AnthrAxNSB

Roy, unfortunately, was everything I dreaded he would be. I don't think he fought well. I don't think he fought much. He looked old to me, as he did against Tito, Tony, Prince, and Tarver. I wholly disagree. I will post what I posted in the other thread of the same topic here. Part One First: I am a huge Roy Jones Jr. fan. I have been ever since I was mistakenly shipped a DVD collection of Roy's entire career (through Tarver 3). I had seen Roy fight before, but I had just started watching boxing on a weekly basis in '05, so I hadn’t seen every Roy fight. Second: I watched last night's fight, and two things came to mind: Roy looks old, and this fight solidifies that a prime Roy would defeat a prime Calzaghe, at a minimum, by a comfortable UD (something like 8 rounds to 4), though I suspect by a wide margin. Third: Roy did the only thing in this fight that he had to avoid in order to secure a victory - he lay on the ropes with his guard up and let Joe get off. This behavior (as we have seen from the first Tarver fight through last night), supports the obvious claim that Roy is simply old. I am not sure I would use the term shot, only insomuch as he is still, at his advantaged age and diminished capacity, well equipped to defeat 95 of the top 100 guys in the LHW division. But, he is nothing like the Roy Jones the fought Clinton Woods (which has always seemed to me to be the last "Roy as Roy" fight). Fourth: I am actually quite surprised that it is not almost unanimous that a prime Roy would defeat a prime Joe after last night. I suppose that is a reflection of the members posting - perhaps they haven't grasped the many nuances of boxing (the sweet science, as they say). I'd say many of the posts in this thread reflect a clearly unsophisticated understanding of the sport. Fifth: I think almost everyone in this thread is talking around the points proffered and offering self-referential claims of their own, all of which indicates lacunae in formal logic that I find disheartening on a personal level. In any event, I also think most of the important points to be made on this issue have been; they just need to be collected and redistributed in a palatable form. I will try.

Part Two Sixth: The points... - I think it is indisputable that Roy is more than just past his prime; he's very old and thoroughly slowed. I actually think his prime ended in 2002, and that his decline was precipitous. Doubtless Roy fell off with respect to his physical gifts many years ago, and the Roy that fought last night, while gifted beyond most people's imaginations, is nowhere near the Roy the fought pre-'03 (and by nowhere near, I mean a prime Roy would toy with the Roy the fought last night). - To support the above point (though, again, I don't think it requires support), if you watch Roy's last three victories, he did (and more importantly, didn't do) a number of things that clearly underscore his physical decline. One, he lay on the ropes for chunks of rounds, with his guard up, and let his opponents pound him. Two (related to one), he had no foot speed, integral to his defense his entire career. Three, his head movement (while punches were thrown), was almost non-existent. Now, for Roy, head movement means going straight back (a no-no for almost anyone else), yet in his last three victories, he chose to cover up rather than move. This is telling. Four, Roy showed a guard. Roy never needed a guard pre-'03. He fought with his palms out and/or his left hand at his kneecap. Five, he could barely throw combinations, and when he did, they were almost exclusively two-punch combinations. This is not the Roy Jones Jr. that fought from '93-'03. This is an old man (as sportsman go) who is blessed to be in the shape he is in for an old man, but he doesn't have the gifts he had when he was great. -I don't think anyone who thought Roy would win this fight denied that Roy was old and well past his prime. Rather, I think they felt that Joe didn't have what it took to beat this Roy Jones. In fact, before the fight, I thought that this Roy Jones would win a close decision if he stayed off the ropes. I probably always knew that the caveat would play a role in this fight, as watching Roy's last three victories, it was clear that hanging out in the corner and on the ropes is something Roy can no longer avoid. Anyway, I figured that if Roy couldn't stay off the ropes, Joe could punch the bag for a while and look good doing it, and thus win a decision. That came to fruition. Again, though, pointing out after the fact that Roy is not in his prime is not an excuse as much as a reiteration of a point made by Roy fans before the fight and known by every boxing fan around the world - it's no secret, Roy is old and past his prime. As an aside, I spent every round after round one pleading with the Roy on the television to punch (the words exactly, "Punch Roy, Punch. F*ck. C'mon.") -One useful observation from this fight (useful to answer the question of who would win in their respective primes) is the way Roy easily touched Joe with his patented straight rights (aka jabs, in Roy's case) throughout the bout (pre-cut). The problem, of course, is that since the Woods fight, Roy has only been able to potshot and either clinch or move away...nothing behind the one shot. And, that's what happens when you get old. You can't throw combinations, you can't get off. When you do throw combinations, they're not as crisp or effective (though, when Roy is able to get off, they are fairly crisp even at this advanced stage in his career). And, before anyone claims that Joe's style played a role in Roy having trouble getting off, let me concede the Joe's style played some role. But, as evidenced by Roy's previous three wins, no style is enough style for Roy to have trouble getting off. Why? Because he's old. So, I am arguing that the fact that Roy could easily potshot Joe indicates that a prime Roy would likely have no more trouble tagging a prime Joe with potshots (and quite a few combinations), and considering his elusiveness in his prime (and, you know, that fact that he didn't take naps on the ropes 20 seconds at a time), would not have allowed Joe to score points as he did last night. I don't see what's controversial about this. - On the topic of Roy having chosen not to fight Joe when Roy was in his prime, I don’t understand why anyone would have expected that from him. Roy was a big name, and Roy wanted to become a bigger name so that he could make bigger money. Fighting Joe was not necessary to this end. At best it could have help. At worst it was dangerous. If you recall, Roy never made big money (in HW boxing terms, the terms Roy considered) until the John Ruiz fight. Mentioning that HBO heads discussed possible opponents for Roy late in his prime and that Roy didn’t fight them somehow means Roy ducked them is simple and suggests you are either a “hater” or often concomitant “nuthugger” or you have limited business sense. By all accounts, a fight with Michalczewski would have made more sense than a fight with Calzaghe from a competitive standpoint. But, at the time (and this is largely still the case), European fighters aren’t big enough draws in the US to make big money. Further, no American fighter with anything to lose wants to risk a bogus decision abroad, and certainly not against a fighter history will likely forget. The cliché speaks volumes here – the risk outweighs the reward. The notion that Roy ducked Calzaghe is mind blowing to me. Who the f*ck was Calzaghe to Roy? Roy knew of him, knew British fans would have loved the fight, and knew that he didn’t want to fight in Britain (for reasons mentioned (too risky, little reward)) and didn’t want the fight in the US (for reasons mentioned (no money)). Let’s remember, at the time that Joe became a viable opponent for Roy (albeit, in a lower weight class), Roy was looking to cash in on the minor fame he’d developed. Joe wouldn’t have done anything for him. Now, if Joe began his career three years earlier, and if Joe was an American fighter, Joe probably would have fought Roy years earlier in what I suspect would have been an uneventful UD for Roy. -This, I think, is somewhat incidental, but I’ll mention it anyway. When people talk of Roy’s punching power, they may forget that it was somewhat remarkable that Roy retained that power as he moved up in weight. As one post in passing mentioned earlier, Roy is a blown up middleweight. Roy’s power did not come from flat footed power shots, but rather from quick, precise shots that peppered opponents (and sometimes potshot) from bizarre angles and hurt. Roy is not a power puncher. I repeat: Roy is not a power puncher. His nickname isn’t “Lefthook.” -A point about Joe. To my mind, Joe’s career (the part that matters) started in 2006. Joe fought nobody before 2006. Veit accomplished nothing and Eubank retired a year after his fight with Joe (losing his subsequent two fights to Thompson). Joe’s career truly began in ’06, when he redefined “owned” in his victory over Lacy. He then had a solid victory (a tough fight, as I recall) over Bika, (skip Manfredo) and what I think was his most impressive victory (in terms of how he fought and the opponents abilities at the time of the fight) over Kessler. Then he fought Hopkins. I have watched that fight three times, and I have scored it a two point victory for Calzaghe, a one point victory for Calzaghe, and a draw. I can see a four point margin in that fight (two point victories one way or the other). But, even as I scored victories for Calzaghe, I always felt Hopkins out-boxed him and landed the cleaner, more effective shots. However, Hopkins was way too stagnant, and Joe won rounds on volume of punches thrown (landed or not) alone. That is why I am not surprised that Hopkins often receives more credit in the loss than Calzaghe receives in the SD win. And, that brings us to last night. Joe beat an old, slow Roy Jones. Roy had no foot speed, could not evade, and could not throw more than one or two punches at a time. Roy is old. I have come to terms with it. I think it’s time (just over a day later) that Joe’s fans come to terms with it. And, I wonder whether Joe really thinks he accomplished something with respect to his legacy by beating an old Roy Jones. I suppose this will go down in history much the same as Rocky Marciano’s victory over an old (shot) Joe Louis, though perhaps not as satisfying for the retiring undefeated fighter, as it was Calzaghe who hit the canvas in this fight while having no chance of taking out the old, slow Roy Jones. At least Marciano was able to put his aging legend away (in dramatic, heartbreaking fashion, as it were). But, to return to topic of this thread, Joe would not defeat a prime Roy. Not this Joe, not a prime Joe (and I don’t think this Joe is far from a prime Joe), not any Joe.

