Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Bika - Periban. Both hopelessly swinging for the rafters, there are so many super middles that are probably licking their lips after watching that crappy microwave meal and quite a lot of middles getting the cutlery out.
Mitchell-Banks. Was Banks waiting for a signal to finish it that never came or was he worried after nearly accidentally finishing off his next meal ticket before cashing it in ? Mitchell just proved again exactly what he is not.
Malinaggi-Broner. Getting on your bicycle is not the same as moving and throwing scoring punches. The commentary team need to get Adrian's balls out of their mouths before brushing his lower afro for him. It is fair to bring up Khan, Hatton and other earlier opponents handling of Paulie because, yes styles make fights but high output non punchers like Paulie do not age well. They fought a better Magic Man and Broner just had his shorts pulled down around his ankles. He may have won the fight but that was after getting repeatedly smacked in the face and failing to inflict anything but minimal damage on a fighter he should have stopped. At 147 and 140 there are a lot of People who will put him on his bejazzled arse. Paulie speaking to Floyd cracked me up and respect to him for going the distance and speaking his mind. The decision was OK but the scoring was a bit wide. Politics and B/S.
Excellent recap. I thought I'd add that Bika, in his last two fights, has lacked the spark of his earlier years. Has age caught up with him? Are you insinuating that Banks lost on purpose to get another Mitchell pay day? Broner isn't as good as we thought.
To the Broner haters yeah I suppose it is but its certainly not the fight I watched. As stated many times before, the beginning of the fight was predictable and the Miller and Feldman cards were ridiculous not the 117-111 card. Broner loses rounds because many of you guys hate him. Same thing happened to Floyd, Leonard and Robinson.
I think you are the one emotional in your own thoughts. The guys you mentioned threw more punches and pot shot their opponents to death and made it look easy. What I saw was poor effort and an attempt to show what we all knew going in: Malanaggi's punches are soft. Everytime Paulie hit him he reacted at how it had no effect on him. It would have been ok to do a few times but after every punch? The guys you mentioned above made their opponents miss and look silly. Broner just looked like a ass and judges bought that crap. I never knew there was scoring for PSI behind each punch. It was Malanaggi he fought like Floyd , Leonard and Robinson minus the power. It was Showtime marketing that won the fight for Broner. It was funny for Malanaggi to state the obvious then having to backtrack and kiss ass to his employers. It is what it is ... boxing is not a real 100% sport it is a staged business.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Addicted to_boxing
I think you are the one emotional in your own thoughts. The guys you mentioned threw more punches and pot shot their opponents to death and made it look easy. What I saw was poor effort and an attempt to show what we all knew going in: Malanaggi's punches are soft. Everytime Paulie hit him he reacted at how it had no effect on him. It would have been ok to do a few times but after every punch? The guys you mentioned above made their opponents miss and look silly. Broner just looked like a ass and judges bought that crap. I never knew there was scoring for PSI behind each punch. It was Malanaggi he fought like Floyd , Leonard and Robinson minus the power. It was Showtime marketing that won the fight for Broner. It was funny for Malanaggi to state the obvious then having to backtrack and kiss ass to his employers. It is what it is ... boxing is not a real 100% sport it is a staged business.
I'm not emotional at all. I think he's an asshole also but I don't have that in the front of my mind when I score his fights. Nor do I wish him to lose so bad that I see things that didn't happen.As a fan, I'm one of his biggest critics style wise while also recognizing his strengths.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nameless
Paulie should win that one hands down by a few rounds IMO, Broner has done jack and shit, he forgot that in order to win, you gotta throw something. All of Paulie's shots were glancingt hits and didn't do damage but that doesn't matter as he's the one who did hit the target more often and has been the aggressor all fight long.
No you dont win rounds for just throwing punches. Its affective punching. Broner clearly landed the more hurtful, clean shots in the majority of the rounds. Paulie landed nothing flush. It was a very wasy fight to score.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KickMuck
The fight that i just watched was a complete surprise. We all thought that Broner was going to take this easily. How wrong was we? Paulie fought in his own way like a true champion and a veteran. I honestly thought before the fight started that Broner would finish Maliginaggi with in 6 rounds so i was clutching at straws for Paulie (see my first post). Part of me feels pitiful towards the guy who has least chance in a fight so i usually side towards the underdog, I dont know why but i just do, like way back in school i stood up for the victims of bully's.
