Tweet
That's it. We need a one sided Bernard Hopkins Vs Tavoris Cloud type of stink out fight (which I like), time and time again. No controversy about who won. Since NSB fans are too ******ed and go on a chimpout every time we have a great fight that was close, lets just stick to Wladimir VS (insert inferior fighter here) and Hopkins vs Cloud on a weekly basis.
-
-
Bump........ -
Of course not.
We, well me personally, I want to see "boxing's next megastars" dominate fighters that they should dominate.
That fight last night shouldn't have been close and Broner has a long way to go. Even Floyd Mayweather criticized him and said he was too flat footed.Comment
-
****** thread...
i dont think people are complaining that the fight was close...
People are ripping broner because he cherrypicked and almost got beat,, didnt look like a dominant welter vs pauli..
it would be like your WLad vs inferior opponent and then wlad going 12 hard rounds with them and barely get past it...
Thats what all the uproar is about!!!!!Comment
-
You're right. But I only bumped this thread because it had 0 replies. Perhaps bad timing as it really had nothing to do with Malignaggi-Broner. This was made during Canelo-Trout, in which I had Canelo winning but combated a bunch of "This was a clear robbery" ******s, all post-fight night long.
As for Broner, I agree with your sentiments as I'm not even leaning towards being his fan, see this thread for specifics.Comment
-
But my general point still stands. It's been a long time since we had a Big-Fight weekend, where we ended up having a pretty good fight that was close and could've went either way, but instead of showing appreciation for the fight itself, we spend all night talking about robbery like the official loser won 10 of 12 rounds and the judges blatantly scored the opposite way.Comment
-
C'mon man. It's Broner we're talking about. He has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. At least Floyd is actually a great fighter, so he can somewhat get away with talking ish.
Broner's on another level of trolling. The thing is, he's not trolling. He showed his true colors last night.Comment
-
Thing about this though, is that yes you can argue it was close etc etc, but the people backing the winner nearly always refuse to acknowledge that the loser (Trout, Paulie) has a LEGITIMATE and a well-backed case for winning the fight. I believe more people saw Trout winning the Canelo fight.
The people backing the loser have to accept the verdict. A close fight to me is a fight both fighters should get credit for winning, but instead its always treat as a loss. I.e with Canelo, he's always spoken as "has a good win over Trout".
You get my point. If it's a close fight, both fighters deserve to be called winners in my opinion, and I (though some can't) can go beyond "pride" and say you can legitimately say Canelo and Broner won too.Comment
-
TS sounds like the people that is wrong with boxing.
He rather have everyone just agree, boxing is subjective. There will always be side A that say this fighter won or side B that says this side won.
When you ignore that fight and fail to look at a fight objectively and find yourself in side A or B you are no longer a boxing fan rather a casual fan with more knowledge then normal.
TS
List the scoring criteria and tell me which one Broner won and which one Paulie won?Comment
-
Sure, Pauli vs Broner was competitive, but it was a crappy competitive fight. Pauli threw a thousand boring pitty pats while Broner boringly only threw a few hard punches every round. It's not a fight I should be excited about and Broner deserves whatever criticism he's getting for the Pauli cherrypick gone wrong.
I sort of get what OP means if you put into the context of Bradley vs Provodnikov, a fight where it was supposed to be mismatch that ended up being a much better and competitive fight than we expected. We should be rejoicing for having a great fight, not be calling Bradly overrated. But Pauli vs Broner ****** even if it was competitive.Last edited by DoktorSleepless; 06-23-2013, 05:32 PM.Comment
Comment