Teddy Atlas kept it real about Adrien Broner...

[baya]

How do you know they had zero effect? the only person that can answer that is Broner. A lot of people scored this fight on perception of punching power but neither fighter was visibly hurt.

c'mon, clear as day it was ZERO effect.

[Weebler I]

c'mon, clear as day it was ZERO effect.

If it was zero effect why was Broner shelled up and not throwing for most of rounds? Some people had him 4-1 and 5-0 down after 5 rounds due to inactivity.

Broner won, but he did not look good in what was a close fight. Ask Floyd Mayweather his 'big bro'.

[RiC-DiC]

anyone who scored the fight for Paulie was either drunk, high, or simply can't tell the difference between a punch that is landed and a punch that hits a glove/elbow.

[al-Xander]

Ted Atlas is dead wrong. Paulie won on points. It should have been at least a draw. Reason why Ted Atlas and others like Bernstein, etc. say Broner won decisively is because they've already discredited Paulie's chances of winning the fight long before fight night. They're experts. They know better. Paulie can't possibly win. Retracting their prediction will make them look like big jokes.

[baya]

If it was zero effect why was Broner shelled up and not throwing for most of rounds? Some people had him 4-1 and 5-0 down after 5 rounds due to inactivity.

Broner won, but he did not look good in what was a close fight. Ask Floyd Mayweather his 'big bro'.

it's the way he fights, but you know that already.

some people did have him down that much, but not everyone, including me.

i'm not concerned with how good he looked, how much of a douche broner is outside the ring and now inside the ring but to say this was a close fight, i don't see it and won't accept that. broner won that fight by a VERY comfortable margin.

[SterlingStained]

He said Broner was the clear winner and it should have been unanimous.

That doesn't sound like a competitive fight to me. Unless pitty pats with zero affect are your thing.

how ironic that you discredit paulie's pitty pat punches with zero effect while rocking a pernell whitaker avatar.

reading all your posts in this thread, using your logic pernell whitaker would never win a fight.

[malcolm]

how ironic that you discredit paulie's pitty pat punches with zero effect while rocking a pernell whitaker avatar.

reading all your posts in this thread, using your logic pernell whitaker would never win a fight.

Are you really comparing SweetPea Whitaker with Paulie Mallanaggi?

Really?

Whitaker was far from a pitty pat puncher. Whitaker's punches had enough power to make his opponents respect him.

Whitaker's power kept him from being run over by power punchers like Chavez, Mayweather and Vazquez.

Paulie can't keep a Jr Lightweight off him.

Not even PRIME TITO could KO an old Whitaker. Whitaker's defense was a shell of itself by the time he fought Tito, and Tito still couldn't walk through him like he did Vargas.

[Weebler I]

it's the way he fights, but you know that already.

some people did have him down that much, but not everyone, including me.

i'm not concerned with how good he looked, how much of a douche broner is outside the ring and now inside the ring but to say this was a close fight, i don't see it and won't accept that. broner won that fight by a VERY comfortable margin.

It's not really a matter of accepting. You have your own opinion, others have theirs. History records a split-decision win for Broner.

[malcolm]

Ted Atlas is dead wrong. Paulie won on points. It should have been at least a draw. Reason why Ted Atlas and others like Bernstein, etc. say Broner won decisively is because they've already discredited Paulie's chances of winning the fight long before fight night. They're experts. They know better. Paulie can't possibly win. Retracting their prediction will make them look like big jokes.

Paulie would have won if the two were wearing head gear.

[Weebler I]

Ted Atlas is dead wrong. Paulie won on points. It should have been at least a draw. Reason why Ted Atlas and others like Bernstein, etc. say Broner won decisively is because they've already discredited Paulie's chances of winning the fight long before fight night. They're experts. They know better. Paulie can't possibly win. Retracting their prediction will make them look like big jokes.

Yeah, I felt they all just backed their own pre-fight predictions of Broner domination. Broner plays to the journalists too, he is their jester, they like him.