OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!!

Moderator: lilfishi22

User avatar
ManualRam
RealGM
Posts: 23,361
And1: 2,749
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
     

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#41 » by ManualRam » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:49 am

skflives wrote:
Then your problem is your definition of beast because someone who fights like a beast isn't getting dropped 2x in his fights. If it weren't for the fact that we now know Margarito was cheating he fights like a beast. He walked through all of Cotto best shots and kept on coming and eventually beat Cotto into submission. He left Sebastian Lujan with his ear dangling by a piece of skin. That's a beast. Mike Tyson in his prime so scared the F out his opponents that they had already lost b4 they entered the ring. He fought like a beast. Ortiz did not fight like a beast. He fought hard and in my opinion fought stupid.


Berto hasn't fought much in the way of quality opposition and that is part of why he's an underachiever. He's being babied and has struggled against opposition. It was time for him to sink or swim against a higher caliber of welterweight but instead he was given his 3rd junior welterweight in his past 6 fights (the other two being Steve Forbes and Juan Urango). Now that he lost to this former Junior Welterweight in a bout where he got dropped twice to go along with a controversial win against Luis Collazo that he didn't rematch and a couple of uninspired performances his career is stuck in limbo. He's got talent and potential but he's no draw and he doesn't have a belt to use as a negotiating point. His only hope to quickly get back in the picture was to get a rematch with Ortiz but with Ortiz taking the big money against Floyd he's going to have to go back to either beat up a bunch of stiffs to look intimidating or he's going to have to face really tough opponents with no name recognition and for less money to try to get hardcore fans behind him. The first way is basically what he has been doing for much of his career and so it won't help him grow as a fighter and I don't realistically know how well he'd do with the second option.

He got dropped twice. If even one of those shots landed more solid than it did we wouldn't even be talking about Ortiz.

A stupid plan is a stupid plan but only looks brilliant if it works. Ortiz got dropped twice. Twice. That's not brilliant. That's risky and it almost bit him on the a$$ twice.


then according to your definition there are hardly any beasts in boxing. is maidana a beast? nope he got knocked down 3 times in a fight even though he got up each time and kept fighting. tim bradley? nope, kendall holt put him on his ass even though he got back up both times and won the fight.
prime morales wasnt a beast. neither was duran.
sht, even your own examples contradict your own definition. margarito's been KTFO. what kind of beast gets KTFO in one of his fights? tyson got KTFO in his prime, some beast huh?
are we really arguing the beastliness of a fighter?? what kind of fckery is this?

how else was ortiz supposed to fight berto? fight a technical boxing match like he did vs peterson and campbell? he looked awful in those fights. that is not his game. he's a much better fighter when fighting aggressively. he took the fight to berto and made him work every single minute of each round. that's what you're supposed to vs fighters with stamina problems, not dance around and pot shot from the outside while minimizing action. not everyone can fight like floyd, nor should they try to. you fight long enough and you face power punchers, chances are you will get knocked down or hurt multiple times. a stupid plan would be to try to do something that he's not good at. victor is good at coming forward and setting up his power shots with his feet. that's exactly what he did and he ended up taking the fight out of berto.

as for berto, like i said, how could he be an underachiever prior to the ortiz fight if he didnt even fight anybody? his biggest mistake was winning that interim belt against that nobody. winning that belt (unjustifiably) propelled him to the top of the division despite not earning that status. because he was an HBO fighter and was supposedly at the top of his division, he thought that he was in line for a big money fight vs one of the big 2, but obviously that was not the case. no money fighter wanted to fight him (except for mosley, but that fell through cuz of the earthquakes) because he was dangerous, but is/was a terrible draw. the only fighters who were willing to fight him were bad draws themselves, fighters who HBO would not accept or who berto's camp did not want (like mike jones and selcuk aydin for example). he was a victim of his own quick "success"...which really wasnt success in the first place. an underachiever is someone who fails along the way. berto had not failed until the ortiz fight. he was unchallenged, but not an underachiever.
idontgiveashtaboutmelo
skflives
Banned User
Posts: 3,531
And1: 281
Joined: Feb 14, 2009

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#42 » by skflives » Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:18 pm

then according to your definition there are hardly any beasts in boxing.


Definitely.

is maidana a beast? nope he got knocked down 3 times in a fight even though he got up each time and kept fighting. tim bradley? nope, kendall holt put him on his ass even though he got back up both times and won the fight.


The guy struggled mightily against the corpse of Eric Morales. Nuff said.

prime morales wasnt a beast. neither was duran.
sht, even your own examples contradict your own definition. margarito's been KTFO. what kind of beast gets KTFO in one of his fights? tyson got KTFO in his prime, some beast huh?
are we really arguing the beastliness of a fighter?? what kind of fckery is this?


