if paul williams looks bad against quintana

[Bad_Barracuda]

Margarito on an off night still almost beat Williams. The destruction of the Tijuana Tornado is devastating even on an off night

So marge had an off night..yeah right..You sure are full of excuses(amongst other things)

Why didn't Tony destroy Joshua Clottey??

He didn't hurt Cottey AT ALL.

[Texanballer]

Clottey is a tough customer. He came in gave the tornado some trouble but in the end the terror of the tijuana tornado was too much to overcome. He deserves respect though

[VIVA MEXICO!!]

So marge had an off night..yeah right..You sure are full of excuses(amongst other things)

Why didn't Tony destroy Joshua Clottey??

He didn't hurt Cottey AT ALL.

watch the clottey fight and youll see clottey did nothing but block. he barely threw any punches because he feared margaritos power. maybe its a smart choice because his career could have been ruined if he decided to trade with the mexican bad ass.

[Bad_Barracuda]

will people finally realize that margarito ruined this man?? no one is the same after feeling margaritos power. no one!!

Tony didn't ruin anything but your *******..LOL

He didn't ruin Williams and he sure as hell didn't ruin Clottey..

Joshua didn't have a single mark on his face after his encounter with the Tijuana Toronado and was NEVER at all hurt..


Margarito TRIED his hand at 154..but was deported back to 147 by Daniel Santos..LOL

The same Santos that was destoyed by Kofi Jantuah.

[Bad_Barracuda]

Clottey is a tough customer. He came in gave the tornado some trouble but in the end the terror of the tijuana tornado was too much to overcome. He deserves respect though

The mexican bad ass did a good job blocking Clottey's punches WITH HIS FACE..

Tony was just TOO SLOW to catch Clottey..

He had him trapped on the ropes on several occasions AND STILL COULDN'T LAND ****..

The Tijuana Toronado is OVERRATED as hell..

[machotime]

Well to be fair, Trinidad and Pavlik get their guys out before the damage can ensue because they punch so hard.

It is guys like Margarito and Chavez who consistently beat their opponent up with very hard shots, but they aren't KO shots, so the beating can continue.

Do you think that Margarito dished out enough damage to destroy Williams forever?? Lets all remember now, Margarito clearly lost to Williams and Williams had never beat anyone of significance prior to that.

[Bad_Barracuda]

Do you think that Margarito dished out enough damage to destroy Williams forever?? Lets all remember now, Margarito clearly lost to Williams and Williams had never beat anyone of significance prior to that.

The guy that started this thread has SERIOUS self-esteem issues.

[tyson]

**** like that really shows the need for boxing scoring to be changed. The fighter who does more damage at the end of the fight should win.

The only way to TRULY beat those guys is to outslick them, and freeze the fight so you do more damage by almost completely limiting their offensive connection to nothing.

No wonder you get so frustrated with guys like Mayweather, because they are the only ones who have a chance to truly beat the guys you like.

I think about this often. I struggle to reach a conclusive decision on the matter, because we can look at it two ways.

1. The person who does the most damage in a fight should win it, regardless of how the rounds went.

2. The best fighter is not the one who can win one round, but the one who can prove his superiority over the course of many rounds.
Even if Norway's basketball team defeats the national US team, does it mean that they are the better team?
Or is the better team the one who could win 9 out of 10 times?

Now, while it is easy to look at the face of a guy who took some heavy punches in a round and say that the other guy won because he did the most damage, it isn't fair to the sweet science.

Paulie Malignaggi would never win a fight if we judged entirely by that criteria.

On the other hand, it's a brutal sport and those fighters who dish out actual damage instead of pitty pat slaps, should be rewarded for it.
Which they are, but only if they have sufficient enough skills to land punches over time.

I assume you think about Hopkins-Taylor when you think about this, because I do.
I felt Hopkins won because Taylor didn't cause any damage.
Being a fighter myself that only cares for heavy punching, I often feel weak punches get too much credit.

The issue is, if a fighter has two or three or four destructive rounds where he causes havoc on his opponent, but clearly get outboxed for the rest of the fight, is it fair to declare him the winner?

[Fox McCloud]

Do you think that Margarito dished out enough damage to destroy Williams forever?? Lets all remember now, Margarito clearly lost to Williams and Williams had never beat anyone of significance prior to that.

No, I was just saying that Margarito has enough punching power to ruin someone because his punches hurt like hell, but aren't one punch KO punches, so they just keep coming and coming and coming.

[Fox McCloud]

I think about this often. I struggle to reach a conclusive decision on the matter, because we can look at it two ways.

1. The person who does the most damage in a fight should win it, regardless of how the rounds went.

2. The best fighter is not the one who can win one round, but the one who can prove his superiority over the course of many rounds.
Even if Norway's basketball team defeats the national US team, does it mean that they are the better team?
Or is the better team the one who could win 9 out of 10 times?

Now, while it is easy to look at the face of a guy who took some heavy punches in a round and say that the other guy won because he did the most damage, it isn't fair to the sweet science.

Paulie Malignaggi would never win a fight if we judged entirely by that criteria.

On the other hand, it's a brutal sport and those fighters who dish out actual damage instead of pitty pat slaps, should be rewarded for it.
Which they are, but only if they have sufficient enough skills to land punches over time.

I assume you think about Hopkins-Taylor when you think about this, because I do.
I felt Hopkins won because Taylor didn't cause any damage.
Being a fighter myself that only cares for heavy punching, I often feel weak punches get too much credit.

The issue is, if a fighter has two or three or four destructive rounds where he causes havoc on his opponent, but clearly get outboxed for the rest of the fight, is it fair to declare him the winner?

Taylor-Hopkins I is exactly the fight that came to mind. It's scary that you knew that.

Anyway, I think Taylor won more rounds, but **** man... he got his ass whooped in the final four rounds, badly.

It can be said that Hopkins should have started earlier though.

But Malignaggi is one of those guys who should have to struggle a lot to win fights IMO... if his body isn't built for the sport, then he needs to figure out a way to win that is unorthodox. If he was a perfect defender, he would end up doing more damage over the course of a fight, because his opponent wasn't doing any.

Whitaker-Chavez is actually a fight that shows that the heavier puncher did less damage against the very light puncher, because the very light puncher stopped the heavy puncher from connecting, almost at all.