Sun, 2016-07-17 08:46
I must say I'm shocked by the outcome of this fight.
Sun, 2016-07-17 11:27
What do you think of Felix Diaz as a fighter? I feel he is underrated, and that he put on a good performance against Lamont Peterson.
Mon, 2016-07-18 07:18
Wish I could give you my opinion, but I didn't actually get a chance to see the fight, I will at some point, the only two fights from this weekend I have been able to view are Rigondeaux vs Dickens and Williams vs Corcoran. I will see Vasquez vs Diaz when I can, I also didn't see him against Lamont Peterson, I wonder who Vasquez will fight next, I'm sure he can re build.
Sun, 2016-07-17 15:44
That's fine, I thought this was a good fight. I wonder where Diaz and Vazquez go from here. I like watching both of them fight. I got to watch rigo vs dicken, but not Williams vs Corcoran I'll watch it sometime soon. What did you think of the rigo fight by the way? I agree Vazquez should be able to get some good fights coming up.
Mon, 2016-07-18 02:40
Well, I think because Diaz got the win, he's going to have the privilege of the better opportunities in the foreseeable future, but I think Vasquez can bounce back, I think the success and progress of Diaz will make a difference. Williams vs Corcoran was very entertaining, I thought Williams gave himself insufficient credit, I thought his performance was very good, Corcoran made the fight very competitive, it wasn't close, but it was fascinating, and Williams didn't have everything his own way, I think a rematch is unlikely, and I'm not particularly keen to see a second fight, the main reason is the fact that I think the suggestion for a rematch is based on Corcoran's grudge against Williams, and although the fight was fun to watch, I didn't like seeing the illegal offences, which they were both guilty of, I think although many out there expect a grudge between two boxers increases the chances of a physical, brutal fight, but I think it is more likely to increase the chance of dirty fighting, because frustration becomes an issue in a personal way.
I thought it was very unfortunate that the fight ended that way, broken jaws are so difficult to deal with, I believe it should be compulsory for a trainer to make the emotionally difficult decision to retire his fighter from the fight when his jaw is broken, I know Scott Quigg had some serious issues in the months after the fight against Frampton, and his ring return was delayed. I thought Rigondeaux was on his way to out boxing Dickens and winning a one sided fight, but I believe Dickens would have made a good account of himself. I think Guerrero vs Vasquez is a great idea.
Mon, 2016-07-18 09:50
I'm just wondering who Diaz would fight next, he looked good in this performance against Vazquez and even against Peterson. He should be able to get a good fight down the road. I will definetly check out Williams vs Corcoran sometime this week.
I remember when we were talking about Rigondeaux and you said something about him not performing to the best of his abilities. I was thinking that in his fight vs Dickens. I think he could of easily thrown more punches but he was waiting too much on Dickens. He's talented enough to do more but doesn't use it at times. Also I would like to see Guerrero vs Vasquez but I heard that Guerrero is fighting August 27th. That should happen next if he wins which I think he should win.
Also were talking about Brook vs Golovkin and saying that weight won't be an issue in the fight. What makes you think that weight won't be an issue? A lot of people are saying it will be I just want to know why you think it won't.
Mon, 2016-07-18 13:38
It's interesting, I think he should do what many others do and push for a fight against Danny Garcia , and in an ideal world, he would stand a great chance of getting the opportunity, but I doubt he would be able to secure the bout, I think he should step up his opposition next, and if no better opportunities come along, he should do just this, maybe Brandon Rios, Chris Algieri, Adrien Broner (if at welterweight), maybe even a rematch with Lamont Peterson, I think he should work his way up, he's made a large amount of progress with the Vasquez victory, if he continues, he could end up securing rights against the ,I less of Thurman and Porter.
Well remembered, he takes his own skills and tools for granted in my opinion, and he does it so much that it costs him a lot of recognition, I do think he had a lot of hard working intent in the Dickens fight, and there was some spite in those shots, however, I agree with your suggestion that he should have been more active in terms of his punch out put, but I think his perfectionism is his biggest weakness, and thinking about the pros and cons of this situations, one can understand that Rigondeaux keeps himself safe in a particularly reliable way (and if you do enough to win the fight in a clean way, you do just that, no complaints, and as we both know, the something that any referee says to both boxers before they engage in the fight is 'protect yourselves at all times', people who demand dangerous, toll taking fights every time they watch a fight seem to forget this), and Rigondeaux isn't the most durable of boxers, but the con in this situation is (as we have seen in the past) it can cause him to under commit, it hasn't cost him a fight yet, but it is something he needs to work around. I think Rigondeaux took absolutely no risks whatsoever against Dickens, and he only threw a punch if he was certain it was going to land. I wasn't aware of that, and taking that into account, I completely agree, if he wins, then Vasquez would be a worthwhile opponent for his next fight slot.
