Who will you be rooting for: Savannah Marshall or Claressa Shields?

By skilled do you just mean faster? I don't think there is much difference in their technical abilities. Shields has faster hands and feet, but I think Marshall has smarter hands and feet.

I think Marshall turns her shots over better, generates more power. Shields throws better combos.

I can see ways in which both fighters can win. I favour Marshall however. As the majority seem to also. But they may be swayed by shields not being particularly likeable

 

CST80 will be awarding rounds to Marshall that Shields is winning. I suspect his cards are filled in a week before the fight.

 

No matter who wins I think this forum will explode. I'm just excited to see the waste land afterwards.

 

How would comparing usyk to the better fighter be hate?

 

Shields is faster than Marshall of both hand and foot but she's more well rounded than Marshall and has displayed this against better competition. I think Marshall is a good fighter but more limited and relies on power. If she doesn't get Shields out of there then what?

 

I would buy this if it was on PPV Cable. I don't see it and I'm not signing up for any streaming services. Anyway, I'll be rooting for Savannah. Spectrum. in my area, throttles if you try to stream anything.

 

Ur just using buzz words, more talented, more rounded.

What do you mean when u say this.

I dont think Marshall will ko shields I think she beats her on points.

 

Its safe to say ESB is Pro Marshall.. get the tissue boxes ready!

 

In discussion about this fight on Youtube to me the biggest misconception has been the under-estimation of Marshall's skill. Even many of her fans take it as read that Shields will outbox her and if Marshall wins it will be through power. Maybe it's the lazy duality of Marshall being the puncher so Shields is the boxer. Maybe it's what to many is the 'herky jerky' Fury type style that just seems awkward. But Marshall seems to me a special boxer with a large array of subtle skills. She's at least as good as Shields at landing her punches and not being hit by the opponent which is surely what boxing skills are designed to achieve.

 

More complete better punch selection better counter puncher better defense.

 

Chris Brown can slap them both up at the same time.

 

Our views on the heavyweights are significantly nuanced — for one thing, the term 'bum of the month' was established well after the passing of the hundred-round era, but also long before the twenty-first century rolled around — but I'll elect to not drag our exchange into that sidetrack.

My back catalogue on the forum testifies that I am in general agreement with you that boxing is in a steepening decline (not just the morass of the boxing business, but the technical regression and thinning of knowledge within the trade itself).

I did fleetingly address the point you're making in the post you quoted;

But, as it happens, I've addressed it more lengthily in threads prior to this one;

Snip.

It appears contradictory if you're not very bright and struggle with nuance. It only requires a modicum of discernment to read that post and understand the following two points;

Not only do I not hate the idea of putting boxing and womens' boxing on different TV shows, I am calling for it to be instituted, for it to be made de rigueur (that is, if any network feels absolutely duty-bound to televise womens' boxing at all).

In respect to this all-female boxing card (no need to pluralize, since the show is being trumpeted as the first of its kind), I am identifying a very predictable double-standard, i.e. that the exclusion of male boxers from this ostensible prestige event, far from heralding an era where womens' boxing finally stands on its own two feet, is just a cynical marketing gimmick, and that the network will settle right back into the established pattern of making the men carry the women by stinking up potentially good cards with dismal female bouts once this night passes. (Ask yourself why Sky didn't inaugurate all-female cards before now, with, say, a small hall show in Liverpool headlined by the Jonas woman.)

I'll even make it ridiculously easy for you and break the qualifying part of the statement down;

I have made it very simple for you to understand. If it's still beyond you, I cannot fix obtuse.


Meanwhile, this is presumably what you want to see when you subscribe to Top Rank's YouTube station;

This content is protected

Oh yeah, baby. Give me more of this thrilling content. I can't get enough of rubbing my schmeckel while Alesha Bumfarter and Millie Meyshitdontstink pretend to be baddies and exchange vacuous disses, like "Girlbye", while fluttering their lashes. Nothing gets me more pumped than two entitled broads bitching at each other to build up to twenty minutes of anticlimactic flailing and flurrying.

Be honest. You watch this stuff alone on the couch stripped to your jocks with one hand on your junk, don't you?


Even the vast majority of women who regularly enjoy watching boxing don't want to see this crap. [url]You can take it from a woman if you won't take it from me.[/url]

I know it's a joke. She knows it's a joke. You know it's a joke. We all know it's a joke. So let's all stop pretending.


Truth is, boxing is inherently a man's trade, always will be inherently a man's trade. We are evolved for confrontation and violence. When women fight, it looks inherently ridiculous. When women start squaring up and talking aggressively/insultingly at each other, it looks inherently ridiculous. And any man who wants to act like this garbage represents some kind of progress for the sport of boxing is, frankly, weak in the head and pozzed out of his mind.

 

I'll post where I like and you'll have no say in it.

Gee whiz, chum, there's an original thought. You'll be declaring me an 'incel' next.

Why do you orbiters assume that everyone is as impressionable and as bound to a miserable, one-dimensional stereotype as you are?

For the record, yours truly is clearly not an admirer of Andrew Tate;

I identified him as a weasel within about thirty seconds of first hearing him speak back in 2017. In the five years since, I have only been aware of his utterances in the rare instances where someone drew my attention to them. From one month to the next, I am not aware of Tate. You probably follow him much more closely than I do.

He and I do have a thing in common, though. [url]We both got laid tonight.[/url] And you didn't. White Knighting for womens' boxing isn't going to change that.

Right. You're sobbing over my opinion.

You could be practicing your own advice and ignoring (just not reading) my posts. But you're not, are you? You're crying bitterly about them, issuing reductionist snarks which provide absolutely nothing in the way of actual rebuttal to any of my arguments, aren't you? And that's because you're either a halfwit who doesn't understand said arguments or an engineered stooge who knows he can't rebutt or deconstruct them, isn't it? How does it feel to be a useful idiot?

Harden up. Go run some miles, lift some weights, something, anything to make you stop being so wet. (Then again, that stuff hasn't worked for the guy I was just talking to, so maybe repeated uppercuts to the solar plexus are your only hope at this stage.)


Anyway... As I illustrated to your fellow laydeebox ally above, a female has the sense to apprehend what you two apparently cannot, i.e. that the force-feeding of womens' boxing onto the audience has nothing to do with the good of the sport and everything to do with political agenda. Said agenda is barely disguised, so, if you guys aren't wilful/disingenuous, you're very easily led.


Just remember, though you are currently submissive to women and a lowly global establishment stooge on a level with Adam Smith, it's not too late to find your balls and change.

 

Tldr;

Harden up, or enjoy the show.

 

That's what all the fragile goofs say when they get BTFO.

Run along, my aptly named pal.