Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag: Devin Haney, Naoya Inoue, Spence-Crawford, More

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BIGPOPPAPUMP
    Franchise Champion
    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
    • Sep 2003
    • 46539
    • 2,259
    • 334
    • 5,493,285

    #1

    Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag: Devin Haney, Naoya Inoue, Spence-Crawford, More

    The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as Devin Haney's big win over George Kambosos, Naoyo Inoue's destruction of Nonito Donaire, Errol Spence vs. Terence Crawford, and more.
    [Click Here To Read More]
  • Liondw
    Undisputed Champion
    Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
    • Oct 2010
    • 6014
    • 1,878
    • 34
    • 23,904

    #2
    Mention made of Michael Nunn, one of my faves, great boxer.

    So unjust and beyond sad that he had was given an unbelievably harsh prison sentence. At least he's out now.

    Inoue, heck of a fighter. Don't talk of he'll be thought of this and that far in the future. He's thought of as a great fighter now already. We have today, the present, the future is not guaranteed.

    Comment

    • Cypocryphy
      I DISPUTE YOUR UNDISPUTED
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Apr 2020
      • 4698
      • 1,657
      • 1,436
      • 14,834

      #3
      You know what I'm going to be talking about Coach Breadman and Forum. Let's get into it.

      You said that Haney's performance against Kambosos was virtuoso. You even said it should be the Performance of the Year.
      Devin Haney really performed when he had to. His performance should be a candidate for POY. He performed so well I wouldn’t be surprised if someone on Kambosos’s team gets fired. That’s what usually happens when a fighter gets outclassed even if it’s not anyone’s fault.


      But should it really? Come on now. How can it be a performance of the year when such a performance relies on the referee. It was Kambosos versus Haney and the referee. So shouldn't the referee also be included with the performance of the year?

      You see, Haney clinched every round (illegal). Haney ducked below the belt line (illegal). Haney held and hit (illegal). These tactics single handedly disrupted Kambosos rhythm so he couldn't get into the fight. But for these illegal tactics, would Haney have won the fight? I think we would have seen more rounds go to Kambosos had the referee enforced the rules.

      So you can't have a performance of the year when you're getting help from the referee. Performance of the year means that you're fighting within the parameters of the sport, using legal tactics to win. That will make it a performance of the year.

      Siimply put, you can't look at Kambosos vs Haney and say Haney schooled Kambosos when it was Kambosos vs two guys in the ring. It doesn't work that way or, at least, it shouldn't work that way.

      We need to have sanctioning bodies ensure that these fights are being refereed properly or else you are hurting the sport. And you should never praise a guy for using illegal tactics.

      The truth was that Haney's performance was one of the worst performances of the year because most people are never going to want to see him fight again. That, in reality, is a terrible performance.


      Comment

      • DeeMoney
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Jun 2016
        • 2208
        • 1,132
        • 448
        • 29,954

        #4
        I think one reason that unifications dont seem as big, or by being fought between atg, is that there are too many weight classes.

        Im good with the addition of cruiserweight, and adding a new sub heavyweight when needed. But all the Jrs and Supers just fracture and divide talent. Which leaves us with a conundrum: have fighters fight at a near precise peak weight, or have better competition within the sport

        Comment

        • factsarenice
          Undisputed Champion
          • Jul 2016
          • 7109
          • 1,544
          • 992
          • 74,848

          #5
          King Haney? Seriously? Comparing Devin Haney to Pernell Whitaker because Devin had one, maybe two good wins is silly. I'm sorry, but Comparing Devin Haney toPernell Whitaker is laughable and I think I speak for everyone not named Haney.

          Comment

          • _Rexy_
            Undisputed Champion
            Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
            • Jan 2018
            • 27929
            • 6,140
            • 3,585
            • 358,040

            #6
            Originally posted by DeeMoney
            I think one reason that unifications dont seem as big, or by being fought between atg, is that there are too many weight classes.

            Im good with the addition of cruiserweight, and adding a new sub heavyweight when needed. But all the Jrs and Supers just fracture and divide talent. Which leaves us with a conundrum: have fighters fight at a near precise peak weight, or have better competition within the sport
            The juniors and supers have been there for 80 years. The issue is the 4 titles keeping people from fighting the best in their division

            Comment

            • DeeMoney
              Undisputed Champion
              Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
              • Jun 2016
              • 2208
              • 1,132
              • 448
              • 29,954

              #7
              Originally posted by _Rexy_

              The juniors and supers have been there for 80 years. The issue is the 4 titles keeping people from fighting the best in their division
              But over the past 80 years boxing has grown less popular. So smaller talent pool. Could be less diluted if classes were contracted; not arguing for it, pointing out it would accomplish said goal though.

              Four belts should have nothing to do with preventing the best from fighting each other, as the original statement was made in regards to undisputed unifications. Ergo its not as if a theoretical better fighter is hiding with another belt in this instance

              Comment

              • The D3vil
                WBA/WBC/WBO/IBF/Lineal
                Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                • Mar 2016
                • 6337
                • 1,620
                • 1,417
                • 56,286

                #8
                Originally posted by _Rexy_

                The juniors and supers have been there for 80 years. The issue is the 4 titles keeping people from fighting the best in their division
                Eh, not really.

                People didn't really care about 140, 154, 168, etc. . . until the last 30-35 years, really.

                They were like Bridgerweight until the '80s

                Comment

                • _Rexy_
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                  • Jan 2018
                  • 27929
                  • 6,140
                  • 3,585
                  • 358,040

                  #9
                  Originally posted by DeeMoney

                  But over the past 80 years boxing has grown less popular. So smaller talent pool. Could be less diluted if classes were contracted; not arguing for it, pointing out it would accomplish said goal though.

                  Four belts should have nothing to do with preventing the best from fighting each other, as the original statement was made in regards to undisputed unifications. Ergo its not as if a theoretical better fighter is hiding with another belt in this instance
                  Regardless of if it should or shouldn’t prevent it, it does. Four belts means four champions. The sport is marketed to casual fans, not actual boxing fans. As long as you’re A champ you can market yourself to the casuals as “THE” champ, as seen by the marketing machine begins PPV’s to watch Davis defend a regular/minor title. Not to mention that champs rarely do fight each other, and when they get an actual difficult mandatory, they drop the title and move up to fight for a vacant belt.

                  Comment

                  • _Rexy_
                    Undisputed Champion
                    Franchise Champion - 20,000+ posts
                    • Jan 2018
                    • 27929
                    • 6,140
                    • 3,585
                    • 358,040

                    #10
                    Originally posted by The D3vil

                    Eh, not really.

                    People didn't really care about 140, 154, 168, etc. . . until the last 30-35 years, really.

                    They were like Bridgerweight until the '80s
                    Well 168 was basically just invented to give SRL a new world title. I’ve always looked at it as a weak, stop gap division between middle and LHW, but it’s always been super big in the UK for some reason. Never cared about 140 either, but 154 seems to have always had a lot of great fights.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    TOP