Guillermo Rigondeaux Technical Discussion (I'm Putting You on the Spot)

PBP9y ago

I see a lot of quotes like this: Unfortunately, a lot of people simply don't know what they're looking at. They'll never outright admit it, but his style goes straight over their heads. This. Rigo is like the 1000 years flood. Rare, unique, etc. The rest are like the 100 year floods, unique in their own ways, but seen more often. For me P4P, between those 5 (Loma included) Rigo takes it. Man I have been watching him for awhile and I'm amazed at his skills, do you think he could out box a prime FMJ, whitaker and RJJ if they where in the same weight class? People on this forum always talk about how Rigo is one of the most highly skilled fighter with all-time great talent. One of the best pure boxers who has ever lived. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I have yet to see anybody explain the "how"? The typical responses are: 1. He's amazing at controlling distance, he's a great counter puncher, has great footwork, great power and great speed. 2. If you don't understand what you are watching, you just don't understand why Rigo is so great. They dance around the question when confronted about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm in rehab for being mentally Rigotarded. But I'm not delusional. How can anyone with a straight face place Rigo among fighters like Whitaker, Duran, Mayweather, Hopkins or even an Andre Ward when: 1. He hasn't faced the diverse range of styles that those fighters have had to face. 2. He hasn't shown the versatility those fighters have shown...like a. The ability to throw punches from all ranges, b. fight inside, outside, mid-range, off the ropes, front foot back, foot, etc. etc. c. vary their offensive attack and mix up their combinations The arguments for Rigondeaux (he controls distance well, has great footwork, is a great counter puncher, has great timing, has great IQ, etc.) can be said for every fighter I listed. But the fighters I listed are much more diverse, well rounded fighters than Rigondeaux and have proven it against every style imaginable. So what I'm going to do, is give each and every one of you, the opportunity to back up your arguments about Rigondeaux's greatness. And I don't want to hear **** like "You DKSAB, if you knew what you were watching, you would see what I see". You're not getting off that easy. Back up your statements because to me, as great as he is, you just can't put him in the category of these all time great fighters.

Comments (20)

Bravado

I see a lot of quotes like this: People on this forum always talk about how Rigo is one of the most highly skilled fighter with all-time great talent. One of the best pure boxers who has ever lived. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I have yet to see anybody explain the "how"? The typical responses are: 1. He's amazing at controlling distance, he's a great counter puncher, has great footwork, great power and great speed. 2. If you don't understand what you are watching, you just don't understand why Rigo is so great. They dance around the question when confronted about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm in rehab for being mentally Rigotarded. But I'm not delusional. How can anyone with a straight face place Rigo among fighters like Whitaker, Duran, Mayweather, Hopkins or even an Andre Ward when: 1. He hasn't faced the diverse range of styles that those fighters have had to face. 2. He hasn't shown the versatility those fighters have shown...like a. The ability to throw punches from all ranges, b. fight inside, outside, mid-range, off the ropes, front foot back, foot, etc. etc. c. vary their offensive attack and mix up their combinations The arguments for Rigondeaux (he controls distance well, has great footwork, is a great counter puncher, has great timing, has great IQ, etc.) can be said for every fighter I listed. But the fighters I listed are much more diverse, well rounded fighters than Rigondeaux and have proven it against every style imaginable. So what I'm going to do, is give each and every one of you, the opportunity to back up your arguments about Rigondeaux's greatness. And I don't want to hear **** like "You DKSAB, if you knew what you were watching, you would see what I see". You're not getting off that easy. Back up your statements because to me, as great as he is, you just can't put him in the category of these all time great fighters. Given the fact that Rigo lost last night, what do you think of his performance and how much he’s tried to open up his offense yet still has issues due to so many razor thin close decisions he is engaged in

