Thread: Boxing Media split on the Provodnikov-Algieri fight

35 press scores with an ave score of 114-112 Provodnikov. My card read 14-113 Provodnikov, punchstats and percentages of the bout.

Comments welcome and how did you score it?

Ruslan Provodnikov deserved decision over Chris Algieri say 54 per cent of boxing media | Latest | Boxing News - boxing news, results, rankings, schedules since 1909

I'm Surprised its not more like 70/30 for Provodnikov. I had him winning 8 rounds, 7 at least.

Originally Posted by Hulk

I'm Surprised its not more like 70/30 for Provodnikov. I had him winning 8 rounds, 7 at least.

Read today that Algieri's team are unsure if there was a rematch clause in the contract

It all comes down to how you wanna score it. If you're a fan of face-first aimless swinging then Provodnikov is your man. If you're a fan of boxing, Algieri's your man. We should also stop and put this in perspective. Algieri had fought no one before Provodnikov, Provodnikov just fought Bradley. Yet Algieri was able to outbox Provodnikov after getting caught cold in the first round and losing a large portion of his vision in his right eye, which made him more susceptible to Provodnikov's best punch in the fight - the left hook. This guy was meant to be a stepping stone. He had little experience and was badly hurt early yet he had the presence of mind to come back and completely outbox him. There were close rounds I s'pose in the sense that Provodnikov was clearly landing the more hurtful shots, but he was also being made to miss a lot and countered/pot-shotted consistently round by round. I had it 114-112. First time I've agreed with a judge in a while (let alone 2!). You can argue that Algieri was 'negative' as Jim Watt did, but given the circumstances he fought the best fight he could - can the same be said of Provodnikov? I mean is it really acceptable for a 'champion' to repeat the same mistakes for 12 rounds against an opponent who seemingly couldn't hurt him with his best shots? Does that make him deserving of the win, particularly when he didn't even outland Algieri? I thought it was an absolutely pathetic showing from Provodnikov, and what he said afterwards just confirmed what was obvious in his display as regards his severe limitations. Chasing a guy around the ring and missing more often than not, all the while taking more shots than you land is not controlling a fight to my mind, but clearly I have a different perspective to 54% of the press who would rather see a man stumbling forward into punches all night. On the other hand Algieri showed a lot of promise, a lot of heart and composure after that first round knockdown. Despite having only recently taken up boxing (as I understand from the commentary on the night) he showed more skill than Provodnikov - although that's really not saying much. Glad that for once we got a fair result from the majority of the judges - I mean 117-109? Was that score submitted before the fight started or what? Even Roach was suggesting that Provodnikov needed a KO to win, and I know that is often a precautionary measure from trainers but clearly he felt that it was close even if he thought his fighter was ahead cos' otherwise why bother?

Originally Posted by SRR

It all comes down to how you wanna score it. If you're a fan of face-first aimless swinging then Provodnikov is your man. If you're a fan of boxing, Algieri's your man. We should also stop and put this in perspective. Algieri had fought no one before Provodnikov, Provodnikov just fought Bradley. Yet Algieri was able to outbox Provodnikov after getting caught cold in the first round and losing a large portion of his vision in his right eye, which made him more susceptible to Provodnikov's best punch in the fight - the left hook. This guy was meant to be a stepping stone. He had little experience and was badly hurt early yet he had the presence of mind to come back and completely outbox him. There were close rounds I s'pose in the sense that Provodnikov was clearly landing the more hurtful shots, but he was also being made to miss a lot and countered/pot-shotted consistently round by round. I had it 114-112. First time I've agreed with a judge in a while (let alone 2!). You can argue that Algieri was 'negative' as Jim Watt did, but given the circumstances he fought the best fight he could - can the same be said of Provodnikov? I mean is it really acceptable for a 'champion' to repeat the same mistakes for 12 rounds against an opponent who seemingly couldn't hurt him with his best shots? Does that make him deserving of the win, particularly when he didn't even outland Algieri? I thought it was an absolutely pathetic showing from Provodnikov, and what he said afterwards just confirmed what was obvious in his display as regards his severe limitations. Chasing a guy around the ring and missing more often than not, all the while taking more shots than you land is not controlling a fight to my mind, but clearly I have a different perspective to 54% of the press who would rather see a man stumbling forward into punches all night. On the other hand Algieri showed a lot of promise, a lot of heart and composure after that first round knockdown. Despite having only recently taken up boxing (as I understand from the commentary on the night) he showed more skill than Provodnikov - although that's really not saying much. Glad that for once we got a fair result from the majority of the judges - I mean 117-109? Was that score submitted before the fight started or what? Even Roach was suggesting that Provodnikov needed a KO to win, and I know that is often a precautionary measure from trainers but clearly he felt that it was close even if he thought his fighter was ahead cos' otherwise why bother?