Prof Hopkins absolutely schooled Pascal but once agan he gets JOBBED!!!!!! Neither Calzaghe nor Taylor 1 & 2 can honestly say they BEAT Bernard, Once more they robbed a true ATG of a title, but it really doesnt matter WE know who won. How Calzaghe, Taylor & even Holyfield, after that ludicrous "DRAW" debacle against Lennox Lewis can hold their heads up after receiving such gift decisions amazes me Thomas was right on the money Bernard was jobbed Except, while rooting for Hopkins, I scored the Calzaghe/Hopkins fight for Calzaghe by three points. At best it was a draw. Last night's fight, on the other hand...

I love how hindsight, and Froch's never ending rants, has changed from the majority saying that Kessler took a good close decision win that he deserved to all these fools ranting that it now wasn't a win at all and that anywhere else he would have lost. Ahhhh, no. Anywhere else, but Nottingham, he would have won the same way. Kessler took it and people have really got to stop rehashing history just because the fighter that lost says that in his hometown he would have won......Well, guess what guys? He's right. He's already won a bad decision there that he probably shouldn't have and another one would have been fine with him. However, the right decision went the right way. I've never really understood why people keep talking as if Froch won and was robbed in a hometown decision. It would have been worse if Froch won that fight because Kessler did take it clearer than Froch did. I love Froch and his talk, but this one things about him annoys the ****e out of me. He can't get over the fact that he lost a fight fair and square and has to chalk it down to a 'hometown decision'. Come on....It would have been just as much, actually more so, of a hometown decision if that fight went his way in Nottingham. He doesn't mind that though. ...Agreed...

I think a skilled HW, with average (HW) punching power and good hand speed, and that is at least 6'4" and with the same reach as Vitali would UD him with relative ease. Bolded in blue: You failed miserably and I stopped reading there. Literally. I guess you have ignored half of his career wins somehow. I can almost disregard your prickly criticism out of hand, as I know from memory you are wholly mistaken. But, to drive home the point, I did the research. Vitali has only fought NINE opponents who are 6'4" or taller. The combined record of this bunch is 247-103-2. And, if your remove Lennox, to whom he lost, the combined record of the eight pugilists he defeated is 206-101-1. These numbers should tell you enough about the skill of the taller fighters Vitali has fought. But, let's dig deeper, and more to my point. Of the nine fighters who are 6'4" and taller, only THREE had an equivalent reach. One of these three is Lennox Lewis. The combined record of the two not named Lewis is 77-24-1. Those two fighters are Timo Hoffman and Jose Ribalta. Hoffman and Ribalta hardly qualify as skilled boxers with good hand speed. So, of the three boxers that Vitali has fought that are 6'4" or taller with an equivalent or better reach, only Lennox Lewis meets the other conditions (skilled, good hand speed, average HW punching power). And Lewis defeated Vitali. Case closed.

