joke of a comeback.

Have you noticed the commentator for Charlo vs Trout? I thought he was amusing, but a bit bizarre, every time the camera focused on a ring girl, he would comment, in a sleazy way, and example is between rounds 3 and 4, 'ooh and there's the lovely Carla, one of our beautiful Corona girls', he was the same for Charlo vs Jackson.

I was impressed by Parker as well. I scored it 116-112 for Parker.He needs some things to work on but he's young and has a lot of room for improvement. I think Joshua would beat parker if they fight as well. Maybe even by stoppage in my opinon. Everything you said about Breazele was accurate. I don't really think he's not that good. He really didn't look impressive against Mansour he was losing every round in that fight, and won because Mansours corner stopped the fight.

When did Briggs go to Haye's uncles house? Thats really funny to imagine. I think we weould be in disagreement here, I think that Haye would beat Briggs when they fight. For the Charlo fights I watched them without the sound because it wasn't in english so I didn't hear those announcers.

Champion97's picture

I had it similar to the that. Good point, he looked absolutely dreadful in that fight, he was exposed in my opinion, not for being a little bit inexperienced like perhaps Joseph Parker was proven to be against Carlos Takam, but for being a poor opponent. Mansour quit on stool, I believe it was a jaw injury.

At some point during the weekend, actually were not, I wouldn't actually predict Briggs to beat Haye, I would just like him to. Oh right, fair enough, it can be more suitable to do that so biased or unknowledgeable commentators can't affect your judgement.

I don't really remember who stopped the fight, you're probably right. All I remember was it was a jaw injury. Do you think if Mansour beat Breazele, he would've got the shot at Joshua?

Ok I get where you're coming from. You don't think Briggs to beat Haye you just want him to. I'm starting to watch more fights with the sound off. Sometimes commentators don't know what they are talking about or they are biased towards a certain fighter.

Champion97's picture

It was definitely Mansour, I remember his trainer hurling his hat disdainfully onto the canvas from sheer rage, it was definitely a jaw injury, might I add, I thought the commentators (not showtime, Sergio Mora and the other commentator who's name I'm unsure of) were making an effort not to give Mansour any credit, Steve Bunce said it, 'they were picking on him', Sergio Mora was absolutely dreadful that night, during round 6 of Garcia vs Guerrero 'this fight should be stopped, Guerrero isn't winning any of these rounds', and then later, 'I'd say Guess won 1, 2, maybe 3 rounds absolute tops', idiot. To be honest, I don't believe so, Mansour is 43, he's not a big heavyweight, on paper, he isn't an intimidating opponent, he's not well known, I'm not sure, I could be wrong, but I don't believe he would have, no, you may be curious, why does Domonic Breazeale get the opportunity to fight Anthony Joshua?, his size, his antics (he's very disrespectful, immature, and deluded, this helps to build a grudge match, and this is part of the explanation as to why making the fight is a smart move, from a business based perspective), his knock out ratio, I think that's it.

I've seem Breazeale fight twice, I saw him against Mansour, and I saw one of his other recent fights, he fought a man who I would class as obese, the guy was very short for a heavyweight, he was very slow, he had no so much as a remotely complex or even educated game plan, he just went charging in, gambling, knowing if he was gong to win the fight, he would have to do it in one round, because (with his awful conditioning) he couldn't sustain the pace for even the entire 3 minutes, probably not even the first 2, anyway, this guy, from long range, early, against man with approximately 6 inches of height and reach in him, threw a winging, slow, noticeable, over hand right, I think that may be just about the most stupid form of early offence in which you can apply, for the taller man in Breazeale, this is the easiest punch to evade, it is so easy to see coming, you have to be literally static to get caught with this shot, especially seeing as it was one shot, and his opponent was spending a lot of time loading up between punches. My point is, the defence of Breazeale is beyond bad, he uses no form of defence effectively, so there is absolutely nothing to potentially prevent Joshua's consistent accuracy, therefore, in terms of giving Joshua experience against opposition which can cause failure in your offence due to inaccuracy, this is no better or worthwhile than having him do a round on a heavy bag.

