Paulie to Retire?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yvonne

If he does retire then you'll still be able watch him............in his prono movie that is!!!:oTrue,i read in a paper recently that he plans to go into the Porn industry!!!:-X

---

is this true?? where did you hear this??

---

Yeah it's true, he's quoted as saying he could be one. ;D

I read it in The Sun last week, link: I'm a natural porn killer | The Sun |Sport|Boxing

---

dont nobody wants to see powderpuff in a porno :-X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingfrnk

is this true?? where did you hear this??

---

Yeah it's true, he's quoted as saying he could be one. ;D

I read it in The Sun last week, link: I'm a natural porn killer | The Sun |Sport|Boxing

---

dont nobody wants to see powderpuff in a porno :-X

---

Lets hope that Paulie does'nt have hair extensions during his porno because it might get in the way of things:-X:o;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

I think Paulie was trying to be as honest as he could be here. I understand the argument that Hatton bounced him around the ring for 10 rounds, but he is trying to say Cotto was the better fighter. If that's his opinion so be it. Paulie performed better against Cotto true, but he also put a lot more effort forth. I don't think that takes anything away from Hatton though. Hatton was amazing in there, still a beast, but a more patient beast, and Paulie acknowledged that. He even admitted Hatton hurt him, how often do you hear a fighter admit that? And who can better judge the abilities of two different fighters than one that's been in with both.

---

I'm pretty sure lots of fighters don't regard the guy that thrashed them as the best they've faced, simply because, i think, they believe they underperformed instead of getting outclassed.

Like tons of fighters who have been knocked out say it WASN'T the hardest they've been hit.

Paulie had success against Cotto.. so understandably would class his OWN performance as better.. and inturn naturally think Cotto was a better fighter than Hatton.

---

Following that vein of thought, would you say Paulie did perform as well as he could have against Hatton? I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would say Malignaggi gave it his all in that fight. And furthermore after he received a "thrashing" from Cotto do you remember what he said? "Miguel hits hard man" and in this interview he stated he would have trouble with Cotto even on his best night. Regardless of your opinion of how it went down. This seems to be an honest interpretation by Paulie to me.

If his game plan is going to fall apart faster than a Chinese bicycle ever time he punches with his "weak" hand, then he should drop out of the game.

I wonder if you can develop brittle bone disease from constantly breaking your hand? I doubt it.

Hey give Paulie one thing, at least hes honest with himself. He admits he fought terrible and that he held too much. Ever heard ruiz or hatton say that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snakey

Hey give Paulie one thing, at least hes honest with himself. He admits he fought terrible and that he held too much. Ever heard ruiz or hatton say that?

---

Ruiz doesn't count. Every time I think about him I think of 19 seconds and Tuaman.

Hatton is an honest guy. He may have had some stuff to say fro PBF fight, but it was legit, although I don't know if he would have won if the ref was less partisan. He is a tough fighter and a skilled boxer. I didn't see him acting like he never got shook up by Lazcano or Callazo.

Paulie will be back. He's too young to give up. I've said it once adn I'll say it again.. GET RID OF MCGIRT!

Paullie is a good, honest kid and whether or not you agree with his assessment of Hatton it was his honest assessment, which is what you will always get from Paullie. Paullie was not trying to discredit Ricky he was just asked to be honest, if you get to meet Paullie you would see that for all of his talk he is a respectful kid. I called that Ricky would beat Paullie and I believe Ricky would always beat Paullie because of Ricky's constant aggressive pressure and speed. I will also say that there was certainly something wrong with Paullie in this fight and saw that he could not let his hands go at all, whether it is over training, a bad right hand, Ricky being that good or the psychological problems he spoke of, we will never really know...I believe this was and should be his last fight, he's got money, won some titles and had some fun, He doesn't need to fight as long as he has questions about his health rattling around in his head.

I thought he was to kind to Merchant...

Paulie was being honest and is obviously disappointed in himself. He does end up down playing Hatton but do not think that is his intention. Credit him for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

I think Paulie was trying to be as honest as he could be here. I understand the argument that Hatton bounced him around the ring for 10 rounds, but he is trying to say Cotto was the better fighter. If that's his opinion so be it. Paulie performed better against Cotto true, but he also put a lot more effort forth. I don't think that takes anything away from Hatton though. Hatton was amazing in there, still a beast, but a more patient beast, and Paulie acknowledged that. He even admitted Hatton hurt him, how often do you hear a fighter admit that? And who can better judge the abilities of two different fighters than one that's been in with both.

