kingofthieves

I was thinking a bit after the Luke Campbell Ryan Garcia fight, and reflecting on where Lomachenko goes from here. I hope the setback will force Loma to fight more of the young guns in the division, but that brings up a question, why should we have to have fighters lose to potentially get more access to the best fights? I say this because Loma had been dismissive of the young guns in the division all the way until Teofimo became a unification match for him. Had he won, I would have felt he wouldn't let the young guns fight him, but I could be wrong about that. Loma has fought a few of the toughest fights available to him in the past no question, but there's this thing about some fighters being on top and us losing out on seeing the best fights. Now for GGG, he was the boogeyman for a while, but after the Cashnelo fights, he hasn't focused on top fights besides another cash cow fight. Derevyanchenko probably wasn't assumed to be much of a threat until he did what he did in their fight. Yes, there are promotional blocks for a Charlo fight (none for an Andrade or Saunders fight though). In contrast, when other fighters haven't had the cash cow or absolute top of the division positions, we've seen them fight --seemingly-- the best available competition. For example even with other eastern euros, Kovalev and Gvozdyk fought insane competition in short periods of time. Yes they both lost, but their careers so far from a fan perspective put some amazing fights together. TLDR: 1) I think loma losing might give us better fights (if he stays in the game as I hope) but why is that? 2)When will GGG fight the top guys in the division besides Canelo? He has the marquee name now. 3) Why are Kov/Gvozdyk different at the height of their careers still taking the big hard fights, is it because they didn't get spoiled by big money paydays and being p4p #1 accolades? Your thoughts? Btw I respect and am fans of all the fighters above but I always want the best fights possible.

I know Keith Thurman has always used the pillow gloves (I believe they are rival gloves?), and is accustomed to them. I know they serve a dual purpose in hand protection, having more guard, but you sacrifice some hand speed and some ability to get shorter shots through the cracks, and power as well. I also wonder if he had some Reyes gloves on like Pacquiao did would he have been able to do more damage? Not that he would have necessarily been able to beat Pacquiao, but maximize your punching power. It could have potentially affected his defense too. If you know you might have to bank on power to bail you out, why not go with the gloves that can potentiate your maximum damage? Hulkez was able to knock him down and put him out with the Reyes gloves. On a separate note, Canelo seems to use grant gloves, probably for protection as well, I can only imagine how much harder his blows and handspeed increase might be would be with something like Reyes gloves on, lol. What are your thoughts?

Let’s say the 2nd fight goes through (as expected) with Canelo vs. GGG in spite of the controversy. Let’s say Canelo somehow wins clearly or even by KO. Some fans would be (fairly) outraged due to the positive clen results (even if minimal). It would leave question marks and that would tarnish his win. Canelo not being able to get credit at this stage is also a lose-lose scenario at this point imo. However, IF the controversy from a Canelo win sparked a 3rd fight and they both tested clean during all the testing leading up to the 3rd fight, would that then be fair enough to give clarity on a clear winner? The better of the two fighters on an even playing field where both sides of fans can agree, the dust has settled and we have one consensus middleweight kingpin? I really hoped that this 2nd fight would have a clear winner and no controversy. If Canelo even loses but doesn’t get ko’ed people can say the clen helped him not get ko’ed lol. Thoughts?

168lb dust up+ reflection on Froch: I was just thinking earlier that what a twist of fate it’s been that DeGale went from downplaying George groves in some of his post fight interviews, then goes ahead and loses and looks lackluster where he has to go back to the drawing board. Meanwhile Eubank Jr. who was favored in his groves’ fight loses decisively. This takes me back to the Groves vs. Froch fights. I felt groves was doing well in the 1st fight, stoppage was extremely premature although froch came on strong. Froch wins decisively and emphatically in the rematch. So now my main point and question: Although I don’t put much into H2H (although I like the concept of comparing skills and traits of different fighters) who wins vs. who in different eras, I do believe a win over a fighter who goes on to do great things can boost one’s legacy. In this case, do you feel Froch’s wins over groves look better and better? Groves seeming to be the UK heir apparent of 168 with the dust settling and finding his stride, does this indirectly boost Froch’s legacy, stock, and value? I personally feel like it does.

I for one, felt it very weird that Jezreel Corrales was not given a post-fight ‘in the ring’ interview on air after losing to Alberto Machado. They almost tilted the camera away from him when he kept indicating he wanted a rematch during Alberto Machado’s interview. I felt almost certain Max Kellerman would speak to him after, but nope. You technically have a champ who got knocked out, if he’s still in the ring after you interview the other guy you’re usually supposed to interview him as well. Was it a shun for him losing the title on the scale? Was it because Alberto Machado serves as good fodder to another HBO fighter, or he’s better ratings? Not sure. Even Max Kellerman said during the fight that this fight lacked the defining position that most hbo fights should have (as if it was unworthy in a certain way). I just felt these few things were a bit weird. What’s your take on the situation?