I wouldn't pick any old slick boxer to beat Pacquiao, but I believe Mayweather's elusiveness and liquid transitioning between defense and attack would be the undoing of Pac. As much as Manny has improved his skills over the past few years he's still there to be hit, and I also think he's prone to falling short when he flurries against more mobile boxers - something a sharp counter-puncher could use to wreak havoc.
you dont wanna see valero/pac? o.0 :D
Nah I don't think it'll be competitive or really prove anything. Everything Valero can do, Pacquiao does better. And he's a lot bigger than him now.
Valero should have stayed at 135lbs in my opinion. Really disappointed at all the great fights involving Edwin we've had to kiss goodbye because of Arum's over-ambitious promoting.
If not Mayweather, then I suppose Paul Williams is number one on my list. Mosley, depending on how he looks against Floyd, is right up there too.
I really do not want to see Foreman, Cotto II or Valero.
Sure, I mean you can't go wrong with having the top contenders all face off really. It's not one of the divisions in which a super six style tournament would interest me most though.
In a round about way, yes. I'm not naive enough to fall for the whole "I'm doing it for the good of boxing" spiel - he clearly only has eyes on Pacquiao - but in the end it does benefit boxing, regardless of his motivation.
I just hope that now the issue has been highlighted and brought to everyone's attention, something is ultimately done about it instead of everything going back to how it was once the Mayweather and Pacquiao thing is resolved, one way or the other.
I asked because it's so laughable when people score a fight 7-5 to guy A and then cry ROBBERY if guy B gets the decision. I hate that. They can call it controversial or debateable but never a robbery.
Well that depends on the rounds to be fair. If 7 of the rounds were quite clearly won by one fighter and the other guy ends up getting the decision I think it's fair to cry robbery. Sometimes rounds can be subjective but I wouldn't say many were in the Froch-Dirrell fight, as Froch was out-landed by wide margins (and basically just plodded and flailed around like a retard) in well over 6 rounds.
For the record I scored it 9-2 for Dirrell with one round equal (the one where he was deducted a point).
Im a boxing purist too but running around, falling down and holding dont come under that umbrella.
Nevertheless, Dirrell still beat Froch at the actual "fighting" part too.
Stupid.
They televise a defensive, thinking fighter and then drop him when he goes out and fights in a defensive, thoughtful manner.
If the majority of the posters on this site could predict how the fight was gonna play out to a tee, surely HBO has someone at hand who could advise them in advance of the style of the boxers they are paying.
How quickly these retards show themselves. I bet if we count Dirrell hugs they'll double the punches he threw, the sport it's called boxing not hugging.
Dirrell landed at least three times as many clean punches as Froch.
Clottey usually is a defensive, thinking, counter-punching fighter. However vs Pacquiao, Clottey didn't display any of these skills. He simply protected his head and body the best he could and rarely threw any punches. He wasn't fighting to outbox Pacquiao and he also wasn't fighting to KO Pacquiao. He was only in there to survive and not get knocked out. He wasn't trying to win. Their was nothing thoughtful about the way he fought, it was a shameful performance as a challenger in a title fight to not try to win.
No one thought he was going to change his style and throw more punches than Manny or anything like that. We did expect him to FIGHT TO WIN like all challengers should. We expected to see him counterpunching and throwing combinations. He didn't do this and that's why he won't ever be considered to be a serious contender again.
The best example of a defensive, thinking, counter-punching fighter in the sport today is Mayweather. If Pacquiao and he ever fight we will see him employ the gameplan Clottey should have used against Manny. He won't go in thinking he's going to throw more punches than Manny either. He will be economical with his punches but he will be TRYING TO WIN. Clottey should have tried the same thing...
His style simply didn't work against Pacquiao (as most predicted it wouldn't). I don't think anyone can accuse him of not trying to win. He went in there, attempted to do what he did best, but ultimately couldn't impose his game plan on Pacquiao as he's too good and too relentless.
When I was watching the fight I never for a moment thought Clottey had given up or prematurely conceded victory, I just saw a fighter who didn't have an answer for his opponent's style and physicality.