We all knew that Broner was going to win. But after watchin this fight and reflecting on it for a while I cannot see how he won this. Malignaggi came out in the first 3 rounds steaming, Broner landed nothing, round 4-5 Broner looked better, he landed a few solid shots all the while Paulie on the back foot but keeping the jab and the 4 sometimes 5 shots landing to the body and head, granted not much power but still scoring. Broner started looking stronger in round 6-7 and was catching Paulie with some nice clean shots and at this point i thought Malignaggi was out of gas and was sure to start loosing. Paulies punch rate and avoidance looked consistent throughout the fight untill i think rd 11 where Broner looked better. Broner was behind on points and i think he knew it from his performance in the last round.
To take a belt from a well weathered fighter in his home town at the ridiculous decisions on the cards that we saw i think is stupid.
I will watch the fight again when its available and have a closer look but from what i saw, Decision was complete bollox
This is not amateur boxing. The strenght of the punch is key. Landing 1 or 2 solid punches wins a round over Paulie glancing Broners arms, gloves, shoulder a hundred times in a round. Its effecting punching and Paulies punches just werent effective.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Maidana wants Broner. THat would be a very easy fight for Broner in my opinion.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KickMuck
The fight that i just watched was a complete surprise. We all thought that Broner was going to take this easily. How wrong was we? Paulie fought in his own way like a true champion and a veteran. I honestly thought before the fight started that Broner would finish Maliginaggi with in 6 rounds so i was clutching at straws for Paulie (see my first post). Part of me feels pitiful towards the guy who has least chance in a fight so i usually side towards the underdog, I dont know why but i just do, like way back in school i stood up for the victims of bully's.
We all knew that Broner was going to win. But after watchin this fight and reflecting on it for a while I cannot see how he won this. Malignaggi came out in the first 3 rounds steaming, Broner landed nothing, round 4-5 Broner looked better, he landed a few solid shots all the while Paulie on the back foot but keeping the jab and the 4 sometimes 5 shots landing to the body and head, granted not much power but still scoring. Broner started looking stronger in round 6-7 and was catching Paulie with some nice clean shots and at this point i thought Malignaggi was out of gas and was sure to start loosing. Paulies punch rate and avoidance looked consistent throughout the fight untill i think rd 11 where Broner looked better. Broner was behind on points and i think he knew it from his performance in the last round.
To take a belt from a well weathered fighter in his home town at the ridiculous decisions on the cards that we saw i think is stupid.
I will watch the fight again when its available and have a closer look but from what i saw, Decision was complete bollox
This is not amateur boxing. The strenght of the punch is key. Landing 1 or 2 solid punches wins a round over Paulie glancing Broners arms, gloves, shoulder a hundred times in a round. Its effecting punching and Paulies punches just werent effective.
Right, but if the volume of his punches control the pace of the round, then volume wins the round. Broner has a low output of punches, and gets hit a lot. It's clear he is choosing opponents that can't punch, Paulie & Rees, because he gets hit a good amount for a good who is supposed to be the next Floyd Mayweather.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
[/QUOTE]
Right, but if the volume of his punches control the pace of the round, then volume wins the round. Broner has a low output of punches, and gets hit a lot. It's clear he is choosing opponents that can't punch, Paulie & Rees, because he gets hit a good amount for a good who is supposed to be the next Floyd Mayweather.[/QUOTE]
I think youre wrong. Volume does not win the round. Volume only determines the victor if they are both inflicting similar amounts of damage, which was the case for the 1st 3 rounds where Broner landed no meaningful shots. However, once Broner started to land shots, which he did pretty much at will, event tho he through a lot less, I think it was pretty clear he won those rounds.
Id like to point out that if everything was reversed in this fight, Broner and Paulie switched places, everyone would be saying what a joke the 115-113 to Broner was, and would be saying Paulie clearly won.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
People are thinking of ways to justify how Broner acts in a boxing ring. His punches are more powerfull etc.
