I just owned Top Ranks Matchmaker Bruce Trampler on Twitter

[IronDanHamza]

But he did admit it, he liked what I said which is what he did. He enjoyed seeing that comment =---> for a reason. What, do I need a on film confession with hair & blood samples?

Crafted to a degree is clearly what I'm not talking about so why even say it? I'm talking majority fabrication. If you're going to have a bit of banter, at least pay attention and be reasonable.



I did own him because I got him to admit to something he would never normally admit to. That's like 100% getting owned. Maybe you're just too old or too sour, hard to say. Perhaps someone switched the elderberries for snozberries or dingleberries?



Calm your tits you slosh. Don't try to steal my thunder either.





You're right, it is difficult. But this is why an excellent matchmaker is important. Fighters that go through hardcore back-and-forth action in trilogies always leave something in the ring. Barrera took a bit of punishment in the Jones fights which is why they lined up several red dots for him right after and you got the Morales fights. Match-makers watch extremely closely and I don't think it's that hard to see the value in a guy who can make a country stand still.

At the end of the day =---> MAB, Morales, Shane, Margarito, Cotto, Hatton, and Oscar all had devastating losses 1 year prior to fighting Manny. You can't say that for other greats.

I don't disagree that he wasn't at his peak physically at that point.

But he was far from finished, still a Top P4P guy and the favourite to win.

Surely that can't be a cherrypick in that scenario?

[War Room]

I don't disagree that he wasn't at his peak physically at that point.

But he was far from finished, still a Top P4P guy and the favourite to win.

Surely that can't be a cherrypick in that scenario?

I never said he was finished, what I said was he wasn't the same fighter and verbatim all had devastating losses 1 year prior to fighting Manny. In this case it was compounded the Morales rematch over a slightly longer timeframe. But they're more to that below.

Do you really put stock in P4P rankings?

Lastly, matchmakers are privy to much more information than civilians are. Not only do they see the fights, they're directly connected to camps and fighters. It's all inside work and they're expertise is extremely high level.

On an earning level, Barrera had maxed out, there was no more room for him to grow, he had reached the summit of his potential. In 2003 when he got Manny, he was pro for 14 years already. If you turn pro at 18, by 14-16 years pro you're leaving your prime and if you start older you're probably going to compound that. Add wars to the equation, you're tapping your watch. Again, all insider knowledge.

[IronDanHamza]

I never said he was finished, what I said was he wasn't the same fighter and verbatim all had devastating losses 1 year prior to fighting Manny. In this case it was compounded the Morales rematch over a slightly longer timeframe. But they're more to that below.

Do you really put stock in P4P rankings?

Lastly, matchmakers are privy to much more information than civilians are. Not only do they see the fights, they're directly connected to camps and fighters. It's all inside work and they're expertise is extremely high level.

On an earning level, Barrera had maxed out, there was no more room for him to grow, he had reached the summit of his potential. In 2003 when he got Manny, he was pro for 14 years already. If you turn pro at 18, by 14-16 years pro you're leaving your prime and if you start older you're probably going to compound that. Add wars to the equation, you're tapping your watch. Again, all insider knowledge.

Barrera hadn't lost for 3 years before fighting Pacquaio though and was on the best run of his career at that point.

I do agree Barrera physically was past his peak, but skill wise he had grown into a much better fighter than he was prior. I think that combined with him being not at his absolute peak physically but close to it, you can argue that's the best version of Barrera. It's arguable. Possibly the 2001 version who beat Hamed was his absolute best.

Either way, it's not fair to call it a cherry pick. When a relatively unproven (at the elite level) guy takes him a P4P guy, one most people expect him to lose handily, it just doesn't make any logical sense to call that a cherry pick.

It's like saying Floyd cherrypicked Diego Corrales, it just doesn't make any logical sense.

[War Room]

Barrera hadn't lost for 3 years before fighting Pacquaio though and was on the best run of his career at that point.

I do agree Barrera physically was past his peak, but skill wise he had grown into a much better fighter than he was prior. I think that combined with him being not at his absolute peak physically but close to it, you can argue that's the best version of Barrera. It's arguable. Possibly the 2001 version who beat Hamed was his absolute best.

Based on what, him beating Hamed?

Either way, it's not fair to call it a cherry pick. When a relatively unproven (at the elite level) guy takes him a P4P guy, one most people expect him to lose handily, it just doesn't make any logical sense to call that a cherry pick.

It's like saying Floyd cherrypicked Diego Corrales, it just doesn't make any logical sense.

It is fair, the brass knew the futures would never be there for Barrera and chances were his best days were behind him.

Corrales was a pro for 5 years when he fought Floyd, Barrera was a pro for 14 years when he first fought Manny.

Corrales had been 12 rounds 3x, no hard fights, and had never been knocked down. Barrera had gone 12 rounds 13x, had several hard fights (add several wars), and tasted canvas 2-3x.

