Was Sod planked or was it a tko on feet?
Printable View
Was Sod planked or was it a tko on feet?
TKO, looked a bit of a premature stoppage too. Whole thing was just messy but Sod looked like he had no interestQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjfHuAVig9g
You can make your mind up for yourself. I dont here the ref say box. He looks to gesture to box but when he takes his hand away he says nothing and is not looking at the fights. No doubt in my mind if Ortiz had thrown those punches and KOd floyd he would have been DQd.
I completely agree with you. P4P King and you have to resort to those types of tactics thats just a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe
I think you have to make room for others who have a different opinion. Boxing throughout history has had exciting fighters who were "mindless clubbers" and also exciting fighters who were masterful boxers. In terms of efficacy, sometimes one style wins, sometimes the other. You can have your opinion on which you want to watch, but it's not fair to dismiss the other out of hand. Boxing encompasses the entire range of styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
As a pure boxer, in terms of excitement, I would put Rigondeaux somewhere between Whitaker and Laras. He stays in the pocket a lot, using a beautiful array of techniques to "not get hit." Whitaker would do similar things, but with a natural flair and showmanship that made it more exciting to watch. Laras on the other hand runs halfway across the ring, throws two or three punches, then runs to the other side. I just can't compare that to the defensive mastery of Rigondeaux, much less the wizardry of someone like Sweet Pea. Stylistically, I personally don't consider that to be "pure" boxing, or "defensive mastery."
I save those terms for guys like Rigondeaux.
LOL, I'm beginning to think I might be a little fickle. They have convinced Zou to engage more to make for exciting fights (and I like that), but now they have to convince him to let some of his opponent's punches miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
They are saying Zou makes too much money for his level as a pro, but that fight was all about about Zou, what I mean is that it could have been a boring affair with Zou picking him apart from the outside, but instead I wound up enjoying it.
Zou, is China's poster boy right now, so he's going to make the most money most of the time.
Larry Merchant was terrible, apparently he's making less so he's saying less, that's a good thing in the long run. I do admire the fact that he I still out there working, I'm sure he doesn't need the money and he is getting old.
those with differing opinions speak all the time. We constantly hear them dismiss anyone that boxes as boring. I'm just making a point to speak up when it isn't true, like with Rigondeaux. I have no problem with aggressive fighters. My favorites from youth and to this day are Hagler and Hearns which demonstrates that aggression appeals to me. Mindless clubbing does not. If I want to see a fight I can go to a bar, I watch boxing to see a broad array of styles pitted against each other. But people seem to want to eliminate boxing from boxing. I usually don't speak in absolutes but I did on that previous post saying mindless clubbers are boring to make a point. If those against boxers ever spoke for themselves I'd be fine with their opinion. "I find Rigo boring", that'd be fine. But instead it's always "Rigo is boring" or "Lara is boring" or "Mayweather is boring" or or or. When the guys that speak against any and all boxing in boxing learn to speak for themselves I'll adjust my sentence to I find mindless clubbing boring but until then MINDLESS CLUBBING IS BORING.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcollinsI think you have to make room for others who have a different opinion. Boxing throughout history has had exciting fighters who were "mindless clubbers" and also exciting fighters who were masterful boxers. In terms of efficacy, sometimes one style wins, sometimes the other. You can have your opinion on which you want to watch, but it's not fair to dismiss the other out of hand. Boxing encompasses the entire range of styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
As a pure boxer, in terms of excitement, I would put Rigondeaux somewhere between Whitaker and Laras. He stays in the pocket a lot, using a beautiful array of techniques to "not get hit." Whitaker would do similar things, but with a natural flair and showmanship that made it more exciting to watch. Laras on the other hand runs halfway across the ring, throws two or three punches, then runs to the other side. I just can't compare that to the defensive mastery of Rigondeaux, much less the wizardry of someone like Sweet Pea. Stylistically, I personally don't consider that to be "pure" boxing, or "defensive mastery."
I save those terms for guys like Rigondeaux.
Me too! I always find it more exciting when there is an interesting stylistic clash to the bout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swansonthose with differing opinions speak all the time. We constantly hear them dismiss anyone that boxes as boring. I'm just making a point to speak up when it isn't true, like with Rigondeaux. I have no problem with aggressive fighters. My favorites from youth and to this day are Hagler and Hearns which demonstrates that aggression appeals to me. Mindless clubbing does not. If I want to see a fight I can go to a bar, I watch boxing to see a broad array of styles pitted against each other. But people seem to want to eliminate boxing from boxing. I usually don't speak in absolutes but I did on that previous post saying mindless clubbers are boring to make a point. If those against boxers ever spoke for themselves I'd be fine with their opinion. "I find Rigo boring", that'd be fine. But instead it's always "Rigo is boring" or "Lara is boring" or "Mayweather is boring" or or or. When the guys that speak against any and all boxing in boxing learn to speak for themselves I'll adjust my sentence to I find mindless clubbing boring but until then MINDLESS CLUBBING IS BORING.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcollinsI think you have to make room for others who have a different opinion. Boxing throughout history has had exciting fighters who were "mindless clubbers" and also exciting fighters who were masterful boxers. In terms of efficacy, sometimes one style wins, sometimes the other. You can have your opinion on which you want to watch, but it's not fair to dismiss the other out of hand. Boxing encompasses the entire range of styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
As a pure boxer, in terms of excitement, I would put Rigondeaux somewhere between Whitaker and Laras. He stays in the pocket a lot, using a beautiful array of techniques to "not get hit." Whitaker would do similar things, but with a natural flair and showmanship that made it more exciting to watch. Laras on the other hand runs halfway across the ring, throws two or three punches, then runs to the other side. I just can't compare that to the defensive mastery of Rigondeaux, much less the wizardry of someone like Sweet Pea. Stylistically, I personally don't consider that to be "pure" boxing, or "defensive mastery."