4y ago

CrowsNestWest

Rigo's Style I see a lot of quotes like this: People on this forum always talk about how Rigo is one of the most highly skilled fighter with all-time great talent. One of the best pure boxers who has ever lived. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I have yet to see anybody explain the "how"? The typical responses are: 1. He's amazing at controlling distance, he's a great counter puncher, has great footwork, great power and great speed. 2. If you don't understand what you are watching, you just don't understand why Rigo is so great. They dance around the question when confronted about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm in rehab for being mentally Rigotarded. But I'm not delusional. How can anyone with a straight face place Rigo among fighters like Whitaker, Duran, Mayweather, Hopkins or even an Andre Ward when: 1. He hasn't faced the diverse range of styles that those fighters have had to face. 2. He hasn't shown the versatility those fighters have shown...like a. The ability to throw punches from all ranges, b. fight inside, outside, mid-range, off the ropes, front foot back, foot, etc. etc. c. vary their offensive attack and mix up their combinations The arguments for Rigondeaux (he controls distance well, has great footwork, is a great counter puncher, has great timing, has great IQ, etc.) can be said for every fighter I listed. But the fighters I listed are much more diverse, well rounded fighters than Rigondeaux and have proven it against every style imaginable. So what I'm going to do, is give each and every one of you, the opportunity to back up your arguments about Rigondeaux's greatness. And I don't want to hear **** like "You DKSAB, if you knew what you were watching, you would see what I see". You're not getting off that easy. Back up your statements because to me, as great as he is, you just can't put him in the category of these all time great fighters. There's levels G, and Rigo's footwork is better than most of those guys. He's never been gifted wins like those guys but also is subject to the competition in his weight class and was ducked way more than any of those fighters

7y ago

DuckAdonis

Loma ended the kid

7y ago

Tom_Cruise

As a huge Rigo fan, he got overrated for sure. He was clearly a very skilled fighter, maybe should have been one of the best in the world, but for various reasons (being stuck in commy country for too long, some poor managment and promotional decisions on his side, some poor promoting from his promoters side, not taking training seriously and being maybe the most high risk/low reward fighter of his generation) he was only able to prove how good he was on one occasion in a stylistically favourable matchup. Lots of ifs around Rigondeauxs career, too many to make any meaningful judgement on how good he might have been, or how he would have done vs great fighters in that Bantamweight to Featherweight region.

7y ago

Flo_Raiden

Crazy to think how people viewed Rigo as this master boxer who couldn't be beat awhile ago. I think looking back at some of Rigo's fights, as skilled as he was with his style, he really was pretty one dimensional. Rarely fought inside, no jab, waited long for counters without engaging, and overly reliant on his left.

7y ago

The_Viper

I see a lot of quotes like this: People on this forum always talk about how Rigo is one of the most highly skilled fighter with all-time great talent. One of the best pure boxers who has ever lived. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I have yet to see anybody explain the "how"? The typical responses are: 1. He's amazing at controlling distance, he's a great counter puncher, has great footwork, great power and great speed. 2. If you don't understand what you are watching, you just don't understand why Rigo is so great. They dance around the question when confronted about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm in rehab for being mentally Rigotarded. But I'm not delusional. How can anyone with a straight face place Rigo among fighters like Whitaker, Duran, Mayweather, Hopkins or even an Andre Ward when: 1. He hasn't faced the diverse range of styles that those fighters have had to face. 2. He hasn't shown the versatility those fighters have shown...like a. The ability to throw punches from all ranges, b. fight inside, outside, mid-range, off the ropes, front foot back, foot, etc. etc. c. vary their offensive attack and mix up their combinations The arguments for Rigondeaux (he controls distance well, has great footwork, is a great counter puncher, has great timing, has great IQ, etc.) can be said for every fighter I listed. But the fighters I listed are much more diverse, well rounded fighters than Rigondeaux and have proven it against every style imaginable. So what I'm going to do, is give each and every one of you, the opportunity to back up your arguments about Rigondeaux's greatness. And I don't want to hear **** like "You DKSAB, if you knew what you were watching, you would see what I see". You're not getting off that easy. Back up your statements because to me, as great as he is, you just can't put him in the category of these all time great fighters. LOL I'm just seeing this. Well well well my first call out on boxing scene..i must have finally made it lol. Anyway rigo is great defensively very hard to land on consistently, great movement and jab......just overall very skilled and patient, he would be very difficult for anyone in recent memory to beat. If frampton can beat him he would be well on his way to being an atg imo...........