So what? If we are going to say that only powrrfull pumches should ever be counted then people like Paulie shouldnt even be gven licences.
Broner looked like a twat and sometimes as if he didnt even know what he was doing. Paulie could stand right in front of him and not even worry about anything coming back. Broner works in little spurts then lays back shaking his head while eating jabs and taking body shots.
Khan would completely befuddle him after what I saw of Broner last night. Broner would be comcentrating too much on leaning back and shaking his head to do anything.
He does have power and is sharp but isnt as good at defence as he thinks he is. If he foghts someone who does get hit alot he will more than likely win. But anyone with a high output and not as light a puncher as Malignagi will beat him.
He reminds me of Berto. Everyone thought he was going to be something special but speed and power was all he had.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Ross we are talking about effective punches. When Paulie lands his punches are effective. Look at Canos and Senchenkos faces after they fought him. The fact is he didnt land clean. When Broner did you could clearly see they were hurting Paulie, hed retreat or legs would wobble.
Khan probably would look good against Broner, for 3 rounds before he gets caught once and gets KTFO.
The fact is Broner is 23 na dhas a big future in the sport. He is already class and has plenty of time for improvement.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Right, but if the volume of his punches control the pace of the round, then volume wins the round. Broner has a low output of punches, and gets hit a lot. It's clear he is choosing opponents that can't punch, Paulie & Rees, because he gets hit a good amount for a good who is supposed to be the next Floyd Mayweather.[/QUOTE]
I think youre wrong. Volume does not win the round. Volume only determines the victor if they are both inflicting similar amounts of damage, which was the case for the 1st 3 rounds where Broner landed no meaningful shots. However, once Broner started to land shots, which he did pretty much at will, event tho he through a lot less, I think it was pretty clear he won those rounds.
Id like to point out that if everything was reversed in this fight, Broner and Paulie switched places, everyone would be saying what a joke the 115-113 to Broner was, and would be saying Paulie clearly won.[/QUOTE]
I think you hinted on a difference in judicial philosophy. That's fine. To me, Broner didn't throw enough punches, and a lot of the time, just walked forward without throwing punches. That doesn't win rounds. If Paulie was so light punching, it appears Broner should have just adjusted and walked through his punches, but he didn't do it.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Right, but if the volume of his punches control the pace of the round, then volume wins the round. Broner has a low output of punches, and gets hit a lot. It's clear he is choosing opponents that can't punch, Paulie & Rees, because he gets hit a good amount for a good who is supposed to be the next Floyd Mayweather.
I think youre wrong. Volume does not win the round. Volume only determines the victor if they are both inflicting similar amounts of damage, which was the case for the 1st 3 rounds where Broner landed no meaningful shots. However, once Broner started to land shots, which he did pretty much at will, event tho he through a lot less, I think it was pretty clear he won those rounds.
Id like to point out that if everything was reversed in this fight, Broner and Paulie switched places, everyone would be saying what a joke the 115-113 to Broner was, and would be saying Paulie clearly won.[/QUOTE]
I think you hinted on a difference in judicial philosophy. That's fine. To me, Broner didn't throw enough punches, and a lot of the time, just walked forward without throwing punches. That doesn't win rounds. If Paulie was so light punching, it appears Broner should have just adjusted and walked through his punches, but he didn't do it.[/QUOTE]
Yea i get this. I thought that was the case for the 1st few rounds. Youll see somewhere on this thread when the fight was on I wrote something like "Paulies punches are troubling Broner, they aint hurting him but when Paulie is throwing, Broner is not".
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Right, but if the volume of his punches control the pace of the round, then volume wins the round. Broner has a low output of punches, and gets hit a lot. It's clear he is choosing opponents that can't punch, Paulie & Rees, because he gets hit a good amount for a good who is supposed to be the next Floyd Mayweather.
I think youre wrong. Volume does not win the round. Volume only determines the victor if they are both inflicting similar amounts of damage, which was the case for the 1st 3 rounds where Broner landed no meaningful shots. However, once Broner started to land shots, which he did pretty much at will, event tho he through a lot less, I think it was pretty clear he won those rounds.