I love an interesting question, and that is certainly one, I have to be completely honest, a lot of boxing fans out there are merely fans, they don't have pride in being (even if amateur, with no belief of ever really going far) analysts, it isn't about IQ, it isn't about overall effort, it is about boxing and only that, boxing knowledge, boxing interest willingness and enjoyment in breaking down puzzles and analysing all the pieces, which is what I always do, now, when one hears about the fight, they're first instinct is to think that the weight will be a serious problem, why wouldn't they?, without analysing the situation, any welterweight going consecutively from welterweight to middleweight seems unwise, and like it will create a serious weight related issue, now, I didn't actually say that there wouldn't be a weight issue, I said it won't necessarily be an issue, it might not be, and it might not be, do I believe Kell Brook will stay at middleweight after this fight?, no, I think he'll move down to 154, obviously, I could be wrong, so I think the weight situation isn't ideal, and it will be an issue, but a minor issue, not a major one, Kell Brook says 'my natural weight is 160', is he exaggerating?, probably, because where the explanation as to why he's been competing in the welterweight division for all these years?, but we should consider the fact (and this goes in favour of the theory that weight won't be a problem in this fight), why would an experienced trainer like Dominic Ingle let Kell Brook turn down the option of having the fight at a catch weight of fighting at middleweight is a big enough problem for the fight to be unsafe, unhealthy or even not worthwhile?, because this was not just a possibility, it was suggested, and Kell said no, let's not forget that decisions like this are not just mare by the fighter himself, he discusses this kin dog thing with his trainer if nobody else first, this is a very interesting fact, a point I would like to make is that all three title defences for Kell were so poorly matched and these opponents were so poor by comparison, that I believe whether Kell was boxing at the right weight, or unwell through rigorously unnecessarily training in a toll taking way to make the wrong weight, he still wins these fights with ease, and he wins them early, so we can base nothing in terms of weight on the Bizier fight (Bizier seemed literally disinterested), so for all we know, Kell moving up weight is long overdue, I don't believe it's intelligent to say, it's 'the new Canelo vs Khan', because for a start, Golovkin is (in terms of weight) your average middleweight, he doesn't plan of deviously taking advantage of the weight situation in the way Alvarez does (him moving down in weight is an absolute disgrace in my opinion, the whole situation may well be exaggerated, but it's still factor nevertheless), and let's not forget that Khan has grown and matured himself into a welterweight from (I believe) a lightweight, Kell has always been a welterweight, maybe now he's approaching his thirties, and approaching his best 3-4 years, he's maturing and growing, and therefore rising in weight, Brook is naturally a considerably bigger man than Amir Khan. So to conclude, do I strongly believe weight will a serious issue in Golovkin vs Brook?, no, do I think it will be something that needs to be worked around at all?, yes, do I think it will be a minor issue?, yes I do, but once the fight arrives, I think the weight situation will be talked about a small amount if at all.
Mon, 2016-07-18 14:14
That wouldn't be a bad idea for Diaz to pursue a Garcia fight. I think it's a more realistic fight Garcia then a Thurman fight right now. I think he'll take the fight because Garcia will underestimate Diaz. Those other guys that you mentioned would be good fights for him. I also think a fight with Diego Chaves, Andre Berto, or Amir Khan.
I totally agree and he always fights safe even against overmatched opposition. The fact that he doesn't take risks even against opponents that he should beat easy that turns people away from him. I think he should showcase his skills more when he's fighting lower opposition. I can see why people say he's boring. I kind of feel bad for him because he's such a talented fighter but he can't get fights on big networks like HBO or Showtime.
I see where you're coming from, there are people out there that don't know what they're talking about. The thing for me is that Kell Brook took a huge leap in competition, and that I think he should've adjusted to a new weight class get some experience instead of going straight to the best middleweight in the world right now. I also think the fight should've been done at 154 to be honest. Also he hasn't had the good enough opponents to prepare for this fight.
Mon, 2016-07-18 17:07
It is more realistic because Keith Thurman has more on his calender, he has Avanesyan to focus on, and everyone is demanding a Shawn Porter rematch, and I have to say, I'm one of those people, it was such a fantastic fight, and a close fight in my opinion, I love the friendship, respect, but also the professionalism of Keith Thurman and Shawn Porter. Although I think Diaz being given the opportunity to fight Danny Garcia any time soon if ever is less unrealistic than the Thurman fight happening in the next year, it isn't likely, and I would be shocked if the opportunity came about, because Felix Diaz is one of the most inconvenient opponents which Danny Garcia could possibly fight, and as we all know, Garcia's career so far has been very convenient indeed. Danny Garcia himself would be likely to underestimate him, but Angel Garcia wouldn't, and if Angel insists the fight won't happen, then it won't happen, unless Diaz does something outlandish, gets a fantastic win in the mean time or looks poor in a fight in the mean time (but still wins), then I can't see any reason for Angel Garcia to want any part of that fight. Yeah, I see why you suggested Khan, because from his point of view, it's a good way to rebuild, interesting that you mentioned Andre Berto, I was going to say, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Garcia's next opponent was Andre Berto, he's convenient for Garcia, he has a big name, there would be a lot of money in that fight, Garcia said before Berto vs Ortiz II that he wanted to fight the winner, Berto may have gotten the stoppage, he may have git it explosively and genuinely impressively, but he showed flaws and susceptibilities in that fight, and lots of them, and people don't and won't remember that, I can not think of a more convenient opponent for Garcia out there.
That isn't a bad thing, but boxing safely, and boxing in an overly cautious way, are two different things, he takes a 'hit and do NOT get hit', 'be smart before you're brave' approach to the sport. I agree, and the real problem is that he refuses to take risks which are very unlikely to backfire, and if they do backfire, the consequences aren't disastrous, I think winning rounds is what matters, and in a sense that's understandable, when you fight with that style, and don't have a knock out in your mind unless you manage to find opportunities you weren't necessarily expecting to, it is all about picking up the points, putting the rounds in the bank, and getting the win, but to keep this attitude, and not consider working on your weaknesses, things can go wrong, and I honestly believe that Rigondeaux boxing the way he does is the reason why he isn't so well known, he isn't mentioned amongst the best, and he isn't popular, his unlikeable personality doesn't help. From a business perspective, it's no wonder, he doesn't sell tickets, I believe him evolving his style could make him a better boxer as well as one people like to watch more.
Yeah, to be honest, I'm actually trying to come from every possible, I think consideration can be key in boxing, but I do have a final opinion. There are, and that's fine, when they are casual fans who like watching fights, and enjoy boxing for entertainment only, but when it gets to the state when people out there are being ungrateful due to immaturity, inconsideration, and lack of knowledge, I don't like it. I think more analysts should educate fans on scoring, I think the best guys to learn from over here are usually on ; Boxnation, and over in the USA (really hope I get to go there one day), I think the Showtime, especially Paulie Malignaggi, he may be the best boxing analyst on the planet, he explains, and he expands, in good time, and you just get the sense he wants people to learn, not so he can receive glory and reputation related benefits, but because he wants to help the sport, it was funny, the a few weeks ago I watched a video if him being asked about Mayweather vs Pacquiao, this was before the fight, it was like he had a time machine, his version may have been literally 99% accurate, and the wrong small detail he was wrong about was because Mayweather's tactics differed, and not because of the ability of Floyd or Manny. I like to think I know my boxing, I've got a lot to learn before I can call myself an analyst, but I feel I'm getting there.
Absolutely, but this isn't the first time a fighter has done this and it's worked well for them in the end, and as we both know, boxers are opportunists, they don't turn down big chances, it's not in their nature, but you're correct in that it would have been ideal had the IBF allowed him to have more consistency with opposition since winning the belt. That would have been ideal, and sensible, but he wasn't going to turn down the opportunity regardless of the weight category, but speaking from a past tense point of view, if the weight situation is the way he has implied, then he would have been wise to move up to 154 between the Frankie Gavin and Kevin Bizier, although I believe that under the circumstances, the weight situation won't go badly wrong, or even really wrong at all, you make a sensible point, but in recent months, he hasn't been expecting a million years to be offered that kind of opportunity, what was he supposed to then?, move up to middleweight just in case the very unlikely, small possibility turns out to be a fact, and he gets the fight against Golovkin?, and what's he supposed to do now?, turn it down?, you see, when you think from that perspective (which don't get me wrong is a mature, sensible way of thinking), Kell Brook is stuck between a rock and a hard place, I agree it could be more ideal, but I don't think anybody has made any unwise decisions. I don't that was ever an option, I understand why you suggest that, they meet in the middle, and they compromise, but you see, there times when a fighter's weight flexible, and they could make two weight limits, I'm certain you've been following boxing long enough to know of two weight fighters, Mayweather was one himself in the later stages of his career, I extremely highly doubt Golovkin could make the 154 lb limit without having some problems, some the catch weight idea was a strong option, and you could argue that Golovkin could have made light middleweight, because it's only one pound, but even if boxing at light middleweight was a manageable option for Golovkin, although it would have been ideal, unfortunately, that's not how boxing works, Golovkin is the A-side, it's on his terms, he has that right, his promoter gave Brook's team a call, if your a promoter, and you're fighter has a title at a certain weight, has been dominant at this weight for a long time, and is comfortable at this weight, and there are many out there who you could call to fight him, you're not going to call for somebody who would demand a fight at the weight below so he has the trouble of moving down, and Kell Brook moving up to 154 isn't like Golovkin moving down to 154 because Kell Brook could be a potential two weight fighter. He hasn't, and we know who's to blame, I think this could prevent him from being given quite the boxer he could potentially be in the future, but the bigger issue in my opinion is just merely the fact that it's wastes his years, on the plus side, he will be more motivated to fight because he hasn't been challenged since Shawn Porter, he hasn't had one of those fights which make you take advantage to too high an extent when living the good life on holiday after the fight, I don't think discipline will be even a minor issue for Kell Brook. For what it's worth, I find it frustrating when boxing fans out there who don't understand the sport, and don't understand what it's like, or what it's really about, label fighters 'pussys', or 'cowards', in some situations, I can understand boxers insulting potential opponents, but for fans to do this isn't good, I know for a fact that the theory that fans who are not knowledgeable believe to be true 'all the middleweights out there are duckers, and are too scared to fight Golovkin' is about as accurate as I'm am at darts, which believe me, is not accurate.
Mon, 2016-07-18 21:15
I would rather see a Thurman vs Porter rematch than a fight against Avanesyan. Maybe make the Avanesyan fight after rematch. I think for Garcia that he thinks he can beat Diaz easy and take a fight against him because he isn't a huge name yet. Amir Khan would also be a good fight for Diaz. Also I meant that Berto would be a good fight for Diaz. I think that would be a good fight for him, but it looks like Danny Garcia is fighting him next.
Floyd Mayweather takes that hit and not get hit aprroach as well but we've seen him trading punches with Miguel Cotto, Zab Judah, and Oscar Dela Hoya and those are good opponents. I feel that Rigondeaux could be doing more in his fights. I like him and all but he could be doing more like Mayweather does. What I think they should do to educate people in boxing is during the fight instead of showing a segment of the keys to victory for the fighter, show a segment on how to score a round and show the different styles of boxing. Paulie Malinaggi knows his boxing and is a very good commentator. I get what he says a lot of the time and doesn't make it too complex.
That's true if you have a big oppurtunity offered to you, you should take it because in boxing you never know what will happen next. He got his biggest pay day so why not take it? I think I'm rooting for Brook to pull off the upset in this fight. When you are a fighter like Kell Brook you have to take a big fight because he didn't get any opportunities at welterweight. I see it as good for Brook but as a fan I really don't like the fight, but I would say it's better than Canelo vs Khan which isn't saying much. But I still think that Brook should've taken a tune up fight at 160, fight like a David Lemieux or something before going right up to Golovkin. Where do you think Brooks career goes if he loses to Golovkin? I know for sure he'll be done at welterweight.
Tue, 2016-07-19 17:16
My reply will be a little late, sorry buddy.
