The RedCafe Boxing Thread

Problem with Tyson Fury is that he doesn't even has a puncher's chance cause he hasn't got good power for someone his size. He needs to outbox Wlad... :(
 
FC Ronaldo said:
Excellent read lads - http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/05/floyd-mayweather-andre-berto-embarrassment-boxing
Click to expand...


Good article.

Why is Khan more obvious than someone like Bradley though? Just because he's English really. He's cherry picked weak opponents in his last few fights (or his management has) and any talk of any fighter EXCEPT Mayweather he says "I leave that to my management" etc before then calling out Mayweather....surely he leaves that to his management? I agree with the premise that the Mayweather vs. Berto fight is aj oke, I've said it in here as well but I don't think you can call out Mayweather for ducking fights or cherry picking opponents and not level the same accusation at Khan. Compare the fighters someone like Bradley has fought vs. Khan and it's ridiculous.

With regards to box office numbers I think it will do ok. Not good for Floyd numbers but good for others. It's worth considering Tyson vs. McNeeley did over 1.5million buys, albeit it was Tyson's comeback. It's all about how they market it.

Kazi said:
Floyd ranks his top 5 fighters of all time. Guess who's #1 ... And guess who doesn't even make the top 5!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1033941909949182&id=144139432262772&refsrc=http://m.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/3g36xo/floyd_ranks_his_top_5_boxers_of_all_time/&_rdr
Click to expand...

Number 1 isn't surprising. I'd be surprised if that's his real list though. He's on a Latino channel and is probably pandering to the audience somewhat with Chavez and Duran.

I assume the "Guess who doesn't even make the top 5" thing is about Pacquiao? I don't find it that shocking, you could make an argument he's not in the top 5 of his generation really. I think it's quite a good list, dunno if I'd have it in that order though.
 
Oggmonster said:
Good article.

Why is Khan more obvious than someone like Bradley though? Just because he's English really. He's cherry picked weak opponents in his last few fights (or his management has) and any talk of any fighter EXCEPT Mayweather he says "I leave that to my management" etc before then calling out Mayweather....surely he leaves that to his management? I agree with the premise that the Mayweather vs. Berto fight is aj oke, I've said it in here as well but I don't think you can call out Mayweather for ducking fights or cherry picking opponents and not level the same accusation at Khan. Compare the fighters someone like Bradley has fought vs. Khan and it's ridiculous.

With regards to box office numbers I think it will do ok. Not good for Floyd numbers but good for others. It's worth considering Tyson vs. McNeeley did over 1.5million buys, albeit it was Tyson's comeback. It's all about how they market it.



Number 1 isn't surprising. I'd be surprised if that's his real list though. He's on a Latino channel and is probably pandering to the audience somewhat with Chavez and Duran.

I assume the "Guess who doesn't even make the top 5" thing is about Pacquiao? I don't find it that shocking, you could make an argument he's not in the top 5 of his generation really. I think it's quite a good list, dunno if I'd have it in that order though.
Click to expand...
I was talking about Sugar Ray Robinson. Wouldn't be surprised if Duran is his #2, both he and Roger have spoke highly of him before. And come one man, Manny is easily top 5 of this generation, top 2 even. Eight divisions will never be done again.
 
Kazi said:
I was talking about Sugar Ray Robinson. Wouldn't be surprised if Duran is his #2, both he and Roger have spoke highly of him before. And come one man, Manny is easily top 5 of this generation, top 2 even. Eight divisions will never be done again.
Click to expand...

Ah right, I'm sure he ranks him up there. Lists like this should always be taken with a grain of salt depending on the channel they're on and what country they're in. Mayweather wants the box office numbers and has to appeal to people to get them, I bet if he was on Ringside it wouldn't surprise me if he had Calzaghe on a list like that.

I'm not disagreeing re Manny, I initially thought you were talking about him and was commenting that it's not shocking to not have him in a list. I'd probably have him mine of a top 5 of his generation but I wouldn't be hugely surprised if people left him out of them in all honesty. Equally without sounding hugely pedantic it depends how far you go back with the whole generation stuff as well (I'm well aware I brought the word in the conversation as well :D)
 
Obviously Pacquiao hasn't been as durable as Mayweather, hardly surprising given that Manny is all action and Mayweather hasn't got involved in so many entertaining wars. However, when he was P4P number 1 and was walking through Cotto, Hatton, Morales, Barerra, De La Hoya and delivering a sound beating to Margarito, Mosley and Clottey he was an absolute phenomenon. He's slowed down and is shop-worn but don't let that allow you to forget that in his prime he was just about as exciting and electrifying as a boxer has ever been. He's unquestionably top 5 of his generation, absolute sacrilege to suggest otherwise.
 
evra said:
Obviously Pacquiao hasn't been as durable as Mayweather, hardly surprising given that Manny is all action and Mayweather hasn't got involved in so many entertaining wars. However, when he was P4P number 1 and was walking through Cotto, Hatton, Morales, Barerra, De La Hoya and delivering a sound beating to Margarito, Mosley and Clottey he was an absolute phenomenon. He's slowed down and is shop-worn but don't let that allow you to forget that in his prime he was just about as exciting and electrifying as a boxer has ever been. He's unquestionably top 5 of his generation, absolute sacrilege to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly agree.
 