How in the world are you using Corrales as a model that represents Barrera and talking about logical sense?

[Mammoth]

Bruce has probably been crying himself to sleep ever since

[Larry the boss]

you have some serious issues...smh

[War Room]

you have some serious issues...smh

I've got issues?



Shouldn't you be in the lounge race-baiting the board?

[Citizen Koba]

But he did admit it, he liked what I said which is what he did. He enjoyed seeing that comment =---> for a reason. What, do I need a on film confession with hair & blood samples?

Crafted to a degree is clearly what I'm not talking about so why even say it? I'm talking majority fabrication. If you're going to have a bit of banter, at least pay attention and be reasonable.



I did own him because I got him to admit to something he would never normally admit to. That's like 100% getting owned. Maybe you're just too old or too sour, hard to say. Perhaps someone switched the elderberries for snozberries or dingleberries?



Calm your tits you slosh. Don't try to steal my thunder either.





You're right, it is difficult. But this is why an excellent matchmaker is important. Fighters that go through hardcore back-and-forth action in trilogies always leave something in the ring. Barrera took a bit of punishment in the Jones fights which is why they lined up several red dots for him right after and you got the Morales fights. Match-makers watch extremely closely and I don't think it's that hard to see the value in a guy who can make a country stand still.

At the end of the day =---> MAB, Morales, Shane, Margarito, Cotto, Hatton, and Oscar all had devastating losses 1 year prior to fighting Manny. You can't say that for other greats.

Except Trampler freely admits in interview that his job is to make winnable fights for the fighters he's developing.

[It’s what makes matchmaking ulcer-worthy. A matchmaker’s worst nightmare is getting a young fighter knocked out; a close second is losing a decision. “If a fighter loses a decision,” says Trampler, “that’s on me.”

https://www.si.com/boxing/2015/04/27...bruce-trampler

Of course it should be utterly obvious to anyone that a matchmakers job is not to make fights that he thinks his guy will lose. Except you, I guess.

The mark of a great matchmaker - like Trampler - is the ability to make a fight that he thinks his fighter will win but the wider world - particularly the bookmakers - don't. So yeah. Pac vs MAB absolutely was great matchmaking.

So yeah... credit to Trampler. How you got from him rightly acknowledging it was good matchmaking (if he indeed gave even a second's worth of thought to your tweet) to claiming Pacs career is more manufactured than the dozens of other fighters for which Trampler made similar calls is beyond me. But then the entire thread is pretty comedic TBH - as evidenced by most of the responses.

If you were looking to give folk a laugh though I gotta admit the thread was a hit. And I especially like your gif man, you got some talent there. Might have to call upon your skills at some point... if I can just tear myself away from the bottle for long enough.

[War Room]

Except Trampler freely admits in interview that his job is to make winnable fights for the fighters he's developing.

[It’s what makes matchmaking ulcer-worthy. A matchmaker’s worst nightmare is getting a young fighter knocked out; a close second is losing a decision. “If a fighter loses a decision,” says Trampler, “that’s on me.”

https://www.si.com/boxing/2015/04/27...bruce-trampler

How drunk are you right now? How many links did you sift through to even get this weak quote?

Youre twisting his words around. The article is about signing young Oscar and he's talking about YOUNG fighters. Like pro debut, 5-10 fights, yes you don't match those guys with killers.

Let's look at the quote in context, not snipping a piece of it to make a shithouse quip.

Picking opponents in a fighter’s first few years as a professional is a promoter’s biggest challenge. They need to be put in tough, but not too tough; they can’t be first class fighters, but they have to be able to do enough in the ring to help a young fighter learn. To a matchmaker, an early knockout is worthless; it looks good on a resume but does nothing to advance a fighter’s career.

It’s what makes matchmaking ulcer-worthy. A matchmaker’s worst nightmare is getting a young fighter knocked out; a close second is losing a decision. “If a fighter loses a decision,” says Trampler, “that’s on me.” In ’93, Trampler matched De La Hoya, in his fourth professional fight, against journeyman Curtis Strong. In the early rounds, Strong landed some heavy shots. “I remember thinking, ‘[Oscar] is hurt,” says Trampler. De La Hoya eventually stopped Strong in the fourth. When Arum asked Trampler for his opinion afterwards, Trampler was blunt.

Manny nor Barrera were in their first few years as a professional now were they? So yes, you're taking what he's saying out of context.

I've just owned you by using your own words and tools against you. Take note of my technique.

Of course it should be utterly obvious to anyone that a matchmakers job is not to make fights that he thinks his guy will lose. Except you, I guess.

So who was meant to win in Leonard vs Hearns 1 then? They were both signed to Top Rank. Or how about Barrera vs Morales, I can do this all day. You might want to dial it back a bit on the dingleberry wine my guy. You're spewing shit all over the place.

