Unknown Guevara hung tough for six rounds before the relentless Santa Cruz took over, outlanding the challenger 133-44 in power shots over the last six rounds. Santa Cruz, fighting for the fifth time this year, avg'd 'only' 82 punches thrown per after averaging 106 in his previous four 2012 fights. [Click Here To Read More]
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Comments Thread For: CompuBox Stats: Leo Santa Cruz's Workrate Drops
Collapse
-
Tags: None
-
One of two things comes to mind.
A) he's refining his craft and is throwing more effective well placed shots
Or
B)he's falling in love with whatever power he has and is looking to hurt people but in turn his development of skills can take a hit.
-
Originally posted by AyoMaDu View PostOne of two things comes to mind.
A) he's refining his craft and is throwing more effective well placed shots
Or
B)he's falling in love with whatever power he has and is looking to hurt people but in turn his development of skills can take a hit.
C) Guevara's clever movement, feinting, speed, strength, counterpunching, tactics, and strategy befuddled Leo until the challenger slowed down from continuing the pace (and the constant incoming pressure) he had to to keep Santa Cruz out of range, off balance, reaching, and losing rounds in the process.
Fighters have weaknesses... Weaknesses that can be exploited by the fighter that has the ability (talent and skill) and implements the tactics and strategy necessary to exploit those weaknesses (because if the fighter has the ability, but doesn't implement the right tactics and/or strategy, he could still lose (can be the difference between being knocked out or being the one to knockout).
These are the reasons why neither A) nor B) can be the right answer because (other than being redundant) Santa Cruz A) was not selective in his punch selection because he misplaced and wasted hundreds of punches in hopes of just getting close enough to Guevara to get into position to have a clean look at him, and B) he wasn't more economical than usual because he wanted to be but because he kept having to reach and, in turn, he kept getting countered; he didn't want to get countered so he had to play the feinting game.
People need to start giving credit to the opponents'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by QUELOQUE View PostOr
C) Guevara's clever movement, feinting, speed, strength, counterpunching, tactics, and strategy befuddled Leo until the challenger slowed down from continuing the pace (and the constant incoming pressure) he had to to keep Santa Cruz out of range, off balance, reaching, and losing rounds in the process.
Fighters have weaknesses... Weaknesses that can be exploited by the fighter that has the ability (talent and skill) and implements the tactics and strategy necessary to exploit those weaknesses (because if the fighter has the ability, but doesn't implement the right tactics and/or strategy, he could still lose (can be the difference between being knocked out or being the one to knockout).
These are the reasons why neither A) nor B) can be the right answer because (other than being redundant) Santa Cruz A) was not selective in his punch selection because he misplaced and wasted hundreds of punches in hopes of just getting close enough to Guevara to get into position to have a clean look at him, and B) he wasn't more economical than usual because he wanted to be but because he kept having to reach and, in turn, he kept getting countered; he didn't want to get countered so he had to play the feinting game.
People need to start giving credit to the opponents'.
Just an FYI, I never saw the fight I'm speaking merely from the thread title. Try again next time
Comment
-
if anyone seen the fight then you would know why Leo Santa Cruz work rate dropped, Leo was in their with a live body who try to out box leo and very well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheRealNess View Postif anyone seen the fight then you would know why Leo Santa Cruz work rate dropped, Leo was in their with a live body who try to out box leo and very well.
commenting without watching is very misleading.
Comment
Comment