Boxing Media split on the Provodnikov-Algieri fight

[SRR]

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?

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.