Glowacki or Briedis

Briedis is a decent fighter , but way overrated. He produced an awful performance against Perez who had shipped 40 pounds in body matter coming down from HW.

That French bum last weekend was catching him with sneaky left hooks throughout the fight. Not a good sign if he was to fight a good hooker with excellent range control like Bellew.

 

Tell me why?

 

So you rate beating a cripple in Haye and a guy who had lost to Johnny Muller 2 fights before being better than Perez, Huck and Charr?

 

Haye and Masternak are better wins than Huck and Perez . 100%.

 

How?

Maybe you should explain how Makabu and Briedis fight alike

 

First of all, Makabu is a southpaw.
Makabu likes to patiently wait for opening, being on the back foot or slowly pressuring his opponent.
Briedis likes to heavily rely on the jab.

Their stances are different. Makabu mostly employs the high guard while Briedis is in more conventional stance, his hands a bit lowered. Briedis relies more on his footwork while Makabu likes to stand his ground.

They are different in almost every way.

 

Brideis works best off the backfoot as well. Thats how he sparked out Charr by setting him up for an ambush. Macabo floored Bellew by luring him in and catching him on the way out. He also works behind the jab.

And they like to attack in the same hook by hook / uppercut patterns. They both disguise their power shots behind probing measured punches. Being similar doesn't mean the are the same. They are more cheese n cheese than chalk n cheese , thats for sure.

 

Briedis is the better boxer skillwise and has a better footwork so i would say he is slightly better.

 

Briedis is the more skillful fighter, crisper punches, more speed, a bit more ring craft. Glowacki is a bit cruder but packs more power in his hands. I'd bet on Briedis in a fight.

 

Similarities does not make them the same. Think Broner n Floyd.