# Boxing is a dying art.



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Watching last night Figueroa vs the Japanese . Everyone so excited about this "fight of the year". 
From an entertaining point of view was ok. 2 boxers with no idea of how to move their foot or head. So much unnecessary punishment for what?
I couldn't believe the jap throwing those wild swings and no ducking a single punch. Zero skills( plenty of heart must admit)
Figueroa has a horrible corner, no jab and horrible defense. Why would you encourage a 23 yrs old to get in a slugfest and don't use his reflexes and speed against such a limited fighter?
Fight of the year, wow.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Well...

There's always Vasyl Lomachenko

:deal


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

dyna said:


> Well...
> 
> There's always Vasyl Lomachenko
> 
> :deal


I'm sure lomachenko was cracking up watching this fight last night.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Well...
> 
> There's always Vasyl Lomachenko
> 
> :deal


Vasyl, Rigondeaux, Verdejo will all make up for this lack for any lack of skills in boxing today :deal

Anyway, it's like Omar will leave that boxing match feeling much older, but then again, it will do wonders for his confidence. He has proved to himself that he has grit, a lot of heart, a good chin. Never should he think of doing that again though. The Japanese dude had nothing to lose.


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

I don't think there are many fights of the year which you could use as an example of technical boxing since it's the fight of the year not the technical match of the year I also enjoy fights the most if they are a mixture of a brawl but with technical parts to it but I don't blame anyone who votes for the most violent brawl as the FOTY


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

PivotPunch said:


> I don't think there are many fights of the year which you could use as an example of technical boxing since it's the fight of the year not the technical match of the year I also enjoy fights the most if they are a mixture of a brawl but with technical parts to it but I don't blame anyone who votes for the most violent brawl as the FOTY


The only clinics that I can think of from the top of my head are:
Rigo-Donaire
Golovkin-Macklin
Mayweather-Guerrero
Mikey-Juanma
and I'm too lazy to think of anymore.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

It is not dying but fighters get sloppy and I don't enjoy it as much as others do. There are great gruelling inside fights with Rios-Alvarado that take a lot of skill, and there are fights like this one where the fighters are more concerned with winging arm punches and spend too much of their energy to defend properly.


----------



## sim_reiss (Jun 6, 2012)

It was very low skill as far as I'm concerned. I'd swap a million fights like last night for one Marquez-Pacquiao 4...


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

When a fight of the year is also a technical masterpiece you get something unforgettable; Ali-Frazier, Barrera-Morales, Ruiz-SNV


----------



## DeMarco (Jun 3, 2013)

Castillo v Corrales was technically very good. Brilliant fight.


----------



## Kush (May 24, 2013)

You just mad they'll be back on show time while rigors next fight will be on YouTube


----------



## DirtyDan (May 25, 2013)

Lol at Rigo fighting in ESPN 2 yet he's p4p top 5 and the lineal champ in his division.. :lol:


----------



## DaCrooked (Jun 6, 2013)

I'd like to Broner-Figueroa. See how long Omar can stay up when his opponent can actually punch.


----------



## Rigondeaux (Jun 3, 2013)

It was FOTY material from an excitement standpoint. Great fight. You can't expect a pure boxing match to make it to FOTY...Even i know this.


----------



## Rigondeaux (Jun 3, 2013)

DirtyDan said:


> Lol at Rigo fighting in ESPN 2 yet he's p4p top 5 and the lineal champ in his division.. :lol:


:lol: i can't believe people like you are still bitter. haha


----------



## Juiceboxbiotch (May 16, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> Watching last night Figueroa vs the Japanese . Everyone so excited about this "fight of the year".
> From an entertaining point of view was ok. 2 boxers with no idea of how to move their foot or head. So much unnecessary punishment for what?
> I couldn't believe the jap throwing those wild swings and no ducking a single punch. Zero skills( plenty of heart must admit)
> Figueroa has a horrible corner, no jab and horrible defense. Why would you encourage a 23 yrs old to get in a slugfest and don't use his reflexes and speed against such a limited fighter?
> Fight of the year, wow.


The term "Jap" isn't really a great term to describe Japanese people. Some may actually take it as a derogatory racial term (just in case you didn't already know that). Maybe you should just learn how to spell Nihito Arakawa's name real quick so you don't end up offending his entire Nation lol.


----------



## FloydPatterson (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah, Figueroa is most likely the worst of the 4 title holders at LW, I say its up for grabs between him and burns.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> The term "Jap" isn't really a great term to describe Japanese people. Some may actually take it as a derogatory racial term (just in case you didn't already know that). Maybe you should just learn how to spell Nihito Arakawa's name real quick so you don't end up offending his entire Nation lol.


Whoever is offended can call me cub instead of Cuban. 
Nothing derogatory in my remark, I've lot of respect from the great country of Japan.


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

Juiceboxbiotch said:


> The term "Jap" isn't really a great term to describe Japanese people. Some may actually take it as a derogatory racial term (just in case you didn't already know that). Maybe you should just learn how to spell Nihito Arakawa's name real quick so you don't end up offending his entire Nation lol.


We're used to it.


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

The truly skilled fighters entertain the casuals and the hardcore fans.


----------



## ~Cellzki~ (Jun 3, 2013)

I get what u mean. After about 6 rounds, u start getting tired of watching it. It's like a long ass bar fight..

What I was the most impressed by was the Chinese guy's will and heart.

Fight of the night was Thurman-Chaves for me


----------



## Hook! (Jun 8, 2012)

~Cellzki~ said:


> I get what u mean. After about 6 rounds, u start getting tired of watching it. It's like a long ass bar fight..
> 
> What I was the most impressed by was the Chinese guy's will and heart.
> 
> Fight of the night was Thurman-Chaves for me


Thurman looks quite good doesn't he


----------



## DirtyDan (May 25, 2013)

Rigondeaux said:


> :lol: i can't believe people like you are still bitter. haha


Not sure what you mean, bitter at what? I like Rigo, I enjoy watching his fights.. I mean, I wouldn't miss my senior prom just to watch one of his fights like you did, but I appreciate his skills.. It's just funny that HBO rejected him though.. :lol:


----------



## KOTF (Jun 3, 2013)

rjjfan said:


> We're used to it.


I thought you were British :huh


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> Watching last night Figueroa vs the Japanese . Everyone so excited about this "fight of the year". ....2 boxers with no idea of how to move their foot or head. So much unnecessary punishment for what? .....


