Why does Gamboa seem to get a free pass....

I like PuglisticPower, he's dominated the pseudo-intellectuals Sweet Pea and Amsterdam.

 

Yeh, people should really stop mentioning that first KD like it has any sort of significance, it was obviously a push. The second KD was real, but Gamboa was not hurt.

 

Gamboa can't hang with any of the top guys right now he'd better stick to fighting these C level guys until he learns how to get disciplined ...

Those hands are way too low ... not just on the outside but inside too ! If he continues to fight in that manner then the 1st guy he fights that is not afraid to punch with him is going to knock him out

He's not even ready for a Rocky Juarez yet ... I'd pick Rocky by KO

 

EXACTLY!! Which is why the three most hated fighters on ESB are also the best three fighters in the world,Mayweather,Calzaghe,Pacman

 

Bingo. Light-hitters drop Khan. The telltale sign of a china chin. Gamboa would DESTROY him.

Khan's handlers are gonna keep him away from anybody who can hit as long as possible - because when they have to face someone who can crack more than an egg, Khan will be knocked out COLD.:yep

 

Gamboa is overrated...he fights sloppy.

 

AHAHAHA Pugillisticpowerr owned COMPLETLY amsterdam..ahahaha

 

:good

Now thats a ****ing post. I like them both equally as prospects, maybe Gamboa a little more, but im getting pissed off with the double standards on this forum myself, especially when its coming from knowledgable posters.

All facts, no bull****. :thumbsup

 

Give me a break,mate !

Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones cant hold a candle to Gamboa in terms of the qualitiy of their defeated opposition in their first 10 pro fights.
Gamboa has been matched more toughly than both Jones and Mayweather up to their 10th pro fight.

And what do you mean by saying ............if gamboa is as good as Roy Jones??

Jones beat a bunch of limited American clubfighters and avoided the biggest threat (DM) who was out there when he was in his prime. Jones only fought in his backyard in the USA and never left his home turf.
Jones was a very good fighter,but IMO Gamboa has a greater potential than JOnes had at his time a couple of years ago.

 

I think you're slightly missing the point here buddy.

Gamboa is a 26 yr old man. Floyd and Roy Jones Jr if I remember rightly started either at 20 or in their very early twenties.

Yes, Gamboa has performed impressively against higher than normal competition but then so has Povetkin. Even Khan could say that his first ten fights were of a tougher nature than the majority of prospects.

To talk about Gamboa having greater potential than Jones Jr is just silly in my view, we KNOW what Jones Jr was able to do because we saw him do it against some of the very best fighters in the world.

Let Gamboa have a chance without building him up to be the next Lacy.. Lacy too faced impressive competition early on in his career and did well, what happened when he stepped up to the elites?

Yeah yeah, I know.. Lacy is a bum, Gamboa is godly - hindsight is 20/20.

 

You are right in saying that Gamboa is a mature man,but the pro game is slightly different from the amateurs and I for my part give him credit for his tough competition he has beaten in his short pro career up to now.

Lacy? You are joking,arent you! Gamboa's competition was far better and tougher than Lacy' s one in his first 10 fights.
Whats more I have never been sold on Lacy.I can vividly remember his last amateur fight with Gaidar Gaidarbekov who schooled and stopped him at the olympics.Lacy was totally out of his shoes against Gaidarbekov.
Gamboa is an entirely pair of shoes. He won gold,and had an extremely successful amateur career.
Hindsight is................ No,mate! I have never praised him as the next big thing.Quite the opposite I have always been quite critical of him.

Roy Jones beat some of the best fighters in the world???? Damn! I must have missed those fights somehow. He didnt fight his biggest rival DM when he and the Pole were in their prime.Admittingly,Jones was a very good fighter,naturally gifted with a good punch.However,I very much doubt that he beat some of the best fighters in the world .
His weight division was a very weak one when he was in his prime+his encounter with DM didnt come off.

And yes, I also give credit to Khan and Povetkin.Honour where honour is due. Gamboa,Khan,and Povetkin have been matched bloody toughly up to now.Well,Khan not as toughly as Povetkin or Gamboa,but I am not looking for the famour fly in the ointment.
I for my part dont think that no fighter-as experienced and good he may be-should be matched as toughly as Povetkin and Gamboa.
I know that it may sound a bit weird,but money is the name of this game.You have to be careful with your investments.I am in favour of taking calculated risks and careful matchmaking.There is no need to rush Gamboa(and Solis,and Povetkin ) into big fights.
Gamboa( and Povetkin,and Solis) are still very unknown names in the big fight markets in the USA and Germany where a fighter can earn big bucks.
It doesnt mean **** to have a recognisable name among most of us knowledgeable fight fans.
They must be marketable to the casual sport fan out there in Germany and to the causual fight fan out there in the USA.
Thats why I give credit to Gamboa ,Solis,and Povetkin,but dont approve of their tough matchmaking.
Pure madness to match someone like Gamboa with Kebede in his pro debut,or Solis with Mazikin in his second pro fight,or Povetkin with Bango in his 6th pro fights.Yes,they successfully passed those tests,but thats not the point.
If Gamboa had impressively beaten 20 no-hopers and limited journeymen instead of his 10 relatively good opponents he would have been praised by most of the posters here on esb as the second comming of M.Ali (admittingly,a smaller version of Ali).
Very often people dont appreciate a fighter's accomplishment against tough opposition as much as the sheer number of opponents he has beaten irrespective of their quality.
Gamboa has been successful up to now,and so have been Povetkin and Solis. They have looked great in most of their fights.Yes,all of them have their flaws and showed weaker performances,too.Nevertheless,none of them has lost so far.
People tend to forget that both Jones and Mayweather have shown quite a few weak performances in their career,too.

