Classic Forum Opinions...

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Nemesis, Oct 29, 2007.


  1. divac

    divac Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    29,419
    689
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 24, 2004
    Out of curiousty Scientist, how did you score the fight and what rounds did you give each fighter?
     
  2. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    61,182
    7,689
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    That is your main weakness as a poster. You see everything in black and white terms. Like type A beats B and C dose not have an answer to a given punch or tactic used by B.

    The reality is a lot more complex.
     
  3. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,593
    656
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 11, 2005
    I don't see it black & white. If you followed my posts, I was repeatedly asking for factual arguments of Calzaghe neutralizing somebody's jab, and I didn't receive any, neither finding them on my own in my collection of Calzaghe's fights. Lack of precedents of this kind led me to conclusion, that Calzaghe hardly possesses this ability, since he never even needed it in his career, and he couldn't have learned it from scratch for just one fight and at 35 years of age. It seemed quite logical to make that conclusion. And there were plenty of examples in boxing history where fighters won fights with great jab when facing a brawler, no matter how quick he is, straight punches compensate the difference in handspeed against hooks and swings (which are primary Calzaghe's arsenal), and throwing of jabs in numbers doesn't sacrifice one's defensive safety and can offset high punchrate of an opponent.
     
  4. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    23
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 8, 2004
    I had it 116-113 for Calzaghe.

    Gave Kessler rounds 1,4,5 and 12.
    Gave Calzaghe rounds 2,3,6,7,9,10 and 11.
    Had round 8 even.

    I think you could make an argument for either man taking the 8th, and if you're being extra generous to the Dane, you could call the 10th round even. Giving Kessler the 8th and calling the 10th even, Calzaghe still wins by a point, so it's a clear cut victory for Joe.

    I was impressed with Kessler's power punching in this fight, he was without doubt landing the harder blows, but he was just too inactive and allowed Calzaghe to steal rounds with his pitty pat stuff, which although not hard, was more than Kessler's negligible output.

    I'm surprised that Kessler fought so mechanically and didn't mix things up a little. It was just jab and right hand over and over and over ad nauseum. His big downfall (along with his inactivity and his inability to consistently find the mark with the jab) was his failure to go to the body. This allowed Joe to conserve energy with which he dictated the later rounds.
     
  5. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    61,182
    7,689
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    That is exactly the kind of simple saloon bar analysis that dosnt work in the real world.

    You have to take the next step and put yourself in the mind of each fighter trying to draw up a strategy to beat the other and prepare for any contingency.
     
  6. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,593
    656
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 11, 2005
    You could devise a strategy as much as you want, but unless you actually showed prior to that that you were proficient in neutralizing a jab, there are little chances you'd be able to offset that skill with something. Everyone knew Holmes or Hearns were great jabbers. Few were able to do something about it. An example of simple saloon bar analysis is a claim made by some people here, that Hearns would be able to outbox Jones with his jab. That conclusion is indeed, totally stupid and unwarranted by either logic or practice.
     
  7. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    61,182
    7,689
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    Is such a claim that diferent to your analysis?
     
  8. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,593
    656
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 11, 2005
    My analysis:
    Premise - lack of precedents of neutralizing a jab
    Conclusion - low chances of netralizing a jab

    Some people's here analysis:
    Premise - lack of precedents of jab ever working against fighter, and plenty of precedents of it not working
    Conclusion - high chances of winning the fight with jab
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    88,082
    4,653
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    Your original premis is absolutley incorrect. A better premis would be "lack of precendents of neutralizing a jab of Kessler's quality". But there is a premis for almost every department for both of these fighters which would be similair, if we go down that road.

    Calzaghe has made a career out of neutralising jabs. As I told you at the time, the fact that there are no great jabs in that bunch is not reason to throw out all of that work.
     
  10. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    61,182
    7,689
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
     
  11. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,593
    656
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 11, 2005
    My premise was quite correct, according to my knowledge (to the footage I've seen). He not only didn't have precedents of neutralizing a quality jab, but of any jab at all, unless you count several "jabs" throwing by Mario Veit before he was broken down and knocked out quickly. And don't again come up with those 5 or 6 pokes in a time span of 14 minutes by Sheika as an example of a jab.
     
  12. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    61,182
    7,689
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    By neutralize do you mean avoid getting hit by, or take out of the equation, or make work against his oponent?
     
  13. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,593
    656
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 11, 2005
    Premise A: Only one small precedent (a couple of rounds vs McIntyre) of Calzaghe showing good work with his jab, against an opponent who is there to be hit only, he's too poor to put up any resistance at all.
    Conclusion A: Low chances he'd be able to outjab an opponent with proven great jab.
    Premise B: Lack of precedents of facing any jabbers at all (several seconds of 1st Veit's fight where he threw a couple of "jabs" excluded).
    Conclusion B: Low chances of ability to neutralize a jab (where it is no longer a major principal factor) or countering it effectively.

    Such as? Imagine for a second that Kessler was pumping his jab into Calzaghe's face non-stop, throwing at least 40-50 jabs per round, what stylistic element is there to offset that, if he can't neutralize that jab?
     
  14. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,593
    656
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 11, 2005
    Taking it out of equation. Say, Hopkins vs Wright, as an example.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    88,082
    4,653
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 21, 2007
    I hate to do it, but one of us was right about that fight because of our understanding of Calzaghe's performance v jab, and one of us was wrong for exactly the same reason.

    Very, very early in this thread we agree (i think) that that is where the fight would be won and lost and we were right, although i certainly didn't see Calzaghe being so successfull with his own jab.

    You cannot be right and wrong at the same time buddy.
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement