I wrote so much that I lost track of stuff.....lol
I was impressed with his speed, accuracy, timing, and yes even his power at the higher weights. My point though is that Im more impressed with the accomplishment. Its like people look at Paulie and think that if you are truly elite then you should dominate him. They keep it very black & white in that regard while I always take into account all the factors.
This guy was just at 130 a couple of fights ago and is now fighting 4 divisions higher. Considering that and the fact that he's 23, it was impressive to me. I think even without al of that, if you didnt know his name or who he was, you would think he was a very talented fighter if you just watched that fight but he still needs to put all the tools together. Right now he's more of a poor man's James Toney the he is Floyd but whats wrong with that?
All in all, I was one who gave him more credit for this even before the fight. I didnt see it as a cherry pick. I said then that even if you don think it is, he still hasnt had nearly the bad resume that others think and that if you really want to judge him then do it for the fight he takes after Paulie. I said that decision will tell alot about him and how good he is. Now if he fights Maidana or someone like that then I think he's done pretty well for himself, win or lose.
He's very talented but again, all these guys are good. Its like fans wanna have it both ways. They want all the best to fight eachother but are quick to write them off as bums if they lose. Broner is good. He's very good. However, he still may lose because all of these guys are good, most of them are far more seasoned than him, and most are jumping different divisions like him.
There is no shame in these guys beating eachother. It doesnt make you a bum. All these guys have a chance to beat eachother. All these fights are intriguing and Broner is right in that mix. I just dont get the hate. Maybe you dont like the way he conducts himself but thats what makes boxing great. I love all the different personalities.
I was impressed with his speed, accuracy, timing, and yes even his power at the higher weights. My point though is that Im more impressed with the accomplishment. Its like people look at Paulie and think that if you are truly elite then you should dominate him. They keep it very black & white in that regard while I always take into account all the factors.
This guy was just at 130 a couple of fights ago and is now fighting 4 divisions higher. Considering that and the fact that he's 23, it was impressive to me. I think even without al of that, if you didnt know his name or who he was, you would think he was a very talented fighter if you just watched that fight but he still needs to put all the tools together. Right now he's more of a poor man's James Toney the he is Floyd but whats wrong with that?
All in all, I was one who gave him more credit for this even before the fight. I didnt see it as a cherry pick. I said then that even if you don think it is, he still hasnt had nearly the bad resume that others think and that if you really want to judge him then do it for the fight he takes after Paulie. I said that decision will tell alot about him and how good he is. Now if he fights Maidana or someone like that then I think he's done pretty well for himself, win or lose.
He's very talented but again, all these guys are good. Its like fans wanna have it both ways. They want all the best to fight eachother but are quick to write them off as bums if they lose. Broner is good. He's very good. However, he still may lose because all of these guys are good, most of them are far more seasoned than him, and most are jumping different divisions like him.
There is no shame in these guys beating eachother. It doesnt make you a bum. All these guys have a chance to beat eachother. All these fights are intriguing and Broner is right in that mix. I just dont get the hate. Maybe you dont like the way he conducts himself but thats what makes boxing great. I love all the different personalities.
Comment