Bit harsh the dudes 25 and can learn from his defensive mistakes made in the fight? Once he moves up closer to his walk around weight his punch resistance should be better, so he's got a lot to play with still shouldn't just retire that's a pathetic suggestion.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Haney needs to retire - fake champion with no chin
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by drablj View Post
someone's talent and level of his opponent is irrelevant. every fight/round should be scored the same way.
example: fighter A lands 350 punches in the first 3 rounds and then decides to coast/get on his bike because of complacency (meaning he already won). fighter B barely stands and is a bloody mess but he still tries to land. somehow fighter B lands 1 punch a round in rounds 4-12 and fighter A doesn't land anything.
who won the fight? fighter B won the fight 9-3 even if you give fighter A 3 10-8 rounds at the beginning. it doesn't matter who took more damage, who has more power, who's face looks better, who threw and landed more in the whole fight. you win the fight by winning more points which is usually the same as more rounds.
if EVERYBODY can't agree with this (i gave an EASY example to score) then abolish scoring altogether because it's meaningless.
note: this post has nothing to do with any particular boxer. i was talking in general.
So for you to make the argument that's scoring is some stable method that enables fights to be decided properly it's against all actual truth. Judges are corrupt and they cannot see most of what happens in the ring which is too quick for the eye anyway. This is why fencing is scored electronically btw. Most decisions in boxing these days seem to be controversial. Did you know that in the Romero Cruz fight one judge had Romero up at the time of the stoppage? Need I say more?
It does matter who took more damage. It matters when you see a fight and know what to look for see who is more effective which inevitably involves who's causing more damage. Scoring a fight does not tell you much of anything especially given the inconsistent standards and the corruption. Of course if you want to score the fight based on what you see yeah I'll give you that. But you're going to tell me that some judges know that Chavez versus Whitaker was a draw? No. Anybody who watches that fight will know who on that fight no judges needed.
When Andre Ward won the super middlewe tournament as an underdog he didn't fight in one close fight. That's Winning.
When Manny Pacquiao fought Floyd Mayweather who really won that fight? Who really cares? Neither guy did anything to show they were The better fighter. They both had a few moments, they gave the fight to floyd which I have no problem with. I wouldn't have had a problem if they gave it to Pac either.
I would agree with you more if judging was consistent and not totally corrupt. But even if it was, some judges count body shots more, some judges don't count any body shots to speak of, that are delivered in tight. Some judges care about effective aggression some judges do not. Best way to understand who won a fight is to watch the fight.
Theoretically? Applying consistent standards objectively, counting the number of punches per round, understanding what skill sets will be counted, would be a start to making judging more relevant. I mean that's what it's supposed to be about. but I don't see that in practice.
And finally... Many subtle defensive maneuvers cannot be caught by the judges. I am reminded of my own experience having taught martial arts for years and having a bunch of guys taught in college who were in beast mode. I would never win my matches even though I taught them and they would win lol.
Primary reason being I was taught defensively to be very subtle in my movements. In the tournaments back then if you came within like half a foot or so you got the point for the technique lol.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carpe Diem View Post
NSB always overhyped any flavor of the week or month. I wouldn’t be surprised if some fans now believe that Ryan can beat Crawford or Boots. Truth to be told, Haney is a bit like Spence, a product of hard work, very basic with no special effects.
Comment
-
Why should he retire when he is just 25 and only had 1 loss and still managed to see the 12th round? Going by your logic pacquiao should have retired when he got destroyed in 2012 where he went to sleep and had multiple ko losses before that too.RoadOfTheGypsy likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
I think its unfair to call Haney a fake champion, he is still a decent boxer and has a lot to offer. I can look at it objectively despite my hatred for his religion and him being a racist POS. Im glad he lost though, hopefully Loma gets to rematch as Loma beat him last time.
Comment
-
-
"Boxing fans" are the absolute worst! The kid accomplished a good amount, became undisputed and lost his first fight to his amateur rival and he should retire. And then we wonder why fighters try to protect their 0 so hard.
Also, I put boxing fan in quotations because it's a casual ass take.Willow The Wisp likes this.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by crimsonfalcon07 View Post
Independently of offers, Bill Haney was saying immediately after the fight they would not rematch Loma.
And Bob gets more upside in saying Loma "wuz robbed" & not paying to retain Devin's services than he does ******** on a rematch with his aging future HOFer having another competive fight or better outcome with a younger guy & then still losing Devin's services after the rematch. Sh^t don't make sense for no one. Hell TR probably conveyed that message verbally or with actions behind the scenes prior the fight it was so obvious.
Comment
Comment