Learn to understand what you read. I said what I said, and it very much makes sense. We're not talking height here. Vitaliy is how he is. I don't know what your trying to say here. I didn't say your comment didn't make sense. I said it ("Vitali is how he is"), doesn't advance a claim of yours or refute my claim. It does nothing. I also don't know what you mean by "we're not talking height here." My point is that Vitali's height, reach, clinching, and "karate defense" make him extremely difficult for any of today's HWs. That seems like something with which you should be in agreement.

You know what people would not mind seeing? You (Amir) fighting Prescott in a rematch since your only loss was a first round KO to him. People want to see you beat Mayweather? Really? You talk more about a potential fight with Floyd than every other person combined. Nobody is clamoring for that fight. Is your name Manny Pacquiao? Please, stop.

i'm gonna put it to you like this: hopkins is a former lightheavy who scaled down to middleweight and feasted on a weak middleweight division, while waiting for big name welterweights to move up...then he moved back up to lightheavy and still feasted on catchweight fights with middleweights until calzaghe pimpslapped him...he is recognized around the world as the most boring fighter on the planet...he ain't even in a position to say s**t cause nobody's listening but the few fans he has left... pac on the other hand started out fighting cats who were his size, and kept moving up...now he's not just fighting, but whipping cats who are grossly bigger than him, one after the next, and getting top dollar for it...he's giving his fans, and the general public, what the f**k they been asking for...even his haters order his fights...those few people who are crowing about pac fighting a "slick boxer" aren't even heard, cause this guy is filling stadiums and is making history....little a** pac just beat margarito, the same cat fmj ducked @ 8 million....at this point fmj, nard, shane, or any other "slick black boxer (aka lazy)...they better get off they a** and start making a case to fight the best instead of running off at the mouth... Your bio on Bernard is factually inaccurate and wholly unfair. Bernard's first professional fight was at LHW. That was in '88. He didn't fight another fight at LHW until he fought Tarver in '06. In other words, he spent 18 years fighting at MW-SMW, book-ended by two LHW fights. I don't know how you can consider him a fighter who scaled down (because of one 4 round fight?) when he easily made weight and fought well at 160-168 for 18 years, the last 14 of which were spent exclusively at 160 or lower. We can argue about the quality of his competition at MW during his reign, but he dominated and knocked out Glen Johnson, dominated and knocked out Tito Trinidad, and then knocked out De La Hoya @ 156. Further, when he finally did make the jump to LHW (Tarver), he didn't fight at a catchweight. His next fight (against Winky) was at a catchweight (170). Then there was the Calzaghe fight. He two fights at LHW before Calzaghe - the title fight against the best LHW in the world at the time (Tarver) and a catchweight fight against the arguably the best MW in the world at the time (Winky). So, he didn't just "feast on catchweight fights with " until Calzaghe, unless you consider Tarver a MW. And, let us not forget, that after the Calzaghe fight, he was the betting underdog against Pavlik, and then he proceeded to trounce Pavlik (a MW) in a catchweight fight at 170. But, this was after Calzaghe, and a fight he was expected to lose. Finally, I think you're using the term "slick" awfully loosely if you're considering B-Hop and Mosley slick. Shane is not now nor has he ever been "slick." Shane's a boxer/brawler. Shane fights in the pocket, and his offense is a large part of his defense. Bernard isn't slick, unless by slick you mean scheming. He holds and hits. He leads with his head. He rabbit punches. He's slick in that he gets away with that sh*t. But, he's not slick in the sense in which he's using the term (although, he might consider himself slick). His defense is solid, though. The only truly slick boxers in (or sort of in) the sport right now are James Toney and Floyd Mayweather Jr. You think B-Hop, Shane Mosley, and Mayweather are lazy? Really? I don't know how to respond to that. Also, Shane's been asking to fight Pacquiao since the Margarito fight. If anyone is at fault for that fight not being made, it was Pacquiao. Personally, I didn't take too much from Shane's win against Margarito. I bet on that fight, as I basically called the outcome of that fight before it happened. I may have wanted to see a Mosley/Pacquiao fight at the time, if only because I wasn't as high on Pacquiao then as I am now. But, now, Shane's not quite shot, but he's doubtless showing his age. He seems to lack stamina and cannot pull the trigger as easily as he could even three years ago. And, Pacquiao looks like he could fight a twenty five rounder at a pace that most people cannot withstand. In any event, what's certain is that Mosley has been begging for this fight for almost two years, but it's probably too late in his career for him to be competitive. The only fight that matters is Mayweather/Pacquiao. Mayweather presents a challenge Pacquiao's never encountered. Pacquiao presents a challenge Mayweather's never encountered. Let's hope it happens.

