I mean, I think we can all agree that he LOOKS LIKE a better fighter, has more skills as a boxer, and probably trains a lot harder, but is he a better fighter? People who love Chenko (and I don't have anything against the guy, talented fighter) keep going to the fact that Linares has 3 titles. Broner has four. And he has fought FAR tougher opposition. Additionally, there is not much of a size difference between them, 5-8 142 and about 5-7 150 or so. It is my opinion that had they fought at 130 or 135, Broner dog walks him...and I don't even think A.B. is all that good, he's just too tough, and too athletic for a soft puncher who doesn't take punches that well. Maybe we should ask Demarco.
Nope and nope and nope......no seriously I respect your opinion but my opinion of Broner is very low in as much as he always lets you down against decent opponents,doesn’t matter that he’s got the talent cause when it counts he chooses to clam up.Linares certainly didn’t clam up against Lomo and imo still has a future.
It's a fair question to ask. And it's problematic for me to answer. I admire Linares as a fighter quite a bit and like most, can't stand Broner. So my bias clouds my judgement here. I will say that regardless of who is the better fighter, the gap between the two men's skills is not enormous. They are on comparable enough levels to use as reference points when debating quality of opposition.
Linares is a good boxer, but he's tailor-made for Broner. Linares can't punch and isn't very durable. Prime Broner completely crushes Linares, since Linares wouldn't be able to put a dent in him. Current Broner still beats him, but not as easily.
Both are exceptionally talented and skilled. They know the craft. And from the outside they look like P4P level guys. But it hasn't translated over into their resumes.
I'd say Broner and Linares are both prodigious physical talents that have both run into hard stylistic match ups over the years that have really highlighted their respective shortcomings... Both also have mental issues and lapses. Broner is much more durable, but Linares is a smoother operator over all.
That's why I made the tread. They are almost polar oposites: Broner, great natural athlete, not much in the way of boxing skill. Linares, tremendous, classy, watching him looks like a how-to film on boxing, but little power, agility or reflexes, so he bleeds like a stuck pig in every fight. In other words, a guy who would have been pretty good at any sport but isn't great a boxing vs a guy who has tremendous boxing skills but I dont think we be much of a factor on the basketball court or soccer field.
Why not also count the robberies Broner has had too. Doubt Linares would lose to Quintero and Ponce De Leon like he did Suppose by your triangle theory too that Roman Martinez is better than Lomachenko because Salido beat one and not the other
Lost to Quintero, beat De Leon easily and convincingly. Linares lost (in, I would say the opinion of most) to Luke Campbell. I mean, lets be honest, the first Crolla fight was close too.
No, but if you asked Salido who was better, I'd get the feeling he'd say Chenko. He is not stupid and knows he got him early in his career. If he got the same money right now to fight Martinez or Chenko, I'm thinking he'd pick Martinez. If DeMarco had to get back in the ring with Broner or Linares, for the same $ whom do you think he would pick?