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

[Kannabis Kid]

Good win for Lawson but lets not get carried away people are making it seem like he beat down a world class champion when he really just got a good punch on an inexperienced kid who was winning the fight up until that point. The first time I saw the Barrientes twins they didn't look overly impressive I had heard stories and seen interviews how they had been used for sparring by some high level boxers but that's about it nothing stood out that made me think these guys are the truth. Angel is still young maybe he can comeback but he needs to stop pulling back with his head straight up and hands down I don't understand why these tall fighters for their weight classes fight small on the inside if he would've just used his jab he could've had this guy on the outside the entire time.

[richardt]

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.

True - Like Freddie Pendleton, a fighter better than his record, there are upsets....but many of those are exceptions to the rule, not the rule. What I am very certain of is that if every fighter who was undefeated with a 12-0 to 22-0 fought guys who were 12-5-2 and 10-3-1 and the money was even, I would be one rich mutha ***a betting on the favorite who almost always wins. Boxing live shows are filled with too damn many setups against hapless competition as a vanity show to pump sunshine up the ass of the favorite where 95-100% of the time we know who is going to win and and even how they will win and/or who will be protected in a close fight, and that's not the exception, that's the rule. For every 10 of the type of matchups where the 12-0 fighter bowls over the 11-3-1 opponent with a first or second round KO, there is one fight in 10 where the 11-3-1 fighter wins. Which is what I've seen in many GBP and TR fight cards filled with massive setups and mismatches. To a lessor extent ShowBox because I've seen solid matchup with many evenly matched fights, unlike the TR and GBP cards where they are just vanity showcases. Sick and tired of all the showcase fights where the same fighter is showcased countless times....how many ***ing times do they need to showcase a fighter before that fighter fights a threat? Gets old fast.

[Combat Talk Radio]

True - Like Freddie Pendleton, a fighter better than his record, there are upsets....but many of those are exceptions to the rule, not the rule. What I am very certain of is that if every fighter who was undefeated with a 12-0 to 22-0 fought guys who were 12-5-2 and 10-3-1 and the money was even, I would be one rich mutha ***a betting on the favorite who almost always wins. Boxing live shows are filled with too damn many setups where 95-100% of the time we know who is going to win and/or who will be protected in a close fight, and that's not the exception, that's the rule. For every 10 of the type of matchups where the 12-0 fighter bowls over the 11-3-1 opponent with a first or second round KO, there is one fight in 10 where the 11-3-1 fighter wins.

I think it depends on the fighter.

With guys like Broner, we can pretty much bank on him losing. Not because of skill, but because he refuses to throw punches.

Guys like Chavez Jr, I mean he just won his last fight after losing the one prior. So you just don't know.

If it's a young guy going against old? You still can't stay it confidently....Loma vs. Lopez, Rios vs. Soto, etc.

Counting against ALL fights? Sure, but UFC does the same thing if you think about it. It's the name of the game.

[richardt]

I think it depends on the fighter.

With guys like Broner, we can pretty much bank on him losing. Not because of skill, but because he refuses to throw punches.

Guys like Chavez Jr, I mean he just won his last fight after losing the one prior. So you just don't know.

If it's a young guy going against old? You still can't stay it confidently....Loma vs. Lopez, Rios vs. Soto, etc.

Counting against ALL fights? Sure, but UFC does the same thing if you think about it. It's the name of the game.

What I appreciate most are cards like the one on January 23rd where there are 6 fighters and a single loss between them. Granted, some may turn out to not be competitive, but the whole card is filled not with fighters who are no-hopers or complete setups or you know are there just for a payday. Can stand only so many showcase fights and after a prospect is protected for a number of fights, you want to see how they will do against another prospect, another fighter who has just as much to lose putting it all on the line, unlike fighters who are used to losing like some 10-3-1 scrub who is put into a non-competitive fight, just to get blown out.

[Combat Talk Radio]

What I appreciate most are cards like the one on January 23rd where there are 6 fighters and a single loss between them. Granted, some may turn out to not be competitive, but the whole card is filled not with fighters who are no-hopers or complete setups or you know are there just for a payday. Can stand only so many showcase fights and after a prospect is protected for a number of fights, you want to see how they will do against another prospect, another fighter who has just as much to lose putting it all on the line, unlike fighters who are used to losing like some 10-3-1 scrub who is put into a non-competitive fight, just to get blown out.

Ok - but you're going to get Spence/Mikey situations where you still get a blowout despite like record. That's my point.

[richardt]

Ok - but you're going to get Spence/Mikey situations where you still get a blowout despite like record. That's my point.

True, no doubt.