Is 'Broner 2.0' supposed to mean the biggest failure in boxing? The definition of it? What is it? I don't get it. Please explain to me.
I'm not interested in boxers' private lives or social media, so spare yourself that time. This is not about gossip, this is a tough man's sport, so stick to talking boxing.
I made the post below in another thread. What do you think about this issue?
__________________________________________________ ___________
The ones who compare Davis to Broner want him to fail so badly. Why? Why even 'Broner 2.0' as if that's supposed to be the accepted definition of the biggest failure in boxing? Is it? The guy was a good fighter, and that's it. Broner might have overachieved, IMO, in comparison to his skills and natural talents. Davis has more skills and talent.
Broner was a B or B- in his best days. He was hyped to the roof without the skills and natural talents to match it. (Something I suspect is the case with Wilder.) I think his best win was DeMarco. He looked good in that fight after figuring DeMarco out. That's the best Broner has ever looked. It was an entertaining fight. After that, I didn't pay much attention.
If you are a boxing fan and can't see that Davis is a special fighter, you may wanna watch his fights or highlights again. I'm not saying he's fought any special competition so far, but the potential is right there, unless he ****s with it.
So, no, Davis is none like Broner IN THE RING! He also ain't an imitator. He has his own style, unlike Broner, who has no personality in the ring. Floyd imitations didn't work well!
Give Davis a chance, at least a couple of years to try to do something great. If he proves to be a 'bum,' I'll agree with you.
Skill for skill, Davis>Broner.
I'm not interested in boxers' private lives or social media, so spare yourself that time. This is not about gossip, this is a tough man's sport, so stick to talking boxing.
I made the post below in another thread. What do you think about this issue?
__________________________________________________ ___________
The ones who compare Davis to Broner want him to fail so badly. Why? Why even 'Broner 2.0' as if that's supposed to be the accepted definition of the biggest failure in boxing? Is it? The guy was a good fighter, and that's it. Broner might have overachieved, IMO, in comparison to his skills and natural talents. Davis has more skills and talent.
Broner was a B or B- in his best days. He was hyped to the roof without the skills and natural talents to match it. (Something I suspect is the case with Wilder.) I think his best win was DeMarco. He looked good in that fight after figuring DeMarco out. That's the best Broner has ever looked. It was an entertaining fight. After that, I didn't pay much attention.
If you are a boxing fan and can't see that Davis is a special fighter, you may wanna watch his fights or highlights again. I'm not saying he's fought any special competition so far, but the potential is right there, unless he ****s with it.
So, no, Davis is none like Broner IN THE RING! He also ain't an imitator. He has his own style, unlike Broner, who has no personality in the ring. Floyd imitations didn't work well!
Give Davis a chance, at least a couple of years to try to do something great. If he proves to be a 'bum,' I'll agree with you.
Skill for skill, Davis>Broner.
Comment