sterilizer

I am just curious to know if Floyd has lost in the Compubox stats against any fighter other than Jose Luis Castillo in their first fight. If so, I will definitely watch that fight! NOTE: By "lost" I mean his opponent defeated him in the total punch and percentage stats for the whole fight, according to Compubox. Thanks!

There have been VERY controversial decisions in the past, involving these two fighters. I mean fights like Castillo-Floyd I, all the Pac-Marquez series except the 4th, Pac-Bradley I, Floyd-Canelo. Most people who are not biased towards Pac or Canelo, will admit that some of the scores in the mentioned fights were simply way off, from what could have been a fair scoring. In the last fight I mentioned, one of the scorecards was totally off, but it didn't affect who the winner was, yet it made it look like it was a competitive fight when it really wasn't. Having mentioned the above, please do make your pick and vote!!!

There has been VERY controversial decisions in the past, involving these two fighters. I mean fights like Castillo-Floyd I, all the Pac-Marquez series except the 4th, Pac-Bradley I, Floyd-Canelo. Most people who are not biased towards Pac or Canelo, will admit that some of the scores in the mentioned fights were simply way off, from what could have been a fair scoring. In the last fight I mentioned, one of the scorecards was totally off, but it didn't affect who the winner was, yet it made it look like it was a competitive fight when it really wasn't. Having mentioned the above, please do make your pick and vote!!!

By "penalized" I simply mean deducting them a point say the third or fourth time they blatantly clinched their opponent to stop being hurt every time said opponent was on the attack, after being given one initial warning. These fighters (Floyd Mayweather Jr., Andre Ward and others) have a knack for neutralizing their more dangerous brawling-style opponents, by clinching them time and time again and AFAIK, they have never ever been penalized for it. So they have made clinching a paramount element (if not actually the most important one) in their winning strategy. Please cast your vote (yes or no)

Carlos Molina holds a super welterweight belt. Marquez is still (barely) an elite fighter, at his 40 years of age. Molina IS NOT elite. So, why make things so complicated? Molina's belt is waiting for Marquez to go and get it. Marquez had his chance vs. Bradley but he blew it. According to Compubox numbers, it was so close that it deserved to have been ruled a tie. Still not enough for the belt. So Marquez blew his chance and, at his age, another fight with Bradley would most probably result in an easier win for Bradley. So, why doesn't Marquez use his brains, forget about Bradley already and challenges Molina to get that coveted 5th title in different weight divisions and retire a happy champion?

Quote: "Ruslan facing Timothy Bradley again is another great fight for us and we're definitely open to that fight. More importantly, it would be a rematch that people would want to see much more than a rematch between Marquez and Bradley which was clearly a one sided fight," Kornilov told BoxingScene.com." Note: Vadim Kornilov is Ruslan Provodnikov's manager. A one-sided fight? Here are the numbers from Compubox Bradley-Marquez final numbers: (landed/thrown = percentage of accuracy) Jabs Bradley: 82/337 = 24.33% Marquez: 38/169 = 22.48% Power punches Bradley: 86/225 = 38.22% Marquez: 115/286 = 40.20% Totals: Jabs + Power Punches Bradley: 168/562 = 29.89% Marquez: 153/455 = 33.62% Bradley-Provodnikov final numbers: (landed/thrown = percentage of accuracy) Jabs Bradley: 129/489 = 26.38% Provodnikov: 32/162 = 19.75% Power punches Bradley: 218/511 = 42.66% Provodnikov: 186/514 = 36.18% Totals: Jabs + Power Punches Bradley: 347/1000 = 34.70% Provodnikov: 218/676 = 32.24% So there you go. Bradley-Marquez was a closer fight than Bradley-Provodnikov. It was a boring fight, because Bradley made it so, by running and avoiding trading with Marquez all night. Bradley outdid Provodnikov in every single statistic. Bradley ONLY outdid Marquez in jabs and total punches landed (by just very little BTW). In everything else, he came short. Bradley was willing to trade with Provodnikov almost all night (he threw 1000 punches to Ruslan!), whereas he threw only about half the punches vs. Marquez (only 562 punches), because obviously he feared a knock-out from Marquez, Pacman-go-to-sleep style. Provodnikov knocked Bradley down 3-4 times simply because Bradley was willing to trade with him all night, but Bradley was obviously scared of a Marquez' big colossal right counter, that's why there wasn't any knock-downs. Just clearing up things here, that's all. That Kornilov guy is either a liar or an ignorant, because he is clearly mistaken about who did better vs. Bradley.

