.jpg&w=244&h=193&zc=1 "TQBR Radio 6/18: Mikey Garcia Vs. Juan Manuel Lopez Recap, Paulie Malignaggi Vs. Adrien Broner Preview, With Eric Raskin")
.jpg&w=244&h=193&zc=1 "Halycon Daze: The Rise Of The British Middleweights")
Weekend Afterthoughts, Featuring The Scandalous Paul Williams Vs. Erislandy Lara Scorecards, Pay Discrepancies, Brandon Rios Vs. Manny Pacquiao And More
If that's a Knockout of the Year candidate, it's mainly because of how super middleweight Jean Paul Mendy drops, less because of Lucian Bute's punch, which kind of clips the side of Mendy's head, although that's something that makes it interesting, too. I did find myself once more amused to hear Showtime's team act, when showing the replay, as if Bute has only recently become a big puncher; dude's been knocking out fools with one shot, dramatically, KO of the Year-style for a long, long time now.
Welcome to Weekend Afterthoughts, the place you come for evaluations of things that happened days and days ago. Fortunately, there's grist for discussion, still, of some of the events of those days.
- The scoring of Paul Williams-Erislandy Lara. I posted a link to them the other day in the comments section, but give them a look again. Look at all those 10-10s and scratched out scores and judges giving the 10th and 11th to Williams, somehow. It's anarchy. Some have suggested the judges knew what they were doing, trying to find a spot to help Williams; but a 10-10 12th round is unnecessary as one of the few rounds Williams conceivably won, when a 10-9 round for Williams would do. Rather, I think the scorecards show signs of nobody having a clue what they were doing. One more "name" observer, RingTV's Doug Fischer, said he could find a way to score it for Williams, but the paucity of people who actually believe that is telling. Williams' promoter Dan Goossen has been spinning it like a mother, acting like this is a massive case of groupthink because of HBO commentary or press row chitter-chatter when basically anyone who watched the fight -- in person, on television, wherever -- thought this was a putrid decision. He's a promoter, so it's natural he'd defend his guy, but sometimes it's a losing cause and you should just shut up and move it along.
- Judging debate. There has been a lot of talk since the fight about how to fix boxing judging and whether this is the kind of thing that turns people off the sport. I'd go back very recently to a TQBR Roundtable where we discussed this question, where everyone made some thoughtful points and suggestions. For instance, it's a good idea to have state commissions pay judges rather than promoters, obviously, but that simply isn't going to happen in a climate where states are cutting billions upon billions from their budgets. The most viable suggestion is accountability, and this time, to their credit, New Jersey (after failing to appoint experienced officials) is talking to the three judges who scored this fight to figure out how they arrived at their scores. But boxing has always had bad decisions. It's had worse ones than this in the past decade, for sure, and that's post-mob influence. Even if boxing improves the system, they will still exist. Being a boxing fan (and a mixed martial arts fan, for that matter) means that there's a certain amount of this you have to live with. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of decision was another drop in the bucket for some fans to leave the sport. That's what Sen. John McCain suggested, anyhow, about Williams-Lara. I'm not saying people need to get over it and not do anything; I'm merely being realistic. You can write commissions and complain. You can make your voice heard in public forums. You can boycott fights in certain states or involving certain fighters or promoters or sanctioning bodies, although that, to my mind, in some cases unfairly punishes people who aren't directly to blame. You can even look into being a judge yourself. It might make a difference, it might not. Sometimes, with bad decisions where fans speak out, rematches are ordered or public pressure builds to make one marketable. Just keep in mind that there's no really good solution that's viable that I've heard. You have to decide for yourself whether you can live with that.