Fri, 2016-07-22 10:03
I think that's the first thing in everybody's wish list, but I don't think immediate rematches are always necessarily the answer, I think the fight will become even more exciting if Thurman puts up a great performance against Avanesyan, and Porter gets a good win under his belt, I suppose it's irrelevant really and a bit of a pointless exercise to argue, because Avanesyan is the interim champion, Thurman has to fight him next, so, if the Porter rematch happens, it will be after Thurman vs Avanesyan. I don't think Danny Garcia has any opinion of Diaz, it's Angel Garcia who wouldn't want the fight, because he's such an inconvenient opponent, I think Angel knows which fighters would and wouldn't make his son look bad in the ring. I know that's what you meant, I was just stating that I recall Danny Garcia expressing his desire to fight the winner of Berto vs Ortiz, I think even Andre Berto will give him problems to some degree, but I think he has the wrong style to beat Garcia, he has a big name, and I wouldn't be surprised if Garcia defeated him in a similar way to Floyd Mayweather, which old make him look great, which again, is very convenient. I would love to see Garcia vs Porter next, I think it would be great if Thurman vs Porter was to be for two belts, a unification would be fantastic, I think Porter would beat Garcia handedly, I think Porter with his awkward style, two defeats, and reputation which should be better, it's a nightmare for the Garcia's, I'd be shocked if Angel let that fight happen, but I'd love to be shocked, I think Angel Garcia and Kenny Porter at a press conference together would be amusing, I think Angel not being able to handle his son being beaten by the son of someone as outspoken as Kenny Porter is something his pride could withstand, which makes the fight even more unlikely. I think the rematch between Thurman vs Porter would be fantastic, I would be happy for either to have won, but I would root for Porter, because if he was to win, then this sets up a rubber match, I think Thurman would win again, in a similar way, decisively, but not easily for a second.
Good point, Maidana too (most of all really), my favourite fighter of all time. I think part of it is Mayweather being challenged in the way Rigondeaux isn't being, but more than that, I think Rigondeaux has some serious commitment issues, Mayweather didn't, that was just his style, he didn't take risks unless he needed to, he was sensible, he prioritised the failure of his opponents offence, he didn't throw a lot of punches, and often, he did do just enough to win the rounds, but when simple opportunities were there, he took them, he did take risks that were't going to backfire badly, I think one of the biggest differences between Mayweather and Rigondeaux (it's an interesting comparison) is that Mayweather was always prepared to work out of his comfort zone. I'm not a fan of Rigondeaux, I think he's talented, I think he's extremely skilful, I think he has a lot of potential in sense, but although I like his style, I don't like his attitude, and I think if he ever is genuinely challenged, he will struggle, because he hasn't worked nearly hard enough throughout his career, he would do well to remember that work rate is an attribute, it isn't just some people need to do and others don't (like some people believe). I agree, I think the key to victory idea is good, because it teaches you about the fighters, but I agree. I have my own scoring method that I feel covers no areas which are irrelevant, and all areas which are important.
And that's fine, as a fan, you are entitled to your own opinion, and validity doesn't come into the equation when it's about whether you like or dislike a fighter or a fight, I personally, do like the fight, very much. Do you mean 154?, if not, then there is some logic in that statement because Golovkin is a middleweight, so it's obviously a seemingly sensible idea (or would have been, because where taking about the past), but it's important to understand that the plan wasn't even to compete at 160, it was to compete at 154, he wasn't expecting to get this opportunity, it looked for a while as if Chris Eubank Jr was going to get the Golovkin fight, so why would he fight at 160?, he had no reason to, and it's crazy to think he should have done just in case he was offered the Golovkin fight, and what's he supposed to do now?, postpone the Golovkin fight until he has had time to adapt to the middleweight division?, as I'm sure you know, big opportunities like this that are such a privilege to have aren't like that, so I definitely wouldn't say he should have fought at middleweight in the past, should he have moved up to light middleweight a fight or two ago?, probably, but not middleweight. I don't think his career will damaged at all (unless god forbid the extremely unlikely case of permanent damage occurs), it is a win win for Kell, I think he'll move down to 154, and compete in that division, I would love to see him against the top light middleweights, that would be so interesting, I think he may well have the beating of all of them, with the exception of Demetrius Andrade, and that's a great fight. I think people out there will be shocked by the weight situation, I don't think Brook will have any problem making 160, and I certainly don't think he'll be 'blown up', I think he'll be comfortable at middleweight, and I think one day, it's more than likely that it will be his division, I, very confident that weight won't be an issue in this fight, I'm really looking forward to it, I think the vast majority are, but you don't need a big percentage for a big amount, and there are to many ungrateful, immature fans out there who are complaining about this fight, it's not the fault of Golovkin that he struggles to find work, and you see, he'll fight a genuinely challenging opponent (who I believe will take him the distance) win with a fantastic performance, and not get the credit for it, I wish all these idiots would wise up, and just enjoy the fight
Fri, 2016-07-22 13:44
I will respond to this later I'm leaving for Canada. I'm seeing the fight next week and I'll tell you how it is.
Fri, 2016-07-22 13:53
I hope you have a good holiday, or as you Americans say 'vacation'. Oh yeah Stevenson vs Williams Jr, thanks, I'll look forward to hearing all about it.
Sat, 2016-07-23 21:19
That is very true. If they both get impressive wins in their next fights, there will be a bigger demand for the rematch. It's fights like these that deserve rematches. Since that was an entertaining fight that could've gone either way, the fans deserve to see this again. I think that Garcia will simply overlook Diaz because he isn't a huge name yet and I think angel might actually do the same. But Garcia will probably end up fighting Berto instead of a fight the fans want to see. I also think that Berto can give Garcia some issues but I still see Garcia winning a wide decision. What I would like to see if everything goes as planned if Thurman beats Avanesyan and Garcia gets past Berto . Have Thurman rematch Porter and the winner fight Garcia for unification. But the scenario you had sounds good as well. I'll tell you what, the press conference for Porter vs Garcia would be hilarious. I would enjoy seeing that. I would still root for Porter in the rematch.
I forgot about the maidana fight. Floyd was trading and everything with maidana in those fights they had. That's true, rigondeaux has not been challenged like Floyd has. Rigondeaux didn't have as tough fights as mayweather did with like castillio, Judah, or cotto and that's a huge difference with mayweather and rigondeaux.