If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.


Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.

Originally Posted by Hulk

Originally Posted by SRR

It all comes down to how you wanna score it. If you're a fan of face-first aimless swinging then Provodnikov is your man. If you're a fan of boxing, Algieri's your man. We should also stop and put this in perspective. Algieri had fought no one before Provodnikov, Provodnikov just fought Bradley. Yet Algieri was able to outbox Provodnikov after getting caught cold in the first round and losing a large portion of his vision in his right eye, which made him more susceptible to Provodnikov's best punch in the fight - the left hook. This guy was meant to be a stepping stone. He had little experience and was badly hurt early yet he had the presence of mind to come back and completely outbox him. There were close rounds I s'pose in the sense that Provodnikov was clearly landing the more hurtful shots, but he was also being made to miss a lot and countered/pot-shotted consistently round by round. I had it 114-112. First time I've agreed with a judge in a while (let alone 2!). You can argue that Algieri was 'negative' as Jim Watt did, but given the circumstances he fought the best fight he could - can the same be said of Provodnikov? I mean is it really acceptable for a 'champion' to repeat the same mistakes for 12 rounds against an opponent who seemingly couldn't hurt him with his best shots? Does that make him deserving of the win, particularly when he didn't even outland Algieri? I thought it was an absolutely pathetic showing from Provodnikov, and what he said afterwards just confirmed what was obvious in his display as regards his severe limitations. Chasing a guy around the ring and missing more often than not, all the while taking more shots than you land is not controlling a fight to my mind, but clearly I have a different perspective to 54% of the press who would rather see a man stumbling forward into punches all night. On the other hand Algieri showed a lot of promise, a lot of heart and composure after that first round knockdown. Despite having only recently taken up boxing (as I understand from the commentary on the night) he showed more skill than Provodnikov - although that's really not saying much. Glad that for once we got a fair result from the majority of the judges - I mean 117-109? Was that score submitted before the fight started or what? Even Roach was suggesting that Provodnikov needed a KO to win, and I know that is often a precautionary measure from trainers but clearly he felt that it was close even if he thought his fighter was ahead cos' otherwise why bother?

If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.


Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.

I think this whole notion of 'running' is a bit OTT tbh. Don't think many of the people making these comments would have the balls to get in the ring with a man like Provodnikov in the first place, let alone 'tag and run' for 11 rounds after almost getting laid out in the first. It's also something of a misnomer, considering you have to set your feet to punch, but in any case, I digress - we'll agree to disagree. I would say, however, that one clean hook out of 4 is nothing to be proud of - you're bound to connect eventually, especially against a guy with no amateur background. In a real fight Provodnikov would have his lights put out before he managed to land a single shot. You couldn't miss him, and if Bradley had fought him like he fought Marquez he probably would have stopped him, or at least won on a land slide UD. Btw I never saw Algieri moved 'half way across the ring' aside from being knocked down, honestly I can only remember 2 or 3 decent hooks that landed, one of which was right on the bell and coincided with Algieri somewhat naively lowering his guard. The fact that Provodnikov is popular is one of the many things that is wrong with modern day boxing. I mean, I like a fighter who comes forward as much as the next man - assuming that it is in some way educated, e.g. Cotto against Martinez most recently. There was no art in what Provodnikov did, you might as well have picked a 'tough guy' from the crowd and given him a bucket of cash - he probably would have landed more shots than Provodnikov. Provodnikov's whole attitude post-fight was just completely wrong as well - he was basically saying he just wants guys who will stand in front of him and let him hit them until he gets lucky and lands a good shot. This is beyond lazy. Beyond disrespectful to the sport of boxing. I know that skill sets have been diluted by the sheer number of belts and the increasingly complex back room politics, but supporting such garbage only serves to perpetuate the trend of half-assed professionals who get into boxing because they can take a punch and punch hard (when they manage to land) in return. Although I respect that you're entitled to your opinion, I think that boxing fans should demand more from professional fighters - particularly those who claim to be worthy to be called a champion.

