JasonInk

Hello, guys! I like boxing a lot too. By the way, do you ever place some bets on boxing? I've recently found a very nice website with some betting help - https://oddspedia.com/allevents/, and I would like to try it out soon. Maybe you can give some nice tips and share your experience here. It would be great!

Zinger

I've always followed boxing at least some since even before junior HS so I often have the advantage in knowledge with the people with whom I'm betting as recommended by people successful at it. Usually I limit my bets with coworkers to $5 if I think they are casual fans. Serious devotees get the $20 bets. If you sense ethnic animus from one of the fans you might want to hold off betting if you want to avoid the challenging non payment. But If you happen to be anticipating it then, of course that's a whole other matter which I'll leave to your discretion.

I have never bet through any betting service or bookie in my lifetime. I constantly refer to their odds though when competing in boxing forum pick 'em threads. I also look over fighters BoxRec records since these threads will often have me picking between fighters I've never yet watched or maybe even heard of. When in doubt it usually pays to go with the oddsmakers. The trick to getting ahead is in sensing when they just might be wrong and it's rare. For that you just have to have developed a keen sense of certain styles. And I probably couldn't tip you in any way that you could generalize with. A lifetime of observation is the tool you'd really have to rely on. The pick 'em threads in boxing forums are good in forcing you to pay attention. They usually have about 6 to 12 people in them, last a year, and pay nothing. But they'll let you know how much insight you do or don't yet have. I was already a longtime fan before playing and have won 2 out of the 4 that I participated in.

Sometimes the pick 'em threads will have choices between stoppages or decisions so you'll need to look over KO percentages or having been KO'd percentages. Sometimes they have early, mid or late stoppage choices and that's when both luck and/or knowledge of style matchups can really come into play.

I like to remember my bets against the odds moreso than the losses. Iow, I've bragged about picking Jimmy Young over George Foreman more than losing $20 on Foreman/Ali which I damned sure should have seen coming. It's actually one of the losses that made me more confident in realizing that I could sometimes spot opportunities that the oddsmakers weren't betting on against "conventional wisdom" as determined by known success. I kind of sensed that I could bet against George in that one but wasn't yet confident in having spotted his weaknesses. Betting on him was folly inspired by his simply murdering opponents in short order up to then.

I've never bet on anything but boxing. No football pools or horses or anything. No advantages in knowledge, no bet. I did spend 2 quarters in a slot machine in vegas once while waiting in line for all the undersize crab that I could peel. I didn't win anything though. My favorite novel is "Death on the Installment Plan" which is about, among other things, a guy who lost it all betting on the horses.

And never bet your heart. Oh I know you will because I have. But try not to if your instincts are telling you: foolish fanboy bet.

texaspandj

I boxed as a kid and followed it during the best fight era the 80s. I'd keep with the top 10 fighters. I stopped in the 90s because of the horrible decisions, it just looked like decisions went the wrong way to insure another fight. And then so many boxing organizations started popping up. I just couldn't get into it. I still watch the big fights though.
But I think Canelo could beat Mayweather. But he would have to be the bad guy ie spit on him, talk about his mama, say he'd slap the snot out of his kids if he ever saw them at walmart. Basically piss him off, and when Mayweather changes his strategy and tries to be aggressive Canelo knocks him out. Kinda a Duran strategy.
I've been in boxing,grappling, karate,triathlons and I got to say cycling is the hardest sport.

Zinger

I haven't had much luck convincing either fans or ex fighters just how challenging cycling is yet, unless they've actually done any. As for the physical danger I like to use the analogy of diving out a moving car window in your underwear at over 20 mph. That usually at least gives them pause for thought.


Some cyclists though, should probably avoid fighting in front of spectators.

Zinger

And even at that he would have certainly had to have put some steady pressure on a guy like Floyd. We who watched it were trying to figure out what the hell his corner was doing by not telling him that he was not going to win a damned round standing at a distance and basically fighting Floyd's fight. If that's the strategy they went in with then Bert Sugar might've asked: "Is he trying to win a fight?".

canklecat

Yeah, the scoring for that Mayweather vs Canelo bout was puzzling. It wasn't even close, nowhere near a split decision. Mayweather easily outboxed him. Everyone goes into the ring against Mayweather with a plan, and Mayweather always adapts to whatever they throw at him. It's not always pretty or entertaining, but he's thwarted every plan.

