Comments Thread For: Travon Lawson Shocks Angel Barrientes, Stops Him in Fourth

[richardt]

The upsets are actually a good thing for boxing, and PBC. It shows that PBC isn't just matching their fighters against with no hope of winning. Giving their boxers an unfair, advantage against hand picked opponents would lead to boring fights, and foregone conclusions. Fighters should be matched evenly, in order to give their fights a more of a sportsmanship like event. If you know which guy's going to win, why tune in/or attend to watch, it would be anticlimactic. There would be no interest, or intrigue provided in such sporting events.

Exactly....and it is easy to tell mismatches...like I mentioned in another post, such as when a 15-0 fighter goes against a 13-5-2 guy or when writers call the opponent "battle tested" to try to sell a guy who has no chance of winning. That one always gets me. Fans at least want to see a 15-0 fighter go against a 13-1 or a 16-0 opponent or at least a 22-2 fighter who has some decent wins like we get at times with ShowBox. I'm tired of 13-5-2 "battle tested" fighters who have no shot at winning.

[richardt]

Speaking of uneven fights, here is the opposite and THIS is what fans want right here below. You have two unbeaten fighters fighting for a title, two unbeaten prospects going at it, and also two guys opening the show and a total of one loss between all 6 fighters. THIS is what boxing fans want! This is guaranteed action! Mark your calendars!

SATURDAY, JAN. 23

Angelo Leo (No. 6) vs. Stephen Fulton (No. 10)
12 rounds – junior featherweights (for Leo’s WBO title)

Vic Pasillas vs. Raeese Aleem
12 rounds – junior featherweights

Rolando Romero vs. Justin Pauldo
12 rounds – lightweights

[therealpugilist]

Tj was my stablemate a long time. Kicked my ass from 2017 till 2020. Gamebredboxing club also has money Powell IV and Brandon Glanton

Yall look out for these prospects

[therealpugilist]

I want to see more of Lawson - I feel good for that guy! He was brought in as scrap meat and he was the one doing the butchering! Bring him back on TV - he earned that right! I'll be pulling for him for every fight. He may be a 4-0 31 year old but he will fight his heart out and is really good actually. It would be great if he could fight every two months and have a decent career when all is said and done. He's clearly a fresh 31 year old.

Didn't start boxing until he was 25


He went open and actually placed in sugar bert and national tourneys with less than 10 fights. Got some robbery losses turned pro a in 2018.

Trained with him at gamebred for 3 years. He is the truth.

Made me a better coach sparring and training beside him


Kid trained like a man possessed

[YoungManRumble]

How I usually tell a setup is when writers call the opponent ridiculous superlatives like "Winner of his last fight", "always comes to fight", "has won 2 in a row", "Better than his record", "only been stopped twice in 10 losses", and the infamous "Battle tested". Or when there is a fighter with a 15-0 record going against a guy with 13-5-2 record. Those brothers and their management were banking on having an easy night with two guys over 30 years old. But the easiest way to tell is when two brothers are fighting on the same card....no way are they going to be put in against equal talents. They want to keep the apple cart rolling.

You know it's a really bad mismatch when they start talking about what these guys do out of the ring as careers and whatnot. Like last night I barely knew anything about Gavronski, but when the commentary started talking about his acting career before the fight, I knew he was going to get destroyed...

[Boricua181]

Small edit to an otherwise perfect reply.

The problem is, how do you measure 'equal'?

Can't go off raw record, many are padded.

Can't go by titles, not everyone has one.

Can't go by 'eye test', you end up with Felix Verdejo situations.

All you can go by is resume: who'd you beat, and who'd that guy beat?

But even that didn't help guys like Michael Spinks who arguably had a better resume than Tyson at the time, yet got obliterated in 1 round.

