Post: #1326

(09-17-2017 04:23 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  It was close, but under no circumstance did GGG lose this fight. 115-113 was on the money.

I watched the fight alone, had the volume turned off, and was impartial about who I wanted. My feeling was identical...GGG getting the slight nod.

Post: #1327

Imagine having to go home to that everyday. Anyways won't go into the politics of boxing or whatever conspiracy there may be. It was a good fight and I enjoyed it, it lived up to the hype which is why it's more a shame it turned out the way it did. I don't have a problem with the draw, however I feel GGG did enough to get the win. Curious to see if there will be an immediate rematch or if Canelo will wait till Golovkin gets even older. I still think Joshua Klitschko was FOTY and excited for Loma vs Rigondeaux.

Post: #1328

Backlash got pretty fierce so the commish is making her go sit her ass down somewhere

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/controversi...28784.html

But the damage has been done

Post: #1329

(09-19-2017 08:01 AM)MY DETROIT PLAYAS Wrote:  Backlash got pretty fierce so the commish is making her go sit her ass down somewhere

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/controversi...28784.html

But the damage has been done

Gender equality wins again, which is bad news for boxing fans. There was no way Canelo won that in a landslide. A point at best. But no way by 8 points.

Post: #1330

(09-17-2017 01:31 PM)Kieran Wrote:  After seeing this do the GGG fans still think he beats Ward? Not a chance. He was right when he admitted he wasn't ready for Ward, and he never will be.

GGG v Ward is the kind of hypothetical match up often talked about by armchair fans without due consideration being given to circumstances and timing. These situations are fluid and circumstances change.

Ward is now the younger, fresher, (much) bigger man. He is P4P no1 and would rightly be classed as favourite. 2 weight classes in boxing is a huge leap for any fighter to expect to make and prevail, especially against elite competition.

This match up is now much more lop sided than if it had been made 2-3 years ago when GGG was on a tear, in his early thirties and Ward was only one weight class higher and coming off a long lay off.

Timing is everything with these type of fights and has a huge bearing on reasonable expected outcome.

GGG v Ward now is not the same as GGG v Ward 3 years ago. No man beats old father time.

Post: #1331

A two year age gap isn't really that much though is it. The fight could have happened, and the Golovkin camp were using Ward's name all over the place to try and build up their fighter, but they knew he didn't have a chance (he's even on tape admitting that he's not ready for Ward at that time). And when he was on that tear, they wouldn't even take Lara; what was it they said when people were talking about Lara - his next fight would be a slick southpaw with a cuban style, and then it was some bum Willie Monroe Jr. People here believed the hype - he's a solid fighter with great power, but he's short of that real top tier level.

Post: #1332

Curious to see what's next for Ward since he's settled the score convincingly with Kovalev

Does he continue to climb in weight? Stay put and clean out another weight class or retire?

Post: #1333

(09-20-2017 10:15 AM)MY DETROIT PLAYAS Wrote:  Curious to see what's next for Ward since he's settled the score convincingly with Kovalev

Does he continue to climb in weight? Stay put and clean out another weight class or retire?

Fighting Adonis Stevenson would be the logical choice, and that fight would sell well in Montreal.

However, negotiations with Stevenson are always difficult. Stevenson always had a good excuse to avoid fighting the best (Kovalev, a younger Hopkins, and Pascal all tried, but it never worked out).

Ward mentioned going up in the cruiserweight division. The step-up between 175 to 200 pounds is huge, so it would be difficult. He could beat some guys in that division, but there's no way he could beat the elite (Oleksandr Usyk is a beast)!

Post: #1334

(09-20-2017 12:20 AM)Kieran Wrote:  A two year age gap isn't really that much though is it. The fight could have happened, and the Golovkin camp were using Ward's name all over the place to try and build up their fighter, but they knew he didn't have a chance (he's even on tape admitting that he's not ready for Ward at that time). And when he was on that tear, they wouldn't even take Lara; what was it they said when people were talking about Lara - his next fight would be a slick southpaw with a cuban style, and then it was some bum Willie Monroe Jr. People here believed the hype - he's a solid fighter with great power, but he's short of that real top tier level.