- Pay discrepancy. It's only one reporter, and as is too often the case for boxing report, we don't know how he knows it because he doesn't even cite a single unnamed source, but ESPN's Dan Rafael says that Williams made $1.5 million for that fight to $135,000 for Lara and $600,000 for the "Rios-Antillon show," which we'll get to in a moment. Originally, he only said that Williams made "more than $1 million," and then later he said HBO paid $2 million for the "Williams-Lara show" -- it's not clear where the remaining $300,000 or so went outside the Williams and Lara purses... Rico Ramos-Akifumi Shimoda? And if so, does that mean the $600,000 is for Rios-Antillon AND Carlos Molina-Kermit Cintron?... sometimes, it's hard for a humble reader to make sense of any of this when figures are tossed around without sources, context or parallel constructions. Let's assume the basic ballpark figure is true, which is a big if. If it's true, then it's an absurdly high figure. I was all in favor of Williams getting back on HBO after a devastating loss because he played nice with the network when it insisted he face Sergio Martinez a second time. But I can't figure out why HBO would pay him $1.5 million for a fight that nobody else would've paid a third of that to air. There's no rhyme or reason to it. If it's true.
- Next for Lara, next for Williams. Lara went home with a small facial fracture and won't be able to train for a while. Lara naturally wants a rematch and deserves one, but who would buy that fight? HBO? If so, why? We all know who won it, and there were reasonable doubts early in the fight about whether Williams will ever again be a top-notch fighter -- and that's before we take into account all the damage he soaked up over 12 rounds from Lara. Lara does deserve to be in the mix for some meaningful fight off his effort and stolen victory, and maybe Golden Boy can reward Lara with the fight it suggested he might get if he beat Williams, a scrap with Saul Alvarez. HBO should have him back, either way. As for Williams, his team keeps talking about at third fight with Martinez, but that's insane. Suicidal, even. It'd be cool if, they insist on Williams fighting on, they man up and give Lara a rematch, even if that's not what I want for them. Goossen reportedly reached out to Carlos Molina after the fight, but Goossen also suggested -- probably sarcastically in an "ain't karma a bitch" way, since Lara got a questionable draw agaisnt Molina -- Lara-Molina II. Whatever opponent they get, I do think it's time for Williams to say goodbye to trainer George Peterson. I like Peterson's attitude of taking on all comers, I like him personally and he's improved Williams overall, if you remember the days when he was significantly more uncoordinated than he is now. But his insistence that they don't need to change anything about Williams has now been laid completely bare as stubbornness for stubbornness' sake. I'm not saying a total overhaul is viable for Williams, at this late stage in his career, but somebody who could, say, teach him not to get tagged with 100 percent of the left hands that come flying his direction would be a real boon.
- HBO commentary. There were some things to like about the HBO commentary and some things not to like about it. For all the talk of Williams manager Al Haymon having such influence with the network, it didn't stop the HBO broadcasting team from casting doubt on the future of one of his fighters in blunt, harsh terms, arguably too harsh. (And if you see the salary of Williams as an example of Haymon's influence, stop and think for a second how many boxers have been overpaid on HBO in 2011 and whether all of them were affiliated with Haymon.) For example, I'm not in favor of Max Kellerman asking Peterson mid-fight about whether he would encourage Williams to retire. And Roy Jones, Jr. was right to be concerned about all the punishment Williams was taking, after initially insisting that he'd get it going. But Jones isn't the most credible messenger for that idea, given how he should have hung the gloves up for good back in 2004 but is still fighting on despite four brutal knockouts since and a few other one-sided beatings.
- Don't mess with Brandon Rios. This dude is building himself up quite a resume for being an exciting fighter and for being a good one. I think he's knocking on pound-for-pound top 20 status, in fact, having now knocked off three consecutive top-10 lightweights in a row. He's shown that you can't escape him, if you're a boxer -- he's too aggressive and cuts the ring off too well. And he's shown that you can't trade with him -- he hits harder than you and doesn't mind getting hit back as much. He's a beatable fighter with that bad defense, but it's going to take some kind of beast; I wouldn't pick current lightweight king and pound-for-pound top-5 Juan Manuel Marquez over Rios, I don't expect. Rios' first two rounds against Urbano Antillon are potential Round of the Year candidates, and this is his second consecutive Fight of the Year candidate. That said, I'm still surprised to read that Rios-Antillon only drew 3,700 fans. Depending on what numbers you believe, Williams-Lara drew 2,100 or 3,000, and that was a highly unanticipated fight. You'd have thought with his fan-friendly style, polarizing personality and Mexican heritage that Rios would have done more business than that, but it goes to show once more that building a ticket-seller is an inexact science. Maybe his numbers go up next time; maybe he's still not well-known enough, toward the beginning of his career like he is.
