who do you think Won Broner or Paulie?
Collapse
-
No, volume punches aren't everything but accuracy and activity matters too. If fighters who had low KO ratios could never win a fight because of 'lack of power' we'd be missing 50% of the boxing population.
Some fights are won with power, and some with boxing ability, footwork and speed... Paulie won being the better boxer, broner couldn't even use his power to knock him down which is the purpose of having it in the first place.
It's got nothing to do with a lack of power. When you're being consistently popped with clean punches and being made to miss a significant portion of your own punches, you're the one being outboxed.
Quality over quantity, every single time.Comment
-
-
-
I think Broner deserved to win close, but I would have no problem with a draw or a point for Paulie, but 117-111 requires profound blindness.
Paulie really exposed Broners limited skill set. He turtles up when you punch at him, he doesn't counter in between like Floyd Toney or Hopkins would.
Lateral movement completely negates his counter right hand and turns it into the that little dandy slap he was throwing all night.
He should have been deducted 2 points for kicking Paulie in the nuts though, I am not sure why he wasn't deducted. It wasn't accidental, it was a very clear and deliberate kick.
This is a fight that Broner should have been able to dominate, and he should have been able to stop Paulie, so for it to be a SD shows how big of a role careful match making has played in his success thus far.
He is not the Next Floyd Mayweather, he is the Next Andre Berto, that much is clear at this point.Comment
-
Comment