Bennie Briscoe VS Canelo Alvarez

Opinions brother. That's mine. But unlike you I gave a valid reason for mine.
Most who've been in around and have watched the sport longer than 5 minutes
like some of you "back foot" "front foot" and " check hook' experts would understand
my reasoning though they may not not agree.
They would be able to come with some reasoning that would intelligently counter
my opinion, that perhaps would show me something I may be missing, and make
me reconsider. Because unlike some of you "experts" I don't consider myself
infallible, and if a point is strong, I am rational enough to change a point of view.
They would be able to come with something better than "Credibility went out the window". Silliness you
responded with. Maybe though, that's all you can respond with. Because
anything else you may have wrote may have exposed you as the novice
you are.

 

Sort of a good prognosis on balance, so I am buying into it. Canelo it is.

 

Look, I understand that, as a wannabe historian, you see it as your job to denigrade the precent - as you think that will give you some extra "expert" points. But if you try too hard (like Mike Silver), you're just embarrasing yourself. Arguing that Mundine might have been as good as Canelo, is trying too hard!

Also, your claim that the top dogs were eager to fight each other back in Briscoe's time, doesn't hold water. The name of the game has always been money, and the idea that the top boxers were these gallant warriers, who wanted to settle the issue of who was really the best in the ring - that is nothing but a romantic dream. Conteh-Galindez would have been a huge fight back then - as would Cuevas-Palomino, and Sanchez-Pedroza. These were all "parallel" champions at one time, but never fought each other - obviously content to just hold on to their half of the "world" title.

Today, after the fall of The Wall, there are a lot more registered pro boxers than in Briscoe's time. Boxers from former communist countries now play a huge part in the sport. So how do you figure, the talent pool was much deeper 50 years ago?

And by the way... this "novice" has been interested in boxing, ever since he saw his first world champ (prime Emile Griffith) in the flesh back in '63!

 

I'm curious - Why do you consider Valdez as being the closest fighter to Canelo that Briscoe fought?

 

Because Canelo's style seems to be a carbon copy of Valdez's. From the counter punching with the slight, reflex-based counters to the steady pressure fighter. They both seem to have lead feet. Valdez was more talented and a much bigger puncher IMO, but not as tough.

 

Golovkin won both fights
Jacobs fight was competitive, but Canelo clearly won
Kovalev was washed, but was always gonna give Canelo issues for a bit because of his jab and Canelo had to be patient and set up a punch because he couldnt afford to get hit by Kovalev flush
Cotto was a blown up welterweight who managed to do well because of his right defence and counterpunching
Smith is a world level fighter who struggles with pressure, but if you give him time and space he is dangerous
Lara was a very close fight, but not a robbery

 

Not a wannabe historian friend. But when you come correct, I respond correctly.
You went sideways, I went sideways with you. for the three fights
you mentioned that did not happen I can name at least 5 that did. So
picking certain fights that fit your agenda is just as easy for me to do
to suit mine.

 

Ok, then respond to this question correctly: Why did you state, as a fact, that I was a novice? Was there any other reason, than I simply disagreed with you?

 

No my response was to the 'You have no credibility" Nonsense.
It basically is a difference of opinion. Instead of you responding
in a logical ,coherent , counter debate from your perspective.
you choose to come in a one sentence personal attack by questioning
my credibility.

 

And your response was, that I'm a novice. You can't even explain, why you would say that?

 

What the Modernists just do not realize or at least do not want to talk about or even admit, is that fighting once a year, WAY less activity/experience, and not wanting to fight the best has completely changed this sport .. They will continue to defend the likes of the Crawfords, Spences, and Thurmans, etc etc etc. of the world, and their reasons for not getting in the ring with each other. I agree with you, and most coddled fighters of today would not stand a chance being active and fighting the better competition of the past ... It is pretty straight forward to me ... And when an Old man Pac gets in the ring and answers this question as he did against Thurman ... well it is pretty freakin sweet that activity, experience and competition count for something

 

That's a fair appraisal. Although, I'd suggest Valdes was a tad more mobile and fought much better off the back foot than Canelo.

I would also say, however, that I have never seen Canelo in a contest that resembles any of the Briscoe/Valdes bouts. The second fight is the anomalous result, albeit not a freak one. Valdes was punching viciously from round-1 and had Bennie staggered in the first. I honestly can't see Canelo replicating that result and I can't see him managing to maintain the effort Valdes put in over the distance in their first and third meetings. He's never been under that kind of sustained pressure before.

It's an interesting comparison you make, but I think Valdes was much better than Canelo.

 

I did explain it..... Read.

 

No you didn't... other than I don't agree with you.

You stated, as a FACT, that I'm a novice - and you can't even back that up with anything. Jesus...