Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Am I missing something or are there four good fighters in the same division with the same adviser on two separate cards facing opponents whose level and experience leaves something to be desired?
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
however despite matthysse and broner fighting inferior opponents, , I am going to go watch this card . Don't get to many "big" cards in my part of the woods and cincy being a little over an hour away will be fun, so I really have no room to complain as i am stupid enough to go watch these missmatches, perhaps i will resist
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Yea it seems like all of these guys are treading water. For how many class fighters are at 140, they haven't been making the big fights on paper, since Garcia vs MAtthyse at least. I don't know anything about any of the 4 opponents here, but all of the headliners are beatable at the same time, so it could turn out to be a pretty good night of boxing. Wouldn't be shocked to see a couple upsets, or at least solid fights come of it.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Now we know why a guy stockpiles boxers and contracts. I'd expect more 'prep' cards like this that'll hopefully payoff with showdowns!! Underdogs serve a purpose and while these are far from stellar all four headliners are coming off unspectacular or life and death battles..or a loss like Garcia :-X. It was yesterday we were calling Mauricio Herrera a complete gimme and 'unknown' after all.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Now we know why a guy stockpiles boxers and contracts. I'd expect more 'prep' cards like this that'll hopefully payoff with showdowns!! Underdogs serve a purpose and while these are far from stellar all four headliners are coming off unspectacular or life and death battles..or a loss like Garcia :-X. It was yesterday we were calling Mauricio Herrera a complete gimme and 'unknown' after all.
Exactly. Who expected Matthyse-Molina to be half the fight it was? It wouldn't surprise me to see Peterson lose to anyone, etc. If all of these guys are in half decent fights on the same card, it's nothing to complain about.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
This card isnt as bad as people are making out. Broner was shit against Molina, Taylor could put the fight to him. Ortis is an unknown to me but he looks a banger so should be a fun fight and Berto is rarely not entertaining.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
armin
however despite matthysse and broner fighting inferior opponents, , I am going to go watch this card . Don't get to many "big" cards in my part of the woods and cincy being a little over an hour away will be fun, so I really have no room to complain as i am stupid enough to go watch these missmatches, perhaps i will resist
Dude, absolutely go to the card. It's still a ton of fun to see quality guys like Matthysse and Broner fight live.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
It's more about what could be than what it is. Haymon has all these guys signed and he has them treading water. Same with Thurman and Kid Chocolate. I'd love to know the strategy in fighting guys twice a year against mid-level opposition.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rantcatrat
It's more about what could be than what it is. Haymon has all these guys signed and he has them treading water. Same with Thurman and Kid Chocolate. I'd love to know the strategy in fighting guys twice a year against mid-level opposition.
Because they make a lot more money as unbeaten fighters than when coming back from a loss.
Because fans are stupid
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
I think having another promoter like Hayman will mean more meaningless mandatory’s and best fighters not fighting one another.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
I think having another promoter like Hayman will mean more meaningless mandatory’s and best fighters not fighting one another.
I'm hoping Hayman turns out better than everyone seems to think.
We always do hope but it never happens.
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
It could be stand to be argued from a promotional standpoint that all these guys (the headliners) need to be repolished so to speak. As for peterson, i think its the end of the line for him personally. Hes pretty much already a gatekeeper. Matthyse's demolition of peterson snuffed out his light for anyone not from the dc area.
Broner's still seen as a pretender by many. After being exposed by Maidana, The comeback performance were not emphatic enough to declare him "back" to any pre-whooping status. Which has always been broners problem. His body and performances cant catch up to his mouth. If he shut his mouth, the last to fights could be seen as a positive indication from a kid whos on the right track after being humbled.
Matthyse's loss to garcia (eye or no eye) took some of the shine off of him and i'd honestly like to see how he responds after being dropped by a middle weight molina early in that fight. Has it affected his chin at all? Matthyses chin is part of his mystique and the confidence behind it puts him in a position to land those bombs.
