Must be a perception thing. I watched live and was getting irritated because the commentary seemed obviously to be pushing a narrative that just wasn't happening. The official scorecards seemed about right. But of course, to many on here, the officials were bought off/somehow manipulated in real time for some unknown reason.
We all have a few fights that were considered controversial by the masses but we feel are correct. I watched Bradley Pacquiao I at a bar that didnt have the announcers playing (so I was not swung by their opinion). I had Bradley winning. Watched it a few times since and atill feel the same way.
As long as you can defend your opinion with actual evidence, as opposed to just biases or logical fallacies and deflections then all good
Rico was way ahead.
Not saying he shouldnt have been way ahead, but I am pretty sure two judges had it even going into the 11th. Meaning, counting the kd, ver hoeven would have been down 2 on two of the cards going into the final round.
This means ver hoeven would have needed at least two KDs in the final round, or a KO, to get the win. Not saying that is right or fair, just pointing out that factually Ver hoeven was not up on the cards.
Usyk hasn't been in wars and has had 24 fights. Ali was waaay past his best at 39. That is why the comparison is insane. Usyk doesn't have half the wear and tear of Ali at 39.
A far better comparison would be Bhop. Usyk is a slick fighter who hasn't taken major damage. He is older than the average fighter but he isn't an old guy by any means.
Regardless of the amount of fights he has had, he is past his prime physically. That was the original statement of the post I made. The citing of Ali was to gain reference, as I felt that was a very noteworthy fight a heavyweight fighter had in roughly that age range. I get Ali had more wear and tear, but the point wasn't the amount of fights they had, the point was age. If you had taken Ali and had him have light touch fights all the way until he was 39 he would still be past his physical best by the time he was 39, because thats just the way it is.
Now, can some fighters stave off aging better than others, of course. But that doesnt mean that they are at their best when in their 40s, it just means they are less bad (relatively to their peak) than others.
Come on, Wladimir was still doing well enough at his age, having almost 3 times as many fights as him. Usyk took or was given, as we used to say, "the soft of the bread" throughout his career.
Wladimir had three fights after the age of 39, the age Usyk is now. He went 1-2. Yeah, the amount and difficulty of fights you have had counts, but so does your natural age- nobody beats father time. 39 is old regardless of how many fights youve had.
all of apart of Cossack Oleksandr's masterplan for Turki to offer a handsome payday to fight Biblical Moses
Turki is on record stating that he believes black heavyweight champs are the BEST for boxing
Cossack Oleksandr is entertaining enough. Being the naturally smaller man he must box to beat these bigger dudes
Klitch bros were robotic
Fat Dave gets his mopped at heavyweight
here Fat Dave was hurt by right uppers from Fat Gilbert who is NOT a gifted puncher. Yes, this guy gets ko'd at heavy
{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i.ibb.co\/4RMt2RZB\/3061c872dede4e23918a94926d8c4e45.gif"}
{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i.ibb.co\/7dj0xPPZ\/d3e6cbb2647742d79f39522ed09f6675.gif"}
who else other than ukrainiy teenie boppers with 3rd world thinking and 3rd world education believe Oleksandr is in the same tier of greatness as Ali:thinking::lol1:
Like Floyd Ali beat MULTIPLE all time greats and within the top 10 all time
Oleksandr has beat MAYBE ONE great
Past Prime Flabby Fury
TBud is top 25 all time because of his incredibly buff win over Saul Santos. Naruto Ninja Naoya is top 30
Cossack Oleksandr isn't within the top 30 let alone the Ali Sugar Leonard Floyd level top 10
Assuming that I am putting Usyk in the same "tier" as Ali is just a straw man statement. I am comparing two heavyweight champions who both fought at the same age, oh which there are very few. You implied the valuative portion of tiers and then added an insult for some reason. C'mn, lets be better, no need for insults, especially when you are straw manning the whole thing.
There is no comparison between Ali at 39 and Usyk at 39. Ali had 61 fights by that age and was already showing signs of brain damage. Ali fought in the golden era of HW's and they fought 15 rounders back then and guys went to war. It was barely the same sport. Especially in the HW division.
Usyk is a great fighter. That said he has 24 fights at 39. He is beating the best the HW division has right now, but that isn't saying much.
Comparing Usyk to Ali is insanely ridiculous.
No, not insanely ridiculous- no need to go overboard. They are both heavyweight champions who fought into their late 30s and possibly beyond; there aren't many men ever who have ever done that so comparisons are apt.
That being written, yes Ali took more damage in his career, but 39 is old for a boxer. Even if a man had no fights ever and remained fresh simply just training he would be past his physical peak by the time he was 39, thats just the way things are.
