Comments Thread For: Shields Says Serrano vs. Taylor is Bigger than Marshall Fight: 'I Ain't No Hater'

[Sid-Knee]

Wow you’re talking like you know wilder personally...weird asf.
Wilder knocks ppl out, wilder is exciting.
Shields is an ignorant, uneducated, borderline ****** sounding clown that has like 2 ko’s her whole career....her fights should be used to cure insomnia.

I take it you know Shields personally?

Everything Shields is, Wilder is 100 x worse. We watch and listen to these people. That's how we know.

[ShoulderRoll]

Props to Claressa Shields for her honesty.

Great champion and can be humble too.

[Monty Fisto]

Fixed it for you.

It's not a fix. She beat her. The statement in isolation is true and that's the part I can't argue with.

The bit where she tries to downplay that victory, to make it unimportant, that it doesn't count, is the part I can argue with. They have fought once and Shields lost. Everything else is talk.

[NachoMan]

It's not a fix. She beat her. The statement in isolation is true and that's the part I can't argue with.

The bit where she tries to downplay that victory, to make it unimportant, that it doesn't count, is the part I can argue with. They have fought once and Shields lost. Everything else is talk.

When she was 17 and Marshall was 21. I actually would want Marshall to win, but I know that Shields is 1000% improved since 10 years ago.

[Monty Fisto]

When she was 17 and Marshall was 21. I actually would want Marshall to win, but I know that Shields is 1000% improved since 10 years ago.

I'm sure they have both improved a great deal in the intervening years. This changes nothing about the result. Marshall beat her. This is the one inarguable fact. There are no contests between them since. Marshall can try and spin it any which way she wants, but she lost in their only fight. If they rematch and Marshall wins, then she can point to that. Until then her downplaying the loss to Marshall is straight up that: trying to discount a defeat.

[Monty Fisto]

I would add, the one caveat that is worth considering is that it was, of course, an amateur contest and the amateurs are naturally a different beast to the professional ranks. Out of the two of them, it seems that Marshall is the style more suited to prize fighting, but Shields is younger and more experienced as a pro. Nothing is written in stone.

[ShoulderRoll]

I'm sure they have both improved a great deal in the intervening years. This changes nothing about the result. Marshall beat her. This is the one inarguable fact. There are no contests between them since. Marshall can try and spin it any which way she wants, but she lost in their only fight. If they rematch and Marshall wins, then she can point to that. Until then her downplaying the loss to Marshall is straight up that: trying to discount a defeat.

Interesting that Claressa Shields went on to win 2 Olympic medals after Savannah Marshall beat her.

Marshall on the other hand didn't go on to win any Olympic medals after that win.

Which seems to indicate that it was a fluke victory and an outlier.

[Monty Fisto]

Interesting that Claressa Shields went on to win 2 Olympic medals after Savannah Marshall beat her.

Marshall on the other hand didn't go on to win any Olympic medals after that win.

Which seems to indicate that it was a fluke victory and an outlier.

I think you're extrapolating a hell of a lot from not very much information. In boxing we fans tend to do those kinds of extrapolations to try and judge what might happen if two fighters were to fight that haven't yet fought. The best measure to compare two fighters, though, is always what happened between the two of them when they have actually fought each other. Marshall has the upper hand in this category. She beat Shields the one time they fought in a ring. This is pure, unadulterated, inarguable fact.

Yes, it was a long time ago. This is why we want them to do it again. But regarding that previous result, all the lame excuses in the world like it was a 'fluke' do not change the plain-as-day nature of it. Shields lost.

[ShoulderRoll]

I think you're extrapolating a hell of a lot from not very much information. In boxing we fans tend to do those kinds of extrapolations to try and judge what might happen if two fighters were to fight that haven't yet fought. The best measure to compare two fighters, though, is always what happened between the two of them when they have actually fought each other. Marshall has the upper hand in this category. She beat Shields the one time they fought in a ring. This is pure, unadulterated, inarguable fact.

Yes, it was a long time ago. This is why we want them to do it again. But regarding that previous result, all the lame excuses in the world like it was a 'fluke' do not change the plain-as-day nature of it. Shields lost.

You need a bigger sample size than just one fight in order to draw accurate conclusions.

Over 8 years and 2 Olympics Claressa Shields won two gold medals.

During that same time frame Savannah Marshall managed to squeak by 17-year-old Shields one time. But failed to follow that up with any Olympic success.

That's very telling.

[Monty Fisto]

You need a bigger sample size than just one fight in order to draw accurate conclusions.

Over 8 years and 2 Olympics Claressa Shields won two gold medals.

During that same time frame Savannah Marshall managed to squeak by 17-year-old Shields one time. But failed to follow that up with any Olympic success.

That's very telling.

You're absolutely right that a larger sample size would be better for drawing conclusions. Unfortunately that's not the way boxing works. We do not get 12 contests between competitors to draw a representative statistical conclusion about respective superiority, like you do in, say, tennis. You often only get one crack at the whip. That's what we have here and one of the competitors stepped up their game to take the W.