Originally posted by Robbie Barrett
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Rigo was too small... period.
Collapse
-
-
-
Originally posted by Ganstaz003 View PostThat would be a valid argument if Lomachenko was walking right through Rigo's punches (like how GGG did against kell Brook in some of the rounds during their bout) without using any active responsible defense. That wasn't the case however! Lomachenko didn't rely on his greater punch resistance that comes from being heavier to beat Rigo. He boxed Rigondeaux exactly how he would've boxed against a similar sized opponent by hitting and not getting hit.
He also didn't make use of his greater potential punching power that comes from being the heavier man by landing constant heavy punches. He was mainly tapping Rigo (appeared like a conscious decision by Loma for not wanting to hurt Rigo much). A heavier man is most likely to have greater punching power than a lighter man if both throw their most powerful punches. However, a heavier boxer can also make an active decision to throw punches with the same power as who might even be a little child.
In summary, Loma didn't rely on punching power, punch resistance or physical strength to beat Rigo (all of which are related to someone using size advantage). Therefore, how can you claim Lomachenko won due to size?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robbie Barrett View PostSo because Rigo wasn't throwing much the confidence that if he was to get hit he could take it is no longer there? WTF are you ******ed?
How can Loma's 'confidence' in his size even be relevant if Lomachenko wasn't even relying on his punch resistance, or his punch power in the first place?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robbie Barrett View PostSo because Rigo wasn't throwing much the confidence that if he was to get hit he could take it is no longer there? WTF are you ******ed?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shape up View PostSo by your thoughts, if rigo throws less punches then he will be hit with less, and your calling other posters ******ed, REALLY
When did i say that?
I'm saying having size advantage gives you confidence to attack the smaller man, knowing that if you were to get hit you will more likely to take it than if you were fighting a bigger man. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robbie Barrett View PostWTF are you talking about you went full ******.
When did i say that?
I'm saying having size advantage gives you confidence to attack the smaller man, knowing that if you were to get hit you will more likely to take it than if you were fighting a bigger man. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robbie Barrett View PostWTF are you talking about you went full ******.
When did i say that?
I'm saying having size advantage gives you confidence to attack the smaller man, knowing that if you were to get hit you will more likely to take it than if you were fighting a bigger man. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
Perhaps he wasn't as 'confident' as you thought he was?
Comment
Comment