Teddy Atlas kept it real about Adrien Broner...

[Dirk Diggler UK]

Because Teddy Atlas is the utmost authority on boxing?

Yeaaah phuck da haterz!!

[hitman smax]

I have a lot of respect for Atlas, and I think he's one of the best prognosticators in the business.

That said, he lacks a very important attribute when it comes to weighing the merits of fighters and their performances:

He doesn't accept that boxing is, first and foremost, a form of entertainment. People like him will argue against that until their faces are blue, but a simple fact remains:

If the fans aren't interested, boxing ceases to be relevant.

Because of that, you can't just assess a fight from boxing purist's perspective. You have to consider the entertainment element as well.

With that, I think Broner won the fight primarily because he landed harder punches and pushed the action from about round 5 on.

However, the fight was close, and the reason is simply that Malignaggi was the busier fighter and won several of the early rounds.

In fact, had Malignaggi not tired so significantly, I suspect he would have easily won the fight, as he had a brilliant game plan.

Malignaggi simply didn't have the energy to continue it throughout the fight. And, in his defense, very few fighters would have.

[malcolm]

Atlas is wrong. I don't think Paulie won, but to say Broner won easily is absurd.

How is it absurd?

Did you see FNF this past weekend? He said it on that telecast. He also pointed out why. He basically said (what i've said as well) that this is not AMATEUR BOXING.

Pitty Pats do not count. That is like SHADOW-BOXING (like AB wittingly said in the post fight interview)!!

Broner's shots were hard, powerful and had strong effect on his opponent.

What did PM's shots do to Broner?

[LoadedWraps]

Because Teddy Atlas is the utmost authority on boxing?

Yeaaah phuck da haterz!!

If we are talking about boxing analysts and commentators of the sport, he is the best, at least in my book. And you may disagree, but you can't deny the fact that even if you don't like him as a commentor and a person, you can't question his superior boxing knowledge.

[malcolm]

Because Teddy Atlas is the utmost authority on boxing?

Yeaaah phuck da haterz!!

I'd bet my mother and wife that Teddy Atlas knows more than YOU about the sport of boxing.

[malcolm]

nah......... Atlas is wrong

thanks for that deep insight. don't know what i would have done without that staggering commentary...

[damit305]

Yea............ Atlas is right

[Reloaded]

Atlas is wrong. I don't think Paulie won, but to say Broner won easily is absurd.

No its not absurd because Broner was never outa cruise control , to busy trying to look cool instead of getting down to your best boxing , Im no Broner hater or fan , I think he could be anything if he dropped all BS and got on with boxing , nothing wrong with being a braggart if they back it up , for mine Broner won easily he just went about it the wrong way , from his perspective he will be thinking he toyed with him , Broner just needs to get his head right .

[bojangles1987]

How is it absurd?

Did you see FNF this past weekend? He said it on that telecast. He also pointed out why. He basically said (what i've said as well) that this is not AMATEUR BOXING.

Pitty Pats do not count. That is like SHADOW-BOXING (like AB wittingly said in the post fight interview)!!

Broner's shots were hard, powerful and had strong effect on his opponent.

What did PM's shots do to Broner?

Malignaggi can't punch. His hardest shot is pitty-pat. You can't hold that against him. He was throwing and landing enough to make the fight close round by round. I am not one who thinks Paulie has an argument for winning, but he deserved 4 or 5 rounds. Broner did not look good, and did not win easily.

[malcolm]

I have a lot of respect for Atlas, and I think he's one of the best prognosticators in the business.

That said, he lacks a very important attribute when it comes to weighing the merits of fighters and their performances:

He doesn't accept that boxing is, first and foremost, a form of entertainment. People like him will argue against that until their faces are blue, but a simple fact remains:

If the fans aren't interested, boxing ceases to be relevant.

Because of that, you can't just assess a fight from boxing purist's perspective. You have to consider the entertainment element as well.

With that, I think Broner won the fight primarily because he landed harder punches and pushed the action from about round 5 on.

However, the fight was close, and the reason is simply that Malignaggi was the busier fighter and won several of the early rounds.

In fact, had Malignaggi not tired so significantly, I suspect he would have easily won the fight, as he had a brilliant game plan.

Malignaggi simply didn't have the energy to continue it throughout the fight. And, in his defense, very few fighters would have.

So the more ENTERTAINING fighter should receive some form of bias simply because he's trying to entertain more?

I think Teddy calls it the way everyone should: Honestly.