Honestly I keep changing my mind about this fight. I mean I would rather see golovkin vs Eubank but what can you do? I think if he walks around at about 160 it would benefit Brook because he didn't have to kill himself to make middleweight. What I was saying, if this was the plan to fight Brook, make him do some tune up fights before golovkin. I do think going for the best middleweight in your first fight in a new division is a bad idea, but who would decline that offer? I don't feel his career would be damaged either because a lot of people aren't giving him a chance in the first place so he can't lose in this situation.I hope after this fight he goes to 154. He can be great in that division. Brook vs Lara or one of the Charlos would be interesting. Also if people don't like Brook vs golovkin, they can watch the Roman Gonzalez fight. That is another fight I'm looking forward to, had a good undercard with the soto karass vs kamegai rematch. But I'm really interested to see how Brook vs golovkin plays out.
Sun, 2016-07-24 13:05
Absolutely, it's fights like Thurman vs Porter that make boxing what it is. I thought it could have gone either way the first time I watched it (not scoring the fight properly), but I watched it again, and I agree with Paulie Malignaggi's analysis on the fight, Thurman decisively won, by 2-4 points, '7-5/8-4' were his words, nevertheless, I don't think someone believing Porter won means they don't understand boxing, just that either they let biased be a factor, maybe they weren't analysing the rounds, maybe just have a bit to learn and so many people out there think this, and this widely based opinion will help to build the rematch. I highly doubt that, let's not forget that Angel Garcia takes full control over who his fights and doesn't fight, I'm sure he would do plenty of research on every opponent, and I don't think he even let's his son fight anyone unless it's easier than people expect and/or there's a lot in it for them, which is why I can see the Thurman fight happening at some stage, I say this, then again, you wouldn't be wrong suggest that Angel underestimating an opponent hasn't happened before, because the Garcia's knew little to nothing about Mauricio Herrera, they had prepared so badly for that fight, and Herrera took it so seriously,that may have been the performance of his career, I think Garcia would win handedly in a rematch, but there you have it, against Herrera lack of respect for his opponent very nearly cost him the fight, so what you said about Angel underestimating Diaz isn't something I or anybody else should rule out, to be fair to you. I agree, Berto isn't the kind of fighter you should take risks against, you shouldn't take his strengths lightly, he's very durable, very dangerous, very unpredictable, his defeats don't necessarily tell an accurate story of him, but if you're at Garcia's level, stick to your game plan, make him be first, make him gamble, and you should sail away with the victory, but I do think the late rounds would be physically torrid for Garcia, he had a difficult last 1/4 against an out of date Judah, he wasn't the same Judah which was very comfortably beaten by Paulie Malignaggi, but he wasn't in his prime by a long chalk. That sounds good, and a lot more realistic than the plan I suggested the other day, because unless there turns out to be a lo ptarmigan more in it for them than there is now, I can't imagine why on earth Angel Garcia would let Shawn Porter anywhere near Danny Garcia. Oh absolutely, I'm a big fan of Kenny and Shawn Porter as a father/son unit, I'm not so keen on the Garcia's, based on how he is as a trainer, I'm not impressed with Angel Garcia, and I think he wants to put himself in the limelight, and use his son as a tool, whereas, Kenny and Shawn Porter make a fantastic team, and you get the sense Kenny Porter argues and disputes for the sake of his son's career, anyway, Kenny Porter and Angel Garcia are both outspoken to say the least, and the press conference would be very entertaining indeed, I would love to see Porter defeat Garcia, I think it would be so great to see, when you think about how Porter's career has been quite inconvenient so far, and he's dug deep, he gotten to where he is the hard way, whereas the same, e can not be said for Danny Garcia, who has had and is still having a very convenient career, I honestly believe that Porter would beat him comfortably. About Thurman vs Porter, Shawn Porter couldn't have gotten the decision legitimately, but that scenario wouldn't have been far away, had it been a 9 Round technical decision, then it could have gone either way, but I thought Thurman was fantastic in rounds 10 and 11 when he pulled away, and put a stamp on the victory, I don't think he needed that last round decisively, but he did need to not lose it decisively, the closing 3 minutes could have gone either way, so yeah Thurman won, but I think by a mere couple of points, and Shawn Porter was absolutely fantastic in that fight.
He was, to this day Maidana doesn't get anywhere near the credit he deserves, he gave Mayweather two very competitive fights, I thought both were close, he won a good 4-5 rounds in each. It is, but I also think it's a psychological issue for Rigondeaux, and one that could tell later on in his career, it's not good to have his attitude at that level.