---

I'm pretty sure lots of fighters don't regard the guy that thrashed them as the best they've faced, simply because, i think, they believe they underperformed instead of getting outclassed.

Like tons of fighters who have been knocked out say it WASN'T the hardest they've been hit.

Paulie had success against Cotto.. so understandably would class his OWN performance as better.. and inturn naturally think Cotto was a better fighter than Hatton.

---

exactly

hatton was saying the very same things after the mayweather fight in that "he was surprised how light handed floyd was" and how "mayweather wasnt the hardest puncher he`s ever fought"

Its a boxers way of attempting to divert the attention back onto themselves by claiming in some way it was more due to them underperforming than being outclassed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

I think Paulie was trying to be as honest as he could be here. I understand the argument that Hatton bounced him around the ring for 10 rounds, but he is trying to say Cotto was the better fighter. If that's his opinion so be it. Paulie performed better against Cotto true, but he also put a lot more effort forth. I don't think that takes anything away from Hatton though. Hatton was amazing in there, still a beast, but a more patient beast, and Paulie acknowledged that. He even admitted Hatton hurt him, how often do you hear a fighter admit that? And who can better judge the abilities of two different fighters than one that's been in with both.

---

I'm pretty sure lots of fighters don't regard the guy that thrashed them as the best they've faced, simply because, i think, they believe they underperformed instead of getting outclassed.

Like tons of fighters who have been knocked out say it WASN'T the hardest they've been hit.

Paulie had success against Cotto.. so understandably would class his OWN performance as better.. and inturn naturally think Cotto was a better fighter than Hatton.

---

exactly

hatton was saying the very same things after the mayweather fight in that "he was surprised how light handed floyd was" and how "mayweather wasnt the hardest puncher he`s ever fought"

Its a boxers way of attempting to divert the attention back onto themselves by claiming in some way it was more due to them underperforming than being outclassed.

---

Your statement in itself assumes that he performed well. Are you saying Paulie had a good performance?

I thought that the retirement ceremonies had already happened....right about the 3 or 4 round ??


Really though,Paulie was dusted up.Sometimes all you have left is your pride and that is understandable but "Paulie does not get knocked out" and such.......hey Paulie,you got beat up and the fight (you) were stopped......get over your self and move on.

If he does, it's a smart move. Take the money and run, because you simply don't have the power to become a Champion again IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hattonthehammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I'm pretty sure lots of fighters don't regard the guy that thrashed them as the best they've faced, simply because, i think, they believe they underperformed instead of getting outclassed.

Like tons of fighters who have been knocked out say it WASN'T the hardest they've been hit.

Paulie had success against Cotto.. so understandably would class his OWN performance as better.. and inturn naturally think Cotto was a better fighter than Hatton.

---

exactly

hatton was saying the very same things after the mayweather fight in that "he was surprised how light handed floyd was" and how "mayweather wasnt the hardest puncher he`s ever fought"

Its a boxers way of attempting to divert the attention back onto themselves by claiming in some way it was more due to them underperforming than being outclassed.

---

Your statement in itself assumes that he performed well. Are you saying Paulie had a good performance?

---

Just reverting to the fact that fighters who get beat up do attempt to put it down as a bad nights work from them rather than claiming they gave it their very best but just werent good enough which is complete and utter defeatist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

I think Paulie was trying to be as honest as he could be here. I understand the argument that Hatton bounced him around the ring for 10 rounds, but he is trying to say Cotto was the better fighter. If that's his opinion so be it. Paulie performed better against Cotto true, but he also put a lot more effort forth. I don't think that takes anything away from Hatton though. Hatton was amazing in there, still a beast, but a more patient beast, and Paulie acknowledged that. He even admitted Hatton hurt him, how often do you hear a fighter admit that? And who can better judge the abilities of two different fighters than one that's been in with both.

---

I'm pretty sure lots of fighters don't regard the guy that thrashed them as the best they've faced, simply because, i think, they believe they underperformed instead of getting outclassed.

Like tons of fighters who have been knocked out say it WASN'T the hardest they've been hit.

