Comments Thread For: Insider Notebook: Pacquiao-Marquez, Canelo-Cotto, More

[MJ223]

Look we all know this fight is bigger then trout vs canelo. I dont mind seeing it if manny can fight marquez 4x then i wanna see canelo vs cotto.
Also i remember judah losing to boldamir right before his fight against mayweather and they still made that fight happen because it was marketable.

Marquez wasn't on a losing streak coming into any of the Pac fights..... And Canelo is making this a disturbing trend

[Light_Speed]

Also i remember judah losing to boldamir right before his fight against mayweather and they still made that fight happen because it was marketable.

Judah lost a split decision, the fight was close but Cotto/Trout wasn't.

[liuj88]

"This is a sport and it's entertainment. I think that when they look at compelling matchups, which fight fans want to see - and I'm not talking about the hard-core boxing fan, who is one thing - but I'm talking about sports fans, the general audience and so on."

--I thought I was a reasonable, normal boxing fan. If Schaefer is correct, then I'm terribly mistaken, and abruptly became a hardcore fan the moment I became against Alvarez-Cotto.

"But just because you beat the man, that doesn't mean that you are the man."

--I suppose this depends onhow Schaefer defines "man".

"And I think we might take a page out of the UFC playbook here that just because somebody loses, that doesn't mean they have to go back in line, depending on how they lose and who they are and so on.... Here with boxing, why should it be different?"

--"...depending on how they lose...." Whether it's MMA or boxing, effort and the quality of one's performance has to be rewarded accordingly. But Cotto lost terribly, and convincingly. To continue to reward him while leaving Trout hanging is unfair. I don't think anyone is too terribly hurt if the "champion" Bradley doesn't get big fights, because fans aren't convinced that he deserved his last win. There is absolutely no question about the outcome of Trout-Cotto.

One reason boxing is so appealing is the rags-to-riches stories of many of its athletes--the idea that if you work hard enough, win or lose, you just might be able to pull yourself out of poverty, depression, and any undesirable situation and reach the peak of the profession, and claim its rewards.

Based on this article, I think Schaefer is a cynical, selfish, greedy, corrupt boxing puppeteer that is after only the short-term financial gain, to the detriment of the long-term integrity of the sport.

[KickAzz]

Cotto gotta be smart and realize that he's not a legit 154 lber and get his ass back down to 147 lbs... Also he gotta realize he best leave big jr middleweights alone.... and finally he got to know by now that GBP wants to sacrifice him to Gingerboy, and even if Cotto wins, Gingerboy will get the decision.

[KickAzz]

Schaefer is a scumbag... at least let cotto get his confidence back first

[hardknock]

b**ching and whining

Whowever wrote this article needs to explain what boxer would not complain over losing a bout that was very close to call on all 3 occasions!

Anytime you have a hyper aggressive fighter being neutralized throughout the majority of 3 fights and his opponent effectively setting the fighter up to be countered and countering effectively throughout the bout that fighter deserves to have his hand raised at least one of the 3 times they face each other.

The difference between this sport and others is that we think of it as a thinking man's fighting sport. For one you are limited in what your are allowed to do, so in order to win you have to strategically think of your game plan much more thoughtfully especially with each different opponent at the elite level. Second, those who try to maintain their style hoping to overwhelm the other opponent will soon face someone at the elite level that knows how to nullify that strategy and at the point the public witnesses what a fighter's level of skill and intelligence is throughout a fight. Third, once two fighters face each and the initial fight is very close it is fair for them to face each other again in order to go back to the drawing board, strategize and come in with a game plan that will effectively show their superior level of skill and intelligence during their next bout.

What is very plain and simple is that Marquez over the course of the 3 bouts has never been dominated, nullified, or out strategized. Pacquiao's game plan has remained consistent as it is with most of his fights he pushes forward, sets up his straight left, and defends himself with quick footwork and when he does take a punch he has an excellent iron chin. But what's missing is the strategic planning, the intelligence to modify a game plan during the fight, the demonstration of a fighter that can show he can out think another fighter in the ring by countering his opponents strategy when things do go his way. Is plainly missing. Until that occurs any hall of fame fighter will have the right to complain as to why the judges use such a narrow view of scoring a fight.