I do believe David Haye is overrated, I think people need to stop and think, David Haye was world champion, yes, but when, in an era when the heavyweight division was not too far from dead, it certainly wasn't close to being at all competitive, I've never really been genuinely impressed by him, not at world level, and I see so many weaknesses and vulnerabilities in him, he is an extremely dangerous, concussive puncher, but I don't like the way he uses his power. I'm going to root for Shannon Briggs, I think Haye is going to win the fight, I think in his prime, Briggs was much better than David Haye, but I have to say, Briggs stamina is good, for a 44 year old man, I wouldn't give him credit for this attribute if he was a decade younger, and his hand speed is almost non existent, I don't think much of his defence, so I doubt he'll win the fight, I'd just like him to, and if I said I predicted him to in the past, I was in denial. I think Briggs might be just a little bit physically stronger than Haye, I wonder is possibly maybe, he cut force the fight early, physically, and in doing this, I wonder if he could force Haye onto the back foot, making him move constantly, and make him do all the work, when it comes to will, heart, and durability, it is no contest, I wonder if Briggs could force Haye to fight at a faster pace than planned, force him to over exert himself, slow him down (body shots would definitely help), I think Briggs has the power to do some serious damage, he is always a threat, even at 44, but at the end of the day, he's human, he can be hurt, he's been stopped before, and David Haye certainly hasn't lost any power. The fight will be very interesting, I think it would be a huge shame to see Shannon Briggs defeated after he's publicly vocalised his beliefs of being capable of (despite his age) achieving huge things in the sport.

I remembered that it was a jaw injury that ended the fight, I just didn't remember if it was him or his corner that stopped that fight. Thanks for clearing that up. To be honest I hate when they show the commentators scorecards. Whenever I see a round scored differently than the commentators I feel like I was missing something in that round or scored it wrong. Then I realize that the commentators can be bias. Like for Jack vs Groves, I was scoring rounds for Groves and the commentators were'nt giving him any credit. I also noticed that in Garcia vs Guerrerro. I still think that Mansour would've been more deserving than Breazele.

I think I know the other fight you are talking about. He was fighting Kassi. I remember he looked very sloppy and people thought he should of lost that fight. Imagine what Joshua will do against his poor defence. Breazele swings recklessly and doesnt protect himself at all, its going to be a bad night for him.

I think I might of misinterpreted what you said about the fight between Haye and Briggs. I do agree with you that the Heavyweight division wasn't really big at the time Haye was big, but I don't think he's that overrated. He has the power to be a legitimate heavyweight and to beat some credible opponents.

Champion97's picture

No worries my friend. To be honest, I think it can be useful, as long as the commentators justify their scoring, the thing is, well, the key aspect of that is, remembering all the different areas/departments in which a fighter can overcome his opponent in order to win the round, and obviously, the difference between one fighter winning the round in some areas, and his opponent winning in others, and his opponent being overcome in every department (narrowly or emphatically), whilst he wins the round decisively (I'm sure you know what decisive means, but just to state the obvious in this case, this means there is no valid way of disputing it), and most commentators explain whether or not a round was decisive, it isn't a matter of thinking a round was decisive, although this is disputed in boxing (other really shouldn't, but it does), it is a matter of all knowledgeable people agreeing as to whether or not a round could go either way, so it's about knowing it rather than believing it, obviously it's a different situation if the commentator (quite rightly) states that the round they scored a certain way could justifiably be scored differently, so to get to the point, if you see the scorecard of a commentator, that differs to yours, it doesn't necessarily mean you made any kind of a mistake, it is important to try to interpret their short assessment on the the round, so whether or not they say the round could have validly be scored the way you scored it, and if this is the case, there's no problem, the commentators have they're valid an educated opinion in a subjective situation, and you have yours. If it turns out a commentator deems a round 'decisive', 'clear', they say 'he won that round, no question', or anything that suggest your scoring is invalid, then, oh well, we all make mistakes, it can be a sign that you're just learning, and the more you learn, the more skilled you become, heck, I've created some crazy scorecards in my time, cards that commentators said were ridiculous, fair play to you, you're a better judge than I was when I'd being doing this for as long as have you have been doing it for now, and I mean that.

