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.
Re: Malignaggi v Broner / Mitchell v Banks Chat Thread
In the ninth (or possibly tenth) round of the first fight of the night last week....my old router started flashing orange everywhere, and then gave up the ghost. In many ways, I think it was to save me from the Banks/Mitchell fight.
Anyway, in my first post back this is the thread getting unstuck.