Many people seem to be under the impression that if a fighter wins a rematch, then a robbery, a mistaken close decision or a poor showing in a previous fight against the same opponent, will just vanish into thin air. Take for example these fights: Pacquiao-Bradley: Total robbery. 99% of people think so, except the judges in the fight and a few people who know nothing about boxing or are deluding themselves due to hatred or bias. BOTTOM LINE: If Bradley defeats Pacquiao in any later fight(s), THAT WILL NOT ERASE THE ROBBERY that occurred in the 1st fight. Mayweather-Castillo 1: Mistaken close decision. Castillo out-punched Mayweather by a clear margin, in total punches and by a huge margin in power punches, and he had also a higher accuracy ratio. He was the defending champion, and yet he was the one forcing the fight, being the aggressor all fight. BOTTOM LINE: Mayweather's clear win in the second fight of the two, DOESN'T ERASE THE FACT THAT HE LOST THE FIRST ONE, and he undeservingly "won" a title, due to a bunch of judges that were either sold-out or just biased in favor of Floyd. Pacquiao-Morales 1: Judges were right in this one, giving the decision to Morales. A relatively poor showing by Pacquiao (compared to the other two fights where he destroyed Morales). BOTTOM LINE: Yes, Pacquiao won two of their three fights in the end, BUT THAT DOESN'T ERASE THE FACT THAT HE CLEARLY LOST TO MORALES in the first one. Like these three examples, there are many others, such as Frazier-Ali, etc. etc. When somebody loses a fight FOR REAL, independently of whatever the judges rule in their scorecards, that big spot will ALWAYS BE THERE in their record, and their legacy as a fighter. And that will always mean that he wasn't really the better fighter of the two, because he lost at least once to his opponent. If for example Bradley and Mayweather retire "undefeated", everybody will know that their record is fake, because there is the big spot of those two fights that were ruled wrongly, so it doesn't matter if there were rematches where they won and even destroyed the opponent who previously defeated them for real and in the judges' scorecards, or the one who defeated them for real but was wronged by the judges' decision. A loss is a loss, whether it is officially decreed or not, and it will always tarnish the record of an otherwise "spotless" career.

That's exactly what Bradley did against Marquez. Marquez was the one initiating the action all fight. The one throwing more power punches. The one with a more effective punching ratio. The one who prevented a rather action-less fight from being a total snooze-fest. And all of this, being JMM a natural counter-puncher, not an aggressive guy who pushes for the action. And also being a much slower --in the legs, but not the hands by any means-- and much older fighter than his opponent, to boot. Bradley threw way more jabs than Marquez. Because of his jabs, in the end, his total punch count was slightly higher than Marquez's. But Tim avoided fighting all night. He literally ran away a lot. It looked like he was even scared to get hit and knocked out or getting hurt, and that was his primary concern (avoiding getting hit at all costs, and jabbing endlessly to get a higher punch count than Marquez). Final numbers: (landed/thrown = percentage of accuracy) Jabs Bradley: 82/337 = 24.33% Marquez: 38/169 = 22.48% Power punches Bradley: 86/225 = 38.22% Marquez: 115/286 = 40.20% Totals: Jabs + Power Punches Bradley: 168/562 = 29.89% Marquez: 153/455 = 33.62% So the numbers make it even more obvious: Bradley fought only for points, avoiding confrontation all night. Marquez fought to win the fight by knock-out, but Bradley's elusiveness, fast legs --compared to JMM's foot slowness-- and good luck (because if he had been caught by just one of those several huge right hands JMM threw into the air, he would have been knocked out, just like Pacquiao was), sealed the fate of a rather action-less and disappointing fight. Bottom line: In this day and age, most judges and experts, favor jabbing a lot and avoiding confrontation, over sheer old-style power punching and aggressiveness. That is the "fighting style" Mayweather Jr. has popularized, which is sadly being followed by fighters who idolize him, like Broner, Bradley and even Rigondeaux, not to mention many other unknowns. And that is a sad thing for some of us who like ACTION and FUN in boxing fights. Good old Frazier-Ali, Hearns-Hagler, Castillo-Corrales, Pacquiao-Morales, Barrera-Morales, Pacquiao-Marquez, kind of slug fests. In how many Ring Magazine's fights of the year is Mayweather or the likes of him included? I rest my case.