Biased commentary is a serious issue in boxing, it is a situation of having to rely on your own skill and interpretation, HBO certainly have history of biased commentary, don't get me wrong, they're very skilled and knowledgeable, but they take this for granted, and that's not right. I think Showtime are just fantastic, Steve Farhood, Al Bernstein and Paulie Malignaggi are all great analysts, I've learned a lot from them, I like the way they always have a guest commentator, I would strongly advise anybody to try and learn from Showtime analysts over HBO analysts any day of the week, I like the detail in which showtime study the sport. I don't think the commentary for Jack vs Groves was biased or inaccurate at all, did you give a round to Groves that a commentator said was clearly a round Badou Jack earned? And which round/rounds were it/they? The commentary was genuinely bad for that event, there could be all kinds of explanations, but Sergio Mora did a very poor job of commentating.

I agree, Mansour, ideally, although not deserving in my opinion, would be more worthy of the opportunity to fight Joshua than Breazeale is, and I doubt there are many who would argue against that statement. Actually, I wasn't referring to Kassi, but I've heard from some sources that the decision was disputable, and others tell me it was a legitimate, decisive victory for Kassi that wasn't awarded to him officially, it's funny to review that fight, nobody seems to take Hughie Fury seriously, Breazeale is being spoken of as if he can pose a threat to Joshua and provide him with a challenge, because 'he's a big puncher, 15 stoppages inside 17 wins', ridiculous, to think Kassi legitimately defeated Breazeale, and Fury won the one sided fight he recently took part in against Kassi, and he was 'flat' in his and his family members' words, it definitely wasn't one his better performances, that's very telling in my opinion, common opponents shouldn't fool people, they shouldn't act as independent decision makers, and sometimes, they don't mean much if anything, but they're definitely something to look at, and take into account. I was referring to shocking, very overweight, unprepared fighter who was undisciplined in every way, I believe his interest in the fight was based on his financial benefit from it. I agree, with the poor conditioning and pre fight unawareness of the potential damage his opponent can cause, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Joshua hurt him with the jab, I don't think Breazeale can absorb one particularly telling, forceful power shot from Joshua, he'll probably be stopped through exhaustion, as well as being extremely dazed.

I don't deny the fact that David Haye is a legitimate heavyweight, but my opinion (and many knowledgeable people disagree with me on this) he is very overrated. It depends what you mean by credible, credible, good, great, they're just words, and different people define them in different ways. I won't give my full assessment on David Haye unless you would like to read it, say of you do or don't.

I still feel like I make a lot of mistakes while scoring fights. Sometimes I might miss clean punches and have trouble scoring close rounds. But since that fight, I think I have improved as a judge. I felt like during Jack vs Groves that I was scoring rounds wrong. Like there was a couple rounds were I think Groves won pretty easy and one of the commentators gave the rounds to Jack. I felt the need to change the round for Jack but luckily I didn't. That might be a fight I'll rewatch. I always say I'm going to take notes during fight but I always forget. That's something I should start doing more.

Biased Commentary is something that always distracts my scoring during fights. I cant remember what rounds of Jack vs Groves were scored differently but I do remember while scoring the round for Groves and the commentator gave it to Jack and I was thinking did i score this round right or what.

Yeah you can tell me your full opinon of David Haye. By the way this is off topic but what fighters got you into boxing?

Champion97's picture

That's natural, everyone has that happen to them at some stage, it is a sign that your learning. I've noticed you've improved as a judge, something I have noticed is that your interest in the sport seems to be increasing, which is a very good thing. A piece of advice I will give you is this, if you believe a fighter dominated a round you awarded him, but a commentator leans the other way, don't immediately watch it again, if you so watch it again, you should revisit it a long time into the future. Taking notes in boxing isn't something you need to do, you can if you feel it helps, it is a useful method, I take note of how many decisive rounds each fighter won, so I can score the fight fairly, and this is something I learned to do over the years, it came to me that I needed to adopt a method like this because I was scoring every round as it came, and coming back with cards that were too wide, a piece of advice that I would give to any judge is that if you believe a standard (no rounds that contain knockdowns, point deductions 3 solid minutes of dominance) fight, that you believe (as does everybody else who's covering the fight) that the decision as to who win the fight, could be awarded to either fighter, then the bounds of legitimacy are 2 points one way, and 2 points the other way.

