Tweet
My prediction for this fight was Floyd on points.
I always hated reading on here about how this would be "Gatti part two". Apart from the fact that it was an incredibly boring cliche trotted out by every poster going, it illustrated the poster's lack of appreciation of the subtleties of the game.
Regardless of what happened at the end of the fight, this wasn't a one-sided shooting gallery that the Gatti fight was, and for a time Hatton showed that he could comfortably fit his game to nullify Floyd's. He was competitive enough that HBO had him a round up at one stage, though ISTR I had him a point down at the same juncture. Going into the tenth I had Floyd four points up.
What some of the more learned Limeys have tried to say is that The Paler ISN'T just a "come forward with his face" fighter despite appearances otherwise. Note how in the early rounds he didn't rush in when Floyd got set, and instead sat back and used angles, upper body movement and jab/footwork combinations (which were a lot faster than I'd anticipated) to get his shots off.
The other element was, of course, the imposing of his style over Floyd's. I've seen many posters over here suggest that Floyd had the superior boxing skills ergo he wins, as if the Limeys (and I do realise there's plenty of Limeys with **** for brains, just like every other nation posting on here) hadn't thought of this. The idea was, The Paler would be able to smother Floyd's work to stop him getting off, and this worked in parts. I would have liked to have seen the fight without Cortez breaking it up every two seconds (I'm not saying this would have changed the outcome, ***gots) but again, it showed that the concept had the potential to work in practise. De La Hoya was right about the jab, too, in parts.
Bottom line? I don't really understand how Floyd can be "the greatest eva eva eva, omg, he pisse's on sugar ray, lamo, pwn!" when he's just beat a "no skill'z euro bum, lamo, pwn!"
Bottom line two? Anyone who said "this will be identical to the Gatti fight" clearly didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
I always hated reading on here about how this would be "Gatti part two". Apart from the fact that it was an incredibly boring cliche trotted out by every poster going, it illustrated the poster's lack of appreciation of the subtleties of the game.
Regardless of what happened at the end of the fight, this wasn't a one-sided shooting gallery that the Gatti fight was, and for a time Hatton showed that he could comfortably fit his game to nullify Floyd's. He was competitive enough that HBO had him a round up at one stage, though ISTR I had him a point down at the same juncture. Going into the tenth I had Floyd four points up.
What some of the more learned Limeys have tried to say is that The Paler ISN'T just a "come forward with his face" fighter despite appearances otherwise. Note how in the early rounds he didn't rush in when Floyd got set, and instead sat back and used angles, upper body movement and jab/footwork combinations (which were a lot faster than I'd anticipated) to get his shots off.
The other element was, of course, the imposing of his style over Floyd's. I've seen many posters over here suggest that Floyd had the superior boxing skills ergo he wins, as if the Limeys (and I do realise there's plenty of Limeys with **** for brains, just like every other nation posting on here) hadn't thought of this. The idea was, The Paler would be able to smother Floyd's work to stop him getting off, and this worked in parts. I would have liked to have seen the fight without Cortez breaking it up every two seconds (I'm not saying this would have changed the outcome, ***gots) but again, it showed that the concept had the potential to work in practise. De La Hoya was right about the jab, too, in parts.
Bottom line? I don't really understand how Floyd can be "the greatest eva eva eva, omg, he pisse's on sugar ray, lamo, pwn!" when he's just beat a "no skill'z euro bum, lamo, pwn!"
Bottom line two? Anyone who said "this will be identical to the Gatti fight" clearly didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
Comment