What was the Main reason the rematch was so different to the first

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by sosolid4u09, Dec 4, 2011.


  1. sosolid4u09

    sosolid4u09 4 8 15 16 23 42 banned Full Member

    12,433
    3
    Jun 21, 2008
    The first fight Margarito walked him down and broke his heart and will.
    The rematch, cotto seemed in complete control.

    Whats the MAIN reason for this satisfyingly one sided beatdown?

    1. Margarito is shot - Margarito is simply way way past it at this stage, while Cotto is still pretty close to his prime

    2. Margarito's eye was ****ed - Margarito's cut early on hindered him badly, thats the main reason cotto was able to easily outbox him

    3. Margarito's hands werent loaded - The first fight would have been just as bad as this if his hands werent loaded

    4. Cotto is just a better fighter - 3 years ago was just a freak occurrence. Cotto is and has always been the better fighter

    5. Cotto was saved by the ref - He would have been in serious trouble had it continued, and was gassing badly.

    6. Cotto's gameplan - he fought margarito with much better tactics this time around and more intelligently. Fought the first fight all wrong
     
    sosolid4u09, Dec 4, 2011
    sosolid4u09, Dec 4, 2011
    #1
  2. Cableaddict

    Cableaddict Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,705
    292
    Jun 15, 2011
    #3, of course.

    Is this really some kind of mystery?
     
    Cableaddict, Dec 4, 2011
    Cableaddict, Dec 4, 2011
    #2
  3. pong

    pong Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,732
    1
    May 11, 2011
    This content is protected
     
    pong, Dec 4, 2011
    pong, Dec 4, 2011
    #3
  4. sosolid4u09

    sosolid4u09 4 8 15 16 23 42 banned Full Member

    12,433
    3
    Jun 21, 2008
    we'll let the poll decide
     
    sosolid4u09, Dec 4, 2011
    sosolid4u09, Dec 4, 2011
    #4
  5. PrinceVega

    PrinceVega 帝拳ボクシングジム Full Member

    688
    29
    May 21, 2011
    gameplan
     
    PrinceVega, Dec 4, 2011
    PrinceVega, Dec 4, 2011
    #5
  6. stillth3sameg

    stillth3sameg Woolly Rhino Full Member

    1,896
    0
    Sep 16, 2009
    I voted for 6 simply because cotto was almost never against the ropes, and rather than using head movement to avoid shots he tied up when he needed to and "ran away" the other times... if he hadn't been doing this all night then perhaps margo would've landed a couple more good shots and perhaps the fight may have ended similar to the first...

    But I do definitely feel that margo had loaded wraps the first time around.
     
    stillth3sameg, Dec 4, 2011
    stillth3sameg, Dec 4, 2011
    #6
  7. Bad Boyz

    Bad Boyz Sportscenter Full Member

    2,518
    1
    Aug 30, 2011
    I voted for the first choice but, it could be NONE OF THE ABOVE.

    3 YRS. 5 MONTHS LATER should be the correct answer.
     
    Bad Boyz, Dec 4, 2011
    Bad Boyz, Dec 4, 2011
    #7
  8. Relentless

    Relentless VIP Member banned

    65,864
    16
    Mar 5, 2006
    cotto's gameplan
     
    Relentless, Dec 4, 2011
    Relentless, Dec 4, 2011
    #8
  9. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,073
    27,775
    Jul 26, 2004
    Cottos Stamina - I think Cotto trained for a higher pace this fight, trained to fight going backwards, trained to be pressured, and just all around trained with more intensity this fight

    Cottos different tactics - How many times did he tie Margarito up the first fight? Then watch the second and see Miguel clinch, tie up, push Margarito back or push him off.


    Margarito would be a tough, grueling fight for Miguel 10 out of 10 times. If Cotto fights wrong or isnt fully, 100% prepared, he will lose.... if he comes in smart, trains to fight gonig backwards, and employs the right gameplan, it will be hard for Margarito to win.

    But make no mistake, Margarito is very much Cottos nemises in the ring.

    Cottos stamina and a better battle plan this time helped him get the victory, and its a credit to miguel for making the proper changes.
     
    kirk, Dec 4, 2011
    kirk, Dec 4, 2011
    #9