That's good in a sense, because you see both sides of the argument, but I'm all for positive thinking, I see it constantly, all over the Internet, on this site (comments from last night), people constantly insulting boxers, complaining about what they can't see, not appreciating what they can see, it's a sign of immaturity and lack of knowledge, and it frustrates me, I would love to see these people learning about this great sport, thinking positively more often (criticism should always be allowed, and is something all fans have a right to), and enjoying the sport, if they don't have anything good or interesting to say, they shouldn't say anything. I wouldn't, I'm still frustrated about losing that old reply containing my analysis on why it's too early for Chris Eubank Jr to fight Gennady Golovkin, I would love to that fight, but in at least a year's time, probably more like two. I don't think making middleweight will be a problem. OK, I understand, logically, that's sensible, but if you think about it, if the process between making and competing in the fight was that long then it would be an entirely different situation, Golovkin vs Brook isn't a fight that anybody is willing to wait a long time for, it isn't a fight that was built up for its official announcement, when you think about it, it would have been impossible for the promoters to strike a deal of the fight happening in a couple of years, for a couple of reasons, the easiest reason to explain is that it's more than likely (given that Kell can make 160, 154, and 147) that Kell doesn't want to box at 160 on a regular basis, he's only boxing at this weight for the Golovkin fight, and 154 will be his division for the next couple of years, so Eddie Hearn wouldn't have been likely to have gone along with that, did you suggest this to build up the fight and make the fans more interested?, or were you speaking from more of a Kell Brook beneficial perspective? He wasn't ever going to delineation the offer, and as we have established, we don't know what the weight situation is with Kell Brook, but I'm confident that once in the ring, people will forget that weight was even ever an issue. I agree, provided the referee does his job properly, I think if he was in too much trouble, Golovkin himself may relent, but it is more likely that Ingle would throw in the towel before any serious damage was done, I don't think the stoppage will even look close at any stage, I don't think any bad will come out of this fight, I really hope the fans are grateful, for what it's worth, I think Kell Brook is better than Saul Alvarez, and the fight will be a smidgen closer than Golovkin vs Alvarez would be, then again, I don't think people want to see Golovkin vs Alvarez for the same reason everybody wants to see Thurman vs Porter II, or Andre Ward vs Sergey Kovalev, I think they want to see Alvarez lose, I think this shouldn't be the attitude fans take, in all honesty, I think Golovkin vs Brook is fantastic, it's very fascinating, Kell Brook is very dangerous, he's a big welterweight to say the get least, he's proven in the masterful technician in the ring in the past, and he's extremely durable, far more durable than any other opponent Golovkin has faced, Brook may not carry the same level of power of Lemieux, but there's not a lot in it, and his skill set is much better. I agree, and in all honesty, after Mayweather and Maidana retiring along with Khan temporarily losing some 'hype', Bradley too, and the fans out there quite rightly wanting (on average) for Pacquiao to retire permanently, I think light middleweight is more competitive than welterweight. Absolutely, I think he beats all three, and I think Lara is a convenient opponent for him, stylistically, I think Jermell is tougher for him, but both the Charlos are great, and a challenge for anybody, I honestly believe that Kell is number two in that division, Demetrius Andrade being given the best, he's makes my top ten on the planet, maybe even top seven, like Andre Ward, he has been forced to be inactive through promotional and match making issues, but he's right up there with the best. If people don't like Golovkin vs Brook, then they can turn down they can push the mute button, and go and watch another sport, boxing it what boxing is, and it's always good to keep it positive, these guys risk their lives in the ring, people seem to forget what a tough sport boxing really is, and just the amount of courage it takes, boxers deserve so much more respect than they're given by far too many fans out there. Absolutely, according to Barry Jones, the bets boxer in the world, what a fighter he is, he has to make your top five, and very few wouldn't put him in the top three, his only issue is being in a division that isn't really challenging him enough, I would absolutely love to see Gonzalez vs Tete, but Tete (being the very large super flyweight he is) is planning on moving up to bantamweight, but Gonzalez still has opportunity to showcase his skills and talent, and he isnt being under challenged in the same way as an IBF victim, I know I keep criticising them, but I just don't understand their reasoning for their continuous poor mandatory demands. Absolutely, I don't either has anything to lose, and a win would be fantastic for both, I think both made themselves known with at least one memorable performance, Kamegai when he gave Guerrero a great fight, and Soto Karass for his fantastic effort against Maidana, and stopping Berto, which is great for his CV, sometimes it is these lower key fights that end up making the fans happier, and there's nothing wrong with and liking a good old tear up, I think in this situation, it's because there's less at steak, whereas in a big fight that has been built up, the pressure is one, and not making a mistake becomes paramount. I'm glad to hear that, that's very good, boxing should excite you, but also interest you.
You enjoying your time in Canada?
Sun, 2016-07-24 16:21
Agreed, it gets people excited about boxing which is a good thing. I still have to rewatch Porter vs Thurman again so I'll have to see if I still think Porter won or not. I might of let bias get to me because I was betting on Porter to win the fight and that probably made me score some rounds in his favor. The next time I'll watch it by myself and not have any distractions. Sometimes when scoring these fights, I get distracted by other things going on around me. That is true about angel he picks the fights for Danny. He said in an interview that Al Haymon picks a list of fighters and he (Angel) picks the fight out of that list. For Berto, he'll give Garcia some problems but I think that Garcia will adjust and win. The thing about garcias career is that he gets the big name fighters when they are at the tail end of their career like Erik morales or zab Judah and that helped him build a name. And he won decisions that might of not been deserved. I think that Porter would also beat Garcia pretty convincingly. Angel should just let Danny fight Porter and get a huge pay day out of it. The Porter father son combo is great. I like the garcias but sometimes angel dies and says some stuff I don't agree with at all. Do you think he had anything to do with Danny turning down the pacquiao fight at all? But lastly I still need to rewatch the fight and really watch closely the second time to see if I think Porter still won.
I still need to watch the mayweather vs maidana rematch but he did great in the first fight. I might even want to rewatch that fight at some point as well. Do you think that when rigondeaux faces a tough opponent he will struggle because he will underestimate his opponent or something like that.
It's great when people can respectfully agree and disagree with each other in boxing. Or not give people a hard time when trying to learn about the sport. It's uneccesary when people just throw insults for no reason. That is true most people weren't expecting this fight at all. For me though I would rather see golovkin vs Eubank than golovkin vs Brook but I'm not upset even though I still have some problems with this fight. I would rather him fight a true middleweight than Brook but that's fine. I think if golovkin is going to fight smart and not let him get hit as much as he did against Monroe and he needs to do that against canelo when they fight. I only think he did that because Monroe isn't a huge puncher and knew he couldn't knock him out. For the build up I meant to say to get Kell Brook acclimated to the middleweight division and then fighting golovkin. I think fans would be more interested. Sometimes I feel that boxers don't get enough respect from the fans. Fans don't realize a fighter can't take a tough fight after tough fight. When a fighter doesn't fight the fighter the fans want to see they shouldn't be upset because these fighters risk it all every time they step in the ring. I can't wait for the Gonzalez fight as well. He's fighting another undefeated fighter and will be challenged. For the ibf, I think they should make mandatory challengers that are deserving of it. I remember you saying that a title shot should be earned. I totally agree because some of those challengers get title shots over people who actually deserve it.