- Rios-Manny Pacquiao. Yes, Top Rank's Bob Arum mentioned this fight as a possibility in 2013, and many thought that was overhype. Certainly, suggesting that Rios' speed was comparable to Pacquiao's was silly. But if Pacquiao's still fighting in 2013, and Rios has moved up in weight successfully to welter, can't you just imagine how good that fight would be? In the meantime, we might have to put up with Rios in against some stinkers. Rios-Marco Antonio Barrera, as Arum and Rios mentioned afterward, is a disgusting idea. I do like the idea of Rios against the winner of Robert Guerrero-Marcos Maidana at junior welterweight, as Rios is a growing boy and is probably going to have trouble making lightweight even once more. And I want to see the Rios-Victor Ortiz grudge match at welter before I see Rios-Pacquiao.
- Carlos Molina vs. Kermit Cintron. Is there anyone in boxing who's done more with less than Molina, and anyone in boxing who's done less with more than Cintron? There's not much about Molina that stands out; he's obviously capable of withstanding big punches, and is pretty sneaky with his footwork, but he isn't fast and isn't all that powerful. Yet he keeps taking care of business, such as when he beat Cintron this weekend to finalize his transformation from "career-long opponent" to "actual junior middleweight contender." Cintron, meanwhile, is one of boxing's purest punchers, is very quick for someone with such power and technically has gotten his boxing skills up to snuff over the years. Yet he couldn't be bothered to throw enough punches Saturday, the latest bit of quizzical mental softness in a career loaded up with such incidents: the quit/cry job in the first Antonio Margarito fight; the strange head butt/10-count issue in the Sergio Martinez fight; the apparent refusal to get up after falling out of the ring against Paul Williams; and now, this. Granted, Molina's trickiness probably kept Cintron from pulling the trigger so much, and maybe rust from being out of the ring for a while hurt him. But it's always against the grain to see a superior talent get upstaged by an inferior one.
- Odds and ends. Rico Ramos has to defend his junior featherweight belt next against Guillermo Rigondeaux, per the sanctioning body's orders, via a news releasse. Those are talented boxers, but their long stretches of cautious fighting punctuated by sudden bursts of excitement makes that an unappealing match-up... Heavyweight Chris Arreola was really down on himself about his performance on Saturday, but nobody else seemed to be as hard on him about it. Still, it's a good thing he realizes he isn't ready yet for champ Wladimir Klitschko... Featherweight Jhonny Gonzalez made Tomas Villa spit "up pure blood," from some body shots, apparently... I'm not liking Rios in leopard-print.
(photo: Tom Casino, Showtime)
Tim, I don't want you to question my "paucity" here...but I actually thought Dougie Fish was very sensible in his analysis. There were two things at play here:
1) We all love Paul Williams
2) We all saw his last fight end in one the nastiest, most brutal KOs in a high-profile fight in years
I have to be honest, I didn't see a one-sided beatdown (and I've watched it 3 times because I couldn't get over how one-sided the post-fight commentary was). This was in my mind a very close, yet decisive win for Lara, somewhere in the ballpark of 8-4 to 7-5. Lot of close rounds....3,4,5,6, 8,10 and 12 were all debatable. As a fan of the Goosen bros (one of whom uttered one of the most chilling and memorable lines ever in a boxing match: "You better F***ing get inside on him, now!"), I'm gonna have Dan's back and agree that there is some group-think going on. I'm not arguing that Williams won, just that this was a helluva lot closer fight than the universal outrage at the decision would suggest. At one point Bob Papa noted he had Williams down 8-1 on "his card". Papa's got his own card now? Jeez....you know instead of hearing that hack eulogizing P-Will, I'd much rather be listening to someone putting an end to his utterly mediocre commentating career. The gap between Lampley and Papa is about 10 times bigger than the one between Sergio and P-Will, and I agree with you, Williams-Martinez 3 would be dangerous to Paul's health and I'd be squeamish even tuning in.