Does anyone else think this is a preview of what Williams-Wright might look like? Not at all. Williams has more power at 154 than Funeka displayed at 135. Wright is a much cleaner boxer than Campbell, while Campbell has more power (at 135) than Wright (at any weight). I don't see Winky fighting Williams as Nate fought Funeka. It would be wholly out of character.

For the record, Dawson has only lost three fights (Pascal, Ward, Stevenson).

I cannot read through seventeen pages of responses. So, forgive me if this has already been discussed. For everybody that was sh*tting on Paul Williams in the Ishida thread (the comments thread in response to the announcement that Williams and Ishida was going to happen), calling him a fraud and other derogatory terms, the announcement of this fight is exactly what I was referencing in rebutting those claims. Paul Williams is great for boxing. He fights good-great fighters from 147-160, gets after it round after round (leaving himself vulnerable because of his style), and is exciting to watch. There is not a single fight for Williams against a top 25 fighter from 147-160 that I would not want to watch.

Guess I have to disagree, Compubox numbers just don't lie. And Adamek, frankly, didn't even look like he was running in this fight (something I thought he would look like he was doing). Thus giving Chris rounds for pushing the action. I scored 117-111. The numbers just weren't close, and Chris got jacked up, he was clearly the more bruised fighter, meaning Adamek threw the more effective punches. I just looked at my scorecard. I miscounted. I scored the fight 116-114 for Adamek. Also, I took the liberty of scoring rounds even. If I gave Adamek the two round I scored even, I would have it 116-112. We really are not that far apart. Compubox numbers can be misleading. I'm sure you know that.

Am I the only one that thought Ricky looked pretty good? I don't mean compared to prime Ricky; I mean relative to Senchenko. He was winning the fight, although Senchenko started getting off in those last three rounds. While he was getting hit with the jab when Senchenko used it, and he was getting hit with the right hand coming in, he was also landing his own shots with relative ease. Ring rust or not, I thought he looked good early in the fight. As for the Tyson comparison, I think Ricky was more effective offensively in this fight than Tyson was late in his career.

what about the 1k plus airfare that it would cost to travel? i can write like the dickens, but i don't know if i can spare 1k plus for a plane ticket while in law school. I'm with you.

When its all done and said, Khan will be the new Hatton. Haters who say floyd is ducking Khan will say Floyd beat a JWW and is ducking someone else.... Shyt never ends. Lol. There is no comparison between Hatton and Khan. Completely different styles with Khan more suited to give Floyd trouble. How can anyone on a boxing thread compare Ricky Hatton to Amir Khan the only thing the pair have ever had in common is there nationality and weight so lets rule khan out now then because if ricky was brtitish and a 140 pounder and lost to mayweather then don't even bother making the fight khan will lose because he's british and a light welterweight. Great logic in that !! I'm almost positive that WESS was not comparing Khan and Hatton stylistically. I think he was comparing the reaction that Floyd will receive for beating Khan to the reaction Floyd received for fighting/beating Hatton. He is saying Floyd will get no credit for beating Khan, because he was/is a JWW (much like Hatton).

Just because one judge was blind doesn't make it a close fight. He lost a split on home turf, that's like Cal winning a shutout in europe. I don't have my scorecard in front of me, but I believe I had Calzaghe winning by 2 points (I score 10-10 rounds because I'm under no obligation not to). It was a close fight.

Hopkins has nearly always fought smaller men: Oscar, Winky, Pascal, Calzaghe, Taylor, Trinidad, etc. The only one about his own size was Tarver. It's no surprise he wants to fight Sergio, instead of moving up and fighting for a title at cruiserweight or heavyweight. One of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. Congratulations. You're right - he should go from being middleweight champ of the world with over 20 defenses, schooling the top of the next division up at light heavyweight in his 40's to cruiser/heavyweight.. simply because they have been smaller (which is questionable to begin with). You know what, they need to make a SUPER HEAVYWEIGHT, for 230lb fighters that are over 6'8 and B-Hop should move up to that to be the legitimate champion. Otherwise, **** him and his accomplishments. Agreed. Calzaghe is about the same size as Roy Jones. Roy Jones and Calzaghe are only a couple of inches shorter than Bernard, but they're about the same size otherwise. Incidentally, they both also defeated Bernard. Pascal is a little shorter than Roy and Joe, but he's also about the same size otherwise. And, Jermain Taylor is not smaller than Hopkins. They are just about identical in size. Oscar, Winky, and Felix are smaller, though. However, none of this is evidence that Bernard should move up in weight. He might be successful at Cruiserweight, but that's not his weight class. He's perfectly fit for 175. Apart from recent cruiser-to-heavy converts, there is nobody at HW that makes sense as opponents for Bernard. HW just doesn't makes sense for him. I think Sergio will be too small. Bernard will likely stick and spoil, but it's a better fight than Bernard vs any HW. I'd prefer Bernard fight Dawson, Cloud, Bute, Froch, Dirrell, Kessler, and Ward over Sergio, though.

You may want to google that word. Doesn't mean what you may think... You are the most petty, immature poster on any message board I have ever visited. I loathe your presence in any threads I read, as you almost never offer anything substantive to the conversation, only pedantic, snarky remarks like your most recent gem. Get a life, man.

Actually, Arreola clearly hurt his hand with two plus rounds to go. He had enough gas to throw caution to the wind the final three rounds. Adamek looked more fatigued from my vantage. I scored the fight 115-113 Adamek. I thought Adamek got on his bike and outboxed Arreola for most of the fight. He looked a little looser than what I have seen from him post-Dawson. While his defense wasn't stellar, his movement was better than in recent past (e.g. vs Cunningham). I think he can be outboxed from 175 to 200+, unfortunately. Props to Arreola for fighting through the injury. Props to Adamek for following a game plan and boxing his way to a decision.

I am astonished that only a handful in this thread have acknowledged the absurdity of this fight. Floyd is an average size welterweight. Bernard is an average size light heavyweight. There are 28 lbs between them! If catch weights undermine the system of weight classes, what does a fight between a WW and a LHW do? It's one thing to move a up 7 lbs (while gaining only 3 lbs on the move up). It's another thing to move up 13 lbs to fight someone moving down 15 lbs. It's f*cking stupid.