I am enjoying Canada right now. I'm in Toronto right now but I'll be in Quebec in a couple days before the fight.
Mon, 2016-07-25 11:40
If you re watch and come to the same conclusion as me, then your situation was probably similar to mine, you watched the fight when you were hyped up, excited, and we're in no mood to be analytical or even observant, I was too busy thinking about the Half Marathon I was about to run, which isn't a usual circumstance, but on serious note, distractions can make a large difference, and you can't let yourself miss a thing, I think given that analytical fans such myself and yourself aren't professionals, and haven't committed to anything in terms of judging fights, we shouldn't feel like getting it wrong is catastrophic, and we shouldn't always feel under pressure to get it right, but what comes with that barging is that of somebody sees the fight a little differently, we can't say they're wrong, and we can't say what score is valid and invalid, to be honest, I like to feel focused enough to be able to analyse fights in that detail as often as I can. Shawn Porter is a very likeable guy, and he's one of those fighters who you just want to win, with all that effort, your mind just tells you ephemera deserves to be the winner, so it's not hard to be overly generous to him, I still think he's right up there, I think he makes the top 20, and the top three in his division. I don't find that he'd to believe, the word I always use when talking about Garcia's career is that it's very convenient, and what could be a more likely way of securing convenient fights than having your father hand pick your opponents? I should think so too, it would be amusing if Berto upset him, after all the talk of Thurman vs Garcia. Well remembered, and well observed, that's very true, I notice how they were more than happy to secure a Morales rematch even though they beat him decisively before hand, and of course, Theophane (who lost a completely valid split decision) doesn't get a rematch, Holt (who only lost a split decision) doesn't get a rematch, Khan gets a rematch over Angel's dead body (he was very insistent from the second the first suggestion was vocalised, Lamont Peterson, Mauricio Herrera, and Robert Guerrero, they were never going to get rematches, I respect Danny Garcia for his achievements, he's a great boxer, but I wish he and his father were more reasonable. If you think about it, on a financial front, it's not as worthwhile for them as the Thurman fight, and the fact that they make more money from fighting Porter than fighting say Berto, obviously isn't worth as much to them as the difference in risk, and also how great the Berto win would look for them. Manny Pacquiao shouldn't ever return to the sport in my opinion, but I suppose seeing as he is, it's okay to talk about his options. It wouldn't surprise me, it was maybe a respect thing, maybe it was financial, but I think Angel plays a big part I his sons career, he makes a lot of decisions, and Danny probably has to consult his father before making any decisions himself.
The rematch was fantastic, the game plan from Marcos Maidana and Robert Garcia was fantastic, their game plan for the rematch was very different to that of the first fight, Garcia made some great adjustments, but because of the skill, intelligence, and tactical ability of Mayweather, he turned those adjustments into pro and con situations, for example, Robert Garcia planned on straightening out the right hand of Maidana, this was a great idea, it was a more spiteful shot having changed the way the right hand was used, but Mayweather was able to use the downside to his advantage, it took away some of the mystery to Maidana's work, and made him more predictable, and while the weight adjustment was beneficial for Maidana's stamina, his pressure wasn't what it was in the first fight. Something that surprised me was the counter punching abilities of Marcos Maidana, he caught Floyd on the counter many times, he beat him to the jab as well. I think that when he steps up his opposition, he will struggle to adapt, because I don't think he's one of those fighters who can cope well out of his comfort zone, and like I said previously, he isn't the most durable. I think when Rigondeaux faces a defensively strong fighter, who's patient, methodical and a strong counter puncher, he will struggle to commit at all, he's so skilful, and it's one heck of a task to stop him from achieving enough ring generalship to choose how the fight is fought for almost all the round time, but if someone can make it a different kind of fight against him, that that would be interesting.
Absolutely, the sport is subjective, and when kept respectful, mature and calm, boxing disagreements and discussions are great. I would love to see Golovkin vs Eubank in 18 months - 2 years, but I highly doubt Eubank is ready for that fight, it's so frustrating that I lost that comment, maybe I can rewrite it at some stage. I agree that it isn't ideal that Brook is coming from 147, and these fights do go against the safety aspect of the sport to an extent, but although it isn't the most ideal of match ups, I still feel it's a great fight. I think he will box against Brook in a similar way to how he boxed against Lemieux, Brook is a big puncher, that's a fact, I think the fight will start out a tentative pace, and Golovkin will use his technical skills. Golovkin was under challenged at that pint of his career, he knew the power of Munroe wasn't a threat to him even in the slightest bit, so he relented to his effort towards evading the offence of Munroe, it didn't make any difference, in my opinion, it isn't good to take that amount of punches when you don't need to, ever, that's the only thing I don't like about Golovkin as a fighter, he makes himself look like not half the boxer he is. The don't, and it isn't right, I think in a sense, you could argue boxing fans nowadays are spoiled rotten, my dad was telling me earlier today about how when he was my age, boxing fights were so rarely accessible, and couldn't be studied when accessible, so when a fan could see a boxing fight, they would darn well appreciate it. I was just saying earlier on today that fans who demand physically toll taking fights every single time boxers they follow fight need to either grow up, or stop following boxing, because the sport doesn't need morons like that. Absolutely, but more frustratingly, this label 'ducker', and the insinuation that boxers are 'too scared' to fight opponents then are asked to fight has to stop, because it's ridiculous, and very bad for the sport. Every time Roman Gonzalez fights it's a chance to witness absolute class in the ring, what a fantastic fighter he is. Absolutely, while it is important to remember that champions shouldn't be having 50/50 fights every time they fight, they should have real assignments every time they fight, and when the IBF are giving fighters positions for reasons such as winning 8 round fights, against fighters who aren't gold enough to win a title for their country, it is very poor, as I've said many times, Bizier looked genuinely disinterested, and as though he knew he didn't deserve the opportunity, I think that's terrible.
