How would a Wood-Conlan trilogy compare to Gatti-Ward I,II, III?

Wood should win again and probably in a more dominant fashion. Conlan looked good early because Wood barely had any legs beneath him for the first 5 rounds. He still made some of those rounds close. Once Wood had his legs back and figured Conlan out it was one-way traffic for the most part.

The matchup has great potential to be an all time classic. But it's hard to get the same fight again. I think Conlan will probably approach the rematch differently and will pace himself and Wood will fight a bit more hesitant too as he doesn't want to get caught and put on his ass again.

I don't mind a rematch and i'd be happy to see those two again in the ring against each other but be prepared for a different fight but the same outcome.

 

As amazing as this fight was, I really think it was the product of that first heavy knockdown in round one - a round that Wood was handling Conlan relatively easy, I might add. Also, f1ght said it best; because of the kockdowns and KO, expect both guys to be more cautious/pace themselves more, which typically doesn't lend itself to an exciting fight.

 

At no point prior to the final ninety seconds was that fight one-way traffic for Wood. Even the 11th, the round in whose dying seconds he made his crucial breakthrough, was a torrid, attritional round for him, which saw him visibly suffering from Conlan's punches to the body. You've literally written your own fan fiction account of the second half of that bout.

Another one. Up until the knockdown, the 1st had been a competitive contest between Wood's sporadic, raking right hands to the body and Conlan's orthodox jab upstairs, southpaw jab and backhands to the body and looping left crosses to the head (including one which caught Wood clean about fifteen seconds prior to the one that sat him down) — even if Wood had kept his feet, those left hands up top were the clearest things to seperate them in an otherwise evenly fought feel-out opener.


What Wood did this past weekend was remarkable enough without guys making up stories, which only does everyone (including Leigh) a disservice.

 

You can repeat it as much as you want but it's still not true. Conlan was fading and wilting badly in the second half and while he had some success here and there, all the eye-catching shots were landed by Wood. Wood was pressing forward and Conlan was running. Wood was winning the fight even without the KO. A 10-8 in the 12th and he would have won the fight on two of the three scorecards. And thats fair. Conlan had ONE good round in the second half. All other rounds were Wood rounds including a 10-8 in the 11th.

 

It's quite true. Beauty of it is, the fight's right there on crystal clear HD video, all anyone has to do is go back and watch it. You already admitted your view of this bout was colored by your subjective bias, besides.

Sorry, I meant,

you already admitted your view of this bout was colored by your subjective bias, besides, kid.

 

I rewatched the fight last night without distractions, emotions and commentary and scored it 104-103 Conlan after 11. So what? It was a close fight but denying that Wood took over in the second half is delusional. Conlan was wilting and slowing down massively. Wood caught a second gear.

You're obviously as biased as i was/am.

 

I like Conlan, but I don't dislike Wood. Hell, even if I loathed Wood, I don't let that stuff influence my interpretation of a fight. If Dillian Whyte somehow performs a fistic miracle and boxes Tyson Fury well enough to merit a 116–112 margin of victory next month, I'll give him his dues, and I can't abide that jagoff. Even a significant wager wouldn't jaundice my view of a bout (kidding oneself about the way a fight is going doesn't make a bet any more likely to come in, after all).

Prior to reviewing the fight around Sunday lunch, I wouldn't have contested your position. Fights as exciting as the one Wood and Conlan shared tend to go by in an impressionistic blur, and it's seldom that I maintain a scorecard in those situations, preferring to immerse myself in the drama of the bout and score later. When a guy starts as well as Mick did and gets taken out late after the action had become less emphatically tilted in his favor, the general feeling you're left with is that the guy got ground down by a fighter in the ascendancy. It just isn't really the case on review, in this instance. Rounds were competitive, Wood was not rolling over Conlan, and Mick was still putting a lot of the hurt on up until that exchange which dropped him right at the death of the 11th (spoiling a round that he was winning until that moment). As I said in another thread, cumulative damage is always a factor to some extent, but that hook really turned the fight for Leigh.

Wood did find a foothold in the fight and start making some inroads in the second half, but he did not "take over". As I said, rounds 7–11 were at least equally attritional for him and there were multiple points in that second half where he was visibly suffering from the punishment he was taking. That's what makes his feat so remarkable. If you really want to contest it, given a few days to set aside the time and do a little editing, I could put together a reel of all the times Wood showed signs of being wounded in rounds 7–11.