Exactly what I was posting during & right after the fight.

I was completely disgusted by the announcers constantly applauding that ugly, skill-less and outright dangerous fight. Calling it a potential FOTY is outright insulting to the sport of boxing.

As I wrote then, I think this shows a new direction from Showtime, looking to specifically look for and glamorize gore and carnage, in order to boost ratings with the casuals. Personally, I think it will have the opposite effect. If all they show are Rios-Alvarado slugfests, viewers might as well watch MMA. O cheap action movies. What's the difference?

- And if the brave Nihito Arakawa (who's corner should be in jail for not throwing in the towel) ends up dying in his next fight, from the first jab that lands on his skull, everyone will cry and moan, and complain about how dangerous the sport is, but nothing will change.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Rigondeaux said:


> It was FOTY material from an excitement standpoint. .


Not even that.

Arakawa had absolutely nothing to offer except a granite chin and a willingness to get destryoed. Sure, he threw a lot of return "punches," but there was nothing on them. After the third round or so, there was not a SINGLE moment when you thought Figueroa could possibly lose. It was actually boring, except for the surreal fascination of wondering how long Arakawa could stay on his feet.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> Exactly what I was posting during & right after the fight.
> 
> I was completely disgusted by the announcers constantly applauding that ugly, skill-less and outright dangerous fight. Calling it a potential FOTY is outright insulting to the sport of boxing.
> 
> ...


Excellent analysis. I'm with you 100%


----------



## poorface (Jun 14, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> It is not dying but fighters get sloppy and I don't enjoy it as much as others do. There are great gruelling inside fights with Rios-Alvarado that take a lot of skill, and there are fights like this one where the fighters are more concerned with winging arm punches and spend too much of their energy to defend properly.


We may have argued about this before, but I have a very hard time regarding Rios-Alvarado as being a strong example of particularly skillful inside fighting. I'd say it was marginally better than last night, but I feel like Rios gets a lot of undeserved credit because what constitutes a skillful inside fighter has been defined downward in recent years due to the paucity of guys truly fitting of that description.


----------



## poorface (Jun 14, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> Exactly what I was posting during & right after the fight.
> 
> I was completely disgusted by the announcers constantly applauding that ugly, skill-less and outright dangerous fight. Calling it a potential FOTY is outright insulting to the sport of boxing.
> 
> ...


I fail to see how this is a trend from Showtime when this fight wasn't projected to be anything like that and HBO is the network that seems myopically focused on creating slugfests and outright refusing to show boxers.


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Fights like those Always existed......neither is going to be a great fighter, I mean, no p4p great in there, so, where is the problem ? I can´t see it...

You have plenty of skilled guys that are sweet scientists, like Rigondeaux, Mayweather, etc....Boxing is in fine shape.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Vic said:


> Fights like those Always existed......neither is going to be a great fighter, I mean, no p4p great in there, so, where is the problem ? I can´t see it...


The problem with it is the announcers oohing and ahhhing, glamorizing the carnage. - and also pretending that that was boxing. It might as well have been two drunken Irishmen.

Heck, put Kimbo Slice in the ring with Tyson Fury's dad, it would probably be a better example of boxing skill.

Come to think of it, that would be an interesting fight......


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Vic said:


> Fights like those Always existed......neither is going to be a great fighter, I mean, no p4p great in there, so, where is the problem ? I can´t see it...
> 
> You have plenty of skilled guys that are sweet scientists, like Rigondeaux, Mayweather, etc....Boxing is in fine shape.


Do you really think is in good shape when one of the guy you mentioned above as an example of skillful is basically banned from TV?


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Kid Cubano said:


> Do you really think is in good shape when one of the guy you mentioned above as an example of skillful is basically banned from TV?


Don´t you find strange that Rigondeaux is banned from TV and Winky Wright was not just a few years ago ? I think there is more in the Rigondeaux situation than we know...


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Vic said:


> Don´t you find strange that Rigondeaux is banned from TV and Winky Wright was not just a few years ago ? I think there is more in the Rigondeaux situation than we know...


Possibly, but you're also arguing for our point here:

A FEW YEARS AGO, Winky was considered marketable. - And a few years ago, Andre Ward was considered one of the new network cash cows. Now Rigo has effectively been banished and Ward is being told who he can & can't fight.

And when's the last time a Klitschko fight was broadcast in the USA?

- And yet the network announcers are falling all over themselves, glorifying crap like Rios-Alvarado & Figueroa Arakawa.

------------------------------------

Soon we'll probably see stuff like "Artur Szpilka 24-7 - The road to PAIN ! "

By 2015, expect to see main PPV undercards include "some guy from the audience" wrestling a bear.

It's a slippery slope, and we're definitely headed down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> Possibly, but you're also arguing for our point here:
> 
> A FEW YEARS AGO, Winky was considered marketable. - And a few years ago, Andre Ward was considered one of the new network cash cows. Now Rigo has effectively been banished and Ward is being told who he can & can't fight.
> 
> ...


:lol:


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> The only clinics that I can think of from the top of my head are:
> Rigo-Donaire
> Golovkin-Macklin
> Mayweather-Guerrero
> ...


Ferguson/Tilyard, mate. Not to embarrass you or anything.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> Not even that.
> 
> Arakawa had absolutely nothing to offer except a granite chin and a willingness to get destryoed. Sure, he threw a lot of return "punches," but there was nothing on them. After the third round or so, there was not a SINGLE moment when you thought Figueroa could possibly lose. It was actually boring, except for the surreal fascination of wondering how long Arakawa could stay on his feet.


Spot on. I was fascinated for the first two or three rounds (coulda been a carryover from the Thurman fight) but bored silly and afraid for Arakawa by the sixth. By midpoint, I honestly was spending more time staring at the computer than looking at the fight.


----------



## Divi253 (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Spot on. I was fascinated for the first two or three rounds (coulda been a carryover from the Thurman fight) but bored silly and afraid for Arakawa by the sixth. By midpoint, I honestly was spending more time staring at the computer than looking at the fight.


:yep I almost completely tuned out the fight after a while, it was only interesting to see how much punishment Arakawa could take without dropping and how much his corner was actually willing to let him take.


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> Whoever is offended can call me cub instead of Cuban.
> Nothing derogatory in my remark, I've lot of respect from the great country of Japan.


ok, but you understand that if you did the same contraction you used to describe a pakistani fighter (which some american commentators have done for khan). you would get mean looks from everybody in the room

cub means nothing
jap has meant and been used as a derogatory word for a long time in the u.s. and the u.k.

you might not of meant it but just so you know.

you might step on shoes you didnt see where there.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> Whoever is offended can call me cub instead of Cuban.
> Nothing derogatory in my remark, I've lot of respect from the great country of Japan.