Originally Posted by SRR

Originally Posted by Hulk

Originally Posted by SRR

It all comes down to how you wanna score it. If you're a fan of face-first aimless swinging then Provodnikov is your man. If you're a fan of boxing, Algieri's your man. We should also stop and put this in perspective. Algieri had fought no one before Provodnikov, Provodnikov just fought Bradley. Yet Algieri was able to outbox Provodnikov after getting caught cold in the first round and losing a large portion of his vision in his right eye, which made him more susceptible to Provodnikov's best punch in the fight - the left hook. This guy was meant to be a stepping stone. He had little experience and was badly hurt early yet he had the presence of mind to come back and completely outbox him. There were close rounds I s'pose in the sense that Provodnikov was clearly landing the more hurtful shots, but he was also being made to miss a lot and countered/pot-shotted consistently round by round. I had it 114-112. First time I've agreed with a judge in a while (let alone 2!). You can argue that Algieri was 'negative' as Jim Watt did, but given the circumstances he fought the best fight he could - can the same be said of Provodnikov? I mean is it really acceptable for a 'champion' to repeat the same mistakes for 12 rounds against an opponent who seemingly couldn't hurt him with his best shots? Does that make him deserving of the win, particularly when he didn't even outland Algieri? I thought it was an absolutely pathetic showing from Provodnikov, and what he said afterwards just confirmed what was obvious in his display as regards his severe limitations. Chasing a guy around the ring and missing more often than not, all the while taking more shots than you land is not controlling a fight to my mind, but clearly I have a different perspective to 54% of the press who would rather see a man stumbling forward into punches all night. On the other hand Algieri showed a lot of promise, a lot of heart and composure after that first round knockdown. Despite having only recently taken up boxing (as I understand from the commentary on the night) he showed more skill than Provodnikov - although that's really not saying much. Glad that for once we got a fair result from the majority of the judges - I mean 117-109? Was that score submitted before the fight started or what? Even Roach was suggesting that Provodnikov needed a KO to win, and I know that is often a precautionary measure from trainers but clearly he felt that it was close even if he thought his fighter was ahead cos' otherwise why bother?

If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.


Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.

I think this whole notion of 'running' is a bit OTT tbh. Don't think many of the people making these comments would have the balls to get in the ring with a man like Provodnikov in the first place, let alone 'tag and run' for 11 rounds after almost getting laid out in the first. It's also something of a misnomer, considering you have to set your feet to punch, but in any case, I digress - we'll agree to disagree. I would say, however, that one clean hook out of 4 is nothing to be proud of - you're bound to connect eventually, especially against a guy with no amateur background. In a real fight Provodnikov would have his lights put out before he managed to land a single shot. You couldn't miss him, and if Bradley had fought him like he fought Marquez he probably would have stopped him, or at least won on a land slide UD. Btw I never saw Algieri moved 'half way across the ring' aside from being knocked down, honestly I can only remember 2 or 3 decent hooks that landed, one of which was right on the bell and coincided with Algieri somewhat naively lowering his guard. The fact that Provodnikov is popular is one of the many things that is wrong with modern day boxing. I mean, I like a fighter who comes forward as much as the next man - assuming that it is in some way educated, e.g. Cotto against Martinez most recently. There was no art in what Provodnikov did, you might as well have picked a 'tough guy' from the crowd and given him a bucket of cash - he probably would have landed more shots than Provodnikov. Provodnikov's whole attitude post-fight was just completely wrong as well - he was basically saying he just wants guys who will stand in front of him and let him hit them until he gets lucky and lands a good shot. This is beyond lazy. Beyond disrespectful to the sport of boxing. I know that skill sets have been diluted by the sheer number of belts and the increasingly complex back room politics, but supporting such garbage only serves to perpetuate the trend of half-assed professionals who get into boxing because they can take a punch and punch hard (when they manage to land) in return. Although I respect that you're entitled to your opinion, I think that boxing fans should demand more from professional fighters - particularly those who claim to be worthy to be called a champion.

I wouldn't call what he did running, but definitely a strategic retreat. I don't think its written in stone that you have to plant your feet to punch and its obvious by having 8 kos and not breaking a grape. Algieri was half the time rolling so hard to the right that his feet were soft when he got off jabs and a counter in order to reset his skirmish line. If a guy is so open, loading up with the speed of a musket and plodding simple, then you sit down and roll off impacting combinations that do damage. Or you preserve and simply throw half punches in order tally punches like a bean counter. If, might, coulda is all uncertain too. Bradley didn't fight him like Marquez because Marquez wasn't fighting like Provo. Marquez fought a trap pocket type fight where he was waiting for counters all night. Provo was standing on Tim's chest. Tim's mentality and instinct in the trenches is miles apart from Chris. In a way frankly Chris is a smarter more disciplined boxer who recognizes what he has and what would happen to him had he planted and tried to do actual hurt. Tim thinks he is Foreman and its cost him before and after.

Its just wrong to call him a lazy or garbage-like fighter waiting to get lucky ffs. Gimme a break. Limited, even one dimensional, primal...sure but he's more than earned the spot beating Bradley and Alvarado around like rag dolls when everyone who took time to spell his name correctly knew full well he could be boxed years ago. He trains his ass off and is far from some palooka in a crowd looking to get lucky. Disrespectful to the sport you speak of are bloated spoon fed network glory boys who literally refuse to make weight, are over exposed and don't commit to their seemingly natural gifts and ability half as much as Provodnikov does his. He wasn't handed his spot he earned it.

Originally Posted by Hulk

If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.


Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.

Hulk is absolutely correct... Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook that moves you across the ring means you just lost the round. But that's not what happened in this fight.

Algieri landed jabs, hooks & uppercuts at will and when Provodnikov threw his wide looping hooks, Algieri was nowhere near. Incredible footwork, head movement, crouching, ducking, ring generalship and clean hard counter punching won the majority of the rounds for Algieri.

Hulk, if all you saw was 3 or 4 jabs then you're blind.

Originally Posted by ruthless rocco

Originally Posted by Hulk

If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.


Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.

Hulk is absolutely correct... Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook that moves you across the ring means you just lost the round. But that's not what happened in this fight.

Algieri landed jabs, hooks & uppercuts at will and when Provodnikov threw his wide looping hooks, Algieri was nowhere near. Incredible footwork, head movement, crouching, ducking, ring generalship and clean hard counter punching won the majority of the rounds for Algieri.

Hulk, if all you saw was 3 or 4 jabs then you're blind.

I don't remember all these hooks that moved Algieri across the ring

Thank you for being cordial. However:

1. I do have the balls to get in the ring, have done so for the past 7 years and faced very aggressive short powerhouses like Provodnikov, though obviously not nearly at his level. I boxed them, occasionally brawled them and hit them. Hard.

2. Please do not pretend its a "sign of the times" that such a free swinging slugger is popular. Over a half a century ago, Jake Lamotta was popular and he beat the man in your avatar and your namesake.

3. There is most assuredly such a thing as being a runner. Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Cory Spinks was a runner. Some fools became so deluded with his "style" they believed he actually "beat" Jermain Taylor. Chris Algeri is a runner.

Originally Posted by Hulk

Thank you for being cordial. However:

1. I do have the balls to get in the ring, have done so for the past 7 years and faced very aggressive short powerhouses like Provodnikov, though obviously not nearly at his level. I boxed them, occasionally brawled them and hit them. Hard.

2. Please do not pretend its a "sign of the times" that such a free swinging slugger is popular. Over a half a century ago, Jake Lamotta was popular and he beat the man in your avatar and your namesake.

3. There is most assuredly such a thing as being a runner. Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Cory Spinks was a runner. Some fools became so deluded with his "style" they believed he actually "beat" Jermain Taylor. Chris Algeri is a runner.

You know your boxing history well. Sluggers and all out action fighters have long been popular since the conception of the sport. There was a reason why Jack Dempsey was the most popular athlete in the world at 1 time and even more famous than Babe Ruth during the roaring 20s. Mike Tyson under the D'amato trainers during the 80s, along with Hagler and Duran were also wildly popular because of their all action style. None of them were all 1 dimensional sluggers, but they were all out action fighters. It's laughable that someone suggested that it's the sign of the times and the people that the general public and many boxing fans like action fighters, all out brawlers, as something wrong with the current sport. As if liking action fighters means you're not a "real fan."