Of course Conlan slowed down some, did you note the pace they were fighting at? Wood was hardly fresh as a daisy. He didn't catch a second gear so much as he perservered stoically through a bunch of hurt and duress until he found a breakthrough in a fight that was three minutes and a few seconds away from being scored against him (despite the home advantage). Again, that's what makes the result he earned so damn commendable.

 

'Another one' who saw what actually happened, yes.

 

Not a compelling argument, but you're entitled to your views (however blinkered). In that spirit, I trust you'll understand if I defer to my own eyeballs and capacities of discernment.

 

I don't mind you disagreeing; you as a self-admitted Conlan fan have the right to be in the vast minority of how the round was going before the knockdown. If you wanted to say that knockdown was not the product of luck but an overhand left he was clearly setting up the entire round and the rest of the fight that would be one (accurate) thing; if you wanted to say it was competitive, fine because Conlan did do some good work. But to say that the round wasn't going Wood's way because of a few jabs and occasional rear hand when he was retreating in the face of Wood's pressure and receiving power shots that affected him is silly fanboyism. "Competitive but clear" is a thing, and no amount of snark or laugh emojis will change that.

 

A day ago, I was talking about Taylor-Catterall and those posters who disagree with the majority view of that fight, but, in light of your base retort, it bears some repeating here;

With that said, where even is this vast majority who had Wood categorically bossing the 1st up until the knockdown? (I assume that's what you meant, since a "vast minority" is an oxymoron/cannot exist.) I haven't seen them. I've seen you. There may be others, but they're hardly shouting 'Leigh Wood was winning the first round easily!' from the rooftops.

I think you're overstating the accuracy amd effectiveness of those raking rights to the body. They did, however, contribute to a competitive round with not a great deal to choose between the fighters up until Michael's looping left cross started to uncork.

 

Why would I be discussing Taylor-Catterall with you over a comment towards Wood-Conlan in a thread about Wood-Conlan? Your powers of comprehension are not as great as you would seem to believe.

No, I mean "vast minority". It's a silly and not-common term I admit but one used to highlight the absurdity of individuals or small groups chirping one thing or being overrepresented as if they are the majority. But if it bugs you, let's change it to "vocal minority" and we can move on.

Why would they? Conlan won that round 10-8 via a vicious knockdown that had Wood hurt for rounds after. Insisting on "B-b-b-but Wood was winning the round UNTIL THEN!" is just silly and pointless pearl-clutching for Wood unless used in the context of discussing how a potential rematch was going: "Wood was winning the first round until that knockdown, Conlan was winning the fight until that vicious knockout, both will probably approach the fight more cautiously than the first so it won't be as exciting." I could (and frankly hope!) I'm wrong about that logic over how a rematch goes, but getting on someone's case because they thought Wood was winning the 1st round fairly safely regardless of competitiveness until the knockdown just strikes me as being argumentative for the sake of arguing, especially since everyone involved agrees that it was 10-8 Conlan and led to him dominating the first half of the fight.

And I don't think I am, but frankly, at this point, we're just arguing in circles, we're not going to convince each other, so for my part I'll just leave it here.

 

I don't really want to see Conlan fight again until he either shores up his infighting defense or moves up so he can rehydrate better. The last fight was frightening in how close to death it could have been.

 

The quoted passage is transferable, it has less to do with Taylor-Catterall specifically and more to do with any discussion where one of two parties in disagreement pulls the majority view card instead of bothering to make a thoughtful case for themself.

I won't put the unexpected need to explain the significance of said passage down to comprehension failure (it was never my aim to imply that you're an abject moron, after all), I'll just guess you were being wilfully obtuse/obstructive for the sake of peevish awkwardness.

So, you don't actually know that the majority of observers had Wood easily winning (or even narrowly winning) the opening round up until the knockdown. You said it because it sounded authoritarive. Thanks for clarifying.

I didn't mean to get on your case, oppress you or harsh your vibe. This forum (most forums) pretty much exists to platform arguing for the sake of arguing. I beg your pardon if you didn't want anyone to argue with you, I just thought/think 'Wood was easily winning the round' was an unduly categorical statement. Had you said that you thought he was shading it up until the KD, I wouldn't have thought to argue it. That would be your opinion and I'd never have provoked you to call on an imagined army to support it.

Fine enough.