It's just too bad that Mayweather was so cautious against Pacquiao. Mayweather has easily beaten tougher matchups. Not a knock against Pacquiao, it's just a bad matchup and he was never going to look good against Mayweather. But Mayweather turned what could have been an exciting fight into a snoozer.

But Canelo is a danged good fighter and he'll learn and adapt. I'd even pick Canelo over GGG, mostly because Canelo throws straight shots down the tube, while GGG tends to wing wide hooks with both hands looking for kayos. I think Canelo would gradually pick him apart and stop GGG late in the fight.

Zinger

I'd certainly like to see that fight. Right now Opie's camp is talking catchweight at 155. Golovkin's camp hasn't bought that offer yet. It should be a thriller if it happens.

Saul Alvarez vs Gennady Golovkin: 'Triple G' Will Beat Canelo in Middleweight Showdown, Says Al Bernstein : Sports : Latin Post

canklecat

I'm not a fan of catchweights. The best smaller guys take the responsibility for fighting at the bigger guy's weight, not demanding the bigger guy cripple himself. That's why I don't think history will be as kind to Pacquiao as the promoter-driven media fanboys in his era.

Canelo should fight Golovkin at middle. Period. He can outbox GGG and even hurt him by boxing straight down the pipe between Golovkin's wide arcing haymakers.

Just a few of the smaller guys who fought bigger guys on their turf, rather than demanding concessions:

• *Jimmy Ellis started out as a skinny, rangy middleweight, losing decisions to good boxers like Hurricane Carter, before moving up to heavyweight and winning part of a world title. Ellis accomplished something few others could, knocking down the tough Oscar Bonavena en route to a decision win. Overblown and a bit soft at heavyweight, Ellis still turned in respectable performances against world class heavies, considering his disadvantage in true size.
• *Michael Spinks, probably the gold standard in moving up to play with the big boys. A big light heavyweight, Spinks packed a heavyweight punch and a slick, if awkward, boxing style. Folks who only remember him for his quick KO loss to Mike Tyson forget that Spinks thwarted a faded but all-time-great Larry Holmes -- twice -- and dominated Gerry Cooney with fearless (and reckless) straightforward attacks.
• *The legendary Henry Armstrong. 'nuff said.
• *Chris Byrd, another overachieving but not crowd pleasing heavyweight who moved up from middle to make more money. Even as a fan of slick, defensive boxers, I found Byrd's style hard to like. But I admired his moxie.
• *James Toney. Speaking of moxie, that dude had enough for an entire generation of tough guys. Loved his style, and his trash talking was hilarious. And he got better as he got bigger, and even fatter. The middleweight Toney who struggled against the crafty Mike McCallum would get his butt kicked by the older Toney who was much better schooled than his younger self. That cruiserweight title fight against Vassily Jirov remains and all time classic match. And I couldn't even get mad at Toney when he dismantled one of my favorite heavies, Evander Holyfield.
• *Evander Holyfield. One of the great overachievers (and almost certainly PED-fueled). Unfortunately his compromised late performances over a long heavyweight career overshadowed his earlier accomplishments. In my opinion Holyfield is the best cruiserweight in history. He combined lightning fast combinations with devastating punching power, a crowd pleasing boxer-puncher style, and could outwit, outhustle or outpunch any opponent to suit any occasion. I still can't believe he knocked Dwight Muhammad Qawi out cold -- nobody else ever managed that, not even George Foreman who clobbered Qawi consistently.
• *Emile Griffith. Possibly the most successful and effective boxer to negotiate the turf between welter and middle weights. Griffith was a natural light middle, could drop to welter for the right bout, and didn't even bother to try to make the 160 limit. He just fought the bigger guys at his natural weight, and often won. Nino Benvenuti was so much bigger and stronger he could bounce Griffith around the ring when Emile got careless, yet they fought three competitive matches. And then Griffith dropped back down to welter to take on Jose Napoles, one of the greatest welters in history.
• *Speaking of whom... Napoles didn't demand concessions or catchweights to fight Carlos Monzon. What a mismatch. Monzon towered over Napoles, who chose to stay close to his natural weight to retain mobility. Napoles boxed respectably, but instead of trying to outslick Monzon he dug into to many toe to toe exchanges and was slowly dismantled. Still, Napoles remained on his feet after absorbing right hands that had crushed Benvenuti, Tom Bogs and Tony Licata -- all much bigger and stronger guys.
• *Roberto Duran. Again, like Henry Armstrong, 'nuff said. An all time great with an incredible ability to move up in weight class without demanding concessions or changing his style. He always fought like he'd always fought, with bravado, crowd pleasing action and very underrated defensive skills -- Duran had a gift for quickly moving his head to avoid or lessen the impact of punches, without giving up any ground or distance.
• *Mayweather, to some extent. He moved up effectively from junior lightweight to light middle, fought the best available, and wasn't allergic to rematches after close bouts. Part of it is probably PEDs. But after the Alvarez fight he began showing his age and slowed reflexes. He was still very good, but not much fun to watch. If we could turn back the clock, I'd pick a younger Mayweather over Golovkin, no catchweights. But Mayweather has slowed down just enough to make his shoulder roll defense disastrous against GGG, whose hooking lefts, rights and uppercuts would break through. I doubt GGG would KO Mayweather, but it would be an ugly fight.