:lol: Why not just admit that you didn't really know to how to spell Arakawa's name and were too lazy to look it up? Shit, I didn't know how to spell his name either. It's not a crime.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> :lol: Why not just admit that you didn't really know to how to spell Arakawa's name and were too lazy to look it up? Shit, I didn't know how to spell his name either. It's not a crime.


i just got busted:yep


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> Do you really think is in good shape when one of the guy you mentioned above as an example of skillful is basically banned from TV?


I love Rigondeaux and his style, but he isn't exciting or fun to look at. That fight last night was more entertaining than Rigondeaux has ever been. I hate when you "skill" fans try to deride when two guys get in there and give it all they have. I'm kind of glad he's banned from TV and hope Ward is too. It's about excitement and making the fans happy.


----------



## santiagoraga (Jun 4, 2013)

This has been a point of contention for decades, and we've never gotten to the 'death' part. Sounds like you need to expose yourself to more boxing. Arakawa vs. Figueroa was not the general rule of what the sport looks like these days, it was the exception. And brawling isn't reserved for brawlers either. Sometimes the most technical guys in the sport can devolve into a scrap like this. This is a dynamic in boxing. It doesn't mark an end to this or that.


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> I love Rigondeaux and his style, but he isn't exciting or fun to look at. That fight last night was more entertaining than Rigondeaux has ever been. I hate when you "skill" fans try to deride when two guys get in there and give it all they have. I'm kind of glad he's banned from TV and hope Ward is too. It's about excitement and making the fans happy.


One thing these guys don't understand is that without boxers who are willing to slug it out, boxing will die. It's fights like Arkawa/Figueroa that will be remembered, not seeing Rigondeaux evade Donaire's shots all night long. I can see where HBO is coming from. They're having to compete with Showtime, and Rigondeaux will never give them a Morales/Barrera type fight. I'm actually agreeing with you for once.

My dad actually invited his 60+ year old friend to watch "Knock-out Kings" fight-card with us. The dude kept repeating how he's never watched boxing in his life. He came out of the house smiling like crazy, saying how he's never had more fun in his life. Shit, if we were tuned into Rigondeaux/Donaire, he'd have left early and most likely never came back to watch boxing. It was an amazing card, and Showtime is going to get a ton of fans off these wars. Boxing is an entertainment sport, and you guys are forgetting that.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> I love Rigondeaux and his style, but he isn't exciting or fun to look at. That fight last night was more entertaining than Rigondeaux has ever been. I hate when you "skill" fans try to deride when two guys get in there and give it all they have. I'm kind of glad he's banned from TV and hope Ward is too. It's about excitement and making the fans happy.


you love Rigondeaux but youre glad hes banned from TV, It speaks tons about you as a real boxing fan.:-(


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> you love Rigondeaux but youre glad hes banned from TV, It speaks tons about you as a real boxing fan.:-(


What is a "real boxing fan" you bigoted fuck?


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> What is a "real boxing fan" you bigoted fuck?


You're turning into a tough guy now, keyboard warrior.
Go to sleep, summer camp tomorrow .


----------



## Mexican Muscle (May 23, 2013)

Butt hurt Cubans again. Oh hypocrisy at it's finest. You ******* complain about people who attack the more defensive type of boxing, but you attack other styles.

Any true boxing fan knows that every type of style takes a lot of skill to achieve, especially in the professional level. If it were just as one retard put it two Irish drunks fighting then anyone here would be getting some great money and getting exposure on a big network.

That's what's so great about this sport, so many styles and when they clash, no outcome is certain.


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> Possibly, but you're also arguing for our point here:
> 
> A FEW YEARS AGO, Winky was considered marketable. - And a few years ago, Andre Ward was considered one of the new network cash cows. Now Rigo has effectively been banished and Ward is being told who he can & can't fight.
> 
> ...


YES but no

i thought the arakwa-figueroa fight was interesting because whenever there was any distance omar caught him and stunned him. so arkawa had to go close in which sparked off basic plans of attack for figueroa to keep arakwa off him and throw harder blows and to add to that figueroa was looking ragged at points. he also looked like the fuel was evaporating form omars car passed he 5th.

so it had drama to it personally. it's not really the amount of punches thrown it's what each man is trying to do to the other. and i think thats what the commentators should of addressed that this was actually the smartest fight arakwa had to give. if not he would of been beaten round before.

i would make the argument that had casamayor (my favourite fighter and style i liken myself to when i spar) been in a similar position he would of done THE EXACT SAME THING. arakawa wasn't turning his shots over because he was arm punching and not REALLY there to hurt him with big punches just let himself the younger eager man tire out. he starting throwing with more authority later on but omar had enough in the tank to ride it out.

it's similar to berto-guerrero, it was ugly but it was a match in which was using guerreros assets to beat the stronger/bigger/harder hitting man.

this is what boxing came from. and i mean the actual boxing as in jabbing and moving came from. this is an example of the primordial ooze that all styles appeared from. just because there wasn't space and a jab and one shot counter oppertunitys does not make this an unskilled match. it wasn't technical it wasn't pretty but fuck it that wasn't a cheap way out for them or a stupid way to fight.

you cant tell me that fans where ignoring these fights since the agreement of the marquis of queensbury.

AND ONE MORE THING

with commentators/pundits/promoters/writers attached to hbo/showtime/boxnation/sky on their choice of words describing boxing as waning or struggling or even dieing. with the bickering over certain choice fighters in thier stables. while trying thier best to discriminate the other. added to the fact that they complain of the lack of balance in the boxing fraternity

so this is my balanced answer to them

i hate you all

FUCK skys lot for booking events way in advance before fights are set just for them to change when the promoter they choose to have decided it's not best for them and withdraw them from the card without a replacement and next time say a big name opponent is in the works and round the meeting table who is going to be brought in...FROM ABROAD! HIGHLY RANKED!! OUT OF THOSE 6 NAMES!!! then be given a 7th which inevitable becomes the one chosen.

