Boxing Cliches :ugh:

At the end of every close fight that has a ridiculous scorecard, Max Kellerman acts shocked says that it's the worst scorecard he's ever seen. By now, someone that close to the sport would have probably realized that the judges are probably paid off half the time.

"..........."- Bert Sugar "He doesn't like it to the body" Yes, as opposed to those numerous fighters who like getting punched in the body. "He has trouble with good jabs" An accurate, well-timed jab will bother just about anyone, even those good at slipping and countering them will have their share of problems with them. It's not the most important punch in boxing for no reason.

"This was the best training camp ever. " "I'm in the best shape of my life" "Keep running your mouth, I'm gonna let my fists do the talking"

This started in another thread but I think it deserves a thread of it's own. What boxing cliches (or cliches in general) irk you the most. For me the "if aint broke don't fix it" is in my top 5, gives me the shivers anytime it's mentioned as detailed below. Many men have fallen victim to this horrendous cliche. So far what Pavlik has done has worked for him, however to be a world class fighter you have to adapt and augment your style to fit every opponent. It's no good saying "I beat Taylor using this method so therefore I'll beat Kessler or Calzaghe or whoever". Every fight is different. For example Ricky Hatton vs Floyd Mayweather (I don't like using this analogy because the fight is mentioned to often but it's the one that springs to mind) Ricky trained with Billy the preacher Graham. He said he trained in the same way as he did for his other 43 fights. One the main aspects of his training was the "body bag", chasing a chain smoking Billy Graham around the ring hitting a black sumo outfit the size out Butterbean is hardly ideal when trying to mimic one of the slickest fastest defensive fighters in the world. But the method had worked for him countless times before. When questioned on it, Hatton's words were "if it's not broke don't fix it". That cliche should be erased from the English language. Possibly to be replaced with something slightly less catchy like... "if it has worked before there's no guarantee it will work again, we need to prepare for each fight as if we've never fought before because each fight brings a new fighter, we need to find out what areas need improvement adjustment and tweaking, then we can fix them". i'm pretty sure i'm the one who wrote that a few weeks ago. i believe the original question was, "how is kelly pavlik undefeated?" and i answered with, "he has a 0 in the loss column. if it ain't broke, don't fix it." i stand by it. i'm not saying fighters shouldn't be constantly trying to improve, or add techniques to their game. i'm saying they need to fight in their style (fight their fight. how's that for cliche...) no fighter's style is perfect. everyone can be beat, so you need to fight the way that is BEST for you. i think you misunderstood what i meant. i'm not saying pavlik is going to automatically beat everyone between 160 and 168 just because he's undefeated. but he has beaten everyone that has been put in front of him so far with a somewhat one dimensional style. it works for him, and will most likely to continue to bring him success. - i said pavlik because that's what the original topic was about, but you could replace his name with any other dominant undefeated fighter right now.

Mickey Gomez,...yo man who's that ass??? Damn that looks good! Even if she has a dogface!

In post fight interviews, the fighters always say "I got to take my hat off to him" about their opponent, yet they are almost never wearing a hat. __________________ LOL Another one I find irritating, "sitting down on his punches" not the worst metaphor but completely overused.

Yea, or the RJJ/Tarver/Hopkins. I remember someone actually saying Tarver would beat B-Hop because he beat RJJ and RJJ beat B-Hop. Or Jones/Barrera/Morales. Also, Pacquiao had way more problems with Morales in the first 2 bouts than he did in two bouts with MAB. But Barrera got the better of the trilogy with Morales.

The Ali/Norton/Foreman/Frazier fights are perhaps the best way to refute how people use that theory.Yea, or the RJJ/Tarver/Hopkins. I remember someone actually saying Tarver would beat B-Hop because he beat RJJ and RJJ beat B-Hop.

The thing I hate most is how some people use the triangle theory to prove a certain fighter is better than the other. The Ali/Norton/Foreman/Frazier fights are perhaps the best way to refute how people use that theory.

The thing I hate most is how some people use the triangle theory to prove a certain fighter is better than the other.

"Clean, effective punching" "Ring Generalship" "Defense" and "effective aggression". "Effective agression" and "Ring generalship" are the worst when coming otu of lederman's mouth... When he says that all I hear is "I'm trying to find a way to convince myself and everyone that the fighter I favor is winning"...

"Clean, effective punching" "Ring Generalship" "Defense" and "effective aggression".

In post fight interviews, the fighters always say "I got to take my hat off to him" about their opponent, yet they are almost never wearing a hat.

When the challenger goes to the champs home turf for the fight and the question of the champ having home support its the "at the end of the day the crowd cant help him, its just him and me in the ring" comment I find tedious.

''you have to take the belt from the champion'' bullshit if you win 7rounds with no points taken off and no kd's then youve won the fight Yeah I hate that one, as if the challenger has to do more than win 7 rounds.

''you have to take the belt from the champion'' bullshit if you win 7rounds with no points taken off and no kd's then youve won the fight Agreed. You just have to score more points than the champion.

]"In fights like this, it's about who wants it more". Sometimes, but I really cannot imagine Chavez wanting that bout anymore than Taylor, or Ali wanting the Manila fight anymore than Frazier, or Saad wanting that bout more than Johnson, etc... Yeah could have brought up a better example.

"In fights like this, it's about who wants it more". Sometimes, but I really cannot imagine Chavez wanting that bout anymore than Taylor, or Ali wanting the Manila fight anymore than Frazier, or Saad wanting that bout more than Johnson, etc...