[mrlopez]

"This is a sport and it's entertainment. I think that when they look at compelling matchups, which fight fans want to see - and I'm not talking about the hard-core boxing fan, who is one thing - but I'm talking about sports fans, the general audience and so on."

--I thought I was a reasonable, normal boxing fan. If Schaefer is correct, then I'm terribly mistaken, and abruptly became a hardcore fan the moment I became against Alvarez-Cotto.

for the people who hate on Arum, they should read that BS excuse!

"But just because you beat the man, that doesn't mean that you are the man."

--I suppose this depends onhow Schaefer defines "man".

EXACTLY^^^^^^^

"And I think we might take a page out of the UFC playbook here that just because somebody loses, that doesn't mean they have to go back in line, depending on how they lose and who they are and so on.... Here with boxing, why should it be different?"

--"...depending on how they lose...." Whether it's MMA or boxing, effort and the quality of one's performance has to be rewarded accordingly. But Cotto lost terribly, and convincingly. To continue to reward him while leaving Trout hanging is unfair. I don't think anyone is too terribly hurt if the "champion" Bradley doesn't get big fights, because fans aren't convinced that he deserved his last win. There is absolutely no question about the outcome of Trout-Cotto.

One reason boxing is so appealing is the rags-to-riches stories of many of its athletes--the idea that if you work hard enough, win or lose, you just might be able to pull yourself out of poverty, depression, and any undesirable situation and reach the peak of the profession, and claim its rewards.

Based on this article, I think Schaefer is a cynical, selfish, greedy, corrupt boxing puppeteer that is after only the short-term financial gain, to the detriment of the long-term integrity of the sport.

no sh.it, the guy talks so much about arum, deservedly, yet is pulling the same type of crap the old man get sh.it on for!

Cotto gotta be smart and realize that he's not a legit 154 lber and get his ass back down to 147 lbs... Also he gotta realize he best leave big jr middleweights alone.... and finally he got to know by now that GBP wants to sacrifice him to Gingerboy, and even if Cotto wins, Gingerboy will get the decision.

exactly what i was thinking, feeding the old injured lion to a hyena, and by hyena i mean taking advantage of old guys and smaller fighters!!

Schaefer is a scumbag... at least let cotto get his confidence back first

cotto HAS to realize that gbp doesnt care for him, they only care about the bottom line and thats $$$$$

[jbpanama]

Trout has to continue to make WAVES!!! Watch the Cinnamon Bun and Cotto Bout,
get BHop to run interference for him, jump in the Ring, and get on Canelo's A$$,
Like Shane did to the Roid Man!!!

[mistermartin]

Whowever wrote this article needs to explain what boxer would not complain over losing a bout that was very close to call on all 3 occasions!

Anytime you have a hyper aggressive fighter being neutralized throughout the majority of 3 fights and his opponent effectively setting the fighter up to be countered and countering effectively throughout the bout that fighter deserves to have his hand raised at least one of the 3 times they face each other.

The difference between this sport and others is that we think of it as a thinking man's fighting sport. For one you are limited in what your are allowed to do, so in order to win you have to strategically think of your game plan much more thoughtfully especially with each different opponent at the elite level. Second, those who try to maintain their style hoping to overwhelm the other opponent will soon face someone at the elite level that knows how to nullify that strategy and at the point the public witnesses what a fighter's level of skill and intelligence is throughout a fight. Third, once two fighters face each and the initial fight is very close it is fair for them to face each other again in order to go back to the drawing board, strategize and come in with a game plan that will effectively show their superior level of skill and intelligence during their next bout.

What is very plain and simple is that Marquez over the course of the 3 bouts has never been dominated, nullified, or out strategized. Pacquiao's game plan has remained consistent as it is with most of his fights he pushes forward, sets up his straight left, and defends himself with quick footwork and when he does take a punch he has an excellent iron chin. But what's missing is the strategic planning, the intelligence to modify a game plan during the fight, the demonstration of a fighter that can show he can out think another fighter in the ring by countering his opponents strategy when things do go his way. Is plainly missing. Until that occurs any hall of fame fighter will have the right to complain as to why the judges use such a narrow view of scoring a fight.

Well said my brother....

[jbpanama]

Handicaping the NFL, U give the Home Team 3 pts,
Home Cooking also exists in Boxing, haven't U noticed??