Printable View
Myself being more of a boxing purist can see how floyd won. More accurate punches, hardly got hit etc.
But would boxing have been better off if DLH won. I mean he was the aggressor and watching the fight with a lot of casual fans i could see how they were a little confused at how he lost.
Just after peoples opinions on this. Should the aggressor in a fight be given more points?
i think the aggressor should be given points too especially on this fight.. if dela hoya didnt press the fight we could be a watching two boxers doing a balet..Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Josef once again Mayweather fights in regard to his opponent. IF the opponent doesn't bring the fight he would have broken him down like he would have Baldomir if his hand hadn't been broken. Mayweather can't beat ODLH toe to toe punch for punch, and he shouldn't be expected to in order to win a fight.
I think we are already off track here. The topic is not who deserved to win but whether or not the decision is good for boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taeth
yes and no.
yes because DLH one of the only names casual fans know anymore. he's more willing to tradde
no because DLH doesn't fight enough. he makes people pay for dumb ass tune ups on PPV and because he loss the fight and boxing doesn't need anymore bad decisions.
I agree. I think the aggressor should have won the fight. Not really a dominant performance by either boxer. ODLH obviously hit harder as there was a tiny mouse on PBF right eye and hardly a scratch on ODLH even though he was out punched. I agree with the split decision part.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
Effective aggressor yeah. Not ineffective like Oscar was. Oscar was throwing but he was not hitting clean, and then Floyd would land on the dot. Why do you guys think Oscar was accurate? I did not see that. I saw him aggressive and moving forward and landing on arms and air, but not on Floyd's chin or body much. If Oscar had won, it would have been terrible for boxing since the least deserving guy would have won. You cannot have a guy who has 21 percent connect win a fight. and he landed 80 punches or so less than Floyd. Floyd deserved the win. Be fair to the winner.. I think people are satisfied that Floyd did better. You have the typical complaints of bad scoring, but I think generally people know that Oscar did not knock down the smaller opponent if he was so effective, and it was he who was more rocked than Floyd if either of them was rocked. What you can say is Oscar came in shape but Floyd did better. Punchstats say it all. It is not like we have 40 percent to 37 percent, this is 43 to 21.. big different, twice the accuracy by Floyd.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle
No. I was hoping Floyd would put a beating on him like he did Gatti. But he wasnt capable. :-\
I love seeing Oscar emberassed. I dont know if thats good for boxing, but its great for me. ;D
I know and you know that floyd fought the better fight, but do the general public know that? Do a no purist oscar won. Many people who know little about boxing were confused at how floyd won. thats my point, is it better to please the casual fan or the purist?Quote:
Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65
oscar is faster larger and more skilled than gatti. thats why he didn't dominate him like he did gatti. i don't think there was on time in the gatti fight where PBF was against the ropes.
i say forget the casual fan. there only there for the big fights.
Thats a stupid thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'The Boxer'
I don't think so. This was Floyd's coming out party. Millions of people who had never seen him saw him put in a great performance against boxing's #1 star.
Absolutely it would have been better. He was the fan favorite. He wasn't the cocky jerk off referring to himself in the third person.
8) Whats it really matter? He didn't get the decission they gave it to Floyd not to Oscar! Move on lets see just what comes out of all of this! ! ! 8)