It is helpful to know who to expect biased commentary from, and I'm sure you know which broadcasting teams to expect this from. Which is the round in question, I could tell you right now whether or not it was decisive or disputable.

What fighters got me into boxing?, to tell you the truth, my granddad (who I sadly never met, but had a strong interest in boxing just like me), I didn't even watch boxing with any real focus, concentration, or eagerness to learn until I'd started boxing myself, and I didn't have any real knowledge of the sport until I was about 15.

I'm not and never will be a supporter of David Haye, I think the man is immoral, a bad sportsman, and has shown no signs of changing so far in his joke (at least 'joke' in my opinion) of a comeback. Let's start off with his opportunity against Klitschko, let's just establish the fact that Klitschko was very poor by his own standards on that night, David Haye boxed like a man who had never had an amateur fight in his life, in the early rounds, he would swing punches whilst out of range, not only did he not step in with his punches like a experienced professional who has developed admirable skills, but Klitschko didn't even have to move out of range, he was putting absolutely everything into these stupid, uneducated, foolishly applied over hand power punches, I noticed a lot of things about the way he boxes which I could criticise, I think he fails to make his head movement, or lateral movement work for him, he possesses these attributes, yes, but he can't apply them successfully when he needs them, I understand that it is hard to be successful with attributes in which you can use successfully against opponents who are your size agaisnt opponents who have a considerable amount of height and reach on you, and even more so against an opponent who is experienced in using these advantages in an intelligent way, but I've seem short heavyweights achieve this, Joe Frazier, Evander Holyfield, Alexander Povetkin, and many other small heavyweights who are/have been lumbered with disadvantages in size (which are very difficult work around) have been able to adapt to this, negate it at times, make the necessary adjustments, and prevent it from negating their crucial success. Agaisnt Klitschko, the game plan Adam Booth prepared was intelligent, but David Haye could even initially apply this game plan successfully, let alone stick to it, it is very intelligent, to score with your offence (easier said than done, it involves judgement of distance, sometimes, timing, speed to at least some degree in relative terms, finding the right kind of opening, and the skill to score with accuracy), and then use your feet, move out of range, and keep out range, maintain the distance with your lateral movement, but the problem for David Haye was that he didn't have the skill to be successful with his own offence without being caught on the counter, and although Klitschko struggled with the foot speed of David Haye, and he displayed great head movement (successfully slipping the Klitschko jab), this is useless if he hasn't had success of his own, at often in that fight, it wasn't even a case of Haye choosing to move out of range, it was a case of Klitschko negating Haye's offence, and backing him up with the jab, yes, Haye still slipped the jab, but he was being backed up, it only took a few clean punches from Klitschko to win the round, and Haye clueless adjust, and could find no way of defeating Klitschko, or even really looking like he was in the running for the win. You can argue against my case, and say 'It's Klitschko we're talking about, there's no shame in losing, in fact, it's quite an achievement even to go the distance', and that's a perfectly fair point, but the Klitschko fight is one of many, many examples I can refer to as to reviewing situations in which Haye has been exposed for being the fighter I believe he is. I'll leave it there for now, because I know you like him as a fighter, and I don't want to come across as, how shall I put it, 'a Haye hater'.

I'm starting to rewatch a lot of old fights that I scored a while back now. Usually once a week and like 2-3 fights that day. I'm going to take notes only on close rounds.

I think it was round 4 or 5 that I scored for Groves that the commentators gave Jack.

