Crawford vs Postol PBP Thread(7-23)

baconCrunch said:
i dunno, depends on which crawford comes to fight
if it's anything like this or mayweather - pac then no thanks
i think everyone will agree on that

i'm jus saying crawford would have made it a must see fight, if he tried to engage more vs postol
which i think he easily could have
i rather see thurman pacman based on recent performances
Click to expand...

Crawford in boring fights isn't really a thing.
I've seen most of his fights. Even alot of his amateur fights.
He even dropped postol.
It wasnt a bad fight in my opinion .

You can do that with any fighter and call them boring.
 
Wanderlei4Life said:
Lol nice find.

What about you picking Bradley in the 2nd and 3rd Pacquiao fight?
Click to expand...

Bradley shouldn't have fought stupid. Until the third fight, who he fought smart but should've fought stupidly.

THAT'S logic, boy.
 
ProBoxingInsidr said:
i thought this one was good too. maureen knows her stuff. broke it up into two videos



Click to expand...

Knowledgeable and smart with a bit of an edge, I like it. She got a little heated talking about the womens opportunities in boxing huh :D
 
Sano said:
Knowledgeable and smart with a bit of an edge, I like it. She got a little heated talking about the womens opportunities in boxing huh :D
Click to expand...
they all do. but like i said in this interview, most of the lady boxers are wallflowers. they are afraid to say anything for the most part. she does, as well as mccarter and one or two others. but most of them are boring as hell and offer nothing to get people interested in. they suck at self promoting. in mma, all those girls are willing to do anyting to promote themselves
 
ProBoxingInsidr said:
they all do. but like i said in this interview, most of the lady boxers are wallflowers. they are afraid to say anything for the most part. she does, as well as mccarter and one or two others. but most of them are boring as hell and offer nothing to get people interested in. they suck at self promoting. in mma, all those girls are willing to do anyting to promote themselves
Click to expand...
You're right. Still, I'd agree with her point that it is hard to promote yourself without the platform to do so. In MMA, the UFC has pushed the female much, much more. Look at someone like Holly, she has a pretty boring and bland personality(very likeable though), but she is one of the bigger starts exactly because of the opportunity she was given to fight Ronda on the big stage. We have female fighters headlining big events, and the UFC is deliberate developing the female divisions.

Another thing is the sports media. In MMA, the reporters actually seek out the females and gives them their time slot. They make headlines. That alone is a big push, especially when it's the big guys doing it(like Helwani). Not to mention having good agents and getting booked on tv shows.

I'd say it's a combination of all the factors.
 
slimpickenz84 said:
Bradley shouldn't have fought stupid. Until the third fight, who he fought smart but should've fought stupidly.

THAT'S logic, boy.
Click to expand...
Most people generally agree with that basic idea. I've explained this to you before, lets see if you can grasp the simple concept this time. In the second fight, we all saw Bradley come out thinking he was Tyson and swinging for the fences. A feather fisted boxer looking to KO a guy generally more durable than guys he had decisioned in the past. In the third fight, he was simply too passive. He needed a balance of the two. Many seemed to believe he lacked a gameplan all together in the third fight and just tried not to lose rather than actually trying to win.

Its almost universally agreed that Bradley has low ring IQ, you just don't think it applies when he fights Pacquiao.

Logic is something that doesn't seem to apply to most of your posts, so I'm happy to enlighten.
 
Seano said:
Most people generally agree with that basic idea. I've explained this to you before, lets see if you can grasp the simple concept this time. In the second fight, we all saw Bradley come out thinking he was Tyson and swinging for the fences. A feather fisted boxer looking to KO a guy generally more durable than guys he had decisioned in the past. In the third fight, he was simply too passive. He needed a balance of the two. Many seemed to believe he lacked a gameplan all together in the third fight and just tried not to lose rather than actually trying to win.

Its almost universally agreed that Bradley has low ring IQ, you just don't think it applies when he fights Pacquiao.

Logic is something that doesn't seem to apply to most of your posts, so I'm happy to enlighten.
Click to expand...

Or maybe Pac is just the better boxer. You won't melt if you admit that. Don't worry.
 
I really couldn't see the fight live. I did find a Russian replay. I enjoyed watching Crawford work.

I think there was too much criticism of Postol for not being able to cut the ring off, and not enough praise of Crawfords footwork and stamina. He stepped around Postol all night and never looked tired, that's top level conditioning. He looked fast and powerful at times. Over all, it was a terrific performance.

And Postol, I got the impression it wouldn't take much to get him back in the fight. I suppose he hoped Crawford would slow down at some point. I'm sure the early knockdowns shutdown his output. He did continue to pressure, just not with as many punches as is typical. I don't recall him looking discouraged, frustrated at times, but he mostly tried to work. Postol made Crawford move his feet most rounds. I also appreciate him pushing for the KO late.

Like I said, I enjoyed watching Crawford do his thing. The guy can fight.
 
Shoemaker said:
It's not zero-sum. Both things can be true.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I never said Pac wasn't a great fighter. In fact, I've always said Pac was the best offensive fighter of this era. Slim on the other hand has always laughed at the idea that Bradley has low fight IQ because he can't believe Pac winning a fight has anything to other than him just being super duper. He makes the same lame joke about my comments on Bradley over and over again.
 
slimpickenz84 said:
Or maybe Pac is just the better boxer. You won't melt if you admit that. Don't worry.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it's anti Pac or just explaining how he was right even though the result was different than he thought. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,075
Messages
55,466,038
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top