ive not watched the fucker, is it worth it?
Printable View
ive not watched the fucker, is it worth it?
It's obvious you know boxing, Sir. So I hope you keep posting as you have a way with words. I'm fairly new to boxing forums and I have noticed threads are redirected about 20% of the time. It's annoying, but stick around I like the way you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRR
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkVery well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by generalbulldogYou 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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
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
Quote:
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...
It's an interesting fight to watch especially after the Canelo v Lara fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by erics44
Algieri gave Provodnikov schooling. He demonstrated masterful boxing skills and managed to out work and out land Provo all while slipping, ducking and moving effectively.
I recommend it as a comparison fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkLol now the man is a retard. Yesterday, a hero for battering Bradley.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoQuote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Yes, I guess slow plodding retards always say "It's a fight, stop running so I can smash you!" ...And then cry about it when someone uses superior reflexes, skills and intelligence to beat you.
How fickle we can be.
I like Hulk. I don't like Ruthless.