"Offense Is No Longer A Skill Of Boxing"-Haters

[joseph5620]

Good point by the threadstarter.............defensive fighters are being overrated in this forum.

KO percentage is at least as overrated. Including in this thread.

[Larry the boss]

Just say I agree with Reed.

Saves you an entire paragraph.

MY MAN

[#1Assassin]

i dont think TS knows what complete means. yes pacquiao probably has the best offense, but ward, floyd, whitaker and bradley all have great offense as well minus the flaws pacquiao has in other areas. hense they are more well rounded.

having the best offense doesnt make someone the best all round fighter, it makes him the best offensive fighter. if he has other flaws and lacks other skills then hes less complete than a fighter with virtually no major flaws like floyd, ward or bradley whos got skills in every aspect of boxing.

its funny, TS says "haters" dont ackowledge offense, than he goes on to ignore every single other aspect of boxing. pac has the best offense so hes the most well rounded.. lol, sure buddy.

[IronDanHamza]

Got the names mixed up, it was against a fighter named Graves and no its not a joke.

I could have guessed you were referring to Jackie Graves.

Could you provide a newspaper report for this occurence? I mean, something as overwhelming as winning a round without throwing a punch would surely be all over the Newspapers in 1946. Wouldn't it?

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

I'd also like to know who would have won Chavez-Taylor had it gone a few seconds longer.

And who won between Pacquaio-Clottey.

Saying 'look at this face' to suggest who won a fight has to be the most moronic thing I have heard to date on these forums.

That's not what im saying. You add to the fact that pac out punched, out landed marquez plus marquez face looking worse, in a close fight, you add all of those together you get the winner.

But since you are a closet floyd fanatic and a closet pac hater ( i dont even know if i can call you closet anything since you have been pretty open about your love for floyd and hate for pac), you wouldnt make the distinction or refuse to in regards to the clottey fight in comparison to the marquez pac 3 fight that:

Even though pac's face looked worse than clottey but he won because:

1 Pac is a considerably smaller man in comparison to clottey who is known to come in at 160 lbs on fight night. Marquez and Pac are relatively the same size and their weights prove it. Not the same as Clottey who is much bigger than both.

2 Pac was the only one willing to engage and AGAIN OUT PUNCHED & OUT LANDED CLOTTEY. Just like he did vs marquez.


Clottey is what a career 147 pound fighter. Pac as recently as 2008 was fighting at 130, is a career 130lbs & under fighter, who naturally will bruise and swell against a fighter who is considerably much bigger than him like clottey who rarely gets facial damage anyway.

Point is, not only did marquez face show much more damage in comparison to pac who are both the same size fighters, but pac out threw & out landed marquez.

[Johnwoo8686]

I could have guessed you were referring to Jackie Graves.

Could you provide a newspaper report for this occurence? I mean, something as overwhelming as winning a round without throwing a punch would surely be all over the Newspapers in 1946. Wouldn't it?

Roy Jones won a round without being hit. If it weren't for compubox and tv nobody would be able to prove thats true. Graves even did an interview on the fight he had with Pep and said he could only remember that Pep was very difficult to hit. And no, one round of a featherweight fight held in 1946 is not made news fodder so I doubt you'll hear anything about this fight outside of people who discuss boxing.

[IronDanHamza]

That's not what im saying. You add to the fact that pac out punched, out landed marquez plus marquez face looking worse, in a close fight, you add all of those together you get the winner.

But since you are a closet floyd fanatic and a closet pac hater ( i dont even know if i can call you closet anything since you have been pretty open about your love for floyd and hate for pac), you wouldnt make the distinction or refuse to in regards to the clottey fight in comparison to the marquez pac 3 fight that:

Even though pac's face looked worse than clottey but he won because:

1 Pac is a considerably smaller man in comparison to clottey who is known to come in at 160 lbs on fight night. Marquez and Pac are relatively the same size and their weights prove it. Not the same as Clottey who is much bigger than both.

2 Pac was the only one willing to engage and AGAIN OUT PUNCHED & OUT LANDED CLOTTEY. Just like he did vs marquez.


Clottey is what a career 147 pound fighter. Pac as recently as 2008 was fighting at 130, is a career 130lbs & under fighter, who naturally will bruise and swell against a fighter who is considerably much bigger than him like clottey who rarely gets facial damage anyway.

Point is, not only did marquez face show much more damage in comparison to pac who are both the same size fighters, but pac out threw & out landed marquez.

It still doesn't change the fact that the state of someone's face does nt determin whether they won or lost the fight.

I.e Chavez-Taylor. Had that gone a few seconds longer and gone to a Decision, Taylor would have won. Despite looking a bloody mess and Chavez looking relatively fresh.

Pac shut Clottey out, dominated in every which way. Yet, Pac's face was more bruised and damaged than Clottey.

Which further reiterates the relevance of how someone's face looks and whether they won the fight.

I'm not comparing those fights in any way. I'm simply stating the ******ity of using 'Look at his face!' as any logic or reasoning. Something that you happened to agree with.

And not in any way, shape or form do you ever use someone's face to determin who won. You do not 'add it all up' and include that. You think the judges just have a quick look at the fighters face at the end in a cloe fight to see who edged it?

I'm a big fan of Mayweather, one of my favourite fighters. I dont' hate Pac though. I'm not a fan of him but I guess that means I despise him to NSB.

Pac certainly out threw Marquez but he didn't outland him. Not from what I saw anyway. Certainly not in terms of clean punches.

[IronDanHamza]

Roy Jones won a round without being hit. If it weren't for compubox and tv nobody would be able to prove thats true. Graves even did an interview on the fight he had with Pep and said he could only remember that Pep was very difficult to hit. And no, one round of a featherweight fight held in 1946 is not made news fodder so I doubt you'll hear anything about this fight outside of people who discuss boxing.

Roy Jones winning a Round without being hit is documented without TV and Compubox.

Jackie Graves said in the Interview that "It probably didn't happen".

And yes, It absolutely would have been documented on every newspaper had something so outrageous were to happen.

There is numerous newspaper articles about that fight. Yet, not a single mention of that.

There are even Newspaper articles that actually state that Jackie Graves landed punches on Willie Pep in the 3rd round of their fight.

You know why you can't find an article or newpaper report confirming that Willie Pep didn't throw a punch against Jackie Graves and won the round?

Because it didn't happen. It's a myth. And possibly THE biggest myth in the History of Boxing.

[PACnPBFsuck]

Did you see Marquez's face?

Marquez looked like he was cast for the boonies.


Pacquiao was unmarked aside from the headclash cut.

This.............................................. ...............is ******ed.

Using this masterful logic, Clottey beat PAC.

[The Noose]

It's incredibly harder to dodge a punch than to throw one.

I love watching a masterful defensive boxer.

The sport has evolved, and I'm thankful for that.