the what fights did you watch today\scorecard thread.

Man, that's a wide, wide card....

I believe I had Emile by a point....

Sure enough I favour Archer as a fighter, but I don't count myself THAT biased.

 

At least 5 of the rounds that I gave Griffith could go the other way S_S....And that would change everything.....
I would add a comment between them saying they are extremely close but I didn´t......in the end of the rounds I was always thinking that Griffith was the agressor, throwing and landing a bit more power shots, attacking more and scoring some body shots giving him a thin edge in many of these rounds.....

 

Fair enough :good

 

Joe Brown v Bud Smith 3.

What a complete masterclass this was. Brilliant outfighting during the first half of the fight with very good foot movement and very active output fighting almost entirely behind the jab. Defence wasn't perfect but he avoided most of Wallace's shots.

During the second half Joe began to sit down on his punches a bit more and fire off combinations. The foot movement was less but I'm unsure whether that was because of energy levels or because of the utter domination leading to him putting a bigger focus on power. I'd like to believe it was the latter.

Byt the time the fight was stopped Brown was in complete control and this wagainst the man he had just won the title from.

Complete masterclass.

Interesting to have seen him utilise that style against a master pressure fighter some time during 56 and 62. I know he lost to saddler when he was green (he lost shitloads of fights actually before he hit his prime) but during his best years he was completely dominant.

 

Buchanan vs Ortiz

Even in a fight against a shot laegend I never felt Buchanan was absolutely dominant. don't get me worng it's a very good performance, and less comeptitive than his victory over Laguna, but this is a man about 7 years past his best and i'd have expected Ken to really shine.

Even here he doesn't look as good as say benitez did against cervantes or bones against bud. He controlled the fight and Ortiz basically gave up but he never looked spectacular is what I'm saying.

 

Burley v Oakland Smith.

Very good performance. Maybe overly economical and with his great defence it must have been very difficult to beat burley unless you had high activity or even better timing than charley himself.

Reminded me a lot of beintez against cervantes, he picks his shots brilliantly and has top class head movement. he is a better ring general than benitez was but that has probably come with experience.

His aggression was almost non existant but when it was there it was clealry effective because of his timing, accuracy and speed.

Seems more mayweather than jones but I understand the comparison due to his reflexes which shine even on footage like that.

It's crazy imagining how he lost them 4 fights in 92. I know Charles was out of this world talented and I know holman was splitting fights with burley all the time, but Marshall loss seems a bit out of place. Any info on that one?

Very solid performance and whilst not spectacular actionwise, his talent and poise is there for all to see. I don't think hiw WW days were his prime days, I think it was during this period as a MW, from say 41-47. So I actually think this is footage of Burley at his prime.

Maybe he'd look better if we saw the fight where he stops holman, but then again there might not be as complete a controlling performance as he put on here.

 

cheers :good

I had a quick scan for fight reports but couldn't really find anything leadin me to doubt marsahll deserving the victory.

They only fought the once right? I wonder why...

 

Yeah, i've noticed that too.

Kinda like latter days Mayweather vs Baldomir.

I think Smith being a lht heavyweight and Burley not the biggest middleweight played played it's part.

From what i've heard Burley was slightly past prime in this one.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable on Burley can clarify this one.

 

I've heard some say it's not prime burley, but 41-47 seems to be his best years and he was still fairly young throughout.

Was he better as a WW? hard to say because he didn't fight as many quality opposition as he did at the higher weights.

 

Just watched a couple of orlando canizales fights: against a young unbeaten bones adams and against a more experienced but not as good billy hardy.

Both fights he controls through his unique way of pressuring from mid range, it's quite strange to see because he stalks forward, throws a couple and steps back, but making the opponent give way to him. It obviously proved very effective though as he was a force at the weight and very highly ranked p4p at one point.

His resume leaves a lot to be desired imo but his performances speak for themselves. Very accurate and really good timing as well. His head movement was also not to be sniffed at.

The bones fight was obviously stopped prematurely but we got a taste of what could have happened with that finish against hardy, so many flush shots landed will do that to a man and bones was starting to get tagged too often and too frequent.

Both good performances but obviously the hardy fight has the finish that we desired.

 

That the only fight you've seen your comparing it to everything.

Nah I get the comparison,both guys face up and look to draw leads from the opponent whilst maintaining the iniative, a hard thing to do but both guys excelled in it. The feints are so important to a style like that, Burley's 'serpentine' movement is superb for this, however I prefer Benitez aesthetically, and to be fair I think Benitez became much more well rounded at 147 IMO.

He didnt need to be aggressive.

Nice comparison but I prefer the Benitez comparison actually.

Not really, Marshall was a great Middleweight, an All time Great talent and he won a close decision off Burley. I'd say the Charles losses are more out of place.

What makes you say this? Surely not the footae as we have nothing to compare of it.

Yeh, but Smith was a solid fighter but could be out-boxed, Holman is arguably the greatest pure boxers ever.

What a razor thin close decision.


I watched Johnny Tapia vs Danny Romero today.

Tapia started off superbly, his use of angles and countering was superb. In the early rounds he was moving off on angles brilliantly to set up countering oppertunities. He slightly adjusted and started to lead off more, by slightly shifting to his left and popping that jab, the movement off-setting Romero. It was lovely stuff.

Romero stuck at his job though, it was similar to the recent Donaire-Vasquez fight, with a physically superior fighter being frustrated by solid fundamentals and hard working. Romero began to up his workrate (but not necessarily punch output) by moving laterally and keeping his hands high, then stepping in with crisp shots. It was lovely to watch. Tapia however did look like he was coasting rather than any real tactical struggle with Romero, although Romero was in tactical command throughout the middle rounds.

Tapia regained controll late with his lovely combinations and counters. Man I love wathcing Tapia, especially when he puts in a disciplined performance like this. Such a good boxer, and loved the way he dug that left hook to the body then doubled up with it to the head again. Textbook.

One thing I will point out is Eddie Futch was getting wound up in Tapia's corner, with him and Jesse Reid sharing duties, Futch struggled to get much advise in and seemed to get real annoyed.

Tapia : 1,2,3,5,8,10,11,12
Romero: 4,6,7,9
Total: 116-112 Tapia (8-4)

 

Yeah it wasn't an overall style comparison, more a stylistic similarity for them exact fights.

I'd agree it's more benitez than floyd as well, i'm just not sure where the near consensus rjj comparisons come from unless it's based on footage not available.

My opinion on his prime years are just based on the flow of his career as a whole.

Yeah i'd just like to see him break from technique and actually finish an opponent off.

I meant the rematch with hardy :good

 

Ah ok got you. The rematch is a *******, Hardy really comes into it in the mid-rounds then gets taken out against the grain of the fight.

Duran vs Lampkin

What a good fight.

Duran starts off well forcing Lampkin back then countering him as Lampkin looks to shoot. As I watched it I thought it would go into a Lampkin scared to shoot and Duran just stalking, but Lampkin makes it much more.

In the second Lampkin just fights with Duran using his faster hands and sharper shots to out-work Duran who looks lackadaisical and is missing and falling short frequently. Lampkin is OUTFIGHTING Duran, its amazing. And I bet you Ray Leonard watched this fight prior to his first fight with Duran, as Lampkin wasnt to dissimilar from Ray.

Duran looks to have regained control in the 5th and 6th as Lampkins workrate drops and Duran is able to pick him off with some sharp punches. All of Durans sucess comes when Lampkins workrate drops and Duran is able to step in with shots. Lampkin fights his way back in to regain controll. However throughout this portion of the fight Duran is doing more damage and Lampkin is working way harder, so Lampkin is winning the rounds, but at what cost?

Duran starts to hurt lampkin in the 10th and 11th and it looks like Lampkin may have burnt himself out but he puts in such a spirited effort to take the 12th and 13th and he just works and works, and after each round you see how much it has taken out of him but he still keeps going.

Going into the 14th it is clear to see Lampkin has considerably dropped off from the mid-rounds but Duran does not look like having the snap or drive to do anything about it, and the KO comes completely out of the blue. And Duran needed it, I had him needing a KO to win the fight.

It was a bad day at the office for Duran though, he just had no 'oomph' about him and was missing constantly. His worst Lightweight performance IMO, and he did great to deal with such a worthy challenger, a solid but unspectacular fighter, in Ray Lampkin.

Duran : 1,5,6,9,11
Lampkin: 2,3,4,7,8,10,12,13
Total: 125-122 Lampkin (8-5)