Lou Dibella Was Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blah, blah, blah, fans this and boxing that, blah, blah, blah. Lemme put it as clear as possible: boxing fans like action packed fight. 5 punches a round, cute footwork and dumb smiles are NOT action packed fight. E.G. Mallignaggi-N'Dou, a boxing match more so then brawl, but an exciting boxing match at that. i agree malignaggi put on a show and it was exciting to watch

Just because they don't have power does not mean they aren't just as good. All that means is they have less power. i agree with you. fighters should use what advatnge they have. if they have good hand and feet speed and with little power then they should be using more on the speed department because that is the smart thing to do. Human nature is to want people hurt and suffer that is way a young slugger usally have an advantge over and old boxer usally sometimes the case. Pre-fight interview with Oscar where Oscar quoted " He will win because he is the yonuger fighter."that was before Whitaker fight. another thing is the fighter are pressure to do KO his oppenet instead of using his smart to do that. For example Taylor abadon his jab which was very effective to try to KO his oppenet but usally the jab will make some opening which make the punch comes unexpectly and hit more effecitvly which produce a KO but most fighter are really trying too hard to KO because that is what the public demand and it also doesnt go in the mercy of the judges

From the beginning boxing has always been about hitting and not getting hit. Lies. From the beginning Boxing has been a fight for money. If you dont fight, it follows that you arent really boxing(Floyd vs Oscar).

Just want to see if anybody has changed their opinion and get a some new opinions.

Ok, apparently you didn't read what I purposely put in ALL CAPS for all to see so there was no misperception: (THIS DOES NOT MEAN I CONSIDER THESE ROBBERIES) By that it's clear I wasn't indicating that any of those fights were dominated by anyone. I don't know how to score a fight? Who does, then? Because, and I've run through this list before (but this guy is asking for it), apparently none of these guys do: "I (Doug Fischer of maxboxing.com) scored the fight 116-112 for Hard Nard, as did David Mayo (Grand Rapids Press), Keith Idec (New Jersey Herald News), David Avila (Riverside Press Enterprise), Ramiro Gonzalez (La Opinion), Ron Borges (Boston Globe), and Tim Smith (New York Daily News). Steve Kim, Robert Morales (San Gabriel Valley Tribune & L.A. Daily News), Franklin McNeil (New Jersey Star-Ledger) and Ivan Goldman (The Ring) had it 117-111 for B-Hops. Joe Santoliquito (The Ring) had it 116-113 for Hopkins. Michael Katz (who covered the fight for Reuters), Max Kellerman (who was part of the HBO PPV broadcast team), Bernard Fernandez (Philadelphia Daily News), Kevin Iole (Las Vegas Review-Journal) and Paul Upham (secondsout.com) had it 115-113 for EX. The Associated Press had Hopkins up 114-113. Dan Rafael (ESPN.com) and Jerry Magee (San Diego Union-Tribune) saw it even, 114-114." If Hopkins only won 10, 11 and 12, all of these guys not only didn't get it right, according to you of course, but they weren't even close! So none of these guys can score a fight. Everyone please disregard all of their collective opinions on boxing from here on out. Of course, according to you, the actual judges of Toney-Peter I were also clueless as how to score a fight, so they should never judge again, right? The ESPN poll? Hilarious, everyone knows if you want to know how a fight went, check the ESPN polls, not any boxing writer or boxing website. But anyway, I'm not trying to start another Hopkins/Taylor debate, I just wanted to point out that I clearly stated that I didn't think it was a robbery, just a DISPUTED decision. Do you disagree that it was a controversial decision? I put the list of fights there not as personal commentary, just as examples of where the judging went in favor to the aggressor despite the opponent's astute boxing performance. I don't know how you took me shouting "robbery" out of that. All of them were close, the fact that I put "very close" next to a couple doesn't mean that I think the others weren't close, just maybe not AS close. But they were all close, well, except maybe Whitaker-Chavez. they guy who tried to pick your first post apart is a dumbass.

So you think Hopkins dominated Taylor in his 2 fights??? Fact is Hopkins didn't win a round until the 10th round in his first fight with Taylor, the second fight was a little closer, Taylor clearly won 7 rounds, the Wright fight could've gone to either men, the draw was a good score. It's funny the only 2 fights you think were close is Toney/Peter 1 and Vargas/Wright.:rolleyes: You don't even know how to score a fight, first of all the Toney/Peter first fight was not even clsoe, I had Toney winning 9 rounds in the first fight, just like I had Peter winning 9 rounds in the second fight. Hopkins lost both of his fights to Taylor fair and square, get over it already. Taylor won the ESPN polls easily and that was after all the crying Hopkins was doing to his n00b fans who didn't know shit about Hopkins before the Tito fight. Ok, apparently you didn't read what I purposely put in ALL CAPS for all to see so there was no misperception: (THIS DOES NOT MEAN I CONSIDER THESE ROBBERIES) By that it's clear I wasn't indicating that any of those fights were dominated by anyone. I don't know how to score a fight? Who does, then? Because, and I've run through this list before (but this guy is asking for it), apparently none of these guys do: "I (Doug Fischer of maxboxing.com) scored the fight 116-112 for Hard Nard, as did David Mayo (Grand Rapids Press), Keith Idec (New Jersey Herald News), David Avila (Riverside Press Enterprise), Ramiro Gonzalez (La Opinion), Ron Borges (Boston Globe), and Tim Smith (New York Daily News). Steve Kim, Robert Morales (San Gabriel Valley Tribune & L.A. Daily News), Franklin McNeil (New Jersey Star-Ledger) and Ivan Goldman (The Ring) had it 117-111 for B-Hops. Joe Santoliquito (The Ring) had it 116-113 for Hopkins. Michael Katz (who covered the fight for Reuters), Max Kellerman (who was part of the HBO PPV broadcast team), Bernard Fernandez (Philadelphia Daily News), Kevin Iole (Las Vegas Review-Journal) and Paul Upham (secondsout.com) had it 115-113 for EX. The Associated Press had Hopkins up 114-113. Dan Rafael (ESPN.com) and Jerry Magee (San Diego Union-Tribune) saw it even, 114-114." If Hopkins only won 10, 11 and 12, all of these guys not only didn't get it right, according to you of course, but they weren't even close! So none of these guys can score a fight. Everyone please disregard all of their collective opinions on boxing from here on out. Of course, according to you, the actual judges of Toney-Peter I were also clueless as how to score a fight, so they should never judge again, right? The ESPN poll? Hilarious, everyone knows if you want to know how a fight went, check the ESPN polls, not any boxing writer or boxing website. But anyway, I'm not trying to start another Hopkins/Taylor debate, I just wanted to point out that I clearly stated that I didn't think it was a robbery, just a DISPUTED decision. Do you disagree that it was a controversial decision? I put the list of fights there not as personal commentary, just as examples of where the judging went in favor to the aggressor despite the opponent's astute boxing performance. I don't know how you took me shouting "robbery" out of that. All of them were close, the fact that I put "very close" next to a couple doesn't mean that I think the others weren't close, just maybe not AS close. But they were all close, well, except maybe Whitaker-Chavez.

There truly is a bias today in boxing against boxers. All most people want to see is slugfests, brawls, blood and guts. True those types of fights and fighters are a part of boxing. But they are not the only part of boxing. From the beginning boxing has always been about hitting and not getting hit. So what is the problem people why can't brawlers and true sweet science boxers both be respected like they should be? People have to understand its about winning and fighting the fight that is best for YOU not fighting the fight people want you to fight because all they want to see is blood and guts. The bias needs to stop and all fight styles need to be respected just because its not the style you like doesn't mean it is bullshit. I don't like Vic Darchinyan's style but that doesn't mean I don't respect what he does in the ring and how he gets his wins. i agree id rather watch floyd put on a masterpiece than gatti ward

its not about brawls its about fighters in the past were just better then todays fighters... they had all the skills and still had 1 punch power... tommy hearns ,marvin hagler, julian jackson , even john mugabi.. duran.. mcclellan...robinson .. archie moore .. now that toney jones and hopkins are old theres really nobody with the skills and the power... maybe james kirkland coming up..but not mayweather or spinks or taylor...there just not as good.. Thank you - I agree totally. For those who don't, please consider: Hagler v Mugabi. Today we get Calzaghe against some made for prime time "contender"? Fuggin guy wasn't even qualified for an after-school special let alone a championship prizefight. :nonono: Arguello v Pryor. And today we get that pitter-patter horse-processed-oats of Mayweather-DeLaHoya? We can argue about the scoring and who "won," but judging by their unscathed faces after the fight it doesn't look like much of anything resembling a fight took place to me... :nonono: For my money we just don't have the same talent going into boxing as we did when it was more popular. (Not so surprising when you think about it!) And the guys who are really talented - like Mayweather - are so protected and busy "keeping it real" and doing nonsense marketing tasks that they're denied the opportunity to reach their real potential...