Lets move on from Haye for now. What do you think of this whole Golovkin vs Canelo drama? Personally, I don't like the idea of taking a couple fights and holding the big fight off for a couple years it's just bad. I don't mind that they take one fight then fight each other next like a tune up. Because if they take a couple fights or years without making the big fight something can go wrong. Like one of them takes a loss, or one of them gets a serious injury.

The fighters got me into boxing were Ali,Tyson, Roy Jones jr, Mayweather, and Pacquiao. I was always into boxing but never paid close attention to the fights like I do now.

Champion97's picture

That's a very good idea, that way you don't waste your time (taking notes only when necessary I mean). That's good, it shows you enjoy doing it, but it's controlled and responsible at the same time, many people out there develop obsessions, and dedicate their whole lives to it, which isn't healthy.

Which commentator was it?, I remember watching and scoring the fight, to be honest, it was early in the morning, and my mind wasn't fully committed, I made sure my scoring was valid,
but I wasn't as analytical as I usually am now, so I'm not certain in what I state, I remember Groves coming back with 2 decent rounds after being knocked down in round 1, 2 rounds that were also decent sessions for Badou Jack, they could have gone either way, I remember Groves winning rounds 4-6 decisively, if I remember rightly, he won each of these rounds more convincingly than the last, I think I remember John Rawling and Barry Jones agreeing, Gareth A'Davies (a journalist who writes boxing related articles for The Telegraph) seemed to agree on rounds 4 and 6, (6 in particular), but he gave round 5 to Badou Jack, I' think possibly, Davies made a mistake, and so did the commentator you referred to, or (because it is a possibility) maybe you, I, and many professional analysts (who agree with us) missed something, it'd more likely than you might imagine, mistakes happen, no matter how experienced you become, there's no way of getting away from that, it's just one of those things. Sorry I didn't give a definitive answer, of it had been any round other than that one (round 5, a professional pundit disagreeing is the only reason I can't confirm your statement that Groves decisively won the round was accurate), I would have done just that.

I will say one last thing on that topic, if I'm asked about Haye, I will give a long detailed, and (as you saw contained in my previous assessment) critical analysis, that just in my nature, but I'm not one of those people who doesn't relent to slating those who they strongly dislike for whatever reason/reasons, good idea, no point in talking about Haye. I'm very glad you asked me, I just recently wrote an analysis on this very subject on one of the more recent forum pages, it was created by Acerbitas, it is called 'Golovkin vs Canelo (potentially others)', I think Golovkin is a very mature, patient athlete, who will calmly wait for the opportunities he deserves, this can be looked at in a positive way (this makes him a great role model), but it can also be looked at in a negative way (he isn't really pushing for the fight). It is clear to anybody that millions out there want to see Golovkin vs Alvarez, but it doesn't seem to be getting any closer, I don't think Canelo vacating his WBC belt helps matters, I'm unsure of why he mad people that foolish (in my opinion) move. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, I believe Oscar De La Hoya is a man with a lot of power, he's very intelligent, he's a businessman, who knows what his work related priority is, and that is that Canelo's victorious streak, and it's consistency, I believe that he genuinely feels that Canelo would come up short against Golovkin, and of he does feel that way, he's going to be reluctant to make the fight, at the very least, this is a big problem for the fight, I don't think De La Hoya is trying to erase the possibility of the event taking place at some point, but I believe he is trying to increase Alvarez's chances by hanging Golovkin out to dry, excuse the metaphor, Golovkin became known years after he deserved to, he doesn't looked all his years facially, I think some people assume he's 5 or so years younger than he really is, but the truth is, he doesn't have any years to waste, and I think Oscar De La Hoya (with his experience in the sport, in both sides of the ropes, and having successfully competed at the top, becoming a genuine world champion, and being called, quite reasonably, a great fighter in his own right) knows what kind of decline age can and does cause, and he knows what kind of a difference the physical decline of age can make to a boxer, well, to all athletes, but boxers especially, the decrease in agility, the decrease in muscle tone (slow deterioration of abdominal muscles being difficult to adjust to), decrease in fitness, decrease in speed, decrease in susceptibility to injuries (cortisone can resolve this issue I believe, although not in all cases), increase in vulnerability, these are all the issues that boxers in their declining years have to work around, for whatever reason, some boxers decline faster than others, Oscar De La Hoya definitely declined quickly, in his mind, once you hit that age when you're in your mid thirties, and you know you're about to start going down hill, you decline rapidly over the next year or two, and he probably thinks Golovkin will decline at the same rate he did, therefore, if he creates what would still be a fight everybody wants to see (maybe at some point in 2018), Alvarez would fight a Golovkin in his late thirties, and I think De La Hoya is convinced Alvarez would win the fight in this situation, I think De La Hoya knows Golovkin won't lose any power until he's well into his forties, but with the immense durability of Alvarez, the concussive power Golovkin carries wouldn't be a probalem for him anyway. I think this plan won't work, I think Golovkin is a healthy living athlete, I've never seen him out of shape, I don't believe he takes advantage of luxury too much during his time between fights, so I don't believe he has too much weight to burn during his training time, which is a very good thing, so in other words, he doesn't blow up too mcuh during breaks, which gives him more of a chance to make his age based decline slow, and gradual, I believe the fight will happen in a couple of years, Golovkin will have shown no signs of decline, De La Hoya will have held the fight up for years, for nothing, and Golovkin will win a very one sided unanimous decision victory over Saul Alvarez in the performance of his life. I believe it is a possibility that the fight may happen at 168/super middleweight.