Fuck Boxnations lot for their treatment of fighters and fans. to treat fighters individually as a guy who is a bit of a character/wally doing some outrageous profession. then slagging them off if they lose then praising them to high heaven for their great performance. to pretend to include fans into the discussion when there is no means to do so. also for breaking boxing news website and a channel then buying relabel them to become boxnation. which is maybe a reason they are having technical problems 2 whole years into the start of the channel. discrediting other channels and promotor/managers/fighters who clearly will never fight on boxnation then when they do fight. to cheerleading their house promoter. to turn to the fans and say "are we not merciful to show you this fight" while undermining a very core and unifying institution of the british boxing establishment. to dig a vandetta the house promoter has always had with 'the board'.

Fuck Showtimes lot for their commentators cheerleading a clearly valiant but brutal encounter, to not think about the repercussions of the words they where saying. to have fighters/boxers who have trained all their lives to win fights then to be thrown a curve by saying you get a bonus if you ko somebody. if this was in tennis or basketball or football we would be appalled by such an attack of the bounty of victory and to change the motivation of fighters performance just to appease 4 seconds of replay footage. but the boxing fraternity takes it like it's nothing more than a interesting ideas, even being sold the line of being 'innovative'. helped by the fact that one promoter is majority owner of the most prestigious boxing magazine in the world.

AND FUCK HBO for selling us garbage prospects for years dripping through the ranking against little to nobody's as main or co events. then blackballing wlad when he has nobody else to fight in the year. saying who wlad should fight next. because arreola as strong and aggressive as he was, was not as good on the tin he was sold as. even though there where loads of american heavy's trying to get a look in. but no. big cris and seth is who we got. "because whats needed to beat wlad and vitali. Big, super-heavy, aggressive fighters. to chop down the trees....and i know because i am hbo". creating a program that only looks at hbos assests. fine that makes some sense. but dont then include EVERY other fighter on a different network or such and then say how they are on the slide or boring. especially when broner jumped ships and now he looks a beatable fighter supposedly. stick with divisions that have enough of your own fighters in. and in general just turning hbo into a boxing version of ufc.

and to top it off. Rigo. when has haikonnen ever not been broadcast because his style is too defencive or drogba been airbrushed of chelsea matches because his style was too slow. never. why because it's sports where you have to watch the whole picture to understand the context.
Rigo was not picked up by hbo because his style was too slow and 'boring' in their eyes, because he cant draw outside of miami. and because he doesnt have the charisma or personality that other main fighters have. this is the top 7(bottom) fighters in the world P4P. lineal champ who dominated another fighter easily.
in context. nonito was ranked top5 in most lists. he brings in filippino money, he is funny, bilingual, a puncher, a mover and fights and lives in california. meaning he is exactly what hbo where riding on as a post manny alternative before rigo was sent in as an inexperienced sheep in an unification bout. and now what? rigos blackballed because they dont know what to do with him.

television nowadays is a great example of the tail wagging the dog. television is emeblishing the sport. it's recording and sending images and footage that will be kept for a very long time helped by a presentation and backstory to the viewers. but now THEY are deciding who is on the big cards, who is entertaining.


----------



## Tage_West (May 16, 2013)

what no one?


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Tage_West said:


> what no one?


I'm not reading that fucking essay, dude. It's just butt-hurt Cubans that want everyone to watch their boring fighters while they insult boxers who are entertaining.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Tage_West said:


> what no one?


Intelligence is rarely rewarded on boxing forums. Chin-checkers rule. :|


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

That fight was a perfect display of horrible Boxing and even worse corners.

Both of those guys "Boxed" like crap. At least the Mexican kid was a kid and maybe just got overwhelmed. I was just astonished at the lack of polish of the Japanese fighter.

The Japanese guy should have been pulled out after two rounds of that one sided beating. The Mexican's corner should have been telling him to move. At this point I think neither man will be the same.

There was nothing FOTY about that fight other than a lesson in what NOT to do in a Boxing ring or corner.


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

talk about being dramatic, was an great fight... theres plenty of good technical fighters around, in fact probably more than ever...

you look back to marciano and dempsey and fighters from that era, or gatti, they had heart as big as an ox's and where often in contention for foty, but wernt technically great... why cant people appreciate different types of boxing, too many fans get snobby about fights that turn out to be based on heart and not slick or technical skill... 

i like a good technical fight as much as anyone, but i also love a good tear up, its whats boxings about...

saying that its not like figueroa hasnt got technical ability, he has ive never seen arakawa fight before so cant talk for him, but they both just ended up throwing it out the window and fighting like warriors, it sometimes happens...


arakawa has earnt himself somemore pay days though, and will be back on golden boy in the future...


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

NoMas said:


> talk about being dramatic, was an great fight... theres plenty of good technical fighters around, in fact probably more than ever...
> 
> you look back to marciano and dempsey and fighters from that era, or gatti, they had heart as big as an ox's and where often in contention for foty, but wernt technically great... why cant people appreciate different types of boxing, too many fans get snobby about fights that turn out to be based on heart and not slick or technical skill...
> 
> ...


It's not the fact that they are fighting a slugfest, it's the fact that they're doing it so sloppily. Marquez-Pacquiao, Morales-Barrera, Duran-Leonard all got into vicious fights with each other. But they were rolling with shots, using proper form, throwing varied combinations, feinting, and using proper footwork while doing so. Figueroa and Arakawa definitely have skill, but their execution was so ugly and basic. You can show heart in a war without making it look like a drunken barroom brawl.

There are not better technical fighters now more than ever, this is a historical low point for boxing, that is completely wrong. Most of the contenders from yesterday beat the Champions of today.


----------



## KO KIDD (ESB EX-Patriot) (Jun 3, 2013)

I didnt see the fight yet so I dont have a frame of reference to work with but I will say whats with the backlash against the limited brawlers. These guys are a necessary asset to the sport. They are just as necessary as pillars of the sport as the skilled boxers. Boxing has always had the limited fighters since the beginning of time, many of which have been more than successful

But are "limited" "crude" fighters really without skill? I mean there has to be a method to the madness and a strategy to the free swinging attack doesnt there?

These guys bring the excitement to the undercards and test the upcoming prospects and climbers. These are the guys that dig in and create upsets or expose "weak chins" "weak minds" "weak hearts" these are the fighters that answer questions about our rising stars.

Boxing needs the bold and dangerous fighters who take risks and make fights

boxing is hardly even wounded let alone dying because this has been a great year to be a boxing fan


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

I agree the technique was piss poor some of the worst I've seen in recent memory and Figueroa would get killed by the top guys at 135. At the end of the day it was exciting for what it was. Not the type of fighting that will led to long careers or big success in the long run but exciting nonetheless.