So you think Hopkins dominated Taylor in his 2 fights??? Fact is Hopkins didn't win a round until the 10th round in his first fight with Taylor, the second fight was a little closer, Taylor clearly won 7 rounds, the Wright fight could've gone to either men, the draw was a good score. It's funny the only 2 fights you think were close is Toney/Peter 1 and Vargas/Wright.:rolleyes: You don't even know how to score a fight, first of all the Toney/Peter first fight was not even clsoe, I had Toney winning 9 rounds in the first fight, just like I had Peter winning 9 rounds in the second fight. Hopkins lost both of his fights to Taylor fair and square, get over it already. Taylor won the ESPN polls easily and that was after all the crying Hopkins was doing to his n00b fans who didn't know shit about Hopkins before the Tito fight. if you look close hopkins landed more punches in alot of them early rounds... taylor never hit hopkins clean in the first fight exept 1 punch a left hook.. and a few body shots in the 11th

i disagree.. when you have the skills and the power its better then just the skills... It is also things that PBF is better than them at just like there are things that they are better than him at. I am not saying he is better than them just my opinion.

it's about having the killer instinct. floyd doesn't have that. he's contented on winning on points lately. even though when he finds out during the fight that his punches wont bring down his opponent, he wont even try. he'll be contented w/ running and working from the outside.

Just because they don't have power does not mean they aren't just as good. All that means is they have less power. i disagree.. when you have the skills and the power its better then just the skills...

its not about brawls its about fighters in the past were just better then todays fighters... they had all the skills and still had 1 punch power... tommy hearns ,marvin hagler, julian jackson , even john mugabi.. duran.. mcclellan...robinson .. archie moore .. now that toney jones and hopkins are old theres really nobody with the skills and the power... maybe james kirkland coming up..but not mayweather or spinks or taylor...there just not as good.. Just because they don't have power does not mean they aren't just as good. All that means is they have less power.

its not about brawls its about fighters in the past were just better then todays fighters... they had all the skills and still had 1 punch power... tommy hearns ,marvin hagler, julian jackson , even john mugabi.. duran.. mcclellan...robinson .. archie moore .. now that toney jones and hopkins are old theres really nobody with the skills and the power... maybe james kirkland coming up..but not mayweather or spinks or taylor...there just not as good..

Examples of this in decisions: (THIS DOES NOT MEAN I CONSIDER THESE ROBBERIES) Trinidad-De La Hoya Chavez-Whitaker Hopkins-Taylor I Taylor-Hopkins II Taylor-Wright Vargas-Wright (but very close) Urango-Ben Rabah Peter-Toney I (but very close) Hatton-Collazo

The funny part is that it seems we've been in the era of defense with the best fighters being guys like Mayweather, Wright & B-Hop(going back even to Sweat Pea & Toney in their prime) who all are great defensive fighters. The DLH/Mayweather fight was pure defense & accurate punching on the part of Mayweather, which is why some casual fans we're let down. Also you have to take into account the outcome of taking too many clean shot to the head, what's the point of becoming a legend when once you've retired you don't remember you're friends & relatives, nontheless why & how you became a legend.

Ive said this all along. They hate the guys who have mastered the art. The sad part is that even the boxing media and fans contribute to this thought. I could understand a casual fan doing that but thats when we are supposed to put them in line. Instead, we tell them there right and how boring boxers are. We completely take away from guys greatness that way

A brawl is good every once in a while but its hard to find a good tactical fight these days...Being slow and afraid to hit doesnt mean you are a tactical fighter and throwing wildly in hopes of landing a punch doesnt make you a good brawler either...Their is skill 2 both sides..I look at Winky as a tactical genius and Pacquaio who knows how to brawl and not just throw wildly...Their is a big difference between being sloppy and pressing the action in a brawling manner...The difference is precision..Pacquaio/Hatton come to mind... Its a shame the sport cant be appreciated for what it really is and contrasting styles while other contact sports are...

I agree that most people who don't know boxing want to see brawls. I'm not going to lie I lopve to see a war out there. But that doesn't change the fact that a good technical boxer is intersesting to fight. It is in our nature to enjoy the Rocky Marcianos and other brawlers but you have to also love those great all around boxers.

DiBella said that? Hilarious, considering his point is exactly why and how Jermain Taylor is a middleweight champion. He never should have won the title in the first Hopkins fight, and he should not have retained it against Winky, two BOXERS who didn't get the decision because of Taylor's "(in)effective" AGGRESSIVENESS.