Here's a piece of an Time Magazine article that talks about Rocky Graziano and his popularity. It's dated Jan. 1946. In fact, he had little boxing skills, sort of like Provodnikov today, but wildly popular. I guess it must have been the sign of the times in January of 1946 that Graziano was so popular too, eh? And I'm not even going to get into how wildly popular a limited slugger like Rocky Marciano was in his heyday.

Sport: The Making of Rocky - TIME

Boxing's biggest current attraction is a roughneck middleweight from Manhattan's tough Mulberry Street. Rocco ("Rocky") Graziano packed them in at Madison Square Garden last week for what fans thought would be his sixth straight knockout, a new Garden record. He fooled himself and the fans by winning on points from ex-Sailor Sonny Home.
As a boxer, Rocky Graziano is a joke, but he has the top two requisites to ring fame & fortune — a paralyzing punch, an iron jaw. His 155 lbs. ace mounted on a sturdy pair of legs that would never per form fancy ring steps. He mauls in...

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Hulk

Thank you for being cordial. However:

1. I do have the balls to get in the ring, have done so for the past 7 years and faced very aggressive short powerhouses like Provodnikov, though obviously not nearly at his level. I boxed them, occasionally brawled them and hit them. Hard.

2. Please do not pretend its a "sign of the times" that such a free swinging slugger is popular. Over a half a century ago, Jake Lamotta was popular and he beat the man in your avatar and your namesake.

3. There is most assuredly such a thing as being a runner. Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Cory Spinks was a runner. Some fools became so deluded with his "style" they believed he actually "beat" Jermain Taylor. Chris Algeri is a runner.

You know your boxing history well. Sluggers and all out action fighters have long been popular since the conception of the sport. There was a reason why Jack Dempsey was the most popular athlete in the world at 1 time and even more famous than Babe Ruth during the roaring 20s. Mike Tyson under the D'amato trainers during the 80s, along with Hagler and Duran were also wildly popular because of their all action style. None of them were all 1 dimensional sluggers, but they were all out action fighters. It's laughable that someone suggested that it's the sign of the times and the people that the general public and many boxing fans like action fighters, all out brawlers, as something wrong with the current sport. As if liking action fighters means you're not a "real fan."

Here's a piece of an Time Magazine article that talks about Rocky Graziano and his popularity. It's dated Jan. 1946. In fact, he had little boxing skills, sort of like Provodnikov today, but wildly popular. I guess it must have been the sign of the times in January of 1946 that Graziano was so popular too, eh? And I'm not even going to get into how wildly popular a limited slugger like Rocky Marciano was in his heyday.

Sport: The Making of Rocky - TIME

Boxing's biggest current attraction is a roughneck middleweight from Manhattan's tough Mulberry Street. Rocco ("Rocky") Graziano packed them in at Madison Square Garden last week for what fans thought would be his sixth straight knockout, a new Garden record. He fooled himself and the fans by winning on points from ex-Sailor Sonny Home.
As a boxer, Rocky Graziano is a joke, but he has the top two requisites to ring fame & fortune — a paralyzing punch, an iron jaw. His 155 lbs. ace mounted on a sturdy pair of legs that would never per form fancy ring steps. He mauls in...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

Originally Posted by Hulk

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Hulk

Thank you for being cordial. However:

1. I do have the balls to get in the ring, have done so for the past 7 years and faced very aggressive short powerhouses like Provodnikov, though obviously not nearly at his level. I boxed them, occasionally brawled them and hit them. Hard.

2. Please do not pretend its a "sign of the times" that such a free swinging slugger is popular. Over a half a century ago, Jake Lamotta was popular and he beat the man in your avatar and your namesake.

3. There is most assuredly such a thing as being a runner. Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Cory Spinks was a runner. Some fools became so deluded with his "style" they believed he actually "beat" Jermain Taylor. Chris Algeri is a runner.

You know your boxing history well. Sluggers and all out action fighters have long been popular since the conception of the sport. There was a reason why Jack Dempsey was the most popular athlete in the world at 1 time and even more famous than Babe Ruth during the roaring 20s. Mike Tyson under the D'amato trainers during the 80s, along with Hagler and Duran were also wildly popular because of their all action style. None of them were all 1 dimensional sluggers, but they were all out action fighters. It's laughable that someone suggested that it's the sign of the times and the people that the general public and many boxing fans like action fighters, all out brawlers, as something wrong with the current sport. As if liking action fighters means you're not a "real fan."

Here's a piece of an Time Magazine article that talks about Rocky Graziano and his popularity. It's dated Jan. 1946. In fact, he had little boxing skills, sort of like Provodnikov today, but wildly popular. I guess it must have been the sign of the times in January of 1946 that Graziano was so popular too, eh? And I'm not even going to get into how wildly popular a limited slugger like Rocky Marciano was in his heyday.

Sport: The Making of Rocky - TIME

Boxing's biggest current attraction is a roughneck middleweight from Manhattan's tough Mulberry Street. Rocco ("Rocky") Graziano packed them in at Madison Square Garden last week for what fans thought would be his sixth straight knockout, a new Garden record. He fooled himself and the fans by winning on points from ex-Sailor Sonny Home.
As a boxer, Rocky Graziano is a joke, but he has the top two requisites to ring fame & fortune — a paralyzing punch, an iron jaw. His 155 lbs. ace mounted on a sturdy pair of legs that would never per form fancy ring steps. He mauls in...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

Nor was it what I meant to imply. I said as much in my previous post: "I like a fighter who comes forward as much as the next man - assuming that it is in some way educated, e.g. Cotto against Martinez most recently." I would say that Dempsey, Tyson and others who have been mentioned are all in a league so far removed from that of Provodnikov in terms of skill that it hardly warrants comparison. I would also say that it seems ironic the posters jumping on the bandwagon to prove a point which was never in contention by making irrelevant comparisons to fighters who could actually do more than just plod forward seem also to want to imply that anyone who doesn't stand in front of his opponent and trade with him for the majority of the fight is a 'runner'. I remember now why I post so little. This was hardly a focal point of my argument, and now the thread has gone off on one of those redundant tangents that so often kill these kinds of discussions.

Originally Posted by SRR

Originally Posted by Hulk

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Hulk

Thank you for being cordial. However:

1. I do have the balls to get in the ring, have done so for the past 7 years and faced very aggressive short powerhouses like Provodnikov, though obviously not nearly at his level. I boxed them, occasionally brawled them and hit them. Hard.

2. Please do not pretend its a "sign of the times" that such a free swinging slugger is popular. Over a half a century ago, Jake Lamotta was popular and he beat the man in your avatar and your namesake.

3. There is most assuredly such a thing as being a runner. Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Cory Spinks was a runner. Some fools became so deluded with his "style" they believed he actually "beat" Jermain Taylor. Chris Algeri is a runner.

You know your boxing history well. Sluggers and all out action fighters have long been popular since the conception of the sport. There was a reason why Jack Dempsey was the most popular athlete in the world at 1 time and even more famous than Babe Ruth during the roaring 20s. Mike Tyson under the D'amato trainers during the 80s, along with Hagler and Duran were also wildly popular because of their all action style. None of them were all 1 dimensional sluggers, but they were all out action fighters. It's laughable that someone suggested that it's the sign of the times and the people that the general public and many boxing fans like action fighters, all out brawlers, as something wrong with the current sport. As if liking action fighters means you're not a "real fan."

Here's a piece of an Time Magazine article that talks about Rocky Graziano and his popularity. It's dated Jan. 1946. In fact, he had little boxing skills, sort of like Provodnikov today, but wildly popular. I guess it must have been the sign of the times in January of 1946 that Graziano was so popular too, eh? And I'm not even going to get into how wildly popular a limited slugger like Rocky Marciano was in his heyday.