Let me make it clear, yes I thought Lara won the fight. Yes I am unapologetically an enormous P-Will fan and was hoping he would be a lot more effective than he was, perhaps that swayed me into seeing things differently, I don't know. But this man was throwing punches all night, never stopped coming forward, and he did do some damage to Lara, with uppercuts on the inside being his main weapon. He lost the fight but he wasn't on the ropes taking a pounding in the late rounds. He was the aggressor through the closing bell...a lot of that is pure heart, but I don't think he was that badly hurt (despite the fact he was drooling blood between rounds, I'm kind of glossing over that).
I'm merely contending that if this was any other fighter, not a guy who we've seen in wars before and who we last saw eyes wide open horrifically unconscious on the canvas, if we watched Lara-Williams on a completely clean slate knowing nothing of the two men, we would have probably characterized it as a very good, very close fight in which the wrong guy probably got the decision.
For the record, I would defer to you, Dan Rafael, Raskin, Greisman and all my other favorite boxing scribes on most matters in this sport. I hate that my views on this fight are closer to Chris Mannix, who I agree with you is generally a hack who shockingly works for one of the most prestigious mags in all sports. The moron who suggested Sergio-BHOP as a viable superfight not too long ago. But I can't ridicule him for saying this was a close fight. I did too, and I hate bein out in the wilderness with a hack like him on this, but I gotta be honest.
@JFoley Your paucity is showing, buddy. :)
Anyway, you and I agree about the quality of certain folk. But I disagree with you on which rounds were close, and "effective aggression" is what matters, not mere aggression. And I also disagree with any notion of group think. I rather persistently find ways of understanding so-called "bad decisions" even when disagreeing with them, and have gone against the grain with many of my scorecards in a way that has led me to my own doses of ridicule or being in the minority. I really do think this fight wasn't close. I don't think my opinion was influenced by others.
Tim, you keep on defining Haymon's purported "lack of influence" over HBO by limiting it to 2011. That's called defining your terms to fit your argument. (and, of course, we recognize that Haymon, who is just doing his job for his clients, is just a punching bag for frustrated boxing fans everywhere here-- the real problem llies with the HBO Boxing decisionmakers/enablers). But expand your world some. Its just as equally true that HBO has been "overpaying" their "chosen" fighters (many of which you can not deny are connected to Haymon) in more than just 2011. Wasnt it true that there were reports in both 2009 and 2010 that there was "no budget left" for HBO Boxing in the second half of the year due to ridiculous spending and several attractive matchups fell by the wayside?. Maybe your "2011 proof" of the lack of such influence, is actually HBO finally listening to the boxing fan who became sick and tired of their standard operating procedure and the steady diet which they had been force feeding us, the loyal boxing fan, for years.
You know I haven't had many kind things to say about HBO and their influence on what matchups get made in the three years I have been commenting, but I saw two hopeful signs in this PWill/Lara matchup. One-- they vetoed the original Japanese opponent/journeyman that PWIll (who, lets face it, it could be said has arguably now lost his last FOUR fights in a row, although the one should have been a TD) and Goosen wanted and insisted on someone decent (but thinkingly beatable) in Lara instead. A million+ dollars to fight the Japanese journeyman destroyer of Kirkland WOULD have been HBO Boxing's nadir. And two, after Lara got robbed, they called it straight-- the decision was an outrage and they let Team PWill know it. Now the bigger question in righting the HBO Boxing ship is where they go from here. And looking forward, step one would be not to get contractually tied up in the future with promised seven figure paydays to "chosen fighters" over multi-fight deals with no opponents lined up. If Bam Bam/Urbano teaches us anything, its the FIGHTS and QUALITY MATCHUPS which mean something within a division that boxing fans want to see-- not a particular FIGHTER. Case closed.