The mark of a great matchmaker - like Trampler - is the ability to make a fight that he thinks his fighter will win but the wider world - particularly the bookmakers - don't. So yeah. Pac vs MAB absolutely was great matchmaking.

What do you know about bookies? Zero by the looks of it. I use to be a handicapper and this comment is total shit lol. So when he matched Floyd against Baldomir and Floyd was a 8-1 favorite, how did the bookies not see Baldomir losing?

So yeah... credit to Trampler. How you got from him rightly acknowledging it was good matchmaking (if he indeed gave even a second's worth of thought to your tweet) to claiming Pacs career is more manufactured than the dozens of other fighters for which Trampler made similar calls is beyond me. But then the entire thread is pretty comedic TBH - as evidenced by most of the responses.

If you were looking to give folk a laugh though I gotta admit the thread was a hit. And I especially like your gif man, you got some talent there. Might have to call upon your skills at some point... if I can just tear myself away from the bottle for long enough.

Pieces of shit like yourself are always complaining about fighters avoiding fighters but when someone like me stands tall before the man himself, you'll twist quotes and words around to try and suit your sloshed miserable life. You're just being a hater and you're not that good at it, you've left yourself open quite a bit.

Profesional boxers are guided to a certain point, but what they did with Manny is unprecedented and unraveled the sport we all are here for.

Not sure why you're drunk everyday, maybe the death of your mother is weighing heavily on your soul or something, but bottle it up around me. I'm pointing my spear at the enemy, you're throwing tomatoes those who are looking out for your best interest. You have a 13% like ratio for a reason, you're not well liked.

[Citizen Koba]

How drunk are you right now? How many links did you sift through to even get this weak quote?

Youre twisting his words around. The article is about signing young Oscar and he's talking about YOUNG fighters. Like pro debut, 5-10 fights, yes you don't match those guys with killers.

Let's look at the quote in context, not snipping a piece of it to make a shithouse quip.



Manny nor Barrera were in their first few years as a professional now were they? So yes, you're taking what he's saying out of context.

I've just owned you by using your own words and tools against you. Take note of my technique.



So who was meant to win in Leonard vs Hearns 1 then? They were both signed to Top Rank. Or how about Barrera vs Morales, I can do this all day. You might want to dial it back a bit on the dingleberry wine my guy. You're spewing shit all over the place.



What do you know about bookies? Zero by the looks of it. I use to be a handicapper and this comment is total shit lol. So when he matched Floyd against Baldomir and Floyd was a 8-1 favorite, how did the bookies not see Baldomir losing?



Pieces of shit like yourself are always complaining about fighters avoiding fighters but when someone like me stands tall before the man himself, you'll twist quotes and words around to try and suit your sloshed miserable life. You're just being a hater and you're not that good at it, you've left yourself open quite a bit.

Profesional boxers are guided to a certain point, but what they did with Manny is unprecedented and unraveled the sport we all are here for.

Not sure why you're drunk everyday, maybe the death of your mother is weighing heavily on your soul or something, but bottle it up around me. I'm pointing my spear at the enemy, you're throwing tomatoes those who are looking out for your best interest. You have a 13% like ratio for a reason, you're not well liked.

My point stands. Young or old a matchmakers job is not to make fights they think their guy is gonna lose, man. You know that I know that... of course if they're promoting both fighters most likely they'll have a good idea which one they want to win which will be the one they see most potential profit in.

In fact you'll note that Trampler says Arum himself was responsible for making most of the fights once a fighter has reached a certain level - at which point Tramplers job is already done, but again whether Arum or Trampler made MAB vs Pac it was still excellent matchmaking. Again.. you know that I know that.

Bookies? Absolutely I'm not an expert but MAB was a wide favourite yes? Therefore Trampler got it right and the bookies got it wrong. In the eyes of most of the booking world it was a big upset... or are you dis*****g that obvious fact?

Ergo that was some great matchmaking by Trampler (or Bob), correct? That was my sole point. Of course this isn't something that happens every day - mostly the favourite will win and great fighters are usually the favourites. All I'm saying is that it takes a very good eye to know when the bookies favourite is ready to be taken. Trampler has that eye.

And we're down to amateur hour insults are we now my high strung friend? Piece of shit huh? Perhaps you should have another little bump to take the edge off before you get back to me.

Me? I rarely complain about the fighters themselves at all TBH (I save my contempt for the promoters and sanctioning orgs), perhaps you can give me some examples of somewhere I've done so? I accept that it's largely manufactured top to bottom and treat it with the appropriate suspension of disbelief - but especially at the top. Part of the reason I like the smaller cards and the less high profile weight classses.

And yeah. Whatever big man. You think anyone gives a shit about your 'likes' except you - or your imaginary twitter victories either?

Look, your thread was ****** and most of the folk who posted on it are just laughing at you... take from that what you will. Only person you 'owned' here was yourself. Either way I wasted too much time on this silliness already.