I save those terms for guys like Rigondeaux.
So by mindless clubbing I assume you mean Toughman-style fighting. I agree that is boring as well. I guess I'm not a huge fan of either extreme - someone like Butterbean on one side, and someone like Laras on the other. With that being said - I still watch, even those extremes.
I feel the same way, we all watch and pay for fights we don't enjoy so we can see the ones we do like.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcollinsMe too! I always find it more exciting when there is an interesting stylistic clash to the bout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swansonthose with differing opinions speak all the time. We constantly hear them dismiss anyone that boxes as boring. I'm just making a point to speak up when it isn't true, like with Rigondeaux. I have no problem with aggressive fighters. My favorites from youth and to this day are Hagler and Hearns which demonstrates that aggression appeals to me. Mindless clubbing does not. If I want to see a fight I can go to a bar, I watch boxing to see a broad array of styles pitted against each other. But people seem to want to eliminate boxing from boxing. I usually don't speak in absolutes but I did on that previous post saying mindless clubbers are boring to make a point. If those against boxers ever spoke for themselves I'd be fine with their opinion. "I find Rigo boring", that'd be fine. But instead it's always "Rigo is boring" or "Lara is boring" or "Mayweather is boring" or or or. When the guys that speak against any and all boxing in boxing learn to speak for themselves I'll adjust my sentence to I find mindless clubbing boring but until then MINDLESS CLUBBING IS BORING.Quote:
Originally Posted by bcollinsI think you have to make room for others who have a different opinion. Boxing throughout history has had exciting fighters who were "mindless clubbers" and also exciting fighters who were masterful boxers. In terms of efficacy, sometimes one style wins, sometimes the other. You can have your opinion on which you want to watch, but it's not fair to dismiss the other out of hand. Boxing encompasses the entire range of styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson
As a pure boxer, in terms of excitement, I would put Rigondeaux somewhere between Whitaker and Laras. He stays in the pocket a lot, using a beautiful array of techniques to "not get hit." Whitaker would do similar things, but with a natural flair and showmanship that made it more exciting to watch. Laras on the other hand runs halfway across the ring, throws two or three punches, then runs to the other side. I just can't compare that to the defensive mastery of Rigondeaux, much less the wizardry of someone like Sweet Pea. Stylistically, I personally don't consider that to be "pure" boxing, or "defensive mastery."
I save those terms for guys like Rigondeaux.
So by mindless clubbing I assume you mean Toughman-style fighting. I agree that is boring as well. I guess I'm not a huge fan of either extreme - someone like Butterbean on one side, and someone like Laras on the other. With that being said - I still watch, even those extremes.
That's boxing, it's always been that way and probably always will be.
I still think that was a punk move by Mayweather, he baited and went along with 'hugging it out", nods, and then tags him when Ortiz wanted to prolong it. Foolish Ortiz and I get it, protect yourself yadda yadda, but Floyd punked him. And yes, Ortiz opened himself up to be punked. But still was a bit&$ move.
Anyone have vid of Rigo fight btw ???
Its def a different version of the Loma experiment as far as promotion. I don't know the particulars with Arum and contract but its dangerous ground when a promoter tries to make a guy something he's not yet. Trainers we've seen of course...and experienced fighters good enough to change style.. but a guy trying to protect or expand an investment can get Zou in big trouble and played for a fool. Weight of a nation on your shoulders is enough alone not to mention Scrare'um Arum pumping you up like this was a wrestling promotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedLOL, I'm beginning to think I might be a little fickle. They have convinced Zou to engage more to make for exciting fights (and I like that), but now they have to convince him to let some of his opponent's punches miss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
They are saying Zou makes too much money for his level as a pro, but that fight was all about about Zou, what I mean is that it could have been a boring affair with Zou picking him apart from the outside, but instead I wound up enjoying it.
Zou, is China's poster boy right now, so he's going to make the most money most of the time.
Larry Merchant was terrible, apparently he's making less so he's saying less, that's a good thing in the long run. I do admire the fact that he I still out there working, I'm sure he doesn't need the money and he is getting old.
Here you are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd5-U__qgZg
wow. That was terrible. Hadn't even heard mention of the head butt and that he went down?! That was a straight smash of heads. He was clearly shook up and almost stepping in post holes walking out.
This wasn't as bad as the Mayweather - Ortiz mishap, but I hate to see a top flight fighter get a win under less-than-optimal circumstances. Clearly, Sod wasn't into the fight yet, and Rigo went for the kill. The referee should have given Sod more time.
How much time,! he was on borrowed after the bell rang Rigo was that many levels above Sod,Quote:
Originally Posted by Rantcatrat
defend yourself at all times they say, seen many fighters crack there opponent on the chin, when
they had there hands down.
Yes Sod was head-butted and the ref could have given him more time to recover, but the out come
would have been the same.;)