Saunders "We got a issue with the ring"

Since when did believing someone can win equate to betting on someone, never mind "lumping" on?

 

Come on mate, your post is all over the show, but to respond to your points;

• The first point you make is that anybody can beat anybody and that upsets happen and the linear progression point. Yes, we know anybody can beat anybody - nobody is suggesting otherwise. However, on a boxing forum, where debate is the whole point, one thing that people will analyse - like they do in any sport - is previous form. That is usually a good indicator, do you not think? For example, football. Chelsea lost 5-2 to West Brom a few weeks ago. Chelsea hadn’t lost since the 3rd of January, which was to another top team in Man City, and were in a rich vein of form. On the contrary, West Brom had only won 2 games all year, were struggling and at the bottom end of the league. Not many analysts picked West Brom to win but handily they did. Were people stupid to pick Chelsea to win? No, because all the signs were there. Still people tuned in on the off chance it would be a good game, and it was. But people use common sense and different indicators to pick winners, and sometimes like you’ve said there’s an upset. Two weeks after Chelsea beat lower side Crystal Palace in a contest with similar indicators, and that time, the expected result happened.
• I haven’t seen anyone say Saunders has zero chance, just that they don’t like his chances and think Canelo wins. Again, its just opinions. I hope Saunders wins - it would be amazing for British boxing. I don’t think he does though.
• Alvarez isn’t a mutant terminator but he is in the conversation to be the pound for pound best boxer on the planet. I don’t know anyone who has Billy Joe Saunders in the same conversation, or their top 10 for that matter.

 

If it's all over "the show", then I'm not sure what's stopped you from presenting a better opposition than that. A very weak response indeed.

Where did I state that the consideration and analysis of previous performances have no use? Conversely, I've inferred that previous less than (deemed as) satisfactory performances does not disqualify the chances of a boxer springing the upset. Anyone who thinks Saunders has a chance to win has not solely drawn that conclusion on the grounds of past performances.

The funny thing is that you're talking to someone who thinks Alvarez is the favourite based on what we know about him historically (past performances, gut feeling and corruption in equal measure). I don't know enough to say that Saunders is favoured. However, I'm not dense enough to use past performances as a square vehicle to plough through anyone who believes that he has a chance. We've heard that argument one thousand times.

This is a straw man fallacy. You've literally just put words in my mouth and argued against it. And my post was all over "the show"?

Interesting. How do you apply "common sense" to this context? I'd like to hear your response. It seems as though I could learn a lot from you.

However, as addressed in my previous post, I haven't seen anybody pick Saunders as a winner, so this is another straw man fallacy.

Then you need to take two minutes to look harder. Or maybe it's selective.

You're missing the point, again. The (simple) point I tried to make was that he isn't unbeatable. He's another man with a pair of boxing gloves, interlinking with the previous point, he's not unbeatable like many are making out.

 

Surely we can’t be too many hours away from the ‘fighting man’ objecting to Canelo’s gloves.

 

I
enjoy these debates and I hope you don’t take me as an arsehole debating with you - just to be clear, it’s all in good nature and posts like these are why I’ve posted on here for many years.

So I think the main sticking point here is my argument that using past performances is the easiest way to predict a fight and the probably the best way. So whilst above you make the reasoning that Saunder’s previous performances do not mean he has no chance to win - my argument are that these performances give him LESS of a chance to win.

So when I’ve said there’s different indicators to show victory other than past per

 

Well it's simple common sense isnt it. If I said to you do you believe it's going to be sunny tomorrow. You fully believed it because it was the peak of summer and been sunny all month. You say yes I do and I say ok if you bet on it and it is sunny I'll give you five times your money back.

You would obviously back it because it's something youre confident and believe in and ontop of that you're being offered five times whatever you stake.

Why wouldn't you bet on it if you really believed it?

No one REALLY believes BJS will win. It's just all talk, talk is cheap

 

A lot of people can favour a fighter or a team in a sport but just enjoy the spectacle. Not everything in life is about money. Furthermore betting on boxing is a mug’s game given the corruption that is rife in judging and even reffing fights. I think Saunders has the ability to outbox Canelo over 12 but I’m not going to bet on it because:

1) I enjoy the spectacle and don’t need to bet to enjoy sports; and

2) We all know it’s near impossible to get a decision against Canelo.

 

I’m sorry but the Fury Saunders comparisons don’t add up. In fact they’re lazy, the only real comparison is they are both “gypsys”.

Fury went over to Germany and DOMINATED the fighter of the decade. Schooled him in his own (sort of) backyard. He then went on to booze and drugs, blew up to a million stone and then came back, had a victory against a career cruiser (a very poor one at that) and then went on to another fighter nobody had never heard of in Pianetta, plodded to a points victory. Tyson Fury looked the shell of the great fighter he was. People were right to doubt him. Wilder was also not some great, he’s a below average boxer with superhero power.

Billy Joe Saunders has done nothing of the sort. His best win is probably Andy Lee - a decent win, just not a great one. Eubank was very green, Other than that you struggle to pick any performances other than Lemieux who’s average. He’s then came back off his drugs ban and hasn’t been able to make weight, came in at light heavy against a very poor Adamu, cherry picked an easy world title, struggled badly against an Argentinian domestic level fighter and then again he flattered to deceive against an absolutely shot Martin Murray who had probably already retired 3 times before this fight. On the back of that he’s now stepping in the ring with a generational fighter, a great - whether you like him or not, who is in his absolute prime. He’s eating world champions for fun at every weight class and Saunders is the shell of the fighter he was at middle - which wouldn’t have been good enough anyway.

 

Billy Joe is going to look like even more of a twat than he already is if he loses badly on Saturday, he's been given everything he wanted, no excuses now.

 

Absolutely spot on. Wlad was getting past it and I’m taking nothing away from Fury because he’s still the only heavyweight who could have done what he did. Canelo for me is looking better than ever, he’s sharp and an improved fighter, while I feel like there’s a strong chance BJS will struggle because of very poor recent activity.

 

This is quite an interesting narrative that’s been created recently, I believe Warren is one of the main culprits.

All this talk that Fury went over and did a number on Wlad is complete revisionist history.

I was in a packed pub and no one was celebrating confidently at the final bell because it had been such a whitewash. I remember watching a pretty close fight where neither fighter landed much clean.

Yet you have Warren claiming that a close points victory was more impressive than AJ stopping him.

 

This is a slight detour from the thread topic but you need to watch that fight again. Fury schooled him, he won clearly and it wasn’t close. The reason why everyone would have been nervous at the decision is because of the history of “German decisions”. Everyone doubted whether the judges would give it to Fury on German turf. I remember after the fight I scored Fury clearly by about 5/6 rounds but I thought it would be a draw because I considered it inconceivable that Fury could get a decision without at least scoring KDs.

 

I want a bigger ring tells us all the story of the fight as seen by Team Saunders.

 

Nah Fury definitely won the right conclusively, I sadly watched it back when it was replayed on sky or something and it looked even better watching it back because live at the time you’re subconsciously scoring things more cautiously because of Wlad being the champ and at home etc.

That doesn’t mean that’s gonna happen here at all though, Saunders isn’t fury and Canelo isn’t Like Wlad at that stage of his career. Wlad never had someone like Fury in front of him and was probably surprised, we know what we’re getting with Saunders.

 

Hmmm I suppose that's a fair point

I just struggle with the idea that anyone can truly favour BJS in this fight