I see you're outraged by the truth. There are apparently a lot of those who try to downplay their skills. And I'm way past 15, for the record.:fing02: I think a skilled HW, with average (HW) punching power and good hand speed, and that is at least 6'4" and with the same reach as Vitali would UD him with relative ease. Watching Vitali fight is like watching someone pick on their little brother. He can throw arm punches at distance without regard for repercussions because he can simply lean back with his hip out and be fully out of range -- unless, the opponent is similarly tall with equal reach (à la Lennox Lewis). If you press him with composure (e.g. behind an extended or double jab), he'll back pedal, leaning back with his hands down (or run :sad:). If you get inside, he'll clinch or parry punches by blocking his opponents forearms with his own (not their punches, but their forearms). I don't think there is a rule against that in boxing (blocking like a karate fighter), but perhaps there should be. In any event, he ran, clinched, and parried like a karate fighter against a shorter slugger. The remainder of the fight, he kept distance and embarrassed Arreola. But, to me, it was unfair. I don't think there is a question about his dominance in his fights. I think he may have very well defeated many previous HW champions with this technique. But I am not sure he is that skilled. Anyone can potshot when they have such physical advantages over there opponents (in the case of Arreola, he was faster, sharper (kudos), taller with a longer reach, and better conditioned (kudos again)), but against someone his size, and with skill, I think he gets exposed. He is eminently hittable, but only if you have the size to reach him. It would be great if a skilled shorter fighter had the style or formula to close distance, keep Vitali from running, and avoid the clinch and karate blocks. But, the current crop of average size HWs simply aren't skilled enough, and thus far haven't had the formula. The taller HWs with reach are generally rubbish. I think this is what people bemoan about the HW division. As for now, to my mind, Vitali is the mean older brother of the HW division.

What an awful situation. I am a teacher, and the school where I once taught is located just blocks from the shootout. Lacy's family has done a lot in and for the community. It's unfortunate that Hydra had the obvious disabilities which tormented him. I feel horrible for both the Lacy family and the families of the slain officers.

Shot to ****? Boy, have you seen what Roy did to Jeff? You can say that about Jeff, but Roy is simply not quite what he was, and has a suspect chin. Given a great chin(and confidence that goes with it), I could see him beating someone like Chad, let alone Danny Green. He's still pretty sharp, experienced, and still a pretty good athlete :boxing: Roy's not sharp. Not at all. He is so apprehensive. His punches are not on point. He has hand speed, but not near the hand speed he had pre-2003. He has no legs. Without his hand speed and, more importantly, without his legs, he has no answers for the top fighters from LHW to HW. Call it what you want, but Roy can no longer compete at an elite level. Roy got me into boxing, but I recognize he's done. This fight with Holyfield is sad. I'd still watch it, but I completely understand why most people would not. And look at you! Have you been smashed up by heavies? The word is "they're"! :dunce: Except, the word is their.

How can Marquez have a higher connect % on jabs AND power punches, yet have a lower % overall, that's mathmatically impossible?!?! It's because Katsidis throws such a high volume of power punches (at 39.3%) and a comparatively low volume of jabs (at 21.1%), whereas Marquez has a more balanced attack at similar percentages. Thus, Marquez's jabs at only 24.2% make a up a larger chunk of his overall output, and bring down his connect percentage. It's easier to see with a more exaggerated example. Let's say Marquez throw 50 jabs a round and connected 11 times - that's connecting 22% of the time (slightly better than Katsidis). Let's say he also threw 2 power punches a round and connected 1 time - that's connecting 50% of the time (much better than Katsidis). His overall numbers, however, would be 12 out of 52, which yields a connect percentage of 23.1% (far worse than Katsidis's 34.9%). Why? Again, it's the relative volume of punches at the lower connect percentage.

IMO 8 ouch gloves would have suited Cotto just fine. He hit the body, arms and head quite often. They weren't using 8 oz gloves?