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

DaCrooked said:


> I'd like to Broner-Figueroa. See how long Omar can stay up when his opponent can actually punch.


Broner would kill that boy.


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> It's not the fact that they are fighting a slugfest, it's the fact that they're doing it so sloppily. Marquez-Pacquiao, Morales-Barrera, Duran-Leonard all got into vicious fights with each other. But they were rolling with shots, using proper form, throwing varied combinations, feinting, and using proper footwork while doing so. Figueroa and Arakawa definitely have skill, but their execution was so ugly and basic. You can show heart in a war without making it look like a drunken barroom brawl.
> 
> There are not better technical fighters now more than ever, this is a historical low point for boxing, that is completely wrong. Most of the contenders from yesterday beat the Champions of today.


Historical low point for Heavyweights or maybe in the American Olympic ranks, thats about it...

Its bullschitt people saying its dying, theres all time high in participation and funding, biggest PPV figures in history, and the fighters that around are in fact for the most, better technically and physically, therefore making them better athletes, they are quicker and stronger than ever...

Theres more analysis and focus on technique with all the technology thats around... Theres clubs popping up all the time, and more qualified coaches and courses around, and theres much more emphasis on speed and technique in the gyms now (that ive been to) instead of grabbing kids off the streets and having them have tear ups in gyms, they are teaching them how to move their feet etc before even having them hit a bag or spar...


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

NoMas said:


> Historical low point for Heavyweights or maybe in the American Olympic ranks, thats about it...


No, there's a clear gap between the top P4P fighters and the next tier. Guys who were fed to the past greats of their era would beat most of the champions today. On average, fighters were more skilled. Aside from the old guard (JMM, Pac, Floyd, BHop, Cotto), very few young fighters are complete and could compete with the best of past eras (Ward, Rigo, Donaire). Fighters in past decades were definitely all-round more skilled.



NoMas said:


> Its bullschitt people saying its dying, theres all time high in participation and funding, biggest PPV figures in history, and the fighters that around are in fact for the most, better technically and physically, therefore making them better athletes, they are quicker and stronger than ever...


I don't think it's dying, but I don't know about all time high in participation. Gyms in the US aren't as big as they used to be, at least not without MMA being tagge onto it. PPV numbers indicate commodifying a small market, not widespread distribution as it used to be. Less popular. On an upswing maybe, which is nice, but historically at a low point.

Fighters being bigger now really only affects the heavyweights since divisions still exist. Again, your assertion that fighters are technically better is wrong. Who at 140 is more skilled than Wilfred Benitez, Antonio Cervantes, Locche, Pryor, Arguello, Chavez? Or even Meldrick Taylor? Who at 147 is more skilled than Napoles, Gavilan, Leonard, Hearns, Burley, Mosley, DLH? Who at Middleweight is more skilled than Valdez, Briscoe, Monzon, Hagler, even Fullmer? Who at 135 is even better than Edwin Rosario or Hector Camacho?



NoMas said:


> Theres more analysis and focus on technique with all the technology thats around... Theres clubs popping up all the time, and more qualified coaches and courses around, and theres much more emphasis on speed and technique in the gyms now (that ive been to) instead of grabbing kids off the streets and having them have tear ups in gyms, they are teaching them how to move their feet etc before even having them hit a bag or spar...


More analysis? From who? It's not trickling down to the fighters regardless of the technology. If technology has done anything, it's made fighters are more interested in oxygen masks and elastic punching cables than they are in perfecting their jab in front of a mirror.

I don't know what your experience is, but coaches are less and less refined and kids are getting less precise instruction. I've seen it myself, heard it from countless others. Why do you think guys like Ward and Virgil are considered Old School? Olympic boxing is a direct reflection on the amateur scene, why do you think this is the first year that no US male has brought back a medal in the sport? Why do you think Roach is training Olympians with a handful of amateur fights?

Anyone who isn't blind can see that older generations (not all, but most) had more well-rounded fighters all around. They could all move their head and step into their punches and roll with shots and could mix in a variety of shots and fight on the inside. That's missing. And it's right there on film to see.


----------



## Relentless (Nov 24, 2012)

the creators of boxing fought more like figueroa than they did rogondeoux... juss sayin


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Also when you compare the modern day era of boxing you shouldn't compare it to every era that happened before or after.

Ofcourse when you compare a 10 year period (2003-2013) an era is going to look bad when you compare it next to the talent of a 100 year period.

When you compare eras it should be one era next to another and not one against all.

Comparing a period of 1993-2003 next to 2003-2013 is much fairer than comparing 1850-2003 next to 2003-2013


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

@Bogotao

Participation is up in Britain, I dont know about States, there's gyms popping up everywhere over here, there's plenty of South American and Europeans still coming thru... Im not saying We are in a great golden era, but we arnt at an all time low...

There's loads of fighters in the last 10 years that could of hung in the 'Golden Era' and been in competitive fights: Floyd, Pac, Marquez, Barrea, B-Hop, Winky Wright, Roy Jones, Calzaghe, Martinez, GGG, Morrales, Maidana, Corrales, Castillo, Mosley, DLH, Gatti, Andre Ward, Donaire, Canelo, Rigo, Matthysse, Margarito, Williams, Tito, Toney, Cotto, even guys like Froch and Kessler would of been in entertaining scraps... I know some of them are retired, there's always a constant transition, but it's far from a all time low...


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

dyna said:


> Also when you compare the modern day era of boxing you shouldn't compare it to every era that happened before or after.
> 
> Ofcourse when you compare a 10 year period (2003-2013) an era is going to look bad when you compare it next to the talent of a 100 year period.
> 
> ...


I think you'll still find that boxing is at a technical low point decade by decade. Not the lowest ever but low.

I'm against the idea boxing is dying, I just think that the craft is less holistically applied across the board.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

NoMas said:


> @Bogotao
> 
> Participation is up in Britain, I dont know about States, there's gyms popping up everywhere over here, there's plenty of South American and Europeans still coming thru... Im not saying We are in a great golden era, but we arnt at an all time low...
> 
> There's loads of fighters in the last 10 years that could of hung in the 'Golden Era' and been in competitive fights: Floyd, Pac, Marquez, Barrea, B-Hop, Winky Wright, Roy Jones, Calzaghe, Martinez, GGG, Morrales, Maidana, Corrales, Castillo, Mosley, DLH, Gatti, Andre Ward, Donaire, Canelo, Rigo, Matthysse, Margarito, Williams, Tito, Toney, Cotto, even guys like Froch and Kessler would of been in entertaining scraps... I know some of them are retired, there's always a constant transition, but it's far from a all time low...


