|11-16-2012, 03:50 AM||#1|
Big Bad Booty Daddy
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New York
Quoted: 2477 Post(s)Rep Power: 200000
Total Points: 2,502,142,884,855.14
Comments Thread For: Gallagher: Politics Over Defeats Hurt Good UK Fighters
Is there another sport in which a participant can go from hero to zero as quickly as boxing? In modern boxing, a fighter doesnít even need to lose to be subjected to a barrage of condemnation; a tougher than expected victory over a harder than expected opponent can be enough to turn the latest incarnation of Sugar Ray Robinson into the next Brian Sutherland in some observers eyes (if you havenít heard of Mr Sutherland, google him). Suffer an actual defeat and, well, itís probably time to retire. ďA world champion? Pah! Heíll struggle to win an area title.Ē
[Click Here To Read More]
|11-16-2012, 07:21 AM||#3|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quoted: 391 Post(s)Rep Power: 113
Total Points: 1,594,871,655,531,625.00
I do agree that the '0' is becoming too much of a factor in today's boxing and it's the reason why progression is poor for so many fighters. The reason why people turned on Crolla is because that poor, lean foward, open for an uppercut 24/7 style that Gallagher teaches is what lost him the fight.
There are too many British fighters with big flaws and still have that '0' whilst being positioned for shots against the best fighters in the world. Always makes me cringe when I see a Brit who's shortcomings would've been realised sooner, at a lower level, get absolutely demolished inside a few rounds ala Kevin Mitchell.
Had no defence when he fought Katsidis and didn't make any improvements when he fought Burns. Burns on the other hand received 2 losses early on and I reckon that has helped. They say the '0' is good because the fighter doesn't know how to lose but I believe a loss is better because they've experienced it and it would certainly humble them, they'd know they need to put in a lot of hard work.
|Share This With Friends|