Now you're just exaggerating. Tyson, Morales and Duran had extensive hall of fame careers. You're basing Ortiz's beastliness on one fight.
how else was ortiz supposed to fight berto? fight a technical boxing match like he did vs peterson and campbell? he looked awful in those fights. that is not his game. he's a much better fighter when fighting aggressively. he took the fight to berto and made him work every single minute of each round. that's what you're supposed to vs fighters with stamina problems, not dance around and pot shot from the outside while minimizing action. not everyone can fight like floyd, nor should they try to. you fight long enough and you face power punchers, chances are you will get knocked down or hurt multiple times. a stupid plan would be to try to do something that he's not good at. victor is good at coming forward and setting up his power shots with his feet. that's exactly what he did and he ended up taking the fight out of berto.


I never said he should go from fighting the way he did to running and slapping like Floyd. Jeez. If you only see things in such huge variations that is your problem. Are you going to tell me he couldn't have fought aggressively without putting himself in a position to get dropped 2x? Or are you just admitting that he isn't capable of doing so.
as for berto, like i said, how could he be an underachiever prior to the ortiz fight if he didnt even fight anybody? his biggest mistake was winning that interim belt against that nobody. winning that belt (unjustifiably) propelled him to the top of the division despite not earning that status. because he was an HBO fighter and was supposedly at the top of his division, he thought that he was in line for a big money fight vs one of the big 2, but obviously that was not the case. no money fighter wanted to fight him (except for mosley, but that fell through cuz of the earthquakes) because he was dangerous, but is/was a terrible draw. the only fighters who were willing to fight him were bad draws themselves, fighters who HBO would not accept or who berto's camp did not want (like mike jones and selcuk aydin for example). he was a victim of his own quick "success"...which really wasnt success in the first place. an underachiever is someone who fails along the way. berto had not failed until the ortiz fight. he was unchallenged, but not an underachiever.


Berto has been tested. He got a gift decision against Luis Collazo and instead of giving him the rematch he deserved he ran away to much easier opponents. So don't tell me he couldn't get people in the ring to test him. He had every opportunity to get tough fights. He chose not to take them. Paul Williams was wandering around from 147-160 pounds trying to get big fights. Berto could have stepped in at any point. But Berto's team was ducking him to. You can't say he couldn't get tougher fights when there are at least two guys who wanted and deserved big fights and whom Berto went out of his way to avoid. Especially when he chose to fight former junior welterweights or smaller 3 times in his last 6 fights.
User avatar
ManualRam
RealGM
Posts: 23,361
And1: 2,749
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
     

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#43 » by ManualRam » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:53 pm

skflives wrote:

Now you're just exaggerating. Tyson, Morales and Duran had extensive hall of fame careers. You're basing Ortiz's beastliness on one fight.

no i am not. according to your definition, ortiz could not be considered a beast because he got knocked down twice in one of his fights. look at your post. by your definition, anyone who has ever gotten knocked down twice in a fight cannot be a beast. and no, i said ortiz fought like a beast vs berto. that's where this gay argument of "beastliness" ends.
skflives wrote:I never said he should go from fighting the way he did to running and slapping like Floyd. Jeez. If you only see things in such huge variations that is your problem. Are you going to tell me he couldn't have fought aggressively without putting himself in a position to get dropped 2x? Or are you just admitting that he isn't capable of doing so.

no, im saying he fought the way he was supposed to fight. he took the fight to berto and fought aggressively. yes, when you fight aggressively you put yourself more in a position to get caught than if you fight conservatively and more tactically. do i think ortiz wouldve given berto a chance of winning if he tried to box him from the outside like he did vs peterson and campbell? yes. do i think ortiz is a more effective fighter when he fights more aggressively? yes. he fought his fight, persevered through the KDs, and won the fight running away.

skflives wrote:Berto has been tested. He got a gift decision against Luis Collazo and instead of giving him the rematch he deserved he ran away to much easier opponents. So don't tell me he couldn't get people in the ring to test him. He had every opportunity to get tough fights. He chose not to take them. Paul Williams was wandering around from 147-160 pounds trying to get big fights. Berto could have stepped in at any point. But Berto's team was ducking him to. You can't say he couldn't get tougher fights when there are at least two guys who wanted and deserved big fights and whom Berto went out of his way to avoid. Especially when he chose to fight former junior welterweights or smaller 3 times in his last 6 fights.



