Brett Rogers a better boxer than Shane Carwin - PROOF INSIDE

[monaroCountry]

Brett Rogers is a bigger hitter than Carwin. If Shane can frighten Brock with his punches, imagine what Brett Rogers can do. I think Brett would actually have a very good chance of winning against the punch shy Brock Lesnar.

Brett Rogers prior to Fedor - June 6 2009
Win: 10–0
KO (Punches): 6
TKO (Knees/Punches): 3
Submission (Punches): 1

Shane Carwin at the same time - March 7, 2009
Win: 11–0
KO (Punches): 3
TKO (Knees/Punches): 3
Submission: 5

[K-Yo]

Carwin would probably break Rogers' face, are you mad.

Carwin would probably even starch Overeem, like the 205 pounders did back in the day.

**** outta here

['Sugar' Freddi]

This is probably a joke.

[monaroCountry]

Carwin would probably even starch Overeem, like the 205 pounders did back in the day.

**** outta here

This is the biggest baddest boxer in the UFC............if I didnt know Shane, I would have thought that the guy holding the mitts was the fighter, he seems to be doing most of the work in their workout. Its funny that Carwin started gassing from this simple and short workout.

CARWIN




OVEREEM

[Pelencho]

i dont think ANYONE is calling carwin the best boxer by a long shot. there are many, many better boxers than him in the ufc. what they are saying is he is the hardest hitter in the ufc. that is almost surely true. he has a short window to land his punches, after that he is done. the lesnar fight showed that. as for pure boxing, he isnt gifted

[monaroCountry]

i dont think ANYONE is calling carwin the best boxer by a long shot. there are many, many better boxers than him in the ufc. what they are saying is he is the hardest hitter in the ufc. that is almost surely true. he has a short window to land his punches, after that he is done. the lesnar fight showed that. as for pure boxing, he isnt gifted

Swining your arms around hardly constitutes one as a hard puncher.........as proven by my post, Brett rogers is arguably a harder puncher.

[$Bullsfam$]

That's some stupid ass logic.

BUT REGARDLESS IT'S TRUE! Rogers is a better boxer then Carwin. He has more skill. Carwin just has more power even though Rogers is one of the hardest hitters in the world.
:weed4:

[Drunken Cat]

Carwin is a wrestler who has adapted to boxing. For Rogers, striking is his bread and butter and what got him to where he is. This does not of course automatically mean he is the better striker, but I do believe it to be the case the Rogers in fact is the superior fighter on the feet. Carwin's boxing is very impressive, particularly in regards to his progression, but his boxing is being overrated. His boxing has essentially consisted of the 1-2, and to which he has more recently added a left uppercut. He also showed impressive handspeed for his size when he had Mir trapped against the fence. This is perhaps simplifying things a little bit, but that is basically what he has shown. Rogers on the otherhand has shown a stiff jab, which he used to bust open Fedor's nose at the start of their fight, and left hooks, which he used to KO Arlovski. Rogers also has better footwork than Carwin, even though he showed plenty of room for improvement in allowing himself to get timed by Fedor. Fedor said himself that he timed him off of his footwork, and if you watch the fight, basically Rogers steps into a left, and Fedor times it with a right overhand.

As for power, both guys are clearly concussive punchers. I think its sort of a moot argument really, and short of setting up a bag to measure ppsi and comparing their power that way, I don't see how one could make a sufficiently strong case one way or the other.

[K-Yo]

I stand by my previous statement.

Carwin would break Rogers' face, better boxer or no better boxer