Paulie has a chin, tough as hell and has heart. To the point where it over compensates for his lack of "power." But with his speed and activity in the ring he is a force to be reckoned with. I am a little worried about his post fight comments, he said that Haymon had a New York judge in his pocket. The last time a Boxer bashed an official (Juanma said dude had gambling problem) he was suspended for a year. I am curious what the Athletic Commission or WBA may say, they may just not care and ignore it, and nothing happen. But history has shown us otherwise.
All 3 judges gave the 3rd round to Broner. That's 3 different angles at ring side that say: YOU ARE WRONG. Once again illustrating that: YOU CANNOT SCORE A FIGHT FOR ****!
i had broner winning rnds 2,4-9, and 12. paulie 1,3, 11 had 10th even. i just dont see how u can land that much less and never hurt opponent and people say guy won fight! and people say paulie never was hurt is just b.s. he wasnt out on his feet but a couple times in the middle rds thought he was gonna touch the canvas. broner never even got paused in his tracks. unless your sweet pea you aint winning without no pop at all. and i dont think anybody accusing paulie of bn sweat pea. to me wasnt close enough for a reamatch. it was a smewhat competitive and entertaining fight, but not real close. 2b honest i had it bout like floyd and cotto. guy is getting alot of credit for doing better than people thought
If only paulie was 8ft tall and had wings.... please with this nonsense. Broner got hit because Paulie has 0 power. I am not shitting you guys, I bet you I could stand there and take 100 straight shots from Paulie and would not feel a thing. He is just that weak. Always has, always will be. How you can be a fan of that is laughable if you ask me. Dude should have hung it up awhile ago.
Broner won 8 rounds by my criteria which is clean effective punching, damage done. Broner was more precise and definitely landed the more telling blows in the fight. If you have pillow fists you need to the Whitaker type of performance and significantly out land the other not just trow more punches which means **** as Pauli was missing or hitting the guard most of the time. Broner hurt him two times, once badly with a body shot and wobbled him a couple of times. I don't know how people score fights on here anymore. There isn't any objectivity anybody goes with his agenda and scores with different criteria every fight. The same people that normally score precision and defense scored the Trout-Canelo fight for Trout based on activity.
Yes it is: it's called "effective aggression". A higher rate of punching is "aggression", and it is "effective" in lowering the output of the opponent. There are many types of effective aggression, and no, it's not just what your favorite fighter happens to be doing on the night.
Who controlled the ring? Broner. He was the one being aggressive, cutting off the ring, and landing power shots. Malignaggi was on his bike, and you consider his shoe shining attacks as "effective aggression?" He wasn't landing or backing Broner off you dope, how was that effective? Yes, he lowered the output of Broner in spots. That's why if you look at my breakdown, I gave Paulie some points for "Ring Generalship" and felt it was a push: Both fighters were able to implement their fight plan at different points. Broner won every other category HANDS DOWN: Clean Punching, Defense, & Effective Aggression. You are seriously confused. "Activity" is not "effective aggression." Said it before, and I'll say it again: If you scored that fight for Paulie, you don't know **** about scoring a fight.
Outstanding post. Listen, as a fellow NYer, I always root for Paulie, this time included. But there is no way I could score that fight for him, and couldn't find a way to give him more than 4 rounds. The only controversy is that 1 judge somehow saw fit to give Paulie 7 rounds.
Thank you. And to be clear to others: I like Paulie Malignaggi and always felt he made the most of his talent given his hand problems. Not many could do **** in professional boxing with that kind of hand issues. Got nothing against him, but he lost.
Malignaggi was pretty much on a dead run from the 4th on. He couldn't commit to his offense except sporadically. He was pushing out arm punches and basically simply touching Broner with leather to try to get some points. So chasing your opponent around the ring, daring him to engage whilst you land 50% of your shots, and that's not effective? Would you say Malignaggi had the effective aggression?
First of all I thought Broner a compitive fight. Next the idea that you have to take the championship from the champion is a myth that goes back to the days of No Decision fights where in order to win the championship, you had to stop the champion. Now days that is not the case, and whoever wins the fight by stoppage, or decision is the champion.