What is it that you expect him to have done? Abandoned his defense which has served him so well up until this point and just run at Pacquiao, face first, arms flailing and ready to "go out on his shield"--i.e., end up comatose a la Ricky Hatton.
And the American camps clearly realise they can bully Showtime a bit as they probably don't want to risk losing their American audiences by having their U.S. stars pull out.
But landing more punches (and the more effective, might I add) and avoiding more punches doesn't win you fights? What exactly does win you fights, in a boxing match?
I'm convinced some of these guys score fights based on who takes the most steps forward. If they like watching people moving forward so much why not just go watch an egg and spoon race or something instead.
I love the scottish guy (jim?) on Skysports. Those guys getting excited is always pure gold.
Jim Watt!
http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=9526&cat=boxer
do you mean the worst boxer(style) that "I" consider an all time great?
OR
do you mean the worst boxer(as in fighter) that is considered an all time great?
I mean, considering everything. Like, if you were to make an all-time great list starting from Sugar Ray Robinson all the way down to the guy right at the bottom who did less than every other all-time great--who would he be?
If you lose to every great fighter. You are not on their level. Thats obvious.
But he didn't. He beat Chavez (x2), Whitaker, Trinidad and Mosley (at 154lbs) for starters. Okay the Whitaker fight is arguable, personally I had it a draw I think (long time since I've watched it though, and longer since I've scored it).
He lost to Mayweather and Pacquiao but these are like high end ATGs. Top 40 or 50. Plus he was past his best and was actually very competitive with Floyd--no small feat.
Hopkins was bigger than him and De La Hoya was in the fight up until the KO.
You do not even consistently compete with guys like that unless you are great yourself. The only time De La Hoya ever looked like he wasn't fit to share a ring with a fighter was the Pacquiao fight, and we all know the story behind that one.
I'm not really a Kessler fan, but I am a Cokezaghe fan so I'll answer anyway:
I fully expect Kessler to beat Froch. Okay, it seems Kessler is fragile mentally and Froch is very self assured and iron willed - but I don't think Froch has the tools or intelligence to beat Kessler. I think Froch will just walk into the middle ground, right within Kessler's range, and try to get off like he usually does, which should allow Mikkel to tear him to pieces.
If Froch wants to win he has to abandon his delusions of his boxing ability and bring a real fierce intensity to the ring with him that night. Put that toughness and power to good use and make Kessler fold again.
Worst boxer thats an ATG?
Rocky Marciano.
You reckon? He's a bit overrated by boxing fans of a certain age but I think his record is still pretty damn impressive.
if he wins in impressive fashion i'll give him some, but frankly i expect him to win in impressive fashion because ruiz is a career nearly man who's a long time past his sell by date.
if haye is as good as we think he is, he should get rid of ruiz fairly easily.
if he looks shit again then he'll drop in my estimations. looking shit against old valuev and old ruiz in a row is not something you want to see from the self proclaimed saviour of heavyweight boxing.
will you give him credit?
Joe Frazier and Rocky Marciano worst ATG's.:pat:
NSB is complete rubbish!:nonono:
Feel free to contribute with your own answer; I'm interested to hear it.
(Btw I actually made a duplicate thread in the history section before realising it'll get hardly any replies and making this one)
i dont need a video to tell you that dirrell ran and fell around the ring like a scalded dog.
What did Froch do to win the fight then? I've noticed Froch fans never have a rebuttal that states why Froch deserved the win, they just say something about Dirrell running and/or falling over.
Who do you believe landed more punches, Froch or Dirrell?
Pretty much. They each have similarities.
Dirrell is much more athletic like Jones
Ward is much more physical like Hopkins.
So do you think Dirrell will beat Ward like Jones did Hopkins then? Athleticism nullifying ring savvy again.
froch won that fight. even ring mag had froch up
get over it dirrell fans
We know who got the official win; we just want some justification.
Care to offer some? Hard mode: only mention what Froch did instead of focusing on what Dirrell didn't do.