Gamboa vs. Pac in a 6 rounder, right now, who do you favour.

I think Pavlik's chin is shakey and not glass. But Roy would starch him early :yep

 

I didn't answer your question because I thought it was a ridiculous comparison!

How can you compare the difference between a young RJJ and current Pavlik with the difference between Gamboa and Pacman?

Pacman is A- and Gamboa hasn't even fought solid C level fighters yet!

Pavlik is just about B+ and RJJ at 26 had already beaten Hopkins, and Toney, to mention just the very best!

The mistake you make here is the same mistake that people made when they overrated Hopkins in their p4p rankings. They did so because subconsciously they thought he was amazing FOR A 43-year OLD, even though in absolute terms, he was faded. You are impressed with how well Gamboa is doing against D and C- level fighters IN HIS 9th FIGHT, but you forget this guy's 26 already and that he is hugely experienced in the amateur ranks, which is bound to help him as a pro.

Pro Experience counts for a lot though! Pac has beaten MUCH better fighters than Gamboa; there's no reason at all to assume he wouldn't beat this guy too.

 

How many fighters at the stage of his pro carrer could beat a genuine p4p fighter either 2 or 3 in the world at this stage, 0 that is how many.

If you put Roy in with say prime Hopkins at an early stage of his carrer he would most likley have lost.

Many fighters have also looked great as prospects and have amounted to not a great deal.

 

I disagree actually it was not the lack of punch that made Taylor unable to finish him. Rather the fact he has no boxing intalect to speak of and did not know to throw an uppercut. FFS atsch

 

Yes there is, Gamboa has the style, reflexes, speed, variety of punches, and accurracy to give Pac huge problems. Pac is a very beatable fighter, despite being A level. He was recently beaten by a faded JMM and it looks like he's on the decline now, especially stamina wise (one of the most important things he needs to be highly effective).

Who beat who doesn't matter all that much when analyzing a matchup. You have to look how the fighters performed in their fights and what would happen if they were in the ring together. Is it realistic that Pac could KO Gamboa using his aggressive attack? Of course. Is it realistic that Gamboa could outbox, confuse, and outfight Gamboa using his natural talent and boxing skills? Of course.

Pac isn't on the level of a prime Hopkins. He's not incredibly hard to figure out. The reason he's hard to defeat is because you need to be an elite boxer who could handle his machine-like aggressive, powerful attack. I believe Gamboa could handle it. We should see pretty soon who's right.

 

6 round fight my man.

 

When Khan debuted he was KO'n guys inside 30seconds. Who beat who matters all that much, because what skills you show, your power, stamina, skills, is all simply just relative to how good your opponent. If Gamboa were to step up today and fight an A level fighter, got reapeatedly tagged and hit the deck a few times...you will see.

This example is specially true in the Naz-MAB fight. Naz looked so much more impressive, was the favourite. But at the end of the day, MAB proved one thing, looking impressive is relative to how impressive you looked against how tough of a competetion, subtance over flash.

 

:think

A bit of both i suppose. Still hell if I threw an uppercut and it hit flush Pavlik would have been toast with the nick he was in.

 

I was talking about a 12 rounder.

What's with all these Khan comparisons? Khan never, EVER looked anywhere near the level of Gamboa. Ever. Enough about Khan and what people think/thought about him.

Naz also never looked as good as Gamboa in his younger days IMO, but he was lightyears above Khan.

 

Let's not get into politics. Whatever I might think of your ethnic politics, I don't let that influence my judgement of you as a boxing analyst.

I can see how he takes big risks to blow D and C- level fighters out of the water. They are ****; he knows that. They don't have the punch to put him down and they don't know how to counterpunch anyway. So...he takes big chances and he looks amazing in the process. Big deal! Put him against a solid B level pressure fighter or counterpuncher, or against a big puncher, and you will see he won't go in like a bull anymore, if he knows what's good for him.

Dawson is a joke as a man and as a fighter.
I have explained why in this thread:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62301&page=4

He is a very good boxer indeed, though; he has some amazing skills!...

You are overzealous in jumping on whatever bandwaggon that Amsterdam might start!:-(

I cannot remember the last time when you disagreed with him on a big fight (except on Dawson v. Diaconu - but here, you have your very entrenched agenda!) and it's not as if Amsterdam doesn't get the big fights wrong. His record lately has been slipping! He spends more and more time engaging in polemic instead of analysing. He also defends that polemic to the hilt when he picks fights, foolishly not even considering the styles involved. As a result, he sometimes picks like a bull in a china shop. You do the same! More and more so! It's dissapointing, really, because you are a good analyst, when you let yourself think clearly. More and more, these days, you are blinded by all your agendas and positions that you feel you have to defend - that makes you a worse analyst, IMO.

When Amsterdam and brooklyn get together, you always join them, almost as if you were afraid to be left out. Dammit, man! Stand up for what you believe and think for yourself! You're certainly good and experienced enough! You are even better than them, when you put the right work into it, objectively!

And yes, you do have agendas. Your agendas are Amsterdam's. This is why people rightfully accuse you of just following his lead. I think that's sad, because Amsterdam is at his best when he doesn't have it all his own way. When challenged, he delivers some very good insights. When he's not challenged, he goes off-road, sometimes, inebriated by his own mind-games and agendas. Don't forget though - Amsterdam is often just having fun! He is great for the forum, as long as you don't take him 100% seriously, without thinking for yourself or challenging him, where you think he's going over the top.

This content is protected

The sleep of reason produces monsters ~ Goya

 

Cool :good

 

Naz didnt look as good as Gamboa? What, you mean when he clowned world champions in the ring and got away with it? When Naz was fighting D level opponents, he was toying with them and knocking them out.