Printable View
35 press scores with an ave score of 114-112 Provodnikov. My card read 14-113 Provodnikov, punchstats and percentages of the bout.
Comments welcome and how did you score it????
Ruslan Provodnikov deserved decision over Chris Algieri say 54 per cent of boxing media | Latest | Boxing News - boxing news, results, rankings, schedules since 1909
I'm Surprised its not more like 70/30 for Provodnikov. I had him winning 8 rounds, 7 at least.
Read today that Algieri's team are unsure if there was a rematch clause in the contractQuote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
It all comes down to how you wanna score it. If you're a fan of face-first aimless swinging then Provodnikov is your man. If you're a fan of boxing, Algieri's your man. We should also stop and put this in perspective. Algieri had fought no one before Provodnikov, Provodnikov just fought Bradley. Yet Algieri was able to outbox Provodnikov after getting caught cold in the first round and losing a large portion of his vision in his right eye, which made him more susceptible to Provodnikov's best punch in the fight - the left hook. This guy was meant to be a stepping stone. He had little experience and was badly hurt early yet he had the presence of mind to come back and completely outbox him. There were close rounds I s'pose in the sense that Provodnikov was clearly landing the more hurtful shots, but he was also being made to miss a lot and countered/pot-shotted consistently round by round. I had it 114-112. First time I've agreed with a judge in a while (let alone 2!). You can argue that Algieri was 'negative' as Jim Watt did, but given the circumstances he fought the best fight he could - can the same be said of Provodnikov? I mean is it really acceptable for a 'champion' to repeat the same mistakes for 12 rounds against an opponent who seemingly couldn't hurt him with his best shots? Does that make him deserving of the win, particularly when he didn't even outland Algieri? I thought it was an absolutely pathetic showing from Provodnikov, and what he said afterwards just confirmed what was obvious in his display as regards his severe limitations. Chasing a guy around the ring and missing more often than not, all the while taking more shots than you land is not controlling a fight to my mind, but clearly I have a different perspective to 54% of the press who would rather see a man stumbling forward into punches all night. On the other hand Algieri showed a lot of promise, a lot of heart and composure after that first round knockdown. Despite having only recently taken up boxing (as I understand from the commentary on the night) he showed more skill than Provodnikov - although that's really not saying much. Glad that for once we got a fair result from the majority of the judges - I mean 117-109? Was that score submitted before the fight started or what? Even Roach was suggesting that Provodnikov needed a KO to win, and I know that is often a precautionary measure from trainers but clearly he felt that it was close even if he thought his fighter was ahead cos' otherwise why bother?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRR
If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.
Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.
I think this whole notion of 'running' is a bit OTT tbh. Don't think many of the people making these comments would have the balls to get in the ring with a man like Provodnikov in the first place, let alone 'tag and run' for 11 rounds after almost getting laid out in the first. It's also something of a misnomer, considering you have to set your feet to punch, but in any case, I digress - we'll agree to disagree. I would say, however, that one clean hook out of 4 is nothing to be proud of - you're bound to connect eventually, especially against a guy with no amateur background. In a real fight Provodnikov would have his lights put out before he managed to land a single shot. You couldn't miss him, and if Bradley had fought him like he fought Marquez he probably would have stopped him, or at least won on a land slide UD. Btw I never saw Algieri moved 'half way across the ring' aside from being knocked down, honestly I can only remember 2 or 3 decent hooks that landed, one of which was right on the bell and coincided with Algieri somewhat naively lowering his guard. The fact that Provodnikov is popular is one of the many things that is wrong with modern day boxing. I mean, 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. There was no art in what Provodnikov did, you might as well have picked a 'tough guy' from the crowd and given him a bucket of cash - he probably would have landed more shots than Provodnikov. Provodnikov's whole attitude post-fight was just completely wrong as well - he was basically saying he just wants guys who will stand in front of him and let him hit them until he gets lucky and lands a good shot. This is beyond lazy. Beyond disrespectful to the sport of boxing. I know that skill sets have been diluted by the sheer number of belts and the increasingly complex back room politics, but supporting such garbage only serves to perpetuate the trend of half-assed professionals who get into boxing because they can take a punch and punch hard (when they manage to land) in return. Although I respect that you're entitled to your opinion, I think that boxing fans should demand more from professional fighters - particularly those who claim to be worthy to be called a champion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkQuote:
Originally Posted by SRR
If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.
Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.
Thank you for being cordial. However:
1. I do have the balls to get in the ring, have done so for the past 7 years and faced very aggressive short powerhouses like Provodnikov, though obviously not nearly at his level. I boxed them, occasionally brawled them and hit them. Hard.
2. Please do not pretend its a "sign of the times" that such a free swinging slugger is popular. Over a half a century ago, Jake Lamotta was popular and he beat the man in your avatar and your namesake.
3. There is most assuredly such a thing as being a runner. Floyd Mayweather is a boxer. Cory Spinks was a runner. Some fools became so deluded with his "style" they believed he actually "beat" Jermain Taylor. Chris Algeri is a runner.
Hulk is absolutely correct... Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook that moves you across the ring means you just lost the round. But that's not what happened in this fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Algieri landed jabs, hooks & uppercuts at will and when Provodnikov threw his wide looping hooks, Algieri was nowhere near. Incredible footwork, head movement, crouching, ducking, ring generalship and clean hard counter punching won the majority of the rounds for Algieri.
Hulk, if all you saw was 3 or 4 jabs then you're blind.
I don't remember all these hooks that moved Algieri across the ring :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoHulk is absolutely correct... Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook that moves you across the ring means you just lost the round. But that's not what happened in this fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Algieri landed jabs, hooks & uppercuts at will and when Provodnikov threw his wide looping hooks, Algieri was nowhere near. Incredible footwork, head movement, crouching, ducking, ring generalship and clean hard counter punching won the majority of the rounds for Algieri.
Hulk, if all you saw was 3 or 4 jabs then you're blind.
Funny how I'm not alone in my perception of the fight isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by La CucarachaI don't remember all these hooks that moved Algieri across the ring :pQuote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoHulk is absolutely correct... Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook that moves you across the ring means you just lost the round. But that's not what happened in this fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Algieri landed jabs, hooks & uppercuts at will and when Provodnikov threw his wide looping hooks, Algieri was nowhere near. Incredible footwork, head movement, crouching, ducking, ring generalship and clean hard counter punching won the majority of the rounds for Algieri.
Hulk, if all you saw was 3 or 4 jabs then you're blind.
It's become hip for boxing fans to consistently play the devils advocate on big fights. Even medium fights like this one.
It's a FIGHT. Not tag.
People are talking about Algieri "running and tagging", not doing any damage, pitty patting, ect. But how much damage does a blocked haymaker do?
Nobody wanted Prov to win more than I did, he is hands down my #1 favourite current fighter. But the fact is, he got outboxed. He hurt his man in the first round and then tried to force a KO that wasn't there for the rest of the fight. Boxing matches aren't scored on aggression, it's EFFECTIVE aggression. Prov just wasn't effective. He wasn't landing clean. He was bothered by the movement and fast hands. He wasn't listening to his corner and using the jab, he was wading in and looking for the home run that just didn't come.
Algieri won the fight.
Quote:
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.