I hate when fighters talk like this. Now when Benavidez whoops him people are gonna say he was over the hill.
To be fair, he will be darn near 40 (if not already 40) when those fights happen. He is over the hill whether we say it or not. Think of it this way, he is already a few years older than Ali was when he first lost to Spinks.
Whoever rehashed this old thread was brilliant, its funny to see how far off some people are in their predictions. I mean its okay to be wrong, but to be overly arrogant and insulting in your opinions while being wrong is something else.
It would be funny if someone went around and just bumped all the ridiculous wrong things people have said, of course all that would lead to is deflection, as nobody, in any arena, is held accountable anymore.
You're missing the point.
No one is basing the #1 P4P criteria on things they did 5 years ago.
In your own words "who is the best at the moment"?
Inoue just beat the #6 ranked P4P guy a couple weeks ago.
In terms of recent performances, how do you get higher than that?
Neither Bam, Benevidez, nor Shakur have done that.
Do you think beating Zurdo is a higher win than that?
Puma Martinez? LOL
Teo wasn't even in the top 3 in his own wgt class, nor did anyone consider him a P4P guy when they fought.
Usyk hasn't fought in a year.
Recent performance. There's not much of an argument.
How did I miss the point, we are saying the same thing. I even wrote that Inoue could be deemed #1
I was just citing the original point that referenced resume and not recent resume
There is NO case to be made for David Benavidez, Shakur Stevenson or Jesse "Bam" Rodriguez to be #1.
None of those guys have the resume, not have they beat a P4P top ranked fighter to claim anything.
How many hurdles does Inoue have to jump over to make you happy?
You are missing the point. He is arguing about P4P right now, not historically speaking. So there has to be a point where a fighter's resume in the past is no longer impactful to who they are right now (and most likely a diminishing point).
Think of it this way, if Sugar Ray Leonard came out of retirement right now and started fighting, would you rank him #1 P4P? This may sound like a strawman argument, but based on your proposed logic of resume, then you'd have to. He beat prime Hearns, beat Hagler at MW, beat just after prime Duran. To use your own words, " How many hurdles does he have to jump over to make you happy?"
Now, obviously that is extreme, but hopefully it helps you understand the point of what is being said here. We are not evaluating who is the best historically as of this point, ie who has had the best career as of today. Rather, who is the best at the moment. Thats not to say you still can't rate Inoue #1, he is clearly that good, just that his full body of work should not play a role. I'd say for him, as for all fighters, there has to be a diminishing impact for anything over 5 years, and definitely no impact for fights over 8 years old- if not sooner. Moreover, you probably have to take into account the eye test there, as not all fighters are granted the same opportunities.
What's "great" about Benavidez is that he has great potential. There are some "great" bouts ahead of him if the promoters allow it: Bivol, Beterbiev, Opi. Imagine if he defeats all three? He'd be PFP #1. His emergence gives us boxing fans hope of some tremendous future bouts and we should all be happy that he's around.
It interests me how different people use that word, "potential". For me, I think of it as the possibility to perform better- but in that case I don't think he will get any better in regards to combined skill and athleticism. I basically thin we are seeing the best version of him right now. The only potential he has is to have better opposition. But does that make him any greater?
You know, he could just win a meaningless title in a made up weightclass against some other Cruiser maybe old man Wlodarczyk will fight him for the title.
I keep saying they need to drop CW back down to 190, the original weight which would allow for those bigger Lt heavies to have a natural place to move up to. Then go Super Cruiser at 205, just a smidge more than the current CW.
Probably because it's mostly only internet obsessives who care about it and Canelo doesn't hear their opinions.
Theres an old saying, "The moon doesn't go howling at the dogs".
If you are a grown man and booing another grown man (save for a referee to swing his decision or a pro wrestler because thats part of the show), then you probably need to re-evaluate things.
This is why I wish Cruiser would go back to 190, and then have Super Cruiser be at 205. Unless he stays at Cruiser he is going to have to drop 20+ pounds from fight weight to be at another weight class. Thats hard to do, and kind of limits options
I saw the first rounds way closer than you describe it. I just looked at compubox to check if i saw something wrong because you claim Inoue was winning most of the early rounds clearly. I agree Inoue maybe nicked 4 out of the first 6 but in no way clear rounds at all.
Round 1: dead even both landed 5 punches. Round 2: Inoue landed 2 punches more. Round 3: Inoue landed 3 punches more. Round 4: Inoue landed 7 punches more. Round 5: Both landed 11 punches. Round 6: Inoue landed again 1 punch more. In 3 of the first 6 rounds they have been basically equal in landing punches.
Than in round 7 Inoue landed more and in 8,9&10 Nakatani landed more in 11 Inoue clearly more and 12 both landed equal amount again.
