Comments Thread For: Would A Win Over Savannah Marshall Silence Claressa Shields' Critics?

[Monty Fisto]

When I have seen her fight, she has been very dominant, I will give her that. I think the Marshall fight will be much tougher than normal for her, but I could be wrong.

[YoungManRumble]

I would be impressed if she beats Marshall convincingly. I could see the scores being controversial one way or another and a rematch also though.

[Tecnoworld]

Marshall is going to hurt Shields.

[✔ (Low- )]

No. Here's why. She is akin to Serena and Venus during their primes...they just can't bea stopped. Too much hunger,too much dedication.

[lopetego]

No, even if she wins, she'll still be boring to watch, unappealing, and cringeworthy to listen to, and women's boxing as a whole will still be crap

I don't care if she's actually the GWOAT boxer (and if she is, it just further proves that wahmen's boxing sucks), because at the end of the day, being the best female boxer is like being the tallest midget in the circus

[1hourRun]

Critics will hate the same way Savanah Marshall did when Claressa Shields gave Ema Kozin a savage beating in the sixth.

[Pigeons]

Marshall is a monster compared to Shields. She will eat her alive.

[edgarg]

• 1 Hour Run mentioned Shields giving Kozin a "savage beating" in rd 6. Perhaps it looked savage but maybe not all that damaging, since she completed the fight, and, of 12 fights Shields has only two stoppages. And by the way I thought Gabriels beat her, not by a lot but enough to win.

A point here.....although female boxing was around since the end of the 19th century, it was really unskilled, and more of a vaudeville show than otherwise. It's only since the days of Rijker and Martin that it has gained any sttention, amongst both spectators and writers, and late,r movies..

It just can NOT be compared with Tennis, as the writer wants to do. Womens' tennis has been around, since the very earliest days of it's invention as a "modern" sport. Originally called Spharastyke or something like that, with a kind of figure 8 shaped court, Lawn Tennis was always played by both men and women from the very beginning. Popular for garden parties and the various entertainments of 19th cent. England.

Wimbledon began sometime in the late 1870s or 80s, as I believe that there were both Mens. and Womens. tournaments, with champions of each. Of course it was pretty tame stuff, and I've seen early films of women playing, basically a pitty patty gave, not really trying to win but trying to keep the ball going over the net.

The men, on the other hand, were using their strength, and some became comparatively good very early in the history of Wimbledon, winning the title multiple times. . There are records showing winners of the end of the 19th cent. emerging 8-10 years later and winning again, against stiff competition.

They still didn't take it really seriously and could miss out a few years without concern. Personally, I think it only became serious stuff, when Suzanne Lenglen emerged in France winning the World Hard Court singles title just before WW1, still aged 14, turning 15 just at the end of the tournament. No play for 5 War years until 1919. She retained her dominance until 1926, when she had a dispute with the Wimbledon Committee and, still the best, later turned pro, and teacher. I've read a lot about is as you all can see. Her record is truly amazing.
So nothing more to say.

[1hourRun]

• 1 Hour Run mentioned Shields giving Kozin a "savage beating" in rd 6. Perhaps it looked savage but maybe not all that damaging, since she completed the fight, and, of 12 fights Shields has only two stoppages. And by the way I thought Gabriels beat her, not by a lot but enough to win.

A point here.....although female boxing was around since the end of the 19th century, it was really unskilled, and more of a vaudeville show than otherwise. It's only since the days of Rijker and Martin that it has gained any sttention, amongst both spectators and writers, and late,r movies..

It just can NOT be compared with Tennis, as the writer wants to do. Womens' tennis has been around, since the very earliest days of it's invention as a "modern" sport. Originally called Spharastyke or something like that, with a kind of figure 8 shaped court, Lawn Tennis was always played by both men and women from the very beginning. Popular for garden parties and the various entertainments of 19th cent. England.

Wimbledon began sometime in the late 1870s or 80s, as I believe that there were both Mens. and Womens. tournaments, with champions of each. Of course it was pretty tame stuff, and I've seen early films of women playing, basically a pitty patty gave, not really trying to win but trying to keep the ball going over the net.

The men, on the other hand, were using their strength, and some became comparatively good very early in the history of Wimbledon, winning the title multiple times. . There are records showing winners of the end of the 19th cent. emerging 8-10 years later and winning again, against stiff competition.

They still didn't take it really seriously and could miss out a few years without concern. Personally, I think it only became serious stuff, when Suzanne Lenglen emerged in France winning the World Hard Court singles title just before WW1, still aged 14, turning 15 just at the end of the tournament. No play for 5 War years until 1919. She retained her dominance until 1926, when she had a dispute with the Wimbledon Committee and, still the best, later turned pro, and teacher. I've read a lot about is as you all can see. Her record is truly amazing.
So nothing more to say.

Thanks for the history lesson, I enjoyed reading your post O.G.

[M312]

She's a woman and just from this thread you can see the lack of respect some people have for women. I know it's the Internet so people just say things because they think it makes them cool, but sexism is a real thing.

Having said that her lack of knockouts doesn't help. Would be interesting if Marshall wins and whether she can become a star, because she really does have knockout power, so you can hardly accuse her of being boring.