Eh, I could go on and on about catchweights and the number of great boxers who moved up to fight bigger guys without demanding concessions. If Canelo wants to fight a middleweight, move up to 160.

Zinger

Great list of examples. What you said earlier about Canelo shoving those straight rights reminded me of Baldomir sticking his big fat head up for a target as if he were fighting Floyd and getting KOd by Opie. Let's see, who else besides Ricky Hatton does that?......Oh yeah, Golovkin does that in just about every fight.

He might find his punching opponent "Mexican Style".

I liked Old man Mayweather Sr's stellar advice to Hatton as his trainer between the two rounds of his fight with Pacquiao: "Ricky, ya gotta keep your hands up!"

He could've added that this opponent was neither his kid nor Malignaggi with his right hand out of a cast for two weeks pre-fight. And I'll bet he couldn't remember the last time he ever had to tell Floyd to keep his hands up.

The real showy cornerman of the family though was the "crazy" uncle whom I've seen give perfectly articulate post fight interviews with Bernstein back in his day. And his advice to Floyd went usually like: "Jest keep backin' that b*tch up. He caint fight nohow."

I always wished I could have remotely texted Roger a message informing him that it was incorrect English to change gender reference to the same person in the very next sentence.......I know he would've appreciated that.

trsidn 

Canada has a boxing day....

Zinger

And Dick Tiger. Tiger was basically a middleweight who took the WBA & WBC lightheavyweight title from the Puerto Rican that dismantled my boyhood hero Willie Pastrano in 7 short rounds, Jose Torres. Then he defends against Torres and Roger Rouse, who was also no walkover as Bob Foster attested.

Damned catchweights.


Cool Salsa sounding audio tune throughout.

And my ever erring memory had it wrong. It was a left hook that laid Mr. Baldomir down. I must've been thinking Baldomir / Gatti. I just got that Baldomir was in it right I guess, lol. He tags him good at 6:15 & 6:20. Baldomir still wants to war instead of playing safe for a minute and got it beautifully.

Mexican style war with the Argentinian.

I don't think there will be any problem with this one not living up to the hype if it happens.

canklecat

I misjudged Baldomir, based on his win against the talented but erratic Zab Judah. I just figured it was a lucky break, a poor schlub catching an erratic superstar on a bad day.

But after watching Baldomir I realized he's cut from the same mold as Jake LaMotta, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio and Yori Boy Campos -- guys built like fire hydrants, who looked like sluggers but were actually pretty clever boxers with more slick moves than punching power, quicker than expected, with hard heads to compensate for their lack of height, reach and one-punch kayo power. These are the types of fighters everybody underestimates and who turn in surprising successes when they seemed overmatched, grinding down more talented champs.

