Haney needs to retire - fake champion with no chin

you probably think the oj simpson case "could have gone either way" bro you got some issues

Two weeks ago the unappreciating fans were saying the very same things about Ryan Garcia.

ok man cool you probably think the oj simpson case "could have gone either way"

"Boxing fans" are the absolute worst! The kid accomplished a good amount, became undisputed and lost his first fight to his amateur rival and he should retire. And then we wonder why fighters try to protect their 0 so hard. Also, I put boxing fan in quotations because it's a casual ass take.

loma clearly won. They robbed loma just so haney could go on to lose to garcia. What a waste of effort that was for them. Lomas win over haney doesnt even look that good in comparison now that haney lost. What a shame for him. ok man cool

NSB always overhyped any flavor of the week or month. I wouldn’t be surprised if some fans now believe that Ryan can beat Crawford or Boots. Truth to be told, Haney is a bit like Spence, a product of hard work, very basic with no special effects. Spence had a decent chin and above average power. I think he’s a better fighter

I think its unfair to call Haney a fake champion, he is still a decent boxer and has a lot to offer. I can look at it objectively despite my hatred for his religion and him being a racist POS. Im glad he lost though, hopefully Loma gets to rematch as Loma beat him last time.

Why should he retire when he is just 25 and only had 1 loss and still managed to see the 12th round? Going by your logic pacquiao should have retired when he got destroyed in 2012 where he went to sleep and had multiple ko losses before that too.

NSB always overhyped any flavor of the week or month. I wouldn’t be surprised if some fans now believe that Ryan can beat Crawford or Boots. Truth to be told, Haney is a bit like Spence, a product of hard work, very basic with no special effects. Your comment about Haney is spot on. I believe he is a product of very hard work, very good athletic training, and understanding certain technical elements to a degree. Ryan has genetically enforced speed and power lol. Yeah the polarity here in this section is ridiculous lol. There are people that were talking about him fighting Crawford or boots some are talking about Ryan doing the same which is also IMO as laughable.

someone's talent and level of his opponent is irrelevant. every fight/round should be scored the same way. example: fighter A lands 350 punches in the first 3 rounds and then decides to coast/get on his bike because of complacency (meaning he already won). fighter B barely stands and is a bloody mess but he still tries to land. somehow fighter B lands 1 punch a round in rounds 4-12 and fighter A doesn't land anything. who won the fight? fighter B won the fight 9-3 even if you give fighter A 3 10-8 rounds at the beginning. it doesn't matter who took more damage, who has more power, who's face looks better, who threw and landed more in the whole fight. you win the fight by winning more points which is usually the same as more rounds. if EVERYBODY can't agree with this (i gave an EASY example to score) then abolish scoring altogether because it's meaningless. note: this post has nothing to do with any particular boxer. i was talking in general. Scoring has f***** up boxing royally. It is not only subjective but it is manipulated by judges and that's a fact. Dominance is dominance. I know how boxing is scored. I just don't really care because it's irrelevant. If there's a close fight and it's a matter of couple of punches fine... Then it's a close fight that was decided by a matter of a couple of punches nothing more needs to be said. You can tell me fighter A one that fight from fighter b because he threw three more jabs but you can have a hard time convincing me He's better because of those three more jabs. So for you to make the argument that's scoring is some stable method that enables fights to be decided properly it's against all actual truth. Judges are corrupt and they cannot see most of what happens in the ring which is too quick for the eye anyway. This is why fencing is scored electronically btw. Most decisions in boxing these days seem to be controversial. Did you know that in the Romero Cruz fight one judge had Romero up at the time of the stoppage? Need I say more? It does matter who took more damage. It matters when you see a fight and know what to look for see who is more effective which inevitably involves who's causing more damage. Scoring a fight does not tell you much of anything especially given the inconsistent standards and the corruption. Of course if you want to score the fight based on what you see yeah I'll give you that. But you're going to tell me that some judges know that Chavez versus Whitaker was a draw? No. Anybody who watches that fight will know who on that fight no judges needed. When Andre Ward won the super middlewe tournament as an underdog he didn't fight in one close fight. That's Winning. When Manny Pacquiao fought Floyd Mayweather who really won that fight? Who really cares? Neither guy did anything to show they were The better fighter. They both had a few moments, they gave the fight to floyd which I have no problem with. I wouldn't have had a problem if they gave it to Pac either. I would agree with you more if judging was consistent and not totally corrupt. But even if it was, some judges count body shots more, some judges don't count any body shots to speak of, that are delivered in tight. Some judges care about effective aggression some judges do not. Best way to understand who won a fight is to watch the fight. Theoretically? Applying consistent standards objectively, counting the number of punches per round, understanding what skill sets will be counted, would be a start to making judging more relevant. I mean that's what it's supposed to be about. but I don't see that in practice. And finally... Many subtle defensive maneuvers cannot be caught by the judges. I am reminded of my own experience having taught martial arts for years and having a bunch of guys taught in college who were in beast mode. I would never win my matches even though I taught them and they would win lol. Primary reason being I was taught defensively to be very subtle in my movements. In the tournaments back then if you came within like half a foot or so you got the point for the technique lol.

