Boxing Media split on the Provodnikov-Algieri fight

[generalbulldog]

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.

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."

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

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...

[fan johnny]

IMO Provdnikov is the better fighter but lost to a better boxer. Most people want to see a fight. not a points contest.

[Hulk]

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.

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."

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

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...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

[SRR]

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.

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.

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.

[SRR]

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.

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."

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

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...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

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.

[Hulk]

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.

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."

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

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...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

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.

Miles? lol

[ruthless rocco]

Miles? lol

You're a retard.

[Hulk]

Miles? lol

You're a retard.

And you sir are a cowardly cunt of an Internet troll.

Go troll someone else please.

[ruthless rocco]

Miles? lol

You're a retard.

And you sir are a cowardly cunt of an Internet troll.

Go troll someone else please.

Not cowardly... I'm saying it to you internet face!!! Moron.

[IamInuit]

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.

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."

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

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...

Very well put. Liking fighters who come to FIGHT is not a new age concept.

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.

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.
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.

[Vendettos]

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.

[Andre]

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.

[Hulk]

Funny how I'm not alone in my perception of the fight isn't it?

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.

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.

Lol now the man is a retard. Yesterday, a hero for battering Bradley.

How fickle we can be.

No no no.... You misunderstood me. I meant you were the retard. HAHAHA!!!!!

Ah more trolling. Someone's going on ignore due to being a cunt.

[ruthless rocco]

Funny how I'm not alone in my perception of the fight isn't it?

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.

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.

Lol now the man is a retard. Yesterday, a hero for battering Bradley.

How fickle we can be.

No no no.... You misunderstood me. I meant you were the retard. HAHAHA!!!!!

Ah more trolling. Someone's going on ignore due to being a cunt.

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.

[awdleyfuturehalloffamer]

I had provodnikov winning the fight.