I was pleasantly surprised by how well Baldomir did against Canelo for the first few rounds. He was flabby, a bit slower than usual and obviously wasn't going the distance. But he fared well against Alvarez early on, looking more like a comfortable sparring partner than a veteran desperate for one last shot at victory. Alvarez never really forced the action, mostly countering, letting the old man wear himself out before finishing him off.

BTW, Canelo should take a lesson from that fight. Alvarez at full middleweight won't carry the same punching power. He'll need to be clever, a cutie, one of those guys who's built like a fire hydrant, who looks like a slugger but is really a clever boxer. That's how he'll beat Golovkin and other full blown middles. He's a smart cookie with good boxing instincts. If he's patient, doesn't fall in love with his own power, and makes the other guy beat himself, he'll do well at 160.

That's how inexplicably successful pugs like Fullmer, Basilio, Campos and LaMotta did so well. They were much more clever than they got credit for, making the most of limited physical abilities while recognizing the vulnerabilities in their much more gifted opponents.

Zinger

As Teddy Atlas pointed out, Lamotta out-jabs Robinson in their last fight, the only one filmed. And while I was counting jabs I couldn't help but notice how many punches Jake ducked and avoided.....all while pressuring an inside fight.

Fighting Golovkin will be completely different in strategy than giving Mayweather jr any kind of a fight at all. If you wanted to give Floyd a good fight you'd better forget about baiting him into mistakes. I don't think he'd bite on that just from watching him over the years.


This just might've been one of those bad decisions that texaspandj was talking about.

You're going to have to pressure and not let up. Whether you're relatively tall or short, pressure is the way to give Floyd a fight.

canklecat

Yeah, I often try to cook up hypothetical matches for a prime Mayweather that might clearly beat him. But it's tough. He always seems to find a way to muddy the waters enough to make himself good, mostly by making the other guy look bad.

In reviewing the Mayweather-Pacquiao bout, I can see why some viewers thought Pacman won. But they're taking clips of 1 or 2 seconds out of context, showing slight inside contacts through Floyd's defenses. But taking the whole fight in context, Mayweather comes off looking better because he made Pacquiao miss so often, especially in the first few rounds where he had Manny lunging and missing wildly. But that's Floyd's specialty late in his career -- make the other guy look bad.

A prime Duran would do well against Mayweather at welter, although I think Duran might have been even stronger against Floyd at lightweight. Folks who know Duran only from his welterweight and heavier days don't realize how much better Duran was at lightweight. Duran could pressure Floyd enough to eke out a close win.

I can imagine a peak era Vernon Forrest giving Floyd a hard time. The Forrest who beat Shane Mosley might beat Mayweather. But Forrest was so erratic and seemed to lose confidence after the loss to Mayorga. And if anyone can exploit an opponent's psychological vulnerability, it's Mayweather.

I don't see a prime Mayweather at welter beating a prime Sugar Ray Leonard. It would be close, but De La Hoya showed it can be done, and Leonard was much better than Oscar. Leonard's speed was equal to Mayweather's, and his pop would have Floyd covering up, concentrating more on defense.

I'm tempted to give an edge to Thomas Hearns against Mayweather, but the way to beat Hearns was with pressure. While Mayweather *might* be beaten with constant pressure, we've seen Hearns really get beaten by guys who applied pressure. Hagler is the prime example. But Leonard managed to turn around the first bout against Hearns by applying more pressure. And even Wilfred Benitez looked pretty good against Hearns by pressuring Tommy, staying in the pocket and making Hearns miss. Unfortunately Benitez didn't have enough pop to discourage Hearns. The guys who really suffered against Hearns were those who made the mistake of being timid and staying at the end of his punches -- Cuevas, Duran, and the overmatched Bruce Curry (I was a fan of Bruce's from his high school amateur days, but he should never have been matched against Hearns).

Much as I liked cute boxers like Napoles and Benitez, I doubt they'd be comfortable applying constant pressure to beat Mayweather. They were mostly counterpunchers, always looking to exploit the other guy's weaknesses.

I like Basilio against Mayweather. Carmen had the style and tenacity to make anyone look bad.

But it's moot because Floyd always seems to have an answer for everyone's plan. He seems psychologically indomitable, always in top notch condition, and mostly hampered by his own fragile hands. And even now he's almost impossible to hit solidly. But I don't care to watch him fight again, and I doubt he'll have the same market value after that stinker against Pacquiao.