I wouldn't call what he did running, but definitely a strategic retreat. I don't think its written in stone that you have to plant your feet to punch and its obvious by having 8 kos and not breaking a grape. Algieri was half the time rolling so hard to the right that his feet were soft when he got off jabs and a counter in order to reset his skirmish line. If a guy is so open, loading up with the speed of a musket and plodding simple, then you sit down and roll off impacting combinations that do damage. Or you preserve and simply throw half punches in order tally punches like a bean counter. If, might, coulda is all uncertain too. Bradley didn't fight him like Marquez because Marquez wasn't fighting like Provo. Marquez fought a trap pocket type fight where he was waiting for counters all night. Provo was standing on Tim's chest. Tim's mentality and instinct in the trenches is miles apart from Chris. In a way frankly Chris is a smarter more disciplined boxer who recognizes what he has and what would happen to him had he planted and tried to do actual hurt. Tim thinks he is Foreman and its cost him before and after.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRRI think this whole notion of 'running' is a bit OTT tbh. Don't think many of the people making these comments would have the balls to get in the ring with a man like Provodnikov in the first place, let alone 'tag and run' for 11 rounds after almost getting laid out in the first. It's also something of a misnomer, considering you have to set your feet to punch, but in any case, I digress - we'll agree to disagree. I would say, however, that one clean hook out of 4 is nothing to be proud of - you're bound to connect eventually, especially against a guy with no amateur background. In a real fight Provodnikov would have his lights put out before he managed to land a single shot. You couldn't miss him, and if Bradley had fought him like he fought Marquez he probably would have stopped him, or at least won on a land slide UD. Btw I never saw Algieri moved 'half way across the ring' aside from being knocked down, honestly I can only remember 2 or 3 decent hooks that landed, one of which was right on the bell and coincided with Algieri somewhat naively lowering his guard. The fact that Provodnikov is popular is one of the many things that is wrong with modern day boxing. I mean, 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. There was no art in what Provodnikov did, you might as well have picked a 'tough guy' from the crowd and given him a bucket of cash - he probably would have landed more shots than Provodnikov. Provodnikov's whole attitude post-fight was just completely wrong as well - he was basically saying he just wants guys who will stand in front of him and let him hit them until he gets lucky and lands a good shot. This is beyond lazy. Beyond disrespectful to the sport of boxing. I know that skill sets have been diluted by the sheer number of belts and the increasingly complex back room politics, but supporting such garbage only serves to perpetuate the trend of half-assed professionals who get into boxing because they can take a punch and punch hard (when they manage to land) in return. Although I respect that you're entitled to your opinion, I think that boxing fans should demand more from professional fighters - particularly those who claim to be worthy to be called a champion.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkQuote:
Originally Posted by SRR
If you are a fan of tag and running, doing no damage then perhaps you could give Algeri 5 or 6 rounds at the absolute most.
Jabbing a man in the face 3 or 4 times then getting hit with a hard clean hook and moved halfway across the ring means you just lost the round.
Its just wrong to call him a lazy or garbage-like fighter waiting to get lucky ffs. Gimme a break. Limited, even one dimensional, primal...sure but he's more than earned the spot beating Bradley and Alvarado around like rag dolls when everyone who took time to spell his name correctly knew full well he could be boxed years ago. He trains his ass off and is far from some palooka in a crowd looking to get lucky. Disrespectful to the sport you speak of are bloated spoon fed network glory boys who literally refuse to make weight, are over exposed and don't commit to their seemingly natural gifts and ability half as much as Provodnikov does his. He wasn't handed his spot he earned it.
Lol 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.
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.
No no no.... You misunderstood me. I meant you were the retard. HAHAHA!!!!!
You 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...
IMO Provdnikov is the better fighter but lost to a better boxer. Most people want to see a fight. not a points contest.
Very 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...
1. I was not questioning you personally, only noting that most people who make such comments would likely have a different perspective if they were put in Algieri's place, and whilst I'm sure that what you say is true it doesn't change my opinion - boxing is not about brute force, it's about mastery of self and one's opponent through skill and strategy, the medium for which is the application of force. I think that we fundamentally disagree on this point and so there is really no sense in developing the point much further unless you are so inclined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
2. I did not mean to imply that it was a 'sign of the times', merely that it was one of many things that is wrong with modern boxing, and I was also connecting the proliferation of such fighters with the dilution of the weight classes via the introduction of so many different belts. Sure there have always been sluggers and those who see boxing as pure entertainment often take great pleasure in watching them. I think it's a stretch to compare Provodnikov to Lamotta, to say the least.