Id like to point out that if everything was reversed in this fight, Broner and Paulie switched places, everyone would be saying what a joke the 115-113 to Broner was, and would be saying Paulie clearly won.
I think you hinted on a difference in judicial philosophy. That's fine. To me, Broner didn't throw enough punches, and a lot of the time, just walked forward without throwing punches. That doesn't win rounds. If Paulie was so light punching, it appears Broner should have just adjusted and walked through his punches, but he didn't do it.[/QUOTE]
Yea i get this. I thought that was the case for the 1st few rounds. Youll see somewhere on this thread when the fight was on I wrote something like "Paulies punches are troubling Broner, they aint hurting him but when Paulie is throwing, Broner is not".[/QUOTE]
You brought up a good point. Broner was walking forward into Paulie constantly backing him up and while doing so not throwing punches. It seemed like Broner wasted an opportunity. Easier to punch going forward than backing up. Why did Broner take this approach.
While I rant, I wish Paulie had taken the high rode and not fed into Broners post fight nonsense. If Paulie was able to brush it off as if Broner was a little kid it would have been more effective than trying to zing him. Still, Paulie put it all out for that fight so I'm sure he was emotionally drained. This fight really improved my thoughts of Paulie much like Bradley's last fight
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
No you dont win rounds for just throwing punches. Its affective punching.
Just because Paulie is a powder puff hitter it doesnt mean you can discount his work. He punched, when he did Broner refused to punch back, that equals affective aggression in my book and it did and must count for something.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Julius Rain
Broner bragging about being in the friend zone with one of Paulies hoes. What a clown. Your not suppose to brag about sloppy seconds. Its like kissing a whore who just suck someone elses dick. dumbfuck ;D
Nice video clip ... when are you going to update it to the one where Pac gets destroyed by a beautifully timed / mastered punch? I hope you know I am kidding and mean no malice. I laughed so hard at your post !
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silkeyjoe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
Right, but if the volume of his punches control the pace of the round, then volume wins the round. Broner has a low output of punches, and gets hit a lot. It's clear he is choosing opponents that can't punch, Paulie & Rees, because he gets hit a good amount for a good who is supposed to be the next Floyd Mayweather.
I think youre wrong. Volume does not win the round. Volume only determines the victor if they are both inflicting similar amounts of damage, which was the case for the 1st 3 rounds where Broner landed no meaningful shots. However, once Broner started to land shots, which he did pretty much at will, event tho he through a lot less, I think it was pretty clear he won those rounds.
Id like to point out that if everything was reversed in this fight, Broner and Paulie switched places, everyone would be saying what a joke the 115-113 to Broner was, and would be saying Paulie clearly won.
I think you hinted on a difference in judicial philosophy. That's fine. To me, Broner didn't throw enough punches, and a lot of the time, just walked forward without throwing punches. That doesn't win rounds. If Paulie was so light punching, it appears Broner should have just adjusted and walked through his punches, but he didn't do it.
Yea i get this. I thought that was the case for the 1st few rounds. Youll see somewhere on this thread when the fight was on I wrote something like "Paulies punches are troubling Broner, they aint hurting him but when Paulie is throwing, Broner is not".[/QUOTE]
You brought up a good point. Broner was walking forward into Paulie constantly backing him up and while doing so not throwing punches. It seemed like Broner wasted an opportunity. Easier to punch going forward than backing up. Why did Broner take this approach.
While I rant, I wish Paulie had taken the high rode and not fed into Broners post fight nonsense. If Paulie was able to brush it off as if Broner was a little kid it would have been more effective than trying to zing him. Still, Paulie put it all out for that fight so I'm sure he was emotionally drained. This fight really improved my thoughts of Paulie much like Bradley's last fight[/QUOTE]
Good to know you now have respect for Bradley for cracking that coconut head of his . He will most likely be knocked out by JMM now. He has always taken a good punch but now that we know he had a concussion he is good as done . He took a brutal and unnecessary beating . JMM will put him to sleep like Pac but not by a single punch. Factor in the lack of power and we will see how Broner should have devoured a soft punching Malanaggi.
