Savannah Marshall in trouble against The GWOAT!

That's what most of us do every time you start up a new thread.

Shields being undefeated in a professional ring is irrelevant, because the quality level in women's boxing is goddamn abhorrent. It's like being the undefeated queen of backyard wrestling in Butte, Montana. It's rather easy to dominate when your competition is pisspoor tin cans. I have a newsflash for you, had Shields faced guys with the skill level of Bradley, Matthysse, Algieri, Herrera and even Molina Jr. she certainly wouldn't be undefeated, and most of those losses wouldn't be close. Because... you know, LEVELS. Hell, someone with her laughable skillset wouldn't last 5 minutes in the Light Welterweight division Provo fought in. An apt comparison would be, she's Sammy Vargas level, and even that might be too flattering.

Fine, she beat Hammer and Gabriels, that's not too bad, but Hammer was brutally KO'd by the only real opponent she ever faced, thankfully she lives in Germany, so she got it overturned and ruled a NC. Hanna Gabriels also never beat any real fighters of note, and got KO'd herself. So it's quite debatable whether those two wins are worth writing home about either.

No I don't like Shields personality, most people don't. Because she's a vomit, and her lack of self awareness prevents her from seeing that quality in herself. She's certainly not exuding confidence, it's a false bravado stemming from all of her insecurities. Savannah isn't nice and sweet because she has a desire to be liked, she's nice because she's a nice person, and quietly confident, she doesn't feel the need to berate others and make an ass out of herself to boost her ego. She has genuine faith in her skillset, much like Lomachenko and Usyk. No need for the bombast. So, in spite of your "extreme experience" (which comes across to me as a bit of false bravado as well)... you've read or... perceive that wrong... as usual.

The reason why she didn't win a medal in the Olympics is because amateur boxing is amateur boxing and she encountered a tricky opponent. But since we're bringing tricky opponents up. Shields was beaten by her. What's that say about her? Was it an off night? Or was because styles make fights? So feel all the feels you want. My view is based both in feels and in logic. You've yet to explain a pathway to victory for Shields. All I've heard is bellicose bloviating nonsense on the subject thus far.

 

Objectively speaking, no... she is NOT better all around. If you think that, then you literally have no idea what you're watching. They have a shared opponent, you can watch and compare, which of the two performed more impressively? The answer is objectively Savannah Marshall, and anyone who isn't blind as a bat with bias can see that as clear as day.

Face this fact, you're talking ****... which is usually a natural side effect when someone talks out of their ass 24/7.

As far as admitting I was wrong... I've never understood that childish mentality. If I pick someone to win and they lose. I think the fact that I was wrong, would be more than obvious at that point. See, you take me for someone who is some stubborn delusional crackpot, who goes into full fledged denial of reality and runs off and hides, like many of the posters on here when they take an L. But no, it's not a blow to my pride, it's simply a miscalculation on my part. That's a risk you take with this sport. Hence why it's considered gambling hen picking a winner. There's no gamble when there's a sure thing. I've taken many an L, it's no skin off my teeth.

Also, not sure how long @Pimp C is going to be on your bandwagon Olu, he's far too logical to let emotions completely blind him to reality. He'll come around and realize why Savannah is not only a stylistic nightmare for Shields, but stylistic kryptonite.