berto has not been in a position to underachieve. i also scored the collazo fight for collazo. it was an ugly fight with a lot of wrestling and rounds that couldve gone either way. so i disagree that it was a gift decision.
yes, i think his resume sucks. but again, unchallenged does not = underachiever. if he fails repeatedly in big matchups, then i'll agree that he's an underachiever...either that or he's just not that good to begin with. he has not had enough challenges and failures to be considered an underachiever. they are both labels with negative connotations, so dont think im giving berto and his team the benefit of the doubt. we're just arguing semantics...which is basically what were doing for ALL these arguments.
idontgiveashtaboutmelo
j127
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,015
And1: 41
Joined: Nov 13, 2003
Location: Toronto

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#44 » by j127 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:54 pm

StephNYKurry wrote:Lol @ anyone who believes for a SECOND that Manny can beat Floyd


LOL @ anyone who believes for a SECOND that Buster Douglas can beat Mike Tyson.

Oh wait... :P ;)
skflives
Banned User
Posts: 3,531
And1: 281
Joined: Feb 14, 2009

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#45 » by skflives » Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:09 am

no i am not. according to your definition, ortiz could not be considered a beast because he got knocked down twice in one of his fights. look at your post. by your definition, anyone who has ever gotten knocked down twice in a fight cannot be a beast. and no, i said ortiz fought like a beast vs berto. that's where this gay argument of "beastliness" ends.


And as I said he did not. You haven't fought like a beast if you got dropped twice. You fought carelessly. Other guys like Duran, Tyson etc. can get away with offnights with their careers. Ortiz doesn't have the cache.

no, im saying he fought the way he was supposed to fight. he took the fight to berto and fought aggressively. yes, when you fight aggressively you put yourself more in a position to get caught than if you fight conservatively and more tactically. do i think ortiz wouldve given berto a chance of winning if he tried to box him from the outside like he did vs peterson and campbell? yes. do i think ortiz is a more effective fighter when he fights more aggressively? yes. he fought his fight, persevered through the KDs, and won the fight running away.


Once again, there is a difference between fighting smart and fighting conservatively. You can fight aggressive and fight smart. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

berto has not been in a position to underachieve. i also scored the collazo fight for collazo. it was an ugly fight with a lot of wrestling and rounds that couldve gone either way. so i disagree that it was a gift decision.
yes, i think his resume sucks. but again, unchallenged does not = underachiever. if he fails repeatedly in big matchups, then i'll agree that he's an underachiever...either that or he's just not that good to begin with. he has not had enough challenges and failures to be considered an underachiever. they are both labels with negative connotations, so dont think im giving berto and his team the benefit of the doubt. we're just arguing semantics...which is basically what were doing for ALL these arguments.


Prospects can get away with being untested. I'll give them a pass. But Andre Berto won the WBC belt on 6/21/2008. That is a major sanctioning belt and that was almost 3 years ago. In his three years as a Welterweight champion he chose to fight 3 guys who were Junior Welterweight fighters. It wasn't as if any of those Junior Welterweights were the lineal 140 pound champion either. If you have a major belt for 3 years and you choose to fight guys from a weight class down who aren't even top 5 at that weight class instead of people who are at least within your own division then you are an underachiever. Especially when one of those guys drops you twice on the way to taking your belt.
Blame Rasho
On Leave
Posts: 42,096
And1: 9,780
Joined: Apr 25, 2002

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#46 » by Blame Rasho » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:01 am

Perfect fight for Mayweather... a guy who doesn't have a jab to speak of and has a questionable chin and heart.
User avatar
cowboyronnie
RealGM
Posts: 30,236
And1: 1,490
Joined: Feb 20, 2004

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#47 » by cowboyronnie » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:27 am

He does not have questionable heart. That Maidana fight was nuts. Very few fighters exchange like that.

In turn, he's now going to heavily compensate given all the criticism that he's faced since. He'll never back off.
Hi love, bye love, I will miss my love.
Blame Rasho
On Leave
Posts: 42,096
And1: 9,780
Joined: Apr 25, 2002

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#48 » by Blame Rasho » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:30 am

cowboyronnie wrote:He does not have questionable heart. That Maidana fight was nuts. Very few fighters exchange like that.

In turn, he's now going to heavily compensate given all the criticism that he's faced since. He'll never back off.


No fighter before him has ever said... "I don't deserve to be hit like that"

I think if he gets hurt, or losing a fight... he will fold. Simple as that...
User avatar
cowboyronnie
RealGM
Posts: 30,236
And1: 1,490
Joined: Feb 20, 2004

Re: OT: Boxing's Pound for Pound King Is BACK!!!! 

Post#49 » by cowboyronnie » Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:55 pm

You're really taken his words at their literal value ("deserve")? He'd just been in a fire fight and had been beaten severely. Let's not get into semantics.
Hi love, bye love, I will miss my love.

Return to Boxing & Mixed Martial Arts