As for my man Cintron, disappointing performance for sure on Saturday night. No excuses and to his credit he didn't make any But, for criminey's sake, its just a loss where he got beat by a better guy that night. To somehow project that its "another" example of "mental softness" along the lines of some of the other dramas which have pock-marked his career (some his own fault/ some just lazily ginned up and repeatedly overstated/overblown by the "boxing press") seems to be a stretch too-- and frankly does a disservice to Molina, a savvy veteran grinder in the sport (unlike a HBO "chosen one") who deserves credit for another quality win against a quality opponent (and yes, regardless of the scorecards, he did beat the now celebrated Lara back in March on FNF by making him look completely passive/inactive too). Success/recognition for a guy with a career like Molina is a good thing. Molina has beat Lara and Cintron now--- and to me the question should be does PWill (who again is, arguably, 0 for his last 4) deserve to fight him next, and not the other way around. As for Cintron, in hindsight, I do think taking on a guy at Molina's tricky skill level (even if he was familar with his style from sparring) after being nearly inactive for 2 years (a total of 7 rounds since Angulo), in front of a hostile crowd that was also the locus of one of those controversies may have been asking too much. Apart from a plodder like Angulo, CIntron has never handled pressure fighters well. After this loss, he probably should honestly ask himself whether he still has the fire in the belly. But I suspect he does--- and if he continues, him and Ronnie Shields need to find the answer to his "paralysis by overanalysis" which has him holding back trying to be a "boxer/puncher" instead of just letting those hands go.
1 Like
@WILLFRANK Why do you think I, all a sudden, would start handpicking evidence to match some agenda I have? I have no agenda. What's in it for me to defend Al Haymon? It really just annoys everyone that I do it.
I have NEVER said that Al Haymon NEVER had any influence with HBO. I have ONLY said that his influence has been overstated, and those who argue that Haymon is running HBO -- IS, present tense -- are grasping at straws.
I began noticing this trend late last year, when everyone was criticizing the opposition of Haymon fighters, but except Berto, every one of those fighters had faced top competition in the last year or so.
At any rate, I haven't added up the 2010 numbers since you suggested I do so because I thought you were party to the discussion David Greisman had with people on Twitter over this. Per his tally, six of 60 HBO appearances in 2010 were by Haymon-managed fighters. Here: http://twitter.com/#!/fightingwords2/status/81933872077619200 In other words, 10 percent of fighters who appeared on the network, by the guy who supposedly "runs" the network.
I don't have the 2009 figures and don't feel like digging them up right now. Maybe they'd show more influence, maybe they wouldn't. But I don't see how digging up 2009 figures on Haymon helps or hurts any point I might be making in pushing back on non-fact-based arguments TODAY or even RECENTLY, about Haymon's level of influence.
Maybe fans shouting about Haymon's outsized influence has forced HBO to change its ways. But those "ways" are -- present tense -- largely over, if they ever existed.
As someone who dislikes HBO so much, I wonder if you're the one who might be interested in defining your terms to fit your arguments. I'm someone who thinks HBO does some things well, some not. I think Haymon does have influence with HBO, but not as much as people think. The second evidence comes into existence that suggests either of those stances should change, I'll allow those terms to define my arguments. And, FWIW, you're not actually arguing with my arguments. You're arguing with what you imagine my arguments to be.
I think you're also the last person on Earth defending Cintron. I was second-to-last. The incidents have added up far too much for me to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. Even Ronnie Shields was yelling at Cintron to get going. Someone -- Rafael? -- recently said he asked Arum about Cintron's performance. He answered, "Let's talk about something else." I'm sorry. Dude's soft. And I'll think that until he proves definitively otherwise.
As for Molina: Lara may have been made passive by Molina, or maybe not. Lara, after all, had been plenty passive in many other fights. But I said in my weekend preview that I thought Molina was a very, very tough opponent for Cintron. I also gave full credit in the above post to how much Molina's gotten done in his career. But it's possible that, in that fight, Molina was good AND Cintron sucked. They're not mutually exclusive.
@tstarks I'm still not exactly sure who you are arguing with Tim re: the influence of Haymon on HBO that you seem compelled to insert a reference to it with great regularity in just about one out of every four entries. We get it-- you think its overstated (and I think HBO decisionmaking is the problem). OK next. I know its your blog, but for the love of God, let's move on as this point has been beaten to absolute death.
And it would seem the strawmen arguments go both ways. I wont go point for point through it, since I'm sure most would find it equally tedious. But, since I devoted an entire paragraph to 1. praising HBO for what they did RIGHT with PWill/Lara, and another 2. giving "full credit" (and not with arguably a snide backhanded compliment) as to how good it was to see a guy like Molina get the recognition/reward his career results have deserved based on his win Saturday night, while 3. being objectively highly critical of Cintron's lack of performance at the same time, I think much of your response and mischaracterization of what I said is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm kind of missing the days when TQBR was a locus of intelligent and objective boxing talk back and forth/give and take between you and the regular readers Tim instead of debating semantics. Back then, it was time well spent and smart debate was encouraged and many participated. Now it seems that you get raked over the coals, to quote from the "Gov" in Blazing Saddles, "if I didn't get a hrrumph out of that guy". Although I'm not exactly saying its defective. : )
@WILLFRANK I didn't say your ORIGINAL comment included an unpleasant comment about the site, fuckface. Stop putting words in my mouth or your balls will end up in yours, courtesy my foot.
:)
@tstarks Reread my last comment-- I'm quite specific that I made no unpleasant comment about the level of discourse on the site in my ORIGINAL comment until AFTER your "lash out", which I found to be completely unwarranted since there was nothing subjectively intended (nor can be objectively read) to be a "personal insult" therein. And since I was the target of said "lash out", I think I was entitled to mention my unhappiness in no uncertain terms in my second reply. But apology accepted. Standing alone, my regular commenting for nearly three years should have spoken volumes about the value I have felt about the site-- not to mention all the other additonal stuff that has gone on outside of it.. That's really the last I want to say about it, since I'm sure no one else friggin cares and this is precisely the discussion of semantics that I was railing against!
@WILLFRANK All right. You say that you weren't directing personal remarks at me. I'll assume you're sincere and say I apologize for lashing out. I'm sorry.
I see now that I did confuse a reference by you to 2011. I thought you were referring back to my running tally of total number of appearances by Haymon fighters. You were actually referring to pay in 2011. Whether it's 2011 or 2010 or 2009, though, non-Haymon fighters have also been overpaid prior to '11. Chad Dawson, anyone? Bernard Hopkins? I could list a ton of them.
I don't completely agree with you on whether HBO should exclusively focus on fights, not fighters. I think it needs to focus on both. We've disagreed on this for a long time. At an rate, I've talked far more on this site about whether HBO has overpaid people than I have about whether Haymon has influence or not. I really respond to the issues of the moment. Over the weekend, there was far more discussion of Haymon's influence than the broader problem of overpaying fighters.
And I most certainly do think you referred to the site in an unpleasant way. You said in the old days, it used to be a locus of intelligent discussion/debate/etc. That indicates that you no longer think it is that, or that it is less than it used to be. I wholly disagree with you on this point. I think there's plenty of intelligent debate and civil dissent. I'm disappointed that you feel that way, but I see no reason to back down from that characterization of your remark unless you A. specify that less intelligent debate/dissent is somehow a good thing or B. clarify, somehow, that the site remains a vigorous forum for debate and civil disagreement.
@tstarks I've read my first comment several times, I still don't see any "points" I made which were personally directed at you or the site, much less made in an "unpleasant" way, nor did I even say you "manipulated" facts. You should know that has never been be style. You (not me) quoted stats only from 2011-- my point is that HBO has long been engaged in this sort of "market the fighter and not the fights" program since long before 2009, so you can quote whatever stats you want, the problem still needs to be addressed-- and your emphasis strikes me as being misplaced/shortsighted. As for my response to your original reply, I have spent nearly three years here trying to be a regular contributor willing to add my two cents and take on things. We have not always agreed, but we've always disgareed without being disagreeable. But I found your original reply to be the latter this time around.
