Fabio Wardley vs. Frazer Clarke & Florian Marku vs. Chris Kongo + VIddal Riley vs. Mikael Lawal RBR

She scrubs up quite well.

 

Cracking pins

 

I have to admit Clarke was better then I expected and certainly improved from his last outings. Decent hand speed, nice variety of shots and good fundamentals.
He was hurt on a few occasions though and bought some time with his mouthpice spitting ... A stoppage was on the horizon but he kept calm.
As far Wardley: Massive heart. He got clipped with some heavy artillery as well and ran low on gas, forcing him to fight in spurts. The injury to his nose was nasty and surely handicapped him. I also saw some "scratches" upfront the fight and wondered to which degree that was even a fresh injury.
Anyway, feel Fabio deserved to keep the titels & look forward to a rematch.

 

Howard Foster is as crooked as they come.

 

Fairy Nuff

 

Absolutely 100% spot on analysis. Any criticism if any I would level at each guy is that Clarke could have made it easier by sticking to his boxing as his boxing fundamentals are much better that he did not need to go searching for the knockout it would have come by boxing patiently to set up Wardley whereas Wardley cannot keep relying on his heart, power and athleticism as he got away with it tonight against a proper boxer.

 

Factoring in their age and the fight itself, these two aren't gaining much success further up the ladder. However, this was a proper British ding-dong, and fair play to them both getting a bigger payday, out of a rematch.

 

I usually have a 2nd watch the next day of scraps I enjoyed. More-so if they're close.

Surprising what you may have missed or assumed.

 

I think Fabio's fight backs will seem even more heroic!

 

Unfortunately I missed the live call of the fight but was able to view a replay on YouTube. I had Clarke winning the fight 114-112. He landed the crisper and more accurate punches which was evidenced by mess that was Wardleys face. Wardley had the heavier hands but was often wild and wide with his punches. The point deduction for the low blow was criminal, and cost Clarke the official win. The judge who favored Wardley must have been enamored with his wild flailing punching. Seemed to me Clarke was the clear winner in a great fight. Kudos to both fighters.

 

Yeah Clarke surprised me as well, I always thought he was pretty crude but he actually showed some good fundamental boxing skills and wasn't as easy to hit as he's been in the past, but then that might have had something to do with his opponent. He showed he could stay calm when hurt and while I didn't like when he spat out his mouth guard twice it showed he had the experience and wits to find a way to give himself more time to recover when needed. But I think he really needs to work on his conditioning, in those final rounds when Wardley was gassed himself he simply didn't have the energy to throw more than 2 punches at the time, he so often threw then smothered his own work by clinching because he didn't have anything left. I think he could have finished Wardley late had he simply had the energy to do so but he was running on empty himself but simply hid it well as all that amateur experience teaches you to hold form even when exhausted unlike Wardley when he's knackered he couldn't hide it, his form would come apart and it looked like he could barely stand up or raise his gloves.

Wardley showed a good chin and bags of heart which is what kept him in the fight. But this fight really exposed his lack of fundamental boxing skills. He couldn't slip the jab at all hence why he got his nose busted. He so often moved his head into the same head slots off Clarke's offence it was easy for Clarke to predict where his head would be. Time and time again Wardley would slip the jab to his right and Clarke knowing this would just drop the right hand on him. Same with the uppercut when he got close, feint then smack him with an uppercut it was like clockwork it happened so often.

Neither of these guys are actually good on the back foot or great defensively, Wardley especially so. If they are not the one being offensive they are very vulnerable and again especially Wardley. Conditioning will be key to the rematch, the one that can be more offensive and keep the other on the back foot for the majority of the fight will win.

 

Great analysis, mate. I feel especially Wardley left an awful lot in that ring and generally had to compensate his inferior boxing skills by biting down on his gumshield.
In a rematch, he will be again fast, unpredictable and heavy handed, but Clarke can build on this and has clearly more ways to victory imo.

 

Just caught this on catch up - what a tear-up. Huge credit to both guys for going the full 12, especially Wardley with that nose.

I had it 7-5 rounds to Clarke but the KD and point deduction should have swung it in Wardley's favour, but hard to complain too much - I felt the low blow deduction was very harsh as I don't remember seeing any explicit 'next time it's a point warnings' but I might have missed that.

I felt Clarke had the fundamentals to have made that easier on himself, he was too economical with his punches and especially with Wardley's nose, he could have been pushing out the jab more to keep Wardley at arms length - but on the flipside, Wardley while more ragged and 'slugger-like' has genuine power and did same great bodywork early that probably was a massive factor into Clarke's gastank being suspect.

At numerous times I was thinking - this can't possibly go the distance as both guys looked like a stiff breeze could have knocked them on multiple occasions, but full credit that they kept going and found a way to dig deep.

Not sure they trouble the top 5, but that was classic heavyweight boxing right there, and I will be watching the rematch live!