And Garcia... after those two lack luster performances and all .. you cant really call it ring rust as he was fighting consistently. I think the luster has worn off, whether he was allowed to keep the belt or not.
With a new network, they probably want to set up big fights and ppv's on a platform that will boost showtimes viewership and bottom line. So they probably want them peaking from that popularity aspect when they pair them up again, because at least 2 are cashing out and probably going downhill after that. We know one is probably peterson. I could see haymon trying to market the all hip hop bling bling, getto fab match up between garcia and broner. Friends turned enemies competing across many levels. Fast talking Angel garcia vs. Stuttering broner who can never quite deliver any quips despite rehearsing. Reps, girls, etc etc. Disses about each others raps and lip syncing etc etc. Some serious stars have to be aligned for that one to max out though. Garcia has to start knocking guys out again instead of going life and death with them. Broner has to grow up and be more action before he can talk all that garbage. People have to like these guys from a fight standpoint and a promotional standpoint. (it would be a plus for broner if between now and then Floyd retired and is mouthing off from broners corner... that would turn this into a full wwe type circus.)
Re: Broner v. Taylor; Matthysse v. Ortiz; Garcia v. Salka; Peterson v. Santana?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J_Undisputed
It could be stand to be argued from a promotional standpoint that all these guys (the headliners) need to be repolished so to speak. As for peterson, i think its the end of the line for him personally. Hes pretty much already a gatekeeper. Matthyse's demolition of peterson snuffed out his light for anyone not from the dc area.
Broner's still seen as a pretender by many. After being exposed by Maidana, The comeback performance were not emphatic enough to declare him "back" to any pre-whooping status. Which has always been broners problem. His body and performances cant catch up to his mouth. If he shut his mouth, the last to fights could be seen as a positive indication from a kid whos on the right track after being humbled.
Matthyse's loss to garcia (eye or no eye) took some of the shine off of him and i'd honestly like to see how he responds after being dropped by a middle weight molina early in that fight. Has it affected his chin at all? Matthyses chin is part of his mystique and the confidence behind it puts him in a position to land those bombs.
And Garcia... after those two lack luster performances and all .. you cant really call it ring rust as he was fighting consistently. I think the luster has worn off, whether he was allowed to keep the belt or not.
With a new network, they probably want to set up big fights and ppv's on a platform that will boost showtimes viewership and bottom line. So they probably want them peaking from that popularity aspect when they pair them up again, because at least 2 are cashing out and probably going downhill after that. We know one is probably peterson. I could see haymon trying to market the all hip hop bling bling, getto fab match up between garcia and broner. Friends turned enemies competing across many levels. Fast talking Angel garcia vs. Stuttering broner who can never quite deliver any quips despite rehearsing. Reps, girls, etc etc. Disses about each others raps and lip syncing etc etc. Some serious stars have to be aligned for that one to max out though. Garcia has to start knocking guys out again instead of going life and death with them. Broner has to grow up and be more action before he can talk all that garbage. People have to like these guys from a fight standpoint and a promotional standpoint. (it would be a plus for broner if between now and then Floyd retired and is mouthing off from broners corner... that would turn this into a full wwe type circus.)
Another good post by @J_Undisputed . I disagree a bit, but I see the point.
Garcia didn't need re-polishing after beating Matthysse. Instead, he's looked bad against guys he was supposed to beat. Why did they go that route and not capitalize on the win by unifying with Peterson etc.? Also, what better way to re-polish than beating Broner or Peterson? Same goes for Broner, what better way to rebound from lackluster opponents than beating a big name.
I actually disagree about Peterson. He is coming off a solid win against the Canadian (forget his name). Styles make fights, right? Matthysse was wrong for Peterson. Garcia is a closer fight in my opinion if Peterson's chin holds up. Broner is definitely winnable.
I understand rebuilding Matthysse.
Perhaps the strategy here is to put Garcai against Peterson and Broner against Matthysse at the end of the year. If that's the case, I get it, I guess. I still complain about the holding pattern we've been in with the junior welterweights, but what can we do?