When was boxing at a lower point technically?

40's? 50's? 60's? 70's? 80's? 90's?

In what era do Froch and Kessler actually rank higher and perform better than they do today?


----------



## McGrain (Jul 6, 2012)

For me, there are certain aspects of boxing that has regressed. One example is art in feinting. But in a sense, that's reasonable due to change in ruleset. Aggression is prized more in boxing now than at any point since the earliest days of the gloved sport. A fighter is more likely to win a round aggressively pursuing an opponent with modest success than he is feinting a fighter into position for a three punch combo. Also, feinting is the bedrocking of trapsmithing. Trapsmiths receive less reward because they have shorter distances over which to bait the hook. If you spend three rounds setting up your trap, then you can't spring it because the opponent is wise and you are 2-1 down, disaster. Over twenty rounds? Not so much.

Part if this is down to physical culture, too. Boxing was always obsessed with speed, but now it is also obsessed with size, like never before. Weight-making is an art like nothing seen before in the sport, super-middleweights taking to the ring as welterweights. In a literal sense, this has an enormous subconscious impact, but more than that, fighters spend weeks, sometimes, in camp, shifting weight, concentrating on size, it very naturally leaves less time, and less concentrated assault, upon the artistic parts of the fight game. This always happened, but it was never _normal_.

Other skills have become more important, but I would argue that the "artistic" part of the fight game, the more layered elements, has become badly undermined. Badly.

Take a look at Hurricane Carter. If you only know him by reputation you know him as a brawler. This was his reputation at the time - but put him down in this era and he becomes a crafty box-puncher, head movement, trapping, stalking.


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I think you'll still find that boxing is at a technical low point decade by decade. Not the lowest ever but low.
> 
> I'm against the idea boxing is dying, I just think that the craft is less holistically applied across the board.





Bogotazo said:


> When was boxing at a lower point technically?
> 
> 40's? 50's? 60's? 70's? 80's? 90's?
> 
> In what era do Froch and Kessler actually rank higher and perform better than they do today?


It's hard to say unless your in that era, I spend hours reading and watching fights from all the eras, but unless your physically in that era and you know about every fighter around that time (like we do these days), reading newspapers and reviews, having discussions in bars, rumours of sparring etc you can make comparisons against the main fighters, but not across entire divisions or a whole era... Personally I'm nostalgic and love the old eras, but alot of the old fights where fixed, especially in Carbo's time, according Kevin Mitchell's 'Jacobs Beach' the only fighter not bought was SRR, even in that book they interview fighters and people around then that say yeah so and so was good, but theres fighters that could of been great but never got his shot or whatever etc some fighters that never heard of... But as a WHOLE I don't think we are in a all time low, but we aren't in a golden era either...

Like I said Froch would of easily been able to hang with the fighters in the 80s, since SMW had been around, I dunno how his weight would of cut or adapted to going up, but certainly think he would of been in entertaining fights...


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

Your always gonna have some fighters better technically than others in evey era Broner is no Willie Pep, but Graziano was no Mayweather for example but there's less brawlers now than there used to be IMO...


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain said:


> .... *Part if this is down to physical culture, too. Boxing was always obsessed with speed, but now it is also obsessed with size, like never before. * Weight-making is an art like nothing seen before in the sport, super-middleweights taking to the ring as welterweights. In a literal sense, this has an enormous subconscious impact, but more than that, fighters spend weeks, sometimes, in camp, shifting weight, concentrating on size, it very naturally leaves less time, and less concentrated assault, upon the artistic parts of the fight game. This always happened, but it was never _normal_.


That's a very interesting point. It holds for the fans & announcers, too, not just the fighters & trainers.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

McGrain said:


> For me, there are certain aspects of boxing that has regressed. One example is art in feinting. But in a sense, that's reasonable due to change in ruleset. Aggression is prized more in boxing now than at any point since the earliest days of the gloved sport. A fighter is more likely to win a round aggressively pursuing an opponent with modest success than he is feinting a fighter into position for a three punch combo. Also, feinting is the bedrocking of trapsmithing. Trapsmiths receive less reward because they have shorter distances over which to bait the hook. If you spend three rounds setting up your trap, then you can't spring it because the opponent is wise and you are 2-1 down, disaster. Over twenty rounds? Not so much.
> 
> Part if this is down to physical culture, too. Boxing was always obsessed with speed, but now it is also obsessed with size, like never before. Weight-making is an art like nothing seen before in the sport, super-middleweights taking to the ring as welterweights. In a literal sense, this has an enormous subconscious impact, but more than that, fighters spend weeks, sometimes, in camp, shifting weight, concentrating on size, it very naturally leaves less time, and less concentrated assault, upon the artistic parts of the fight game. This always happened, but it was never _normal_.
> 
> ...


To touch on your first point, the analysts and commentators don't help. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a fighter block a shot with his shoulder or arm, or parry it, only for the commentator to comment on what a hard punch that just landed. Same goes with other defensive traits - such as going with the punches - too. Commentators also seem to overlook when a fighter bobs out of the way of a punch, meaning it connects with the back of his head or just grazes the top of it - they call them as scoring punches too. The biggest problem I have with this is any new fan tuning in won't really get that these punches aren't scoring punches, and won't realise the good defensive work being done.

I completely disagree with Larry Merchant - that we should reward aggression and punching power over skill - but at times you have to wonder how many judges think that way.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Anyway I don't believe it's the display of skills that make fights 'fights of the year' per se. Gatti-Ward was hardly a display of superior skill.
Omar-Arakawa was a display of heart, all action etc. which is a part of what boxing is about.

I also think we could end up making the mistake of judging eras based on its ATG's. I don't imagine those not included in the four (Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Leonard) being as good as the welterweights today tbh. 
Who's the best middleweight outside Hagler? I'd pick GGG to beat them to be fair.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Anyway I don't believe it's the display of skills that make fights 'fights of the year' per se. Gatti-Ward was hardly a display of superior skill.
> Omar-Arakawa was a display of heart, all action etc. which is a part of what boxing is about.
> 
> I also think we could end up making the mistake of judging eras based on its ATG's. I don't imagine those not included in the four (Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Leonard) being as good as the welterweights today tbh.
> Who's the best middleweight outside Hagler? I'd pick GGG to beat them to be fair.