I never complain about the writing here --- never. If I'm not interested in an article, I move on to something else. If the writing lacks style, I move on to something else. But, this has to be the stupidest article I've ever read here. I'll be generous and concede that this might be news to the most devout Pacquiao fan, but the notion that Pacquiao beginning his plyo workouts during training camp is somehow news to any reasonable person is ludicrous. Of course he's working out during training camp! What else would he be doing? Now, the author seems to believe that the fact that Pacquiao is specifically doing plyo (without Ariza) is news. The author goes further by attempting to concisely define plyo and its implications. But, plyo is standard fare for almost all athletes. Pacquiao doesn't need Ariza around to begin plyo. I can do a plyo workout while reading and responding to this thread. It's not some esoteric scheme. Incidentally, eight weeks of plyo among all the other workouts in which Pacquiao participates is not going to produce earth-shattering results -- not enough time, not enough rest, not enough anything. I call bullsh*t on the idea that plyometric exercises were not part of Pacquiao's training for the Marquez fight, and there is no way in hell that a lack thereof (which, again, I think is bullsh*t) had anything to do with his performance in that fight. Anyway, I am now going to take my own advice and move on to something else.

Horus? Whatever, either way this is just filled with inaccuracies. It is generally understood in the boxing world that Cotto beat Mosley. "Most people" don't think it was a draw. The vast majority of the world know that it was a close but clear decision. Foreman beat Santos to win the JMW WBA title.....again, wrong. And I love how people act like this is the first time Cotto has said Floyd's name. Cotto said things like this a ton back in 2007. Its just that half these people have an IQ of about 30 and think that if you don't yell and scream the guys name right after a fight on HBO than you have no interest in fighting him. While I agree with everything you've said, I scored the Mosley/Cotto fight a draw the two times I watched the fight, and I didn't have a dog in the fight. I don't recall what the majority of people thought at the time, but I know that a sizable number of people scored it a draw.

Son of a b*tch. I was searching for weigh-in info (location, time, etc.) and stumbled across this story on another site. I bought tickets for this fight. Say what you want about Roy, but if you've been a lifelong fan, having the opportunity to see him fight live is thrilling.

I had it 114-114, but if i had to give it too one of them it would be morales. Maidana could esily have been docked a point for continuously punching after the break and using his head excessively etc. I dont know what fight Jerry Roth and the other judge were watching scoring it 116-112...a disgrace. Morales deserves better than that. This was a great fight to watch if you are a Morales fan. I spent most of the first half of the fight on the edge of my seat -- not because the action was so compelling, but because I felt at any moment Morales might get cracked. But, then, in the fifth, Morales turned it around. Going into the fifth, I had the fight 40-36 Maidana. The fourth was closer than the previous three, but still a Maidana round (particularly with how he close it out). Morales rope-a-doped Maidana for the next five rounds it seemed. He let his hands go after (and between) Maidana flurries. His punches were more precise and sharper, even if they lacked the power necessary to get Maidana out of there. I gave Morales four of six rounds between the fifth and tenth. So, going into the eleventh, I had Maidana up 96-94. Morales needed the eleventh and twelfth rounds to pull off the draw. Maidana controlled the eleventh with his aggression, walking Morales down and unleashing. Morales exchanged with Madiana in the twelfth, but did not do enough to win the round. Maidana was just more successful. As much as I wanted Morales to win, 116-112 for Maidana was my card. I can understand 114-114, as there were two rounds that gave Maidana where there were a lot of exchanges, but it seemed (and the punch stats reflected) that Maidana got the better of those rounds. Regardless, anywhere in that range seems reasonable to me. ...great fight...

What's fraudulent about Paul Williams? I don't understand how anyone can not respect him as a fighter. Paul Williams is good for boxing. The guy willingly fights from 147 to 160. He's fought Margarito, Quintana (twice), Phillips, Winky, Martinez (twice), and Cintron. He's an action fighter who throws tons of punches. He's fun to watch. If I were coaching, I wouldn't teach someone to box like him, but there's not a single fight for him from 147 to 160 that I would not want to watch. You all are crazy.