Zinger

And don't forget Aaron Pryor. Pryor says he'd stop Floyd in six rounds. I might give him the decision unless Floyd wanted to rest on the ropes......something you did not want to do with Pryor.


Maybe Floyd's best career fight. Diego was the favorite in this. The six knockdowns in this begin after 27 minutes.


Duran was awesome at lightweight. His trilogy with Esteban DeJesus established that long before his fight with Leonard at welterweight. The best video of their 2nd fight happens to be on dailymotion. The feed is better on dailymotion's site with everything else off. If the feed still doesn't keep up then here's a YouTube copy with Ferdie Pacheco doing the commentary:

canklecat

Yeah, Aaron Pryor was a force of nature. Probably the best light-welter of all time, including Julio Caesar Chavez -- I'd pick Pryor over Chavez at that weight, with both in their primes.

I can see Pryor discombobulating Mayweather at light-welter/super-lightweight, mostly through his wildly improvisational style. It would push Mayweather's ability to adapt to adversity to the maximum test. Before cocaine and wild life robbed Pryor of his lightning reflexes he was almost impossible to prepare for. Everybody had a plan to beat Pryor, and it never helped. Eventually he just beat himself.

I watched almost every one of Pryor's televised bouts and always thought he should have been a bigger star. He was a flashy boxer with a crowd pleasing style, but he wasn't as articulate and personable as Ray Leonard in an era that emphasized selling personality as much as boxing skill. Pryor could be charismatic in his own way, with a charming sort of arrogant self confidence, but he needed careful coaxing from a good interviewer to look his best.

Incidentally, Pryor set the standard for beating Thomas Hearns. As amateur lightweights Pryor put nonstop pressure on Hearns, showing the way to beat him. Even though Hearns evolved as he matured, with faster hands, much harder punching power and better use of his jab, he never really improved in his response to nonstop pressure. I don't know whether his pro opponents watched that video, but Hagler and Iran Barkley followed Pryor's game plan for relentless pressure.

For that matter, Pryor's reckless attack never really evolved either. While he had good reflexes to avoid most punches, he always came in with his head up, even cocked back with his chin exposed, rarely using his shoulders to deflect blows. He relied on lightning quick instincts, which meant he'd never carry that style beyond age 30. Pretty much the same brilliant youthful arrogance that served Roy Jones Jr. so well until he hit age 30. But Pryor could take a heckuva hard shot while RJJ couldn't take a solid shot.

canklecat

BTW, now that Pacquiao says he's retiring after beating Bradley a second time, I'm gonna take a wild stab at this...

Am I the only one who thought Timothy Bradley clearly outboxed Pacquiao in their first match? I've watched their first match as objectively as possible, and I don't see it as even a close fight. Certainly not a split decision.

It's not so much that Bradley was so good. He's a pretty darned clever boxer. But mostly Pacquaio looked sub-standard. I know it's controversial to keep bringing this up, but it's pretty clear Pacman had been juicing since his move up from featherweight. But for the first Bradley bout Pacquiao looked... human. He didn't look out of shape or flabby. He just looked human. Like he skipped the PEDs while training for that match, thinking his natural ability would carry him. And it didn't. After the fourth round I'd be hard pressed to give Pacman two rounds, and that's being generous. I thought Bradley just boxed him silly. And Pacman looked tired after the halfway mark.

But their rematch was a whole 'nuther story. That was the enhanced Pacquiao we've known since he moved up to welter. He was well defined but not over-muscled, not an ounce of fat, quick, with the same old stamina we've seen so often before when he'd work the full 12 rounds without tiring. And Bradley looked just as good -- he just lacked that special something that makes a peak condition Pacman so remarkable.

Haven't seen the third fight yet. I'll bet it was better than the Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight.

Anyway, Bradley is a heckuva good fighter and I find him entertaining. He just lacks that pop in his fists that would push him to the elite level. He reminds me -- not in style, but in overall ability -- of guys like Roger Stafford, Marlon Starling, Pete Ranzany and many others, good enough to be top ten fighters in any era, but champs only during those interim periods between the true elite superstars. If Bradley had that dynamite in his fists to hurt a guy with one shot, he'd be among those elite. But he's a little too cautious to put together enough moderately hard combos to take guys out gradually, so he's not quite on par with fighters like James Toney who wore down naturally bigger, stronger men.