1 Like
@WILLFRANK I could show you 600 examples of people citing Haymon and his influence as the reason for everything that happened with Williams-Lara, if you REALLY want to know who I'm arguing with. I'm not kidding. I could really do this for you with ease. It's a constant, relentless drumbeat. If the point had been beaten to death, then this drumbeat wouldn't keep beating.
Do you say the same thing to me that you say to the "Haymon is to blame for everything" crew, about moving on? Do you say "OK next" every time that crowd says the dude's name? Don't tell me you don't encounter this crew ever.
I don't think it's exactly fair to come tell me that you think I'm pushing some agenda and manipulating facts, then get upset when I suggest you might be the one with the agenda. At the very least, I can infer from your tone of objection here that you didn't enjoy it, same as me.
What snide backhanded compliment toward Molina are you speaking of? Mine? I dunno, is Molina fast or powerful? Is it snide to say he isn't? I'm telling it like I see it, WF.
I resent the notion that this isn't still a forum of intelligent discussion with give and take where many participate. The post just before this one has 41 comments, from people who are smart, and where there's disagreement aplenty.
I love you, WF, as one of my dearest and longest-term readers. But if you tell me I'm framing a debate to suit my arguments, I'm going to push back. This isn't a simple disagreement over the facts on the ground, or a matter of contrasting opinions debated with some civility. This is you saying I'm manipulating said facts, and implying motives that I find both false and insulting. Then you pile on a bit by suggesting that there's no longer intelligent debate here (or, less of it)? I dunno, man. How do you expect me to react to this kind of thing?
And if anything you said was really going to be stifled or treated like disagreement wasn't allowed, I'd do what most other boxing writers do and block you. But while I find some of your points you make about me and this site unpleasant, you're still welcome to make them.
4 Like
I know what happened. The judges suffer from the same disorder as Paul. It is causes the sufferer to be completely blind to straight left hand punches. Other symptoms include lack of dress sense and repeated use of jibberish.
another weekend, another chance for Bute to ktfo some fool. man I really wanna see him in against some legit contenders. Pavlik would be great, but Kessler would be better.
I haven't had a chance to see any of this weekend's fights yet, save the Rios-Antillon gem, but it seems like it's the only one worth watching. I can't wait to see Lara in action though, if he stood up to Williams as well as you're claiming.
as for Williams? let's please never see him against a southpaw again. get him in against a few fighters that compliment his style and offer an easy way out for the guy. that way he can sail into the sunset with some dignity.
@The Count of Monte Fisto (boom!) Williams-Lara is definitely worth checking out, what gets lost in the controversy is that it was a very good action fight. Paul did manage to land 200 punches and throw over 1000 in a one-sided loss; in many ways it was the ultimate chucker vs precision puncher fight. I enjoyed Molina-Cintron mostly because I like Molina and don't much care for Kermit the Dog. The first few rounds were pretty good (I actually was thinking Cintron looked very sharp in the first 2) but then Cintron stops fighting and Molina starts kicking his ass, not necessarily in that order.
Williams shouldn't fight another lefty again. He shouldn't spar with another lefty again. If he plays in a softball league, he should sit against left handed pitchers.
I actually think Williams-Molina is a great fight and would compliment Paul's style to a degree. Molina won't be killing Paul with lefts, so it would likely be two tough guys with somewhat limited power but good workrates slugging it out for 12 rounds. Nothing wrong with that.
@Scott_Kraus @The Count of Monte Fisto (boom!) I don't think Williams-Lara is worth watching because it's kind of a sad showing from Williams and then there's the whole outrage element.
@Scott_Kraus @tstarks for the record: my man crush is clearly Lucien Bute. I gotta stick with national pride before love of the PWill spectacle (which was clearly on display Saturday, regardless of the justness of the outcome).
PWill gets lots of love still though. he's fearless. just not clever.
@tstarks @The Count of Monte Fisto (boom!) Oh, just because your man crush got his face bashed in...