Haney is the modern Corey Spinks.

Bit harsh the dudes 25 and can learn from his defensive mistakes made in the fight? Once he moves up closer to his walk around weight his punch resistance should be better, so he's got a lot to play with still shouldn't just retire that's a pathetic suggestion.

Damn just last week he was a generational talent NSB always overhyped any flavor of the week or month. I wouldn’t be surprised if some fans now believe that Ryan can beat Crawford or Boots. Truth to be told, Haney is a bit like Spence, a product of hard work, very basic with no special effects.

Damn just last week he was a generational talent

Lol everytime someone loses we get these threads. If Ryan retired after his loss he wouldn't have beaten Haney. some people here can't comprehend that there are fighters like bheki moyo https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/323707 and kristian laight https://boxrec.com/en/box-pro/216597 . these men continued their careers with zero wins in 74 fights and after 278 losses but haney (or anybody else ever) should retire because he lost once. :)

In a professional price fight? When you're evaluating talent looking at the fights and not the scorecards? Sorry. For the amateurs different story entirely. Rules can be applied in different ways. When you talk about the ability to be good enough to control and dominate an opponent who's also considered elite that's greatness. That's why people have to learn to look at fights and not judges scorecards. Again regarding Haney, I don't know what you mean by winning. He hit Ryan once with effect the whole fight pretty much. If you consider that winning you can make that judgment. People do wi. fights according to judges decisions that way at times. Sometimes it's a deciding factor which makes sense, but sometimes? It's plain wrong. Your technique is supposed to have effect and I don't care what any rule says otherwise.. someone's talent and level of his opponent is irrelevant. every fight/round should be scored the same way. example: fighter A lands 350 punches in the first 3 rounds and then decides to coast/get on his bike because of complacency (meaning he already won). fighter B barely stands and is a bloody mess but he still tries to land. somehow fighter B lands 1 punch a round in rounds 4-12 and fighter A doesn't land anything. who won the fight? fighter B won the fight 9-3 even if you give fighter A 3 10-8 rounds at the beginning. it doesn't matter who took more damage, who has more power, who's face looks better, who threw and landed more in the whole fight. you win the fight by winning more points which is usually the same as more rounds. if EVERYBODY can't agree with this (i gave an EASY example to score) then abolish scoring altogether because it's meaningless. note: this post has nothing to do with any particular boxer. i was talking in general.

Lol everytime someone loses we get these threads. If Ryan retired after his loss he wouldn't have beaten Haney.

Haney was hurt from round 1, came back, won some rounds and got hurt again, I dont have a problem with his performance but no he can't go to 147

Enough said Another One of Garcia groupies has spoken.

i absolutely disagree with this. you don't have to hurt anybody ever to win a round and a fight. that is a fact. there is no such rule. you can land 1 pitty pat jab and if your opponent doesn't land at all, you win a round despite not hurting anybody. 7 (or 6/10 or 5/8 or 4/6 or 3/4) rounds like this and you can win a fight. it wouldn't be exciting but it's legal and possible. haney was definitely winning this fight 4-1. he took the lead but he blew it. it's his problem but the fact is he was winning. haney was better after 5, 6 rounds. he won them by default because ryan just threw several rounds. if anybody had ryan in front after 5, 6 rounds, he's just biased. In a professional price fight? When you're evaluating talent looking at the fights and not the scorecards? Sorry. For the amateurs different story entirely. Rules can be applied in different ways. When you talk about the ability to be good enough to control and dominate an opponent who's also considered elite that's greatness. That's why people have to learn to look at fights and not judges scorecards. Again regarding Haney, I don't know what you mean by winning. He hit Ryan once with effect the whole fight pretty much. If you consider that winning you can make that judgment. People do wi. fights according to judges decisions that way at times. Sometimes it's a deciding factor which makes sense, but sometimes? It's plain wrong. Your technique is supposed to have effect and I don't care what any rule says otherwise..