When Joe Calzhage beat Roy Jones (convincingly at that) there was a three year age difference. Yet the boxing "experts" quickly dismissed the fight as irrelevant because of the age difference. If Calzhage's victory "didn't count" against Jones, then why would Andre Ward's count against GGG? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

People have bias when it comes to boxing. Usually, it stems from culture, race, etc. So they are quick to grant favor to a boxer that is one of "their own," while simultaneously discrediting a fighter that is not part of their tribe.

Thus, the mythical "in their prime" argument arises - something that could never be proven quantitatively. It's like saying that the 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers would have demolished the 1984 Chicago Bears. Ok, perhaps...but it's impossible to know. So why not just give both teams credit for being dominant in their era?

Some of this amounts to verbal entertainment (i.e. playing the "what if?" game). It makes for good TV or internet commentary, I suppose. But there is another element that seeks to discredit the work of a worthy athlete in the name of personal bias.

Post: #1335

And just like that...Ward retires

http://www.bbc.com/sport/boxing/41353529

Post: #1336

He seems like a guy who's invested his money well and has nothing left to prove. The fact that we have a slew of fighters retiring hopefully highlights the fact that guys are being wise with their savings. Ward appears to have a good family and young kids retiring in your early 30's is a smart move, and I don't see him coming back out of boredom.

Good for him

Post: #1337

(09-21-2017 09:41 AM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 12:20 AM)Kieran Wrote:  A two year age gap isn't really that much though is it. The fight could have happened, and the Golovkin camp were using Ward's name all over the place to try and build up their fighter, but they knew he didn't have a chance (he's even on tape admitting that he's not ready for Ward at that time). And when he was on that tear, they wouldn't even take Lara; what was it they said when people were talking about Lara - his next fight would be a slick southpaw with a cuban style, and then it was some bum Willie Monroe Jr. People here believed the hype - he's a solid fighter with great power, but he's short of that real top tier level.

When Joe Calzhage beat Roy Jones (convincingly at that) there was a three year age difference. Yet the boxing "experts" quickly dismissed the fight as irrelevant because of the age difference. If Calzhage's victory "didn't count" against Jones, then why would Andre Ward's count against GGG? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

People have bias when it comes to boxing. Usually, it stems from culture, race, etc. So they are quick to grant favor to a boxer that is one of "their own," while simultaneously discrediting a fighter that is not part of their tribe.

Thus, the mythical "in their prime" argument arises - something that could never be proven quantitatively. It's like saying that the 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers would have demolished the 1984 Chicago Bears. Ok, perhaps...but it's impossible to know. So why not just give both teams credit for being dominant in their era?

Some of this amounts to verbal entertainment (i.e. playing the "what if?" game). It makes for good TV or internet commentary, I suppose. But there is another element that seeks to discredit the work of a worthy athlete in the name of personal bias.

Everyone knew Roy Jones was finished by that time, Golovkin isn't anything like that. Anyway he admitted himself on tape that Ward was too much for him, even though the idiots around him were running their mouths dropping Wards name all over the place (and yet behind the scenes they didn't want any part of that fight because they were too busy fighting the likes of Monroe Jr - lol).

Golovkin is good, but if he can't beat Alvarez convincingly (who is himself a De La Hoya hype job - let's be honest he's good not great), then it's pretty clear that he's just a good fighter in a weak division, and certainly not worthy of the kind of hype that he's been getting.

Post: #1338

George Foreman challenges Steven Seagal:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/more-spor...&ocid=iehp

Quote:“Steven Seagal, I challenge you one on one, I use boxing you can use whatever. 10 rounds in Vegas.”

When quizzed by readers on the fighting options open to the Under Siege star, Foreman clarified there would be ‘no weapons’ and only ‘hand to hand’ combat.

I'm not sure what sparked this challenge but George Foreman was one of the most powerful men I have ever seen in the ring. Being close to 70, he obviously doesn't doesn't have the same power that he once had but his hands still look like bricks.

Just think about the hype and money a celebrity fight would bring in. Mayweather and McGregor each made over 100 million.

I remember when Joe Rogan discussed a potential fight with Wesley Snipes. Two well known celebrity martial artists fighting would be a huge draw.

