Tweet
According to the displayed punch stats, Thurman outlanded Manny almost 2-1.
First of all, anyone who watched that fight in a high definition knows there's no damn way Manny didn't land more than Thurman. In Rounds 1-5 alone, where the bulk of Manny's offense occurred, punches WERE connecting to the body on Thurman that weren't being counted. Manny was alternating shots upstairs and downstairs and Thurman wasn't fast enough to block many of those shots.
But let's say for argument's sake that Thurman did outland Manny. You can't have watched Rounds 1-5 and tell me that Thurman clearly won any of those rounds. Then you add him getting knocked down (which makes it a 10-8 round) and you automatically have AT MINIMUM a draw unless Thurman got a KD or KO on Manny, neither of which happened.
Now, I can accept if you gave Thurman Round 5. It was half and half with Thurman winning the first half clearly. So it comes down to effectiveness. The problem with that is, Thurman kept overreacting to every shot Manny threw at him and started getting walked down. That plus the shots Manny landed made him look like the ring general when you compare that against Thurman's offense.
Outside of that Round 10 was the clincher, because of how Thurman reacted and ran due to the body shot that froze him despite having really good work otherwise.
So you need to ask yourself the next time you just say "Fighter A landed more". Can you seriously look yourself in the mirror and say that Manny was more hurt ROUND BY ROUND than Keith Thurman? Who got dropped, who got bodied, who got chin checked repeatedly, etc.
I'm actually okay with thinking Manny won vs Keith or vice versa because some rounds were close. But the punch STATS had nothing to do with the win. Overall quality of offense is what won the fight - and in my eyes, Manny had it JUST BARELY, but had Keith not gotten knocked down, I saw a draw easily.
First of all, anyone who watched that fight in a high definition knows there's no damn way Manny didn't land more than Thurman. In Rounds 1-5 alone, where the bulk of Manny's offense occurred, punches WERE connecting to the body on Thurman that weren't being counted. Manny was alternating shots upstairs and downstairs and Thurman wasn't fast enough to block many of those shots.
But let's say for argument's sake that Thurman did outland Manny. You can't have watched Rounds 1-5 and tell me that Thurman clearly won any of those rounds. Then you add him getting knocked down (which makes it a 10-8 round) and you automatically have AT MINIMUM a draw unless Thurman got a KD or KO on Manny, neither of which happened.
Now, I can accept if you gave Thurman Round 5. It was half and half with Thurman winning the first half clearly. So it comes down to effectiveness. The problem with that is, Thurman kept overreacting to every shot Manny threw at him and started getting walked down. That plus the shots Manny landed made him look like the ring general when you compare that against Thurman's offense.
Outside of that Round 10 was the clincher, because of how Thurman reacted and ran due to the body shot that froze him despite having really good work otherwise.
So you need to ask yourself the next time you just say "Fighter A landed more". Can you seriously look yourself in the mirror and say that Manny was more hurt ROUND BY ROUND than Keith Thurman? Who got dropped, who got bodied, who got chin checked repeatedly, etc.
I'm actually okay with thinking Manny won vs Keith or vice versa because some rounds were close. But the punch STATS had nothing to do with the win. Overall quality of offense is what won the fight - and in my eyes, Manny had it JUST BARELY, but had Keith not gotten knocked down, I saw a draw easily.
Comment