Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Adrien Broner a elite, good, mediocre or a bad fighter?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by DannYankee View Post
    Depends on the opposition. That being said your "good" criteria is fking bonkers high for a fighter that's just "good" cracking the top 10 P4P list should earn you more than good status . You should have at least one more level between good and elite . I think he is good but doesn't meet that good criteria.
    He was once top 10 P4P after crushing the 130 division.

    Also, what else makes people say Broner is bad is that he lost to Porter and Maidana. But didn't Maidana almost beat Floyd (close) in the first fight? Didn't Maidana destroy an undefeated Victor Ortiz? Porter himself is good, but not elite.

    All i'm saying is that people's opinion of Broner doesn't really match anything else they say. If people want to say Broner is a mediocre/bad fighter, then their permission to say that Broner was a good win for Mikey is revoked. Beating a "mediocre" is not a "good" win. Beating a mediocre fighter is a mediocre win.

    But people say it's his best win??? LOL what?

    It IS, but then they say he's bad/mediocre, you see where i'm going with this? It just makes no sense.

    Comment


    • #22
      He was a beast at 130 and looked very good at 135 but once he moved up to 147/140 and lost his weight advantage he's been looking quite mediocre. He was lucky to get a W against an over the hill Pauile M. At 140/147 Broner is a solid fighter not elite.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by -Kev- View Post
        I just find it bizarre that people want it both ways. They want to say how great Mikey is for winning, but they also want to say how bad of a fighter Broner is...like almost taking the credit away right back from Mikey.
        That's the internet for you. They wouldn't dare say that in front of Broner.

        Comment


        • #24
          He clearly has talent. But there's a disconnect some where. Someone with his speed and power shouldn't be throwing so few punches consistently. When he lets his hands go, good things happen, but he refuses. I'm not sure if it's a stamina thing or what. But his boxing IQ really isn't all that good

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by SlySlickSmooth View Post
            He's about two steps or so below the top guys at Light Welterweight and Welterweight. I'll use Andre Berto as a benchmark and say he's better than Berto.

            I'd group him in the same level as Jessie Vargas, Lamont Peterson, Brandon Rios, and Lucas Matthysse right now.

            The guys above this group in skill level would be Kell Brook, Terence Crawford, Errol Spence, Danny Garcia, And Keith Thurman.

            Broner should fight Omar Figueroa, Lucas Matthysse, Kell Brook, or Danny Garcia. Humberto Soto and Jeff Horn are also good options.
            See, this makes sense.

            I think Broner, Matthysse, DSGarcia, Vargas are good fighters, not elite, but good. They would lose to the elites. I think Broner vs any of those guys would be a toss up.

            Comment


            • #26
              If you want to get technical, Broner was in VERY close fights with Maliggnaggi, Granados and Ponce De Leon... On top of taking L's to Porter, Maidana and Garcia.

              If Broner wasn't supposed to be the next FMJ because of his words and style, would he have gotten all this push?

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by krazyn8tive View Post
                I meant to hit mediocre. Wtf dude? Anyways, broner is flashy and this fight proves his "4 division champion" bull**** is nonsense
                So this was a mediocre win for Mikey then? It's only fair. I don't think a win should be called 'good' when the fighter was mediocre. The performance can be called good/great? sure. List Broner as a good win? Huh? That's being inconsistent.

                "Yeah Mikey is great for that win over Broner, he really showed he's elite...and oh yeah, one more thing, Broner sucks!"

                Comment


                • #28
                  I give mikey a lot of credit for dominating Broner. I wouldn't give him much credit if he simply edged a close one with Broner. I think that sums up how I feel about Broner. Good fighter with some nice tools but not special and pretty dumb in the ring when it comes to making adjustments.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Btw the whole point of this thread is just to show that boxing sucks, and that the sport will always be behind the other top sports in America. Because of this very same "problem" with Mikey Garcia vs Adrien Broner, two top names signed up to fight eachother, the winner gets praised for beating his opponent, who btw is 'mediocre', BUT, the win is still 'one of his best'. Stupidity at its finest. Sorry, but it's true.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by -Kev- View Post
                      He was once top 10 P4P after crushing the 130 division.

                      Also, what else makes people say Broner is bad is that he lost to Porter and Maidana. But didn't Maidana almost beat Floyd (close) in the first fight? Didn't Maidana destroy an undefeated Victor Ortiz? Porter himself is good, but not elite.

                      All i'm saying is that people's opinion of Broner doesn't really match anything else they say. If people want to say Broner is a mediocre/bad fighter, then their permission to say that Broner was a good win for Mikey is revoked. Beating a "mediocre" is not a "good" win. Beating a mediocre fighter is a mediocre win.

                      But people say it's his best win??? LOL what?

                      It IS, but then they say he's bad/mediocre, you see where i'm going with this? It just makes no sense.
                      Yeah that's why I can't pick mediocre either not in good continence because he doesn't fit that, especially the" loosing to any top 10 fighter in any weight class" part. I don't believe that, but I can't pick the good option either based on that description you gave of a "good" fighter right now.

                      Because question as I read it it's asking where Adrien Broner IS right now at this moment in time, is he good elite mediocre or bad?. So taking that into account not his past, then I don't see him as elite, or good boxer right now by your standards (by mine I would say he is good) because that good requirement you put up there is really high, cracking the top 10 P4P of boxing right now ain't no joke, if you accomplish that you're probably better than just good.

                      That's why I said the requirement for "good" in this poll it's too demanding there should be another label on the "good" description maybe "great" then have a "good" option with less demanding requirements which is where I would put him right now in this moment in time. But that's just my opinion.
                      Last edited by DannYankee; 07-30-2017, 12:58 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP