Let me give you one example, Amir Khan vs Marcos Maidana.
It's currently the biggest contender for fight of 2010 and rightly so.
Amir Khan got off to a phenomenally-superb start that saw a body shot hurl his opponent to the floor in the very 1st round. This was a shot that 90% of fighters definitely wouldn't have recovered to however shockingly and in tremendous, award-winning fashion Maidana being the warrior he is, got up and waded forwarded.
Over the next nine rounds and in digression Amir Khan peppered Marcos Maidana with combinations, some hitting the target whist others flashy. Oblivious to many though, Marcos Maidana slowly and successively landed solid shots to the brow, chin and body of Khan in a steady build ...
The 10th round shocked and surprised as all (but the few who saw Maidana's rising punch success in the previous rounds expected this phase) - Maidana battered Khan, and was virtually on the brink of sending him to the floor with an excellent rally. Khan survived, showing exceptional fortitude and courage, most boxers wouldn't have survived the onslaught. This continued onwards for the 11th and 12th rounds but not to the same degree while Khan supposedly 'ran' however threw the occasional punch.
When the final bell sounded, it was clear Khan won the fight, deservedly. He showed what a warrior he was and solid 'chin' he held since his devastating loss to Bredis Prescott.
Did he however finish the fight strongly and as a champion??!!
That's my question to you ...
Of which do you prefer? Fighters who start weak and finish strongly, or the opposite ... fighters who start strong and finish weak?
If it's a case that a fighter wins yet finishes weak, should an immediate rematch be in order? Bit of a brain tussle but I'm sure you'll find an answer ..
It's currently the biggest contender for fight of 2010 and rightly so.
Amir Khan got off to a phenomenally-superb start that saw a body shot hurl his opponent to the floor in the very 1st round. This was a shot that 90% of fighters definitely wouldn't have recovered to however shockingly and in tremendous, award-winning fashion Maidana being the warrior he is, got up and waded forwarded.
Over the next nine rounds and in digression Amir Khan peppered Marcos Maidana with combinations, some hitting the target whist others flashy. Oblivious to many though, Marcos Maidana slowly and successively landed solid shots to the brow, chin and body of Khan in a steady build ...
The 10th round shocked and surprised as all (but the few who saw Maidana's rising punch success in the previous rounds expected this phase) - Maidana battered Khan, and was virtually on the brink of sending him to the floor with an excellent rally. Khan survived, showing exceptional fortitude and courage, most boxers wouldn't have survived the onslaught. This continued onwards for the 11th and 12th rounds but not to the same degree while Khan supposedly 'ran' however threw the occasional punch.
When the final bell sounded, it was clear Khan won the fight, deservedly. He showed what a warrior he was and solid 'chin' he held since his devastating loss to Bredis Prescott.
Did he however finish the fight strongly and as a champion??!!
That's my question to you ...
Of which do you prefer? Fighters who start weak and finish strongly, or the opposite ... fighters who start strong and finish weak?
If it's a case that a fighter wins yet finishes weak, should an immediate rematch be in order? Bit of a brain tussle but I'm sure you'll find an answer ..
Comment