3. Are we really going to argue semantics? Just because a man doesn't lead with his face, doesn't make him a runner. Just because he uses footwork and distance rather than upper body movement to evade punches, doesn't mean he has stopped boxing and gotten on his bike. Besides, as the fight went on, Algieri regularly stood in front of Provodnikov and let off combinations, before either circling, or moving in, smothering and letting off another combination before moving out. In fact, short of continuously backing up, which Algieri never did, I don't see how or why you would call someone a 'runner' just because they were smart enough not to stand and trade with someone who hits harder than them. Unless of course you're using it in some non-derogatory sense which I don't quite understand - because in the sense that Provodnikov used it, it's a term which denotes the user's inability to counteract the strategy of his opponent, and nothing more. Fair play to you for actually indulging, but I think in assessing Algieri, and perhaps in comparing his methods to your own, you have confused bravery with stupidity. Bravery was getting up, and confronting a man who was trying his best to decapitate him, overcoming the natural instinct to (actually) run, and staying in there with him, outsmarting him every step of the way. Stupidity would have been digging his heels in and giving Provodnikov an easy target. As far as hitting hard I think the limited experience of Algieri contributed somewhat to him not gaining proper leverage at all times, but you should also consider that Provodnikov has an iron chin and it was clear when Algieri did land some firmer shots he never had the power to trouble him. Now if you've been in with such guys you will know (or perhaps you won't) that the realisation you can't hurt a guy with your best shot may certainly create some trepidation, especially if that guy has already knocked you down and swollen up one side of your face. You will also know that it puts a lot of pressure on you to then be hunted by a guy who is relentless in cutting off the ring. Yet Algieri stuck to his game plan, even though the odds were stacked against him. It really was a (poorly trained) matador against a bull, except they didn't cut the bull before they put him in the ring, and Algieri was carrying plastic sticks rather than the traditional banderillas. On that account I think the man deserves credit - more credit than you would want to give him. But each to his own.
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRRNor 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...
Miles? lol
;)
You're a retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
And you sir are a cowardly cunt of an Internet troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoYou're a retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Go troll someone else please. :)
Not cowardly... I'm saying it to you internet face!!! Moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkAnd you sir are a cowardly cunt of an Internet troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoYou're a retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
Go troll someone else please. :)
Agree with much of what you say(boxing wise) ie topic. Boxing may still like its blankets but the blankets of today are not made the same. The object of the game is to hit and not get hit and not get hit and try to hit back.Quote:
Originally Posted by SRRNor 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...
Boxing is actually devolving. Soon it will be a competition for grappling. The pugilists of the past were both appreciated and sought after. The pugilists of today dont fit the ad world. Respect the approach @SRR and recognize it. You know your stuff. I've talked to you before.
Algiers won the fight. It was one of the clearest victories I've seen for a while.
The only reason Prov had any shout was round one.
He got beat by a guy with one eye and comfortably.
It depressed me that people score Prov ahead.
If theres a rematch I think Algieri will win it even more defined next time,he learn't as he went, he wont fall for basic mistakes getting caught square early again and will probably if he's smart start much warmer than he did this time around. He should also now know how to get into Provs openings easier next time too cause Prov is very open and over committed so with two eyes and touch more fitness he should start and finish just as strong.
Also in the minds of many Algieri wont be expected to 'take the belt off the champ', next time as the rolls will be reversed, so people will be easier on him if the scores are close.
In this fight I thought Algieri slowed down a lot in the last two rounds (the championship rounds).
I really want to see this last fight again, if any of you can upload it, or if you have a link that would be great.
Ah more trolling. Someone's going on ignore due to being a cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoQuote:
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.
No no no.... You misunderstood me. I meant you were the retard. HAHAHA!!!!!
Strange that I posted that before you called me a troll and now are using it to say that I'm trolling more... You don't even have your facts straight...just like your case against Chris Algieri. Sad sad man.Quote:
Originally Posted by HulkAh more trolling. Someone's going on ignore due to being a cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless roccoQuote:
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.
No no no.... You misunderstood me. I meant you were the retard. HAHAHA!!!!!
I had provodnikov winning the fight.
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 SRRNor 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.