This happened last weekend:


Now, I don't know a lot about boxing but any ideas why he faked the knock-out? I'm sorry if it's already talked about elsewhere but I couldn't find anything on the subject.
 
RobinLFC said:
This happened last weekend:


Now, I don't know a lot about boxing but any ideas why he faked the knock-out? I'm sorry if it's already talked about elsewhere but I couldn't find anything on the subject.
Click to expand...


I'd guess the fight was fixed, the guy doesn't even touch him.

evra said:
If anyone fancies a flutter this weekend, my humble thoughts on the boxing bets available this weekend are on @Tarrou 's tipster website - http://gamblegeek.com/2015/08/12/weekend-boxing-betting-preview/
Click to expand...

Good article mate, agree with your choices as well. Really isn't many fights am looking forward to this month. September is an improvement though.
 
Oggmonster said:
I'd guess the fight was fixed, the guy doesn't even touch him.



Good article mate, agree with your choices as well. Really isn't many fights am looking forward to this month. September is an improvement though.
Click to expand...

Cheers, much appreciated. I'm gagging for Santa Cruz v Mares at the end of the month but I agree there's not much else to get excited about. Think Santa Cruz has far too much class for Mares and the odds are juicy (in boxing terms) @8/11. September and October are fantastic in comparison.
 
evra said:
Cheers, much appreciated. I'm gagging for Santa Cruz v Mares at the end of the month but I agree there's not much else to get excited about. Think Santa Cruz has far too much class for Mares and the odds are juicy (in boxing terms) @8/11. September and October are fantastic in comparison.
Click to expand...

Ah yeah forgot that was on actually, be a decent fight. Isn't Mosley vs Mayorga on the undercard as well? I'm sure that'll be a disaster before the main event! Every sport has quiet months though in fairness, we have been spoilt with some good cards this year.
 
Good article below here from: http://behindthegloves.com/khan-brook-and-boxings-biggest-problem/ really does sum up the problem with boxing at the moment.

Listening to a recent boxing podcast, I was struck by a quote about welterweight star Amir Khan - “If you lose to Kell Brook at home, after all the bad blood between them, that is kind of the end of the road to a certain extent.”

At the time, I nodded my head in agreement; I understood exactly the point that was being made. Khan already has 3 defeats on his record and a defeat to Brook would mean he could no longer claim to be the best 147 pound fighter in Britain, never mind his global ambitions.

But the quote stuck with me and over time it began to nag at me, it just didn’t sit well. The more I thought about it, the more it began to frustrate me. In a way it sums up one of the biggest problems in boxing right now – how fighters are being sold to the public and the fear of losing it creates.

Amir Khan and Kell Brook are two of the best welterweight fighters in the world. They both belong close to the top of a talented group of 147-pounders who are poised to inherit the division from Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao. A fight between the two British stars would be a massive draw in the UK, both from the domestic rivalry point of view but also for the fact that it would be tough to pick a winner.

Despite the obvious talents (and world title) Brook possesses, the argument remains that should Amir Khan lose, he would be finished as a major draw at the highest level. This, quite simply, is a damning indictment of the sport. Surely there should be no shame in losing to a fighter of Kell Brook’s calibre? Surely we should attach far more shame to avoiding the fight altogether?

The point of view that was being conveyed was that of promoters and TV networks – losing to Brook would badly damage Khan’s marketability and make him far more difficult to sell to the public. But from a boxing fan’s point of view, I couldn’t disagree more with the TV companies and promoters on this.

Fight fans are divided on Amir Khan; some love him, others don’t. But few would contest the notion that he is highly entertaining to watch. In fact, Khan is one of the most watchable fighters in the sport. His hand-speed and offensive arsenal are a joy to behold and his questionable chin means he always carries an air of vulnerability. Any fight with Khan involved can change in an instant. His fights promise a lot of action and also contain high potential for drama – two of the most marketable and thrilling aspects of the sport of boxing.

Losing to Brook would not change this. In fact, delivering an entertaining performance, even in defeat, would likely serve to increase public interest in seeing Khan perform. In recent weeks, both Tommy Coyle and Ricky Burns have seen their stock rise in defeat, simply due to the entertaining nature of their performances. Sure, they both lost but ‘hard-core’ fans and boxing neophytes alike would tune in to see them again on the back of those displays.

I believe the public are capable of appreciating an entertaining fighter, even in defeat. Defeat to Kell Brook should not represent the end of the road for Amir but it is being presented as such. As a result, who can blame Khan for being reluctant to face Brook when the consequences of a potential loss are perceived to be so economically and professionally grave?

I think it does a disservice to the general public to promote the sport the way it is being done – focusing on selling a fighter’s name and winning record rather than selling his ability to entertain. And it is not simply the public who suffer as a result of this attitude. Teasing the prospect of a highly anticipated showdown, only for the fight to fall apart harms both the fighters themselves and the sport of boxing.

Although Diego Chaves is a talented fighter, the seemingly inevitable announcement of Brook-Chaves will be greeted with muted enthusiasm from fight fans and bemusement from a general public far more interested in a showdown with Khan. In my opinion, if Khan-Brook takes place, nobody loses. If it doesn’t, nobody wins.

As a sport, boxing needs to move away from selling fighters and return to selling fights. For too long fighters have been promoted based on their records or their alphabet titles yet these days, neither necessarily mean a great deal. When these delicate pillars form the foundation of building a fighter’s appeal, you become trapped in a scenario where a single loss can bring it all crashing down. This encourages the kind of safety first match-making we see so often in boxing.

Scan any of the divisional rankings and there are exciting clashes and potential rivalries to be made left, right and centre. Some are difficult to make because of the ridiculous “Cold War” and various contractual restrictions, but many more of these fights could quite easily be made. The fact that so many potentially great fights are passing us by is a shame and is largely a product of this fear of losing.

It is denying fight fans the terrific fights and enthralling rivalries that make great fighters great and denying the public a chance to see what the sport has to offer. Did the loss to Joe Frazier lessen the greatness of Muhammed Ali? Or did it serve only to enhance his legacy as he bounced back to claim one of the all-time great rivalries? Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Leonard each tasted defeat at least once during their decade long four-way rivalry. And yet each is remembered as an all-time great in large part because of this rivalry.

When thinking of the true legends of the sport, I am reminded of the words of Robert Kennedy, “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly”. If only the promoters, fighters and decision makers in boxing would heed that advice.

– Michael McCarthy / @Mlmcc86
Click to expand...

Agree with what's said really. Whilst I'm not a huge fan of Khan he does put on entertaining shows, the politics of boxing really does damage the sport. For all the accusations of ducking and picking easy fights, the boxers don't have much choice at time. It does need a shake up in that regard boxing or it will risk getting stale.
 
Gorilla Productions 03: Cotto Alvarez montage.

If anyone's never seen this man's work, it's superb.

 
Yeah GP is legit. Will check it out later.
 
Amazing. Golovkin looks like a 12 year old with a growth disorder, but don't tell him I said that.

Looking forward to this!
 
Who's staying up to watch the fight tonight? Should be a good one. (hopefully).
 
These PBC guys are such rookies. You're meant to read the even scorecard first, then the two 117-111 scorecards... Thought it was a split decision draw for a second! Good fight, LSC the clear winner.
 
Kazi said:


Click to expand...


That Roger Mayweather stuff at the end of that first video is hard to watch, does kind of make me think fair enough to Floyd for taking an "easy" fight, it's boxing that has done that to Roger and it must be tough to see it for him. It makes you appreciate the rest of the video and see 2 fighters who both are in a good mental condition and both will probably retire that way. To often in sports like boxing you see people carry on and end up an absolute mess from it (Ali, Roach, it appears Roger Mayweather and also the likes of James Toney.)

In a way though Floyd going is probably good for the division, though I think hell fight once more still, it means people i.e. Khan can finally move on from the Mayweather fights they all want and focus on fighting each other. Not that I blame them as it's a huge pay day for anyone, I imagine it's Berto's biggest payday of his career for example.


evra said:
Great fight, in spite of the awful PBC coverage.
Click to expand...

I've not seen the fight but PBC does seem very hit and miss, I like some of the stuff they're tying to do, other parts of it are terrible though. Seems to be trying to much to soon really. Not ALL of boxing is bad yet PBC tried changing everything.
 
Kazi said:


Click to expand...


Man, the women in these Mayweather vids are in for a shock when the money stops coming their way. Skanks everywhere, haha.

Good to see the part with his kids, though. If it weren't for the woman beating, I think I could probably like "Floyd."
 
Aaaarrgghhh, was looking forward to that. Was also looking forward to the winner of that facing off against GGG.
 


Brook really has to up the quality of his opponents. People will lose interest in him fast fighting these lot.

When you look at the fighters he's actually fought with the exception of porter it really isn't an impressive list.
 
Oggmonster said:


Brook really has to up the quality of his opponents. People will lose interest in him fast fighting these lot.

When you look at the fighters he's actually fought with the exception of porter it really isn't an impressive list.
Click to expand...


Agree, Chavez is only vaguely relevant because he got a robbery draw against Bradley. The odds will probably be 1/8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.