 

What you said originally was that fighters of Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Hagler, Benitez's era was that they were primitive because they had no competition. Somehow they just sprouted these amazing boxing abilities out of nowhere. They sure did have no competition, aside from the others, as they did happen to fight in the same era. So how was their competition lackluster?

While you're at it, seeing as you've done the research and all, tell me which of Leonard's top opponents were working second jobs. Tell me the same of Benitez, Hagler, Hearns, Duran, etc etc. Should be easy since you've researched these points. Tell me which fighters of that era that were consensus top 10-15 fighters were working second jobs. Go.

 

Just briefly (and I do respect your opinion)

Bernard Hopkins, James Toney, Virgil Hill - disregard any other fighter Jones Jr fought and beat (and I could easily argue the case for many more) but all three of these guys are not only HOF athletes but will probably feature in Top 100 ATG lists.

So yeah, Jones Jr faced some of the best fighters in the world and beat them.

As for Lacy, by his 12th fight, he was fighting WBC Continental bouts. By his 17th fight, he was fighting title eliminators, he got a belt in his 18th fight and in his 23rd fight, he was fighting a unification fight with his Divisions #1 fighter..

So don't go saying Lacy didn't have an impressive start in his boxing career.

At this stage, Khan has actually had a better professional career than Gamboa - do you realise that? This isn't who they beat or how they beat them - this is where their opponents were rated, what was on the line during the fight and had their opponents previously held a title.

Gamboa could turn out to be something great or he could turn out to flop, there are some rough edges that he needs to sort out because he won't get away with them when he enters the Contender phase... lets hope he can work them out cause boxing needs more talent!

 

What I originally said was that the era that Sugar Ray Leonard, Hagler, Benitez etc did not have as much in the way of fight science, training regimes, preparation and such as todays era.

I have further highlighted this point by pointing out that many fighters of that era were working secondary jobs, instead of trying to prove me wrong here, you point out 5 of the fighters that Sugar Ray Leonard faced who were also Top 10 fighters, completely missing the point of my post, which was to mention that the fighters these guys feasted on before fighting each other were more than likely semi-professional, not as trained, etc.

Fringe Contenders back in Sugar Ray's era, lots of them were semi-professional boxers.

So competition, well hey - I'm not arguing that Sugar Ray definitely fought the best fighters of his era, what I did point out to you was the many differences between training today and training even twenty years ago, I think I've successfully proven my point, you're just too stubborn (or stupid) to see it.

The other thing I could point out is TV Networks, the money involved in fights and the amount of options fighters have for making money these days is much higher than Sugar Ray's era.

The best fighters were often forced to fight one another in that era because it was the easiest way to get a pay day, you also didn't have as many competing promoters/networks so it was easier to set up the fights fans wanted to see.

This isn't an out for a guy like Floyd who could use his fame to get any fight he wanted, but it's a reason why the best fighters don't always fight the best fighters anymore.

Yes, Sugar Ray Leonard and his co-elite fighters of that era were superstars, but like I've constantly said and you seem too thick to understand - I don't try to compare fighters who are 20 years apart... the era is too different and there are too many intangibles to assess.

Would you like me to debase any more of your points? (Not that you actually have a point)

 

Such as?

So how does this effect Leonard and the top fighters in a head to head sense with the fighters of this era?

There are fighters like that in every era, including this one. If you want me to name names, I'll wait for you to do so first. As I originally asked, and you failed to do. You've obviously studied this, as you have stated earlier, so it shouldn't be that big a deal to come out with some names of decent contenders. Ones that actually have to do with an argument related to the top fighters and their stand as boxers in comparison to today's fighters.

I've already asked you to provide to me the differences. You will undoubtedly say something along the lines of "The technological, training, diet, supplements, etc advantages are way better than they used to be". Provide examples. What are the differences in technology that make today's boxers better than boxer of the 80's? What are the advances in diet that significantly improve a fighter's drive and technical skills? What are the training regimen changes for Christ's sake?

That definitely makes a difference in the level of fighter, for sure. Good point.

And you're saying the best fighters facing the best, as opposed to being babied and shyed away from the best fights by their managers, is a plus for modern fighters?

And again, we're talking about the 80's, not the 40's and below, where guys had 100's of fights due to the reasons you mentioned along with several others. Leonard had similar to the amount of fights Floyd had. The circumstances were no different than now, aside from the different orgs controlling different belts. But once again, that doesn't in any way bode well for the modern day fighters in comparison to the fighters of the 80's.

The problem here, which a pseudo-intellectual like you doesn't understand, is that none of the points you bring up have anything to do with the fighters boxing skills, drive, determination, experience, etc. You're bringing up technicalities of the sport nowadays that prove more how the sport has fallen off than how the fighters of today are better. If anything, some of the points you brought up prove quite the opposite.

I think I've successfully done the same to you, if you understand the very simple point I am making, which is that none of the **** you brought up or took the time(very little time it seems) to reasearch has anything at all to do with the quality of the fighters, so what is the point of bringing it up and implying that clearly superior fighters are primitive based on a few changes in the non-combative aspects of the sport?