Awesome, I envy you going to see a fight live, I've never been to see one myself, but I hope to in the future.
Thu, 2016-07-28 14:05
I'm definitely going to watch it better when I get home. I was at a party while watching Porter vs Thurman and could've been distracted from other things and I had money on Porter so that probably made me have a bias towards Porter. I'll tell you something being a boxing fan can be lonely at times. When I was there people were saying why are you watching boxing? It made me feel awkward but there were some people who were entertained by the fight. Sometimes I beat myself up for scoring a fight in a bad way. But then I rewatch it and do a better job the next time. And it's ok when judges like us mess up because we can fix stuff that we missed last time. Now it looks like Garcia vs Berto is official which is disappointing. I want to see him fight top welterweights but it doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon. I think that's ridiculous that he gave morales a rematch but not the other guys you mentioned that were more deserving. They should take a more reasonaable approach to rematches. For pacquiao I only Want to see his comeback if it's against Crawford. I want to see him have a great last fight.
I'm a little busy right now but I'll talk about golovkin Vs Brook later. I hope this is a good fight live with Stevenson vs Williams
Sat, 2016-07-30 15:56
Sure. Parties are definitely not the time or the place for scoring a boxing fight live. I think Shawn Porter is the kind of fighter who it's very easy to be biased towards, because of the way he conducts himself outside of the ring, and also, his style, which is very popular. Buddy, don't, we're all human, humans make mistakes, I make a ton all the time, you just have to remember, you know how to score boxing fights, you're very good at it, if you score a fight incorrectly, it means you must have been at some kind of disadvantage, to score a fight properly, you have to keep up your observance for 3 solid minutes per round, there are times, when you are at a serious disadvantage, and you don't realise it until after you've scored the fight, I think the key to finding out whether or not you're really up to it, it based partially on how whether or not you're enjoying your scoring session. If you ever want to have a discussion about scoring fights, I would love to do that. I think because only three official judges are required, and there are so many, professionals shouldn't be on duty if there could be anything at all to cause them enough of a disadvantage to do their job to their full potential.
It is, but we both saw it coming, and as we agreed, it was always going to be the most convenient option for him, I think Garcia will win comfortably, but I don't think he'll stop Berto, and I think Berto will challenge him with difficulties. I think that will happen when the time is right, and there's enough he can gain from it, I think at the moment, the only opponent he'll fight that's right at the top is Keith Thurman. The answer to any question you have about the attitude of the Garcias is "because they can", they have that position of power and authority, and being the kind of people they are, they're bound to take full advantage, they don't have any desire to be reasonable, I think because of this Thurman vs Garcia may turn into a fight like Golovkin vs Alvarez (if that was was to be likely to happen), where the fans don't demand to see it because they think it's an interesting fight, they call for it because they don't like Garcia, it seems to an casual fan as though he has no chance of beating Keith Thurman, and the believe he would be beaten badly and humiliated in that fight, which isn't right. Absolutely not, well, in my opinion that is, Pacquiao shouldn't fight again, because he's achieved everything he could have hoped to achieve, it's downhill from here, there's no way he'll come back for just one more fight, it is very hard for a boxer to retire and it's very dappled when it becomes an addiction, factor in the fact that he's Pacquiao, with the kind of money he'll be making, along with the added temptation and pressure from the public, along with perfectionism, and above all, I'm not comfortable calling myself a Pacquiao fan until he's been legitimately and genuinely cleared of drug use, if he's done it before, he's likely to do it again, I'm not stating what would be a false fact in that he's guilty of the crime, I'm saying for many reasons I strongly suspect him of it, and I believe it should be investigated before he's granted permission to fight again, I don't think that's too much to ask, drug business aside, I don't agree with Pacquiao coming back at all, he's had his career, now he needs to let it go.
Sat, 2016-07-30 18:26
I realized that parties aren't the best places to score fights. Next time I'm at a party I'll enjoy the fight then score after when I get a chance. I'm probably going to rewatch it during the week I get back. You're so right Shawn Porter is a very likes me guy and is easy to root for and when emotions are high I tend to be bias towards him. I don't usually show bias towards fighters but this was one of the few times I did. You would be suprised though I was able to be focused on the fight the whole time. At least the main event I didn't pay attention to the undercard. But sometimes I do miss things in rounds and that's even when I'm focused on a fight. The thing for me is I always like scoring fights, it relieves a lot of stress and it helps me focus on one thing. I can't watch fights consecutively, I need a few hours in between fights before I watch another one.
Yeah. It's definitely convenient for him since Berto has some momentum right now and he's a winnable fight for Garcia. I feel like they do the same for mayweather. They don't want to see him fight a big name because it would be interesting, they want to see him lose which hasn't happened yet. I think the reason people want to see canelo vs golovkin because it would be interesting to see that fight and a lot of people want to see canelo lose. I personally want to see that because of the style matchup because that's a 50/50 fight in my opinon. I hope that fight happens someday. For pacquiao I just want to see him have one more big fight with a new opponent then retire. I really like the pacquiao vs Crawford matchup. But he might not be focused on fighting. I know he'll be training but he has to worry about his spot as a senator in the phillipines and that could distract him. You're right about him accomplishing everything he can I wouldn't be upset if he retired.
Also if you're interested I can tell you how Stevenson vs Williams was live.
About Us | Contact | Feedback | Site Map | Score the Controversial Fights
Any use or distribution of our content without the express written consent of eyeonthering.com is strictly prohibited.
Copyright © 2017, EYE ON THE RING