Hamed vs Barrera rematch.

horst · Jul 1, 2010

klompton said: ↑

What opponent? What two fights? If you mean Griffith I saw him knock Griffith out once. In the first fight I saw Griffith frustrate Roy so bad that Roy cheap shotted him and got himself DQd. To pretend that Roy was comfortably ahead at the time of the stoppage is horse****. Griffith was still very much in the hunt and everyone but Roys delusional fans knew it.
Click to expand...

Roy was ahead on two scorecards at the time of the DQ - that's a fact. Arguing with it is pointless, check it on boxrec if you are disputing that.

You really need to watch the fight again, because your memory of it is way off. Jones was on the brink of a stoppage win at the time of the DQ incident. The evidence is there on tape.

Who is Griffith anyway?

horst · Jul 1, 2010

Popkins said: ↑

So for you the question:

"Does fighter X have good fundamentals?"

is the exact same question as:

"Does fighter X have a good jab?"

I disagree, I do not think the fundamentals of boxing can be reduced to one solitary facet of a boxer's game, and I don't think that is the common understanding of 'fundamentals'.

I take this question ("Does fighter X have good fundamentals?") to mean does fighter X possess good, well-rounded abilities in the fundamentals of boxing, ie:

- does he have a good jab?
- does he have an effective defence, a decent guard?
- can he hit to the body as well as the head?
- does he have decent combination punching ability?
- does he have good punching technique?
etc

Because if a fighter has a good jab, but doesn't throw combos, doesn't hit to the body ever, has no idea of how to defend himself and punches with his hands open, well then he doesn't have 'good boxing fundamentals', does he??

Roy Jones did not have a good jab, but he did have an effective defence (based on movement, but had a decent guard too and could defend himself on the ropes when required), he did punch well to the body as well as to the head, he could throw decent combinations, and I think he had very good punching technique. Therefore, because he did not score especially highly for one fundamental factor like the jab, he still had solid fundamentals overall because he registers on all other counts.

I can think of many great boxers who did not have a great jab, but still scored so highly on the other aspects of a boxer's fundamentals that they were very technically gifted and fundamentally excellent overall. For example, I don't think that guys like Floyd Mayweather Jr, Bernard Hopkins, James Toney, Mike Tyson and Manny Pacquiao had what you would call great or classic jabs, but all are fundamentally sound - and in fact Mayweather, Hopkins and Toney are very strong in that regard.

On the flip side of the coin, guys like Joe Calzaghe and Naseem Hamed in my opinion did not have good fundamentals. Neither of them had good jabs at all, but unlike Jones they were deficient in other key fundamental areas. Both men had sloppy guards, both men did not throw effective combinations (Calzaghe was a slapper/flurrier, Hamed was a headhunter).

The fundamentals of boxing are far more than one solitary punch.
Click to expand...

Anyone agree or disagree with my definition of 'fundamentals'?

horst · Jul 2, 2010

Nah?

Log in or Sign up

Hamed vs Barrera rematch.

horst Guest

horst Guest

horst Guest

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Hamed vs Barrera rematch.

horst Guest

horst Guest

horst Guest