Just how good is Saunders?

The more I think about it and his resume, I'm more and more convinced that Saunders is not as good as the general consensus seems to believe. Saunders is really living off that boxing lesson he put on Lemieux, but the rest of the resume is questionable when you look deeper and was beating Lemieux in that fashion all that impressive. Lemieux is obviously very dangerous, but I'd argue many boxer/movers could do the same thing to Lemieux. Hell, Lemieux was knocked down twice and taken to the brink by fucking Maxim Bursak at 168. Saunders has been in a lot of close fights and could easily have a few losses. Blackwell fight was competitive, Ryder and Eubank fights were VERY close, Andy Lee fight was very competitive, terrible showing against Akavov and looked ordinary against Monroe. More importantly imo, is that Saunders hasn't done anything impressive at 168 and has looked a lot worse than he ever did at 160 imo. Yeah, he washed an old, well past it Martin Murray recently, but he looked bland against a terrible guy in Isufi and was briefly hurt in that fight and was losing to Coceres until the late stoppage. I think the "rises to the occasion" narrative is overblown. Aside from Lemieux, his best wins were against Eubank and Ryder at the developing stage of their careers still, personally I would pick Ryder to beat him if they fought at 168 today. Perhaps I will be proven wrong on Saturday night, but I feel the feeling post fight will be that Saunders was not as good as we thought.

Comments (5)

jmrf4435

You could write the exact piece about Canelos close wins... ..

5y ago

Zaryu

We'll find out this Saturday night. I think he's good, but Canelo is better and will likely beat him convincingly, however, it still needs to be done and Canelo needs to win the fight to get the credit. Saunders is a 2 division undefeated champion, regardless of how he looks this Saturday, I think it's clear he's a world class fighter.

5y ago

dan_cov

I agree with this assessment & breakdown of his resume entirely. I think sometimes we convince ourselves that the mover or fighter with a more negative style is the better boxer & its not always the case. I'm not convinced he is a better boxer than Canelo or a better boxer than Lara who people are making comparisons to as they're both southpaws. - Its assumed Canelo is a better fighter now but for me I've seen nothing to suggest BJS is as good as a peak Lara or can cause similar problems. Lara is basic but he has very educated feet. A high ring IQ. He throws straighter shots, he has a variety of guards to accompany great reflexes. I see speed, precision, power. I look at BJS and frankly I don't see anything great. What he does well I'd grade at a 7/10. Lemeiux is maybe the most limited, top level or bordering fighter out there. He can be outboxed. GGG completely shut him out with his jab alone. Did he even land a punch on GGG who is hardly a defensive wizard? I have so many questions about BJS even if 10 were answered, I'd still not be convinced. I think another huge thing that needs bringing too light is BJS stamina he looks dog tired in every fight heading into the fifth round and he's never fought anyone truly world class and certainly none which will bang away to arms and body & maneuver him like Canelo will. BJS for me despite all he has achieved is still someone I'd label as more suited to the amateurs. Great amateur style. extremely hard to beat but over 12 rounds I'm yet to see it

5y ago

BigZ44

Nel o hadn't beat unbelievable fighters also. Seriously? The resumes are nowhere near comparable. Trout, Lara, Cotto, Golovkin, Jacobs, Callum Smith are all better wins than anything on BJS's resume and you could probably argue for more of the guys on Canelo's resume if you really wanted to.

5y ago

hugh_grant

Nel o hadn't beat unbelievable fighters also.

5y ago