Wilfred Benitez was a titleholder at 147 and 154 as well as 140 - I'd say he was a better boxer than the welterweights of today. He was one of the best defensive fighters of all time.

As for the best middleweight outside of Hagler, do you mean from the 'four kings'? Because I don't see how GGG beats Sugar Ray, Carlos Monzón or Emile Griffith, for starters.

I usually don't like making posts that compare different eras, as I think it's always a bit of an unfair comparison due to all sorts of variables, but I am curious as to how GGG beats most middleweights other than Hagler.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

We've got a lot to be excited about in 15 years time guys. Amateur boxing is going back to a 10-9 system with no headgear. Just watched a 30 second clip of Lazlo Papp vs Jose Torres and it gave me the goosebumps, absolutely amazing.

My worry is that these fighters from the amateurs will have shorter primes though as a result.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

NoMas said:


> It's hard to say unless your in that era, I spend hours reading and watching fights from all the eras, but unless your physically in that era and you know about every fighter around that time (like we do these days), reading newspapers and reviews, having discussions in bars, rumours of sparring etc you can make comparisons against the main fighters, but not across entire divisions or a whole era... Personally I'm nostalgic and love the old eras, but alot of the old fights where fixed, especially in Carbo's time, according Kevin Mitchell's 'Jacobs Beach' the only fighter not bought was SRR, even in that book they interview fighters and people around then that say yeah so and so was good, but theres fighters that could of been great but never got his shot or whatever etc some fighters that never heard of... But as a WHOLE I don't think we are in a all time low, but we aren't in a golden era either...
> 
> Like I said Froch would of easily been able to hang with the fighters in the 80s, since SMW had been around, I dunno how his weight would of cut or adapted to going up, but certainly think he would of been in entertaining fights...


Just going by tape I think it's clear to see that most decades of the past were superior. Hence my examples. You can evaluate a division based on the eye test and the accomplishments of those fighters, and how they build towards the main guy in the division. I don't think Froch is a historically great fighter, for example. Most fighters I've seen at the championship level have better footwork, punching form, combination punching, inside fighting, upper body movement, parrying, feints, etc. I like Froch a lot but that's simply how it is. He's solid for today's standards and for 168 as a relatively new division, but pound for pound all-time, he's not great. And that's just one example of fighters today. In what era would Tim Bradley be king of 140 like he was during his peak there? In what era would Broner become #1 at lightweight?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Wilfred Benitez was a titleholder at 147 and 154 as well as 140 - I'd say he was a better boxer than the welterweights of today. He was one of the best defensive fighters of all time.
> 
> As for the best middleweight outside of Hagler, do you mean from the 'four kings'? Because I don't see how GGG beats Sugar Ray, Carlos Monzón or Emile Griffith, for starters.
> 
> I usually don't like making posts that compare different eras, as I think it's always a bit of an unfair comparison due to all sorts of variables, but I am curious as to how GGG beats most middleweights other than Hagler.


I mean the middleweights from Hagler's era when Hagler was dominating. 
Yeah Wilfred Benitez who is somewhat on par with Floyd, a little bit better IMO, but other than that, there's just Carlos Palomino really. 
I'm just looking at the competition 'outside' of the top fighters in the era. I mean, you could extremely plausibly argue Roy Jones beats Sugar Ray, Monzon and Griffith, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> We've got a lot to be excited about in 15 years time guys. Amateur boxing is going back to a 10-9 system with no headgear. Just watched a 30 second clip of Lazlo Papp vs Jose Torres and it gave me the goosebumps, absolutely amazing.
> 
> My worry is that these fighters from the amateurs will have shorter primes though as a result.


Nah your chance of concussion with headgear isn't lessened.

Headgear mainly protects fighters from cuts so I don't think primes will be negatively affected by it.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

NoMas said:


> @Bogotao
> 
> Participation is up in Britain, I dont know about States, there's gyms popping up everywhere over here, there's plenty of South American and Europeans still coming thru... Im not saying We are in a great golden era, but we arnt at an all time low...
> 
> There's loads of fighters in the last 10 years that could of hung in the 'Golden Era' and been in competitive fights: Floyd, Pac, Marquez, Barrea, B-Hop, Winky Wright, Roy Jones, Calzaghe, Martinez, GGG, Morrales, Maidana, Corrales, Castillo, Mosley, DLH, Gatti, Andre Ward, Donaire, Canelo, Rigo, Matthysse, Margarito, Williams, Tito, Toney, Cotto, even guys like Froch and Kessler would of been in entertaining scraps... I know some of them are retired, there's always a constant transition, but it's far from a all time low...


Good list..although I'd remove Gatti :lol:


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I mean the middleweights from Hagler's era when Hagler was dominating.
> Yeah Wilfred Benitez who is somewhat on par with Floyd, a little bit better IMO, but other than that, there's just Carlos Palomino really.
> I'm just looking at the competition 'outside' of the top fighters in the era. I mean, you could extremely plausibly argue Roy Jones beats Sugar Ray, Monzon and Griffith, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.


Wasn't sure if that's what you meant, but I thought it might have been the case. :thumbsup

I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's a fruitless task to debate this sort of thing. Personally I do think the scoring and judging favours aggression over skill at times these days, and it's an era where not as many fighters are as good as their counterparts were defensively in years gone by.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

dyna said:


> Nah your chance of concussion with headgear isn't lessened.
> 
> Headgear mainly protects fighters from cuts so I don't think primes will be negatively affected by it.


Really? Surely no headgear means it will still hit harder and you'll get hit too hard and it'll take a toll on your body, even if there's no greater chance of concussion?


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> We've got a lot to be excited about in 15 years time guys. Amateur boxing is going back to a 10-9 system with no headgear. Just watched a 30 second clip of Lazlo Papp vs Jose Torres and it gave me the goosebumps, absolutely amazing.
> 
> My worry is that these fighters from the amateurs will have shorter primes though as a result.


Definitely.

- but as for shorter primes, so what? When the heck did it become normal for a fighter to still be considered "prime" at 30 years old, anyway? It doesn't make sense, physiologically. Speed is EVERYTHING in boxing, (sort of) and no one is as fast at 30 as they were at 24. No one.

Of course, this factors right back into the "A slugger is more important today than a boxer" scenario: It doesn't take as much speed or stamina to be a slugger, so this type of fighter can have a much longer career. - That also means more $$$ for the management & promoter, who invest a huge amount of time & money into these cash-cows.