Paulie had success against Cotto.. so understandably would class his OWN performance as better.. and inturn naturally think Cotto was a better fighter than Hatton.

---

Following that vein of thought, would you say Paulie did perform as well as he could have against Hatton? I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would say Malignaggi gave it his all in that fight. And furthermore after he received a "thrashing" from Cotto do you remember what he said? "Miguel hits hard man" and in this interview he stated he would have trouble with Cotto even on his best night. Regardless of your opinion of how it went down. This seems to be an honest interpretation by Paulie to me.

---

I agree. I don't doubt he is being honest. I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

He's probably no different a fighter now, than he was for Cotto. Difference is - he was a big underdog in the Cotto fight. No-one really gave him much chance. And i think that includes Cotto. Not only was Cotto suffering from the weight but also was probably undermotivated, and therefore underperformed. So, Paulie's success was amplified. And naturally, left the fight with a far better reputation.

SO.. Paulie, Hatton and Cotto all entered their fights with a different mindset.

For instance - (as you point out) Paulie said after the fight "Miguel hits hard man." But he EXPECTED that going in. Everyone knows Cotto is a hurtful puncher. So the fact he took Cotto's punches is a victory for himself.

Whereas before the Hatton fight Paulie said "Ricky is not a big pucher." In just the 2nd round he gets badly rocked, which he admits, but afterwards still says "Ricky is not a big puncher," even though it was clear Ricky was hurting him. Obviously, the fact that Paulie was hurt by Ricky, when he didn't EXPECT to be, he sees as a failing. So he sees it as himself underperforming instead of Hatton being much BETTER than he expected.

It's a psychological thing.

And I'm even boring myself with this tosh now :beat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killersheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

I'm pretty sure lots of fighters don't regard the guy that thrashed them as the best they've faced, simply because, i think, they believe they underperformed instead of getting outclassed.

Like tons of fighters who have been knocked out say it WASN'T the hardest they've been hit.

Paulie had success against Cotto.. so understandably would class his OWN performance as better.. and inturn naturally think Cotto was a better fighter than Hatton.

---

Following that vein of thought, would you say Paulie did perform as well as he could have against Hatton? I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that would say Malignaggi gave it his all in that fight. And furthermore after he received a "thrashing" from Cotto do you remember what he said? "Miguel hits hard man" and in this interview he stated he would have trouble with Cotto even on his best night. Regardless of your opinion of how it went down. This seems to be an honest interpretation by Paulie to me.

---

I agree. I don't doubt he is being honest. I'm just looking at it from a different perspective.

He's probably no different a fighter now, than he was for Cotto. Difference is - he was a big underdog in the Cotto fight. No-one really gave him much chance. And i think that includes Cotto. Not only was Cotto suffering from the weight but also was probably undermotivated, and therefore underperformed. So, Paulie's success was amplified. And naturally, left the fight with a far better reputation.

SO.. Paulie, Hatton and Cotto all entered their fights with a different mindset.

For instance - (as you point out) Paulie said after the fight "Miguel hits hard man." But he EXPECTED that going in. Everyone knows Cotto is a hurtful puncher. So the fact he took Cotto's punches is a victory for himself.

Whereas before the Hatton fight Paulie said "Ricky is not a big pucher." In just the 2nd round he gets badly rocked, which he admits, but afterwards still says "Ricky is not a big puncher," even though it was clear Ricky was hurting him. Obviously, the fact that Paulie was hurt by Ricky, when he didn't EXPECT to be, he sees as a failing. So he sees it as himself underperforming instead of Hatton being much BETTER than he expected.

It's a psychological thing.

And I'm even boring myself with this tosh now :beat:

---

I with ya here. I'm don't follow Hatton, Cotto or Malignaggi to be honest. I think Ricky is the clear champ at 140 and by far and large 140 is a crap division with a few stars and very little future promise. As you said PM was probably baffled when he got hurt in the 2nd, BUT what baffles me is he actually landed one good straight right and followed it up by throwing no more right hands for the rest of the fight.

My take on these events
-Hatton had a brilliant performance against PM and beat him more decisively.
-Cotto hurt PM more clearly.
-Hatton is the clear champ at 140.
-Malignaggi looked like crap against Hatton.
-Hatton/Cotto will never happen now because of the weight difference however slight it may seem.