9y ago

PBP

Rigondeaux has faced just about every style going from southpaws (Dickens, Kokietgym) to swarmers (Agbeko), boxer-punchers (Marroquinn, Amagasa) to counterpunchers (Donaire) many of which have had 15lbs on him and Lord knows what in height and reach. All of these fighters spend their lives swarming & throwing volume when they get hit with that speed, that accuracy & power they suddenly go into a defensive shell & want to become selective counterpunchers. He has shown many times pro & amateur he is more than competent enough at close quarters. In fact he showed some beautiful defense inside in just his last fight but maybe its not prolonged enough for some people. He is a pure boxer at the end of the day he's always going to look to land his shots & be gone. He has stated he won't 'run' anymore so hopefully we'll get to see more of it & we should with his next opponent who comes too fight and then possibly Quigg who seems to want his jaw breaking again. Its a shame the Poonsawatt fight fell through he was terribly underrated & tough as nails and that fight would certainly of been tougher than Donaire (stylistically) & would of answered more questions. Unfortunately for boxing fans there aren't no other Poonsawatts out there. I agree. And the Poonsawat fight wouldn't have been boring. It would have been good exposure for Rigo.

9y ago

dan_cov

9y ago

PBP

Here was the original statement that was made: If anyone thought the fight went in Whitaker's direction, it certainly wasn't because of his jab. You could even see him trying to revert back to his old stance because he was having so much trouble with it. The fact that I have to explain why southpaws in general don't work behind the jab and that those who do do it because of their stance shows limited knowledge of how southpaws work. Crawford Postol was a perfect example. Crawford hardly threw jabs in that fight, but he's a very prolific jabber from the orthodox stance. There's a reason for that. On the other hand, Postol working behind his jab was detrimental to him and opened him up to Crawfords counters. Because it works. And no, throwing fancy combos isn't what "separates the good boxers from the great ones". Where were the combinations and variety in Klishtko's and Mayweather's game? These two guys were practically invincible during their reign, and for a reason: they kept things simple. As a matter of fact, the more they simplified their game, the better they became. The jab was a very big part of Pea's success in that fight. And Mayweather was so dominant because of his versatility. He could adapt to any and everything his opponent bought to the table.

9y ago

PBP

Is that how it works then? If you like Mayweather or Whitaker or any of your favorites your an intelligent fan. But shame on the fans who love GGG and Rigo. They are just groupies. I go by what I see in the ring too. When I watch GGG and Rigo fight I love what I see. I just said I love the guy and called him a Ring God. This is nothing more than a constructive boxing debate in his skills and abilities .

9y ago

kiaba360

The only thing I never liked about the him being so skilled argument is when he may have needed to go up to get some fights he didn't. he is not a big guy, but if the guy is this amazing craftsman he can get the job done at 1 class beyond his real size especially in the low weights. he would obviously be disadvantaged a bit being the smaller guy, but if you want to talk about ripping out jaws, maybe try to rip out the jaw of someone a bit bigger~ ...or wait for the big 118lbers to move up (McDonnell, Tete).

9y ago

KingHippo

Not at all. Actually the majority of the writers covering the fight favored Whitaker Here was the original statement that was made: There was nothing punishing about Whitaker-DLH, nothing. In fact the funniest part about all this is that many feel Whitaker won that fight based off his jab, true story. If anyone thought the fight went in Whitaker's direction, it certainly wasn't because of his jab. You could even see him trying to revert back to his old stance because he was having so much trouble with it. The fact that I have to explain why southpaws in general don't work behind the jab and that those who do do it because of their stance shows limited knowledge of how southpaws work. Crawford Postol was a perfect example. Crawford hardly threw jabs in that fight, but he's a very prolific jabber from the orthodox stance. There's a reason for that. On the other hand, Postol working behind his jab was detrimental to him and opened him up to Crawfords counters. Why are we praising being one-dimensional and penalizing angles, combinations and variety? That's what separates the good boxers from the great ones. Because it works. And no, throwing fancy combos isn't what "separates the good boxers from the great ones". Where were the combinations and variety in Klishtko's and Mayweather's game? These two guys were practically invincible during their reign, and for a reason: they kept things simple. As a matter of fact, the more they simplified their game, the better they became.

9y ago

KingHippo

Not at all. Actually the majority of the writers covering the fight favored Whitaker Here was the original statement that was made: There was nothing punishing about Whitaker-DLH, nothing. In fact the funniest part about all this is that many feel Whitaker won that fight based off his jab, true story. If anyone thought the fight went in Whitaker's direction, it certainly wasn't because of his jab. You could even see him trying to revert back to his old stance because he was having so much trouble with the it. The fact that I have to explain why southpaws in general don't work behind the jab and that those who do do it because of their stance shows limited knowledge of how southpaws work. Crawford Postol was a perfect example. Crawford hardly threw jabs in that fight, but he's a very prolific jabber from the orthodox stance. There's a reason for that. On the other hand, Postol working behind his jab was detrimental to him and opened him up to Crawfords counters. Why are we praising being one-dimensional and penalizing angles, combinations and variety? That's what separates the good boxers from the great ones. Because it works. And no, throwing fancy combos isn't what "separates the good boxers from the great ones". Where were the combinations and variety in Klishtko's and Mayweather's game? These two guys were practically invincible during their reign, and for a reason: they kept things simple. As a matter of fact, the more they simplified their game, the better they became.

9y ago

KingHippo

Not at all. Actually the majority of the writers covering the fight favored Whitaker Here was the original statement that was made: There was nothing punishing about Whitaker-DLH, nothing. In fact the funniest part about all this is that many feel Whitaker won that fight based off his jab, true story. If anyone thought the fight went in Whitaker's direction, it certainly wasn't because of his jab. You could even see him trying to revert back to his old stance because he was having so much trouble with the jab. The fact that I have to explain why southpaws in general don't work behind the jab and that those who do do it because of their stance shows limited knowledge of how southpaws work. Crawford Postol was a perfect example. Crawford hardly threw jabs in that fight, but he's a very prolific jabber from the orthodox stance. There's a reason for that. On the other hand, Postol working behind his jab was detrimental to him and opened him up to Crawfords counters. Why are we praising being one-dimensional and penalizing angles, combinations and variety? That's what separates the good boxers from the great ones. Because it works. And no, throwing fancy combos isn't what "separates the good boxers from the great ones". Where were the combinations and variety in Klishtko's and Mayweather's game? These two guys were practically invincible during their reign, and for a reason: they kept things simple. As a matter of fact, the more they simplified their game, the better they became.

9y ago

boliodogs

We bash Golovkin groupies for making the same excuses about being ducked all the time. When push comes to shove, we can only go by what we see in the ring. I love the Ring God put comparing him to the likes of Pernell Whitaker, Roberto Duran and Floyd Mayweather is flat out disrespectful.Is that how it works then? If you like Mayweather or Whitaker or any of your favorites your an intelligent fan. But shame on the fans who love GGG and Rigo. They are just groupies. I go by what I see in the ring too. When I watch GGG and Rigo fight I love what I see.

9y ago

KingHippo

Not at all. Actually the majority of the writers covering the fight favored Whitaker Here was the original statement that was made: There was nothing punishing about Whitaker-DLH, nothing. In fact the funniest part about all this is that many feel Whitaker won that fight based off his jab, true story. If anyone thought the fight went in Whitaker's direction, it certainly wasn't because of his jab. The fact that I have to explain why southpaws in general don't work behind the jab and that those who do do it because of their stance shows limited knowledge of how southpaws work. Crawford Postol was a perfect example. Crawford hardly threw jabs in that fight, but he's a very prolific jabber from the orthodox stance. There's a reason for that. On the other hand, Postol working behind his jab was detrimental to him and opened him up to Crawfords counters. Why are we praising being one-dimensional and penalizing angles, combinations and variety? That's what separates the good boxers from the great ones. Because it works. And no, throwing fancy combos isn't what "separates the good boxers from the great ones". Where are the combinations and variety in Klishtko's and Mayweather's game? These two guys were practically invincible during their reign, and for a reason, they kept things simple. As a matter of fact, the more they simplified their game, the better they became.

9y ago

The_Gambler1981

9y ago

bigjavi973

9y ago

boliodogs

I think Rigo is great. He has never even come close to losing a fight. He is not just a great boxer. He is one of the best and hardest body punchers in the sport. Make him exactly the same fighting weight as Whitaker and both in their prime and I'll pick Rigo to win.He beat Donaire by a mile when Donaire was on a reign of terror and rated a top 5 pound for pound fighter. As far has him not defeating more good fighters goes he has the same problem GGG has. Most of the best fighters his weight refuse to fight him. There is no law that says you have to like him. That's your choice. To me he is an all time great fighter.

9y ago

PBP

some woulda had more answers but some fighters that present some styles chose not to fight him at all... with that being said, didn't he have like over 300 ams fights? So im sure he's seen plenty of styles there even tho you know theyre 4 rounders etc. We bash Golovkin groupies for making the same excuses about being ducked all the time. When push comes to shove, we can only go by what we see in the ring. I love the Ring God put comparing him to the likes of Pernell Whitaker, Roberto Duran and Floyd Mayweather is flat out disrespectful.

9y ago