Can Gavin Rees make Broner Jeff Lacy II?

[IamInuit]

Broner maybe Jeff Lacy II, time will tell. Sadly though, I doubt Rees is Calzaghe II, but instead, more like Reid II...

Hope I am wrong, but I am taking Broner in a mid to late round stoppage, with Rees bravely going out on his shield.

Broner is no Lacy and will not be a Jeff Lacy. Broner has that born with talent that was not developed by anyone but himself. Yes he's a twat but he's also a kind of hybrid. A subtle mixture of Benton, Floyd and Burley.

Possibly; but who is to say that hindsight may show it was a mixture of Benton's power, Floyd Snr's drug habit and Burley's political connections?

Huh? That is your interpretation to what I said.

Here is mine. Bentons shoulder roll defense combined with Floyd Jr's counter punching with mule kick power from either side on a Burley seek and destroy mission.

Lacy was a one dimensional hooker and the only reason he had the success he did is because his opponents broke a cardinal rule which is never hook with a hooker.

That is written with years of hindsight. Many of us were seriously high on Lacy, who was a hybrid too, of Barkley (limited but brave), Tua (left hook) and Davey Moore (one fight ruined him)...

Years of hindsight? I followed both of their careers in real time. I knew Joe would make him his chamber maid. How was Lacy a hybrid?

How is the Lacy/Calzaghe fight even come close to this style wise or any other wise?

The big American favourite fighting the Welsh underdog, that was why the comparison was used.

As for you calling Lacy/Calzaghe; well done, but you were in a minority amongst the neutrals.

Your rating of Broner though is a hunch, a prediction. It may or may not come to fruition.

And as for the hybrid comparison, you do know Broner like Lacy before him, were not actually hybrids, as that technology is not invented/available, particularly for a three way conception? Thus as a metaphor it can be used for any fighter!

My rating of Broner is more then a hunch. Its empirical concluded by observation, experience and repeatability. My conclusions on Lacy are based on evidence gathered in the same manner and he's no hybrid and lots of people were taking Calzaghe at the time.

To my hybrid use well I was using as a direct link to Broners fighting style. Like a wolf/coyote hybrid or Polar/Grizzly hybrid. They are a bit of both. Broner has combined the styles of many fighters who used the shoulder or use the shoulder as the backbone to their style.Now I'm not saying that he brought out the Burley, Benton and Floyd tape and consciously made the effort. If you want to use the term hybrid for any fighter then be my guest.

[Britkid]

Mt rating of Broner is more then a hunch. Its empirical concluded by observation, experience and repeatability .

Boxing is not an exact science, hence part of the enjoyment. You can indeed use "observation, experience and repeatability", but to suggest such leads to an empirical conclusion is really stretching the meaning of the word.

You, like me have a hunch Broner could be very special, time will tell.

My conclusions on Lacy are based on evidence gathered in the same manner and he's no hybrid and lots of people were taking Calzaghe at the time.

I would say your 'conclusions' were flawed then and as the majority of the evidence and the bookies favoured Lacy. Of course people supported Calzaghe, I wanted him to win for instance, but I do not think he would!

[IamInuit]

Mt rating of Broner is more then a hunch. Its empirical concluded by observation, experience and repeatability .

Boxing is not an exact science, hence part of the enjoyment. You can indeed use "observation, experience and repeatability", but to suggest such leads to an empirical conclusion is really stretching the meaning of the word.

You, like me have a hunch Broner could be very special, time will tell.

My conclusions on Lacy are based on evidence gathered in the same manner and he's no hybrid and lots of people were taking Calzaghe at the time.

I would say your 'conclusions' were flawed then and as the majority of the evidence and the bookies favoured Lacy. Of course people supported Calzaghe, I wanted him to win for instance, but I do not think he would!

How were they flawed, I was right.

[Britkid]

How were they flawed, I was right.

It was flawed because you were right, and you needed to be wrong, to be proven right. As the evidence favoured Lacy, but Calzaghe won. You looked past the overall evidence, and had a hunch Joe would win, possibly using 'evidence' that was going against the general consensus, but hindsight shows, was proven correct. But there is no 'science' to that!