Just going by pure punch numbers round by round (not how you score a fight) the fight was super close you had Inoue landing more in 6 rounds but in 3 of them he only landed 1 punch more and then you had 3 rounds they landed the equal amout of punches.
Basically you had 6 rounds where both have been completely equal and you had 3 rounds for each fighter in which they landed more shots and showed some dominance. And that matches my observation perfectly i think 115-113 Inoue or a draw are the most acurrate scores and i belive the momentum shift played a huge role. This screams a rematch for me.
I agree a rematch would be good, I think Nakatani was coming on before the headbutt and would have more confidence.
As for scoring the early rounds, and I agree with you we can't just count punches, I feel like so much of what Nakatani was landing were just range jabs. Thats not to say that you can't win a fight landing jabs, you can, but they need to have some pop on them to do so. Nakatani seemed to just be trying to find distance and timing with his for so long.
In my eyes Nakatani spent the first three rounds landed a flicking jab, while Inoue was landing more solid shots. The 4th round Inoue just landed so much more, and equally as good, that I felt he was up 4-0.
5th & 6th were a wash, and 7th was Inoue's again (as Inoue just landed so much more). Thats why I felt after 7 it was either 6-1 or 5-2 Inoue. Nakatani came on strong after that, and won the next few rounds, was looking fresher, but then the cut and the 11th round for Inoue, who I also think won the 12th.
115-113 for Inoue or 114-114 a draw are the most accurate scores but honestly this fight was unjudgeable. Many of the rounds have been completely even. It reminded me a bit of Beterbiev vs Bivol 1 almost impossible to judge.
A rematch must happen especially taking into consideration Nakatani took over the controll until the headbutt caused a massive momentum change.
I don't think we should confuse 'relatively silent' rounds with 'unjudgeable'. For certain, most rounds in the first half of the fight were not as active as those in the latter half, but Inoue was clearly winning most of them. He landed more and landed better, and I think you could have had it either 6-1 or 5-2 after Seven.
For much of that early going Nakatani was looking to find a counter shot, so Inoue just slowed it down, and didn't give him an opportunity. Inoue picked his spots to land, and though limited compared to what we were hoping for, he did; while Nakatani did not. As such those rounds were not completely even, they were not relatively active, but clear rounds for Inoue.
Beginning with the 8th round Nakatani started pressing the action more, and his rounds were more active and even clearer wins for him. But none of them were of the 10-8 variety, so in the end they are just equal to Inoue's rounds. He looked as though he was building the momentum, but then the cut....
I think the judges were spot on in this one, 115-113 or 116-112.
Nakatani just waited too long to get started, or maybe he had to wait because he needed Inoue to tire out a bit. Regardless I figured he was down 5-1 going into the second half of the fight but those were mostly quiet rounds early on.
Who knows if he learned something that he could take into a rematch and get started sooner.
ah you mean when wilder turned down 100 million because he thought the fight was worth more according to him? or before that when he turned down 15 million when his career high payday was 2 because it was a lowball according to him? or how about when joshua signed to fight him but wilder lost to parker and lost the fight. false equivalency alert! one guy didnt want it. one guy. stop spreading teh blame. oh wait the 50 million wilder offered joshua! oh yeah and when joshua said send the contract lets see it....he ghosted! what more evidence do you need like honestly? its like saying trum-p is ant-war or not a grap-ist or something. reality is reality
WHOA, reel yourself in there. I didn't say I blamed them equally- just that I blame them. Really, I don't pay that much attention to negotiations, nor am I one who is beholden to certain promotions to state that one fighter caused something not to happen or not (I just evaluate based on what I see in the ring).
Kinda funny that based on what I wrote you called me out for false equivalency, and then went on that tirade.
Both are old and past their best. One of them is in their 40s and the other recently was involved in a deadly auto collision. I hold nothing against either of them if this fight does not happen now.
I do hold something against them for not fighting between 2015-2022. I would have favored Wilder for the initial part of that timeline, but AJ for anytime after Fury III.
Wilder has always been the same. Just Szpilka , Duhaupas and Breazeale were not as good as Zhang, Parker, Fury.
Chisora will the most likely be another man Wilder will lose to.
Stylistically, yes- athletically no.
Unless Wilder is some Dorian Gray-esque character, then he will have aged and grown worse athletically. Since, as you've already pointed out, that he is the same type of fighter as he was before hand, combined with his diminished athletic prowess; then he logically has to be worse than he once was. (note how it was cited that he didn't improve stylistically so any argument citing a Hopkins type would just be a straw man)
I get that some people don't like to acknowledge this, so they can look at his recent losses and use it to justify an opinion that he always was that bad. But that just doesnt hold water logically.