Post: #1339

(09-21-2017 03:06 PM)Kieran Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:41 AM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 12:20 AM)Kieran Wrote:  A two year age gap isn't really that much though is it. The fight could have happened, and the Golovkin camp were using Ward's name all over the place to try and build up their fighter, but they knew he didn't have a chance (he's even on tape admitting that he's not ready for Ward at that time). And when he was on that tear, they wouldn't even take Lara; what was it they said when people were talking about Lara - his next fight would be a slick southpaw with a cuban style, and then it was some bum Willie Monroe Jr. People here believed the hype - he's a solid fighter with great power, but he's short of that real top tier level.

When Joe Calzhage beat Roy Jones (convincingly at that) there was a three year age difference. Yet the boxing "experts" quickly dismissed the fight as irrelevant because of the age difference. If Calzhage's victory "didn't count" against Jones, then why would Andre Ward's count against GGG? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

People have bias when it comes to boxing. Usually, it stems from culture, race, etc. So they are quick to grant favor to a boxer that is one of "their own," while simultaneously discrediting a fighter that is not part of their tribe.

Thus, the mythical "in their prime" argument arises - something that could never be proven quantitatively. It's like saying that the 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers would have demolished the 1984 Chicago Bears. Ok, perhaps...but it's impossible to know. So why not just give both teams credit for being dominant in their era?

Some of this amounts to verbal entertainment (i.e. playing the "what if?" game). It makes for good TV or internet commentary, I suppose. But there is another element that seeks to discredit the work of a worthy athlete in the name of personal bias.

Everyone knew Roy Jones was finished by that time, Golovkin isn't anything like that. Anyway he admitted himself on tape that Ward was too much for him, even though the idiots around him were running their mouths dropping Wards name all over the place (and yet behind the scenes they didn't want any part of that fight because they were too busy fighting the likes of Monroe Jr - lol).

Golovkin is good, but if he can't beat Alvarez convincingly (who is himself a De La Hoya hype job - let's be honest he's good not great), then it's pretty clear that he's just a good fighter in a weak division, and certainly not worthy of the kind of hype that he's been getting.

I find this interesting, can you elaborate more on this? I notice that there is something off about Canelo. Everytime I see him box it almost feels like its not convincing the way he wins if you get my drift. It feels like something is missing from him. I never come out "wowed" after his fights.

Could be the reason why Canelo is not really loved 100% by the Mexican fans who are notorious for supporting their Mexican fighters to the teeth. In Canelo's fight against Chavez Jr., there was more Mexican fans rooting for Chavez Jr. then for Canelo. Now that's a shocker.

Could be De La Hoya is just hyping up this guy for money.

Post: #1340

(10-05-2017 10:03 PM)Cortez Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 03:06 PM)Kieran Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:41 AM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 12:20 AM)Kieran Wrote:  A two year age gap isn't really that much though is it. The fight could have happened, and the Golovkin camp were using Ward's name all over the place to try and build up their fighter, but they knew he didn't have a chance (he's even on tape admitting that he's not ready for Ward at that time). And when he was on that tear, they wouldn't even take Lara; what was it they said when people were talking about Lara - his next fight would be a slick southpaw with a cuban style, and then it was some bum Willie Monroe Jr. People here believed the hype - he's a solid fighter with great power, but he's short of that real top tier level.

When Joe Calzhage beat Roy Jones (convincingly at that) there was a three year age difference. Yet the boxing "experts" quickly dismissed the fight as irrelevant because of the age difference. If Calzhage's victory "didn't count" against Jones, then why would Andre Ward's count against GGG? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

People have bias when it comes to boxing. Usually, it stems from culture, race, etc. So they are quick to grant favor to a boxer that is one of "their own," while simultaneously discrediting a fighter that is not part of their tribe.

Thus, the mythical "in their prime" argument arises - something that could never be proven quantitatively. It's like saying that the 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers would have demolished the 1984 Chicago Bears. Ok, perhaps...but it's impossible to know. So why not just give both teams credit for being dominant in their era?

Some of this amounts to verbal entertainment (i.e. playing the "what if?" game). It makes for good TV or internet commentary, I suppose. But there is another element that seeks to discredit the work of a worthy athlete in the name of personal bias.