Zinger

I'm afraid I've seen none of the Pacquiao / Bradley fights yet but the people in the boxing forum I was in at the time had varying opinions.

Since the state of Nevada took samples for their second fight I suppose anything might be possible. If WADA or VADA were taking the samples I'd give both fighters the benefit of the doubt. But I'm not seeing any reason why neither of those organizations were allowed to take the samples. So I'm somewhat suspicious just based on that knowing boxing politics as I do.....but more of them negotiating whether or not to cancel a fight for a positive than to just bury it.

Pacquiao vs Bradley II: Extra drug testing to be handled by Nevada - Bad Left Hook

WADA btw, had developed a bad reputation in boxing in that they were tending to report positives to the opponent rather than everyone concerned. So that left the responsibility for any fight cancellation to the opponent. VADA was becoming the reputable go-to for many fighters wanting testing in their contracts.

So I haven't kept up lately but if both organizations are now insisting that they have cancellation rights in response to any positive, then that might be why Nevada was asked to handle the samples. That wouldn't necessarily mean they'd bury samples so much as negotiate whether or not to cancel a fight over any positive. If nobody heard of any positives I don't know if I'd assume anything in this particular scenario.

WADA would still do the testing on all samples. I will say that any random sampling that doesn't have an option for an immediately pre-fight blood sampling is just worthless. That's how they're doing it in cycling now....Or at least that's what they were doing when Armstrong was on his comeback. They were testing immediately before the day's stages.

canklecat

Interesting comments on that Bad Left Hook article. I'll bookmark BLH. While I read Boxing Scene for updates I don't post there and haven't registered. The comments section on Boxing Scene is a toxic wasteland. The BLH comments seem well informed and sane.

Take a look at the first two Pacquiao vs Bradley fights, or just the highlight reels. The highlight reels alone show a marked difference in Pacquiao's apparent conditioning, while Bradley looks pretty much the same in both fights. I suppose it's possible Pacquiao simply underestimated Bradley for their first bout and may have been distracted by his other involvements in politics at home. But I'm surprised that the media continue to repeat that "controversial decision" mantra. Bradley simply outhustled Pacquiao the first time.

Zinger

Last time I saw Pryor interviewed was after Mayweather vs Pacquiao where he had been a spectator. He was sweating bullets, lol.

I'm currently signed up at BoxingScene but I hardly ever go there. If you sign up at BadLeftHook shoot me a PM. I might join you over there.

Zinger

If I'm going to quote Ohio's Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini in another forum then I guess I'd better remember to post him here. Don't go to the frig yet.

canklecat

Mancini was a heckuva crowd pleaser. Unfortunately he was too eager to engage, even when hurt, and never quite mastered the defensive nuances of guys like Jake Lamotta, Gene Fullmer and Carmen Basilio. Those guys, especially Lamotta and Basilio, were cuter defensively than they got credit for. They weren't just power-ahead sluggers. Ditto, Duran, another guy with very underrated defensive tricks and an ability to slip punches while staying in the pocket and not having to regain position and territory.

Canelo Alvarez has that balanced approach, a slugger's physique and power, but with very good defensive capabilities and the discipline to box his way in rather than walk in slugging. I've seen only highlights of the recent bout with Amir Khan, but Alvarez handled it very well, gradually dismantling Khan.

Khan did pretty well considering he was way over his natural weight class and strength. But in slow motion you could see he's a glove-flinger rather than sharpshooter like Mayweather. Khan throws quick arm punches, but in slo-mo you can see a loosey-goosey quality in his wrists and fists, so there's little real impact. It's not enough to slow down a strong guy like Alvarez. Mayweather's sharper jabs and quick rights gave Canelo more to worry about, not enough to stagger him but enough to be a worry and cause him to hesitate and throw off his aggression and timing. Khan's punches lacked that. Also, Alvarez has learned and grown since his loss to Mayweather.

