Re: Why I don't think Winky's defense is the most effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spade
Quote:
Posted by: Taeth
Taylor did way more physical damage I would wager than Winky did...
But clearly, Taylor got the worse end of the deal, look at their faces and see who really got hurt.
Taylor has slipped some punches on Wnky but Winky covered better and able to land better punches while hands held up high
Taylor had one swollen eye, but he didn't take the body punishment or the overall head swelling that WInky got. Also he doesn't have Mayweather's reflexes.
Re: Why I don't think Winky's defense is the most effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_One77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
Those guys styles also let them be more able to counter in between the other guys punches because they're almost always in punching position. Winky has a tendency to cover up and wait until a guy is done punching and then come back and that can hurt him at times cause judges sometimes mistake activity for actually landing punches. Still a great style and I thought he won 115-113 last night.
Yeh i agree i think that style cost him last night because it allowed JT to look a lot busier and it also looked as tho JT was landing many more punches then he actualy was.
Wright outclassed Taylor...he'd do it again if there was a rematch.
yeah, right.. ::**
Judges don't have compubox, so it would of been difficult to know if Taylor actually landed cleanly or not.
Since you think HBO are so biased because it's their fighter, I guess Sky Sports must of been completely unbiased.....But they had the fight scored for Taylor aswell.
Winky was outworked, simple as....Shame Taylor didn't win, because he derserved it.
Jim Watt had it to Taylor. Ian Darke had it a draw. One of the pundits in the studio had it to Wright.
And if you side with Jim Watt on pretty much anything, you need your head checked. he is the most inufuriating, inept commentator on television.
This is a summary of what Watt said last night, minus the minor variations.
"Wright does not look happy in their tonight"
"Wright has despirited look about him"
"Taylor is the boss tonight".
Notice that Jim Watt notes only once during the 12 rounds that Winky is taking shots on the gloves. Notice that it took eye-catching rallies for Watt to comment on Winky's offence.
Best thing Sky could do is fire Jim Watt and get McGuigan back. McCrory + Darke are and always have been the best commentary team.
Re: Why I don't think Winky's defense is the most effective.
Just a good pic of Winky's defense being busted through
http://www.ufcfightnews.com/taylor-w...right_5905.jpg
Re: Why I don't think Winky's defense is the most effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wacko3205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ono
Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
Those guys styles also let them be more able to counter in between the other guys punches because they're almost always in punching position. Winky has a tendency to cover up and wait until a guy is done punching and then come back and that can hurt him at times cause judges sometimes mistake activity for actually landing punches. Still a great style and I thought he won 115-113 last night.
Yeh i agree i think that style cost him last night because it allowed JT to look a lot busier and it also looked as tho JT was landing many more punches then he actualy was.
Looking & doing are two different things & if we as fans can differeintiate...then why do you think that the judges can't?
Easy.
Taylor is younger & more marketable & Wright aint in the gameplan.
Fwock those judges.
Personally I believe that HBO & their commentators...which in essence are HBO boxing...leaned to the wrong man last night & they know it. Wright outclassed Taylor...he'd do it again if there was a rematch.
I don't know about that wacko bcos even sky sports had taylor winning by 2 rounds and they have no reason to be bias toward either fighter. But that bein said maybe ur right about HBO, there seems to be too much controversy these days.