Everyone knew Roy Jones was finished by that time, Golovkin isn't anything like that. Anyway he admitted himself on tape that Ward was too much for him, even though the idiots around him were running their mouths dropping Wards name all over the place (and yet behind the scenes they didn't want any part of that fight because they were too busy fighting the likes of Monroe Jr - lol).

Golovkin is good, but if he can't beat Alvarez convincingly (who is himself a De La Hoya hype job - let's be honest he's good not great), then it's pretty clear that he's just a good fighter in a weak division, and certainly not worthy of the kind of hype that he's been getting.

I find this interesting, can you elaborate more on this? I notice that there is something off about Canelo. Everytime I see him box it almost feels like its not convincing the way he wins if you get my drift. It feels like something is missing from him. I never come out "wowed" after his fights.

Could be the reason why Canelo is not really loved 100% by the Mexican fans who are notorious for supporting their Mexican fighters to the teeth. In Canelo's fight against Chavez Jr., there was more Mexican fans rooting for Chavez Jr. then for Canelo. Now that's a shocker.

Could be De La Hoya is just hyping up this guy for money.

I feel the opposite, i think he has gotten better over time and the GGG fight was the first fight he truly impressed me. He slipped a lot of punches (think it's easy? You try it) and he took some shots flush from Golovkin, which only a much larger Danny Jacobs has done to date.

As for Mexican fans...they buy his fights like their is no tomorrow, so i'm not sure you can say they are lukewarm on him. I do think they would rather he fight in a brawling, traditional Mexican style, but that's not where his skills are.

Post: #1341

I've been slacking on updating this thread but we got a great fight ahead this weekend: Lomachenko Vs. Rigondeaux

I like both fighters but if I had to choose my money would be on Lomachenko.

Here's a few highlights and analysis:










What do you guys think?

Post: #1342

Hopefully there's an international stream for this. It was easy to watch the GGG vs Canelo fight for free on Mexican local TV, but this might be more of a challenge.

Post: #1343

Rolling all of my winnings from Mayweather and Joshua into this fight for Loma... unfortunately got in at -480 a while back but might throw some more at it at -350. My thoughts: Lomachenko has all the advantages - he's younger, he's 2 weight classes higher and has some of the craziest footwork I've ever seen. Hand speed is no joke too and he can box orthodox and southpaw. No disrespect to Rigondeaux, but smart money (hopefully mine) is on Loma.

Still unsure how to play the rounds and decision/no decision bets...

Post: #1344

dupe

Post: #1345

We have 2 Gold medalists fighting one another, we've never seen this before, and might never see it again in our lifetime. This will be an amazing event for boxing purists who love technical fights.

I'm also favoring Lomachenko, by decision (116-112), the post from booshala sums up why Lomachenko should win this one.

Also, I always ask myself this question before a big fight : which boxer does the network/promoter want to win? Which boxer will bring them the most money in the future? We all know the boxing networks don't like Rigondeaux, his fight against Agbeko was a fiasco (half the crowd left during the fight). So if it's a close fight, Lomachenko will probably be favored.

Post: #1346

Where the hell is Merenguero? We need his take on fights. This has been a solid year for boxing except for that horrible old lady judge in the GGG/Canelo fight. I can't wait for this Lomachencko/Rigondeaux fight.

Post: #1347

(12-08-2017 11:18 AM)Chowder Head Wrote:  Where the hell is Merenguero? We need his take on fights. This has been a solid year for boxing except for that horrible old lady judge in the GGG/Canelo fight. I can't wait for this Lomachencko/Rigondeaux fight.

I cannot wait to see this fight. I don't bet though so I cannot drop insights on that.

Post: #1348

(12-08-2017 11:18 AM)Chowder Head Wrote:  Where the hell is Merenguero? We need his take on fights. This has been a solid year for boxing except for that horrible old lady judge in the GGG/Canelo fight. I can't wait for this Lomachencko/Rigondeaux fight.

He works in the industry now so doesn't post anymore.

Post: #1349

Yeah I reckon Loma gets this one too but it's gonna be great to see two such skilled boxers match up.

Post: #1350

Conlan looked very sharp tonight. I was impressed.