Sport: The Making of Rocky - TIME

Boxing's biggest current attraction is a roughneck middleweight from Manhattan's tough Mulberry Street. Rocco ("Rocky") Graziano packed them in at Madison Square Garden last week for what fans thought would be his sixth straight knockout, a new Garden record. He fooled himself and the fans by winning on points from ex-Sailor Sonny Home.
As a boxer, Rocky Graziano is a joke, but he has the top two requisites to ring fame & fortune — a paralyzing punch, an iron jaw. His 155 lbs. ace mounted on a sturdy pair of legs that would never per form fancy ring steps. He mauls in...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

Nor was it what I meant to imply. I said as much in my previous post: "I like a fighter who comes forward as much as the next man - assuming that it is in some way educated, e.g. Cotto against Martinez most recently." I would say that Dempsey, Tyson and others who have been mentioned are all in a league so far removed from that of Provodnikov in terms of skill that it hardly warrants comparison. I would also say that it seems ironic the posters jumping on the bandwagon to prove a point which was never in contention by making irrelevant comparisons to fighters who could actually do more than just plod forward seem also to want to imply that anyone who doesn't stand in front of his opponent and trade with him for the majority of the fight is a 'runner'. I remember now why I post so little. This was hardly a focal point of my argument, and now the thread has gone off on one of those redundant tangents that so often kill these kinds of discussions.

Miles? lol

Originally Posted by SRR

Originally Posted by Hulk

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

Originally Posted by Hulk

Thank you for being cordial. However:

1. I do have the balls to get in the ring, have done so for the past 7 years and faced very aggressive short powerhouses like Provodnikov, though obviously not nearly at his level. I boxed them, occasionally brawled them and hit them. Hard.

2. Please do not pretend its a "sign of the times" that such a free swinging slugger is popular. Over a half a century ago, Jake Lamotta was popular and he beat the man in your avatar and your namesake.

3. There is most assuredly such a thing as being a runner. Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Cory Spinks was a runner. Some fools became so deluded with his "style" they believed he actually "beat" Jermain Taylor. Chris Algeri is a runner.

You know your boxing history well. Sluggers and all out action fighters have long been popular since the conception of the sport. There was a reason why Jack Dempsey was the most popular athlete in the world at 1 time and even more famous than Babe Ruth during the roaring 20s. Mike Tyson under the D'amato trainers during the 80s, along with Hagler and Duran were also wildly popular because of their all action style. None of them were all 1 dimensional sluggers, but they were all out action fighters. It's laughable that someone suggested that it's the sign of the times and the people that the general public and many boxing fans like action fighters, all out brawlers, as something wrong with the current sport. As if liking action fighters means you're not a "real fan."

Here's a piece of an Time Magazine article that talks about Rocky Graziano and his popularity. It's dated Jan. 1946. In fact, he had little boxing skills, sort of like Provodnikov today, but wildly popular. I guess it must have been the sign of the times in January of 1946 that Graziano was so popular too, eh? And I'm not even going to get into how wildly popular a limited slugger like Rocky Marciano was in his heyday.

Sport: The Making of Rocky - TIME

Boxing's biggest current attraction is a roughneck middleweight from Manhattan's tough Mulberry Street. Rocco ("Rocky") Graziano packed them in at Madison Square Garden last week for what fans thought would be his sixth straight knockout, a new Garden record. He fooled himself and the fans by winning on points from ex-Sailor Sonny Home.
As a boxer, Rocky Graziano is a joke, but he has the top two requisites to ring fame & fortune — a paralyzing punch, an iron jaw. His 155 lbs. ace mounted on a sturdy pair of legs that would never per form fancy ring steps. He mauls in...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

Nor was it what I meant to imply. I said as much in my previous post: "I like a fighter who comes forward as much as the next man - assuming that it is in some way educated, e.g. Cotto against Martinez most recently." I would say that Dempsey, Tyson and others who have been mentioned are all in a league so far removed from that of Provodnikov in terms of skill that it hardly warrants comparison. I would also say that it seems ironic the posters jumping on the bandwagon to prove a point which was never in contention by making irrelevant comparisons to fighters who could actually do more than just plod forward seem also to want to imply that anyone who doesn't stand in front of his opponent and trade with him for the majority of the fight is a 'runner'. I remember now why I post so little. This was hardly a focal point of my argument, and now the thread has gone off on one of those redundant tangents that so often kill these kinds of discussions.

Agree with much of what you say(boxing wise) ie topic. Boxing may still like its blankets but the blankets of today are not made the same. The object of the game is to hit and not get hit and not get hit and try to hit back.
Boxing is actually devolving. Soon it will be a competition for grappling. The pugilists of the past were both appreciated and sought after. The pugilists of today dont fit the ad world. Respect the approach @SRR and recognize it. You know your stuff. I've talked to you before.