It's a style that worked well for Joe Calzaghe who was careful to stay at his peak of super middleweight. I doubt Calzaghe's style would have translated well at light heavy or cruiserweight, where stronger opponents would have walked through his quick barrages of glove-flinger arm punches.

canklecat

Here's the Canelo vs Khan highlight reel from HBO. Unlike most bootlegged videos I found on YouTube, it's in good enough quality to watch at 1/4 speed to see how ineffective Khan's punches were. He was just throwing limp wristed fingertip slaps, many of them not connecting, but fast enough in bunches to make it look like he was doing something. Because Canelo was on the receiving end of the non-punches, he knew all he had to do was work Khan's body to slow him down and then go for the KO.

Canelo vs Khan highlight reel.

Zinger

I think Prior was beginning to pick up some ability as displayed in the two Arguello fights once they settled into about the third round or so. He always head hunted though. Always wanted to end it now.


Infighting lessons from Roberto Duran vs Carlos Palomino. Just excellent stuff there for the inside "game".

.Sounds like Khan wants that distance for the escape option and reaches beyond optimum punching range. Telling of his "whiskers" or lack thereof.

I hate watching that shoeshine action all through his fights. I even hated it when Ray Leonard would only occasionally rack up his score that way. Calzaghe did it all the damned time. I keep thinking he should hit like he means it now and then. But some of my favorites couldn't "break an egg" as they say. For some reason spoilers that clinch some like Jimmy Young never bothered me like that. Just shoeshine slappers.



Old Tommy Loughran had busted up hands and had to spoil his opponent's fight. Here he is schooling James Braddock of "Cinderella Man" movie fame in defending his lightheavyweight championship for the umpteenth time. Lots of Irish in the house back then. It's like a role call from the narrator. Braddock certainly picked up some the hard way to upset Baer with after his own hands got busted up some.

And I hated the way Ron Howard did Baer in that movie just to find a villain somewhere. Max was just never like that in any interview that I ever saw him in. The only thing I think he ever said was when they were talking about Braddock's kids once during some press promo. When the camera turned to Max he just shrugged and said he didn't know how many kids he had.

canklecat

Outstanding analysis of Duran's style. And that video catches one trick I'd never really noticed before about Duran -- the way he used his forearms inside to control the opponent. I'd always been aware of his use of the outer arm, elbow and shoulders to block and deflect punches while setting up his own counters. And he'd jockey for position and feint on the inside with one hand while setting up the other for the real punch. But that crafty little inside trick with the forearm to blind the view of his uppercut was brilliant.

And unlike Felix Trinidad, Duran didn't use the forearm as a weapon to bruise opponents -- something Tito should have been penalized for many times. Duran's use was very crafty, like Bernard Hopkins and James Toney.

I remember that bout against Palomino, whom I really admired, and thinking he was trying to adapt to Duran's style, but was always a tick too slow, always a fraction of a second behind in anticipating Duran's moves, and not controlling the inside game. Palomino was really more of an outside boxer-puncher, not an infighter, and he got suckered into playing Duran's game. But at times, especially early in that bout, it almost looked like one guy shadowboxing in the mirror. The lightweight Duran against DeJesus was another near mirror-image type matchup.

Regarding those light hitting boxers, I don't dislike a boxer just because he doesn't carry much KO power. I like lots of pure boxers. But Calzaghe's floppy handed pitty pat style was annoying and hard to cheer for, especially in an era of weak opposition at super middle. To his credit, Joe could lay on some decent punches occasionally and busted up Jeff Lacy pretty well and pretty much ended Lacy's career -- he was just a shell of himself after the Calzaghe loss.

But what made other more impressive boxers so formidable beyond their natural weight and prime was the ability to outbox opponents while also worrying them about being hurt or knocked out. Even with his somewhat fragile hands, Floyd Mayweather usually put serious snap into most punches and was capable of KO punches any time. Same with Camacho, even up to middleweight. Ditto Jimmy Ellis and Jimmy Young. With boxers like those guys, you always get the impression of overachievers, guys who shouldn't be so effective so far beyond their prime weights and ages. In contrast, Calzaghe seemed like an underachiever.

Agreed about Ron Howard's treatment of Baer in "Cinderella Man". Good movie, but marred by the pointless demonizing of Baer.