Sometimes, fighters just don't show up

Those are all great points that you make about my use of the word equal. When I said equal, I should have said fair chance at winning the match. I can't stand mismatches, or bad decision's, mismatches look like mugging/assault, bad decisions are corruption/fraud. These boxers sacrifice to much to be treated like sacrificial lambs, just to pad another's record along the way to success. It was a good thing for boxer's,fan's, and boxing in general to see Trayvon Lawson win his fight against Angel Barrientes. It gives all boxers that spirit of hope, that they can also pull off an upset in their future fights.

[Boricua181]

Yeah but their opponents don't give a damn about their amateur records! What I hate is how some fighters are getting title shots with less than 15 fights, and then others, like Boots Ennis (26-0 w/ 24 KOs) can't even get to mandatory status!

Boots Ennis should be getting a title opportunity in 2021, as long as he keeps winning. The Clamor from the boxing fan's will be to much for the boxing organizations to ignore. That said I don't like it either when a boxer gets a title shot without really earning it. Whether it's because he hasn't won enough fights, or the lack of quality opponents on his records.

[Boricua181]

Exactly....and it is easy to tell mismatches...like I mentioned in another post, such as when a 15-0 fighter goes against a 13-5-2 guy or when writers call the opponent "battle tested" to try to sell a guy who has no chance of winning. That one always gets me. Fans at least want to see a 15-0 fighter go against a 13-1 or a 16-0 opponent or at least a 22-2 fighter who has some decent wins like we get at times with ShowBox. I'm tired of 13-5-2 "battle tested" fighters who have no shot at winning.

I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. We want to see fair fights, not mismatches, or bad decisions which only make boxing look like it's still run by the syndicate/mob.

[richardt]

You know it's a really bad mismatch when they start talking about what these guys do out of the ring as careers and whatnot. Like last night I barely knew anything about Gavronski, but when the commentary started talking about his acting career before the fight, I knew he was going to get destroyed...

Yeah when they start talking about a guy doing acting, crafts, in some cases wanting to return to MMA, other things, it means they are headed for a loss and asap.

[Combat Talk Radio]

Exactly....and it is easy to tell mismatches...like I mentioned in another post, such as when a 15-0 fighter goes against a 13-5-2 guy or when writers call the opponent "battle tested" to try to sell a guy who has no chance of winning. That one always gets me. Fans at least want to see a 15-0 fighter go against a 13-1 or a 16-0 opponent or at least a 22-2 fighter who has some decent wins like we get at times with ShowBox. I'm tired of 13-5-2 "battle tested" fighters who have no shot at winning.

Orlando Salido was 42–12–2 when he beat undefeated Loma, 36–11–2 when he beat undefeated Juanma, 27–9–2 when he exposed then-undefeated Ghost Guerrero (tossed due to drug testing, but he got his hand raised initially), and 17–8–2 when he beat Carlos Gerena (who to that point had only ever lost to the top levels).

Chino had 3 losses before he toppled undefeated Adrien Broner.

Josesito was 36–8 when he damn near stopped undefeated Keef Thurman.

Emmanuel Burton was 22–17–4 when he gave Pretty Boy Floyd all he could handle and almost took him the full distance.

My point: matchmaking is a thing, yes, but the fighter has to show up. On BOTH sides. Sometimes, a fighter with what appears to be a weak record goes for the gold and sometimes a fighter with what appears to be a stellar record doesn't show up.

That's WHY resume is what matters - WHO did you beat and who did they beat, NOT just that you knocked out a bunch of scrubs. It's not just about "two undefeateds" or "both have same # of losses", etc. There's more to it. Their fight history tells a very strong story. Maybe a guy has a substantial number of losses against pure boxers so you match him against a pure boxer; doesn't guarantee a loss (Broner/Maidana).

AT THE TIME, nobody would have called Tyson/Spinks a mismatch. They had the same record and in fact, Spinks had a better resume. If anything it should have leaned to Spinks, but Spinks had recently moved up in weight. That was the wild card; like David Haye, he never should have gone to heavyweight (and he'll tell you that today) or taken that fight.

People called Fury/Wilder a mismatch simply because Fury was drug-addled and fat. Look what happened. They had (basically) the same record. IT didn't matter.

It's more than just matching records. Styles make fights.