What's your opinion on the Golovkin vs Alvarez situation?, and how do you see that fight turning out?

I'm pretty sure it was Steve Farhood's scorecard. Sorry I forgot to mention that. I also had Groves winning rounds 4-6 pretty decisively.

That's ok I like to hear other peoples opinons even if it isn't the same as mine. But before I start on talking about GGG vs Canelo I want to say something about dlh. Even though I did like him during his boxing career, I don't really like what he does and says as a promoter. He says he wants the best fighting the best but he puts Canelo up against Khan. Even though Khan was successful up until the sixth round that fight should've never happened. I also don't like his constant hate of Floyd Mayweathers career. I can see why he doesn't like him personally but he just bashes and discredits his career any chance he gets.

On GGG vs Canelo it is a pretty frustrating situation in my opinon. I was little upset when Canelo vacated his belt then they say he needs 2-3 fights.The thing I don't like with taking 2 or 3 more fights is there can be something bad happen that ruins the fight like injury or a loss. I still like Canelo but I was disappointed. I heard he offered Liam Smith a fight. That's not a bad option if he doesn't fight Golovkin next. For Golovkin, I would like to see him fight Billy Jo Saunders or Danny Jacobs. I'm not sure who I think will win. It's a pretty even fight for me.

Champion97's picture

I failed to submit my very long reply to your comment, oh well, let's continue this discussion, what do you think of the idea of Alvarez vs Saunders?

I think that Saunders can give Canelo some big problems in that fight. He can sometimes struggle against boxers like Lara or Mayweather. In my opinon I would rather Saunders fight Golovkin or a rematch with Eubank. How do you think Saunders vs Alvarez would go?

Champion97's picture

Maybe layer, I will send you a much shortened version of my previous reply.

Me too, stylistically, I believe Saunders is all wrong for Alvarez, I believe the out come would be similar to that of Alvarez vs Lara, not the contest, but the verdict, I think the mathematical situation may well be similar.

I can honestly say I would love to see all three, but if they were all to take place, I believe Saunders would be wisest to face Alvarez first, I believe the Eubank rematch should wait (if it ever even happens), I think it would be great to continue to build that fight, Saunders becoming world champion, and proving to be a maturing and improving athlete in winning his bout against Andy Lee (who's a great fighter, very underrated), and Eubank has just picked up two wins against the two of the three best opponents which Saunders fought before their first fight, stopping them both in an impressive way, in very one sided fights, and extremely empathetic, impressive victories, and more importantly, more emphatic victories than the two triumphs which Saunders achieved over these two opponents, these were two enormous statements from Eubank, the rematch is a great idea, I think both would be up for it, I believe Eubank would find revenge, but it's a very close fight, I doubt you would see a single educated prediction in 100 that says it wouldn't be very close, and Eubank would probably be a very slight underdog, understandably. I think a fight between Golovkin and Saunders would be a great opportunity for Billy Joe, I think for Golovkin it would be a challenge, and a chance to fight a man whom can bring out the best in him, I think the fact that their both world champions makes it make even more sense, the fight is just a great idea in my opinion.

I think that it would be the same on the scorecard as well. Saunders would really have to beat Canelo to get a decision. Also I finally found a good quality of Canelo vs Lara and I will rewatch it and we can compare.

Those three matchups are all good for Saunders. But the fight I would like to see Saunders do the most is the Golovkin. That would be a big step up in competition for both of them, it would be interesting to see how that goes. I would rather see him up against Canelo or Golovkin before he fights a Eubank rematch. Eubank and Saunders definitley need more recognition, very underrated fighters. Eubank should get a title if he gets past his next opponent which I don't think he should have a problem doing.

Also I noticed that a lot of people don't like either Eubanks. Why is it? A lot of people say the dad is desperate for attention which is something I haven't really noticed.

Champion97's picture

I'm really sorry for the delay in my reply pal, just been very busy these past few days.

I agree, I keep changing my mind as to whether or not he wins the fight decisively, his style is an absolute nightmare for Alvarez in my opinion, the way I see it, his style could not be more inconvenient. Saunders' promised improvement in conditioning (which I believe is realistic, and will happen) is something that will not only help him to sustain a certain pace for longer, but it will contribute towards his recuperation massively, and it will team up with his natural courage and durability in helping him to absorb serious punishment, Canelo Alvarez is very tactically disciplined, and he is great at sustaining his sensibility in the ring once in a comfortable rhythm, but interrupt this, and he struggles psychologically, big time, he struggles to adjust to defensively strong opponents, if he can't hit his opponent, he's in trouble, and I believe, if he can't hurt you, he doesn't cope much better with that, I believe Billy Joe Saunders fan absorb the power of Alvarez, and if I'm right, then this would be massive problem for Alvarez. I think Alvarez vs Saunders is a possibility, I honestly believe Alvarez would see it as a fairly easy fight, I song see why he wouldn't take it, and it is clear to anything that knows anything about the man, that Billy Joe Saunders would not turn down the opportunity.

Both are a good idea, and realistic. They do, but it isn't hard to see why they've been and still are underrated, I think being under challenged with opposition has a lot to do with it. Well to be honest, I think his next opponent should be Danny Jacobs, when Billy Joe Saunders could have fought Peter Quillin for the title he has now had he not chosen to fight Eubank instead (a much more difficult fight that carried a much lower reward), then wins he had achieved which put him at the official level of being in a position to fight for a world title were Blackwell, Ryder, and O'Sullivan, two of which, Eubank has just recently taken to pieces in extremely one sided fights, and phenomenal performances from Eubank, so Eubank should be in that same position, but I'm confused as to why on earth he has chosen to put his British title only on the line against Tom Doran, he's a good fighter, but realistically, if he's ever going to be ready for fights against opponents of the calibre of Chris Eubank Jr, he has a long way to go, even fighting for a British title is a a step up for him.

Chris Eubank Sr is a very fascinating character, some find his antics and quirks endearing, some find him intolerable, I think when he was young, it was a situation of him being patronising in the way no other boxer was, his grammar, his vocabulary, the way he provoked his opponents in such subtle ways, he knows what he's doing, and right now, he's doing what he's always done, only through his son, I think he's an honourable man, and unusual he may be, but he's never been afraid of not fitting in, he dares to be different, and he
s definitely worthy of respect, I don't think that's true at all, he never did before and still doesn't care what people think of him. Many can't stand Eubank Jr because like his dad, his arrogance can be subtle, but more than that, because he comes across as disrespectful, it's clear to me that the explanation is merely his competitive mindset, hunger to win, age, and stage of his career, I think he's good guy, but like his dad, of someone doesn't like him, he won make an effort to change his mind.

Champion97's picture

Computer decided to double my comment.