The whole bloody thing feeds itself.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Batkilt said:


> Wasn't sure if that's what you meant, but I thought it might have been the case. :thumbsup
> 
> I don't necessarily agree, but I think it's a fruitless task to debate this sort of thing. Personally I do think the scoring and judging favours aggression over skill at times these days, and* it's an era where not as many fighters are as good as their counterparts were defensively in years gone by*.











Try telling Berto that :lol:


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Really? Surely no headgear means it will still hit harder and you'll get hit too hard and it'll take a toll on your body, even if there's no greater chance of concussion?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...r-boxers-banned-bid-REDUCE-head-injuries.html

http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_...xing-drops-head-guards-changes-scoring-system

"There's no evidence protective gear shows a reduction in incidence of concussion," Butler said. "In 1982, when the American Medical Association moved to ban boxing, everybody panicked and put headgear on the boxers, but nobody ever looked to see what the headgear did."

As far as I know it's never proven wether or not headgear actually protects against concussions.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

dyna said:


> Nah your chance of concussion with headgear isn't lessened.
> 
> Headgear mainly protects fighters from cuts so I don't think primes will be negatively affected by it.


Headgear also protects against ear/temple -shots, and rabbit punches, which are both very dangerous. THAT'S the main reason for the use of headgear.

This does not completely negate your point, but it does lessen it somewhat.

Also: Evidently the ams scoring will also be changing, to give more weight to power punches. (thus also better reflecting the pros.) THAT will definitely shorten a fighters lifespan.

But again, so what?


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

dyna said:


> Nah your chance of concussion with headgear isn't lessened.
> 
> Headgear mainly protects fighters from cuts so I don't think primes will be negatively affected by it.


Your point is partially valid, except:

Headgear also protects from ear, temple and rabbit punches, which are all very dangerous. Taking a lot of those could definitely shorten a fighter's career. (or life)

Also, supposedly they are also changing the scoring system in the ams, giving more weight to power shots, thus further reflecting the pros. That will definitely affect some fighter's career lengths.

But again, so what?


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> Headgear also protects against ear/temple -shots, and rabbit punches, which are both very dangerous. THAT'S the main reason for the use of headgear.
> 
> This does not completely negate your point, but it does lessen it somewhat.
> 
> ...


And pro scoring also gives more weight to bodypunching which reduces the chance for concussions so I bet that weighs out the power punching. :lol:

And maybe the the amateurs being better suited for pros gives them more experience which can prevent them from getting into brainkilling wars or just a general increase of defence because being put on your ass is now actually a disadvantage in the AM scoring system.(More focus on heavy blows >>> more focus on defending against heavy blows)

In the end only time will tell.


----------



## Batkilt (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Try telling Berto that :lol:


Barry Jones said that Berto is usually "defensively brilliant" after the fight with Soto-Karass. :lol: :huh


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

dyna said:


> And pro scoring also gives more weight to bodypunching which reduces the chance for concussions so I bet that weighs out the power punching. :lol:
> .


true dat.


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> Just going by tape I think it's clear to see that most decades of the past were superior. Hence my examples. You can evaluate a division based on the eye test and the accomplishments of those fighters, and how they build towards the main guy in the division. I don't think Froch is a historically great fighter, for example. Most fighters I've seen at the championship level have better footwork, punching form, combination punching, inside fighting, upper body movement, parrying, feints, etc. I like Froch a lot but that's simply how it is. He's solid for today's standards and for 168 as a relatively new division, but pound for pound all-time, he's not great. And that's just one example of fighters today. In what era would Tim Bradley be king of 140 like he was during his peak there? In what era would Broner become #1 at lightweight?


Im not saying Froch would win a belt, Im just saying he would be in some good fights, just due to his love of a war and his durability...

TBH mate the Welterweight division like every other division has fighters that won belts, when Leonard retired it wasnt particularly strong, and belts changed a bit, Milton McCroy won it after SRL step down, you think Bradley wouldnt of been able to beat him? I think Kahn could beat him... Marlon Starling, Buddy McGirt, Maurice Blocker, Mark Brelan, Aaron Davis (they had a great fight), Molinares, Simon Brown more champions Bradley would/could beat, Im a massive Lloyd Honeyghanan fan, but yeah I think Bradley would give him a good fight, the IBO wasnt strong in that time either, Bradley beats Genaro Leon, Gallowway, Gert Bo, Loughran, Lopez, Loewe, Kotiev to IMO... Most of these names are from the same era so Bradley would of been very competitive for the time, and maybe picked up couple belts or even unified them, even if you disagree with him beating some of them names, he would of still beat a few...

With regards to Broner, I agree Im not a massive fan of his but hes still mad young, I still think he beats a couple past champions, but in no way would he be king, I still dont think he is, and think he will get found out soon...


----------



## NoMas (Jun 7, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Good list..although I'd remove Gatti :lol:


Do you not think he would of been in some good fights though :bbb haha


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

NoMas said:


> Im not saying Froch would win a belt, Im just saying he would be in some good fights, just due to his love of a war and his durability...
> 
> TBH mate the Welterweight division like every other division has fighters that won belts, when Leonard retired it wasnt particularly strong, and belts changed a bit, Milton McCroy won it after SRL step down, you think Bradley wouldnt of been able to beat him? I think Kahn could beat him... Marlon Starling, Buddy McGirt, Maurice Blocker, Mark Brelan, Aaron Davis (they had a great fight), Molinares, Simon Brown more champions Bradley would/could beat, Im a massive Lloyd Honeyghanan fan, but yeah I think Bradley would give him a good fight, the IBO wasnt strong in that time either, Bradley beats Genaro Leon, Gallowway, Gert Bo, Loughran, Lopez, Loewe, Kotiev to IMO... Most of these names are from the same era so Bradley would of been very competitive for the time, and maybe picked up couple belts or even unified them, even if you disagree with him beating some of them names, he would of still beat a few...
> 
> With regards to Broner, I agree Im not a massive fan of his but hes still mad young, I still think he beats a couple past champions, but in no way would he be king, I still dont think he is, and think he will get found out soon...


I'm not arguing the best today don't compete well or rank at all in past eras, but I think it's clear that most of them get ranked lower in most past decades in their respective divisions. And aside from the best, it's the tier below that is really lacking. There is a big gap IMO between the best today and the not-so-best technically. I feel it was a more gradual gradient in past eras.


----------

