Crawford vs Postol PBP Thread(7-23)

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.
it's just highly inconsistent. Bradley fought Pac three times and the only time he won, it was still controversial at best. He's tried a measured approach, aggression, etc... I just think at this point you have to accept that Bradley won't consistently be able to beat Pac.

now I will admit that Bradley fights dumb, but at the end of the day, Pac beat him. I mean, I thought Pac fought lazy in the first fight, and I personally thought Bradley didn't deserve the decision (and the more I watch it, the less close I think it is), but at the end of the day I can't just say "Pac fights lazy, if he fought less lazy, he would have beaten Bradley concretely that night." Bradley didn't fight "too dumb" or "too reserved" he lost and Pac's style cancelled out a lot of what Bradley was able to do. That's how it is.
 
Saying someone is not smart enough to win a fight is no different than saying someone is not fast enough to win a fight, in my opinion.

If you are lacking the natural ability to get the job done, I do not think it matters if the ability that you are lacking is physical or mental.

Like when Pacquiao got knocked out by Marquez. You cannot just excuse that because Pacquiao "fought dumb" there. That recklessness is part of who Pacquiao is and how he became successful.
 
Saying someone is not smart enough to win a fight is no different than saying someone is not fast enough to win a fight, in my opinion.

If you are lacking the natural ability to get the job done, I do not think it matters if the ability that you are lacking is physical or mental.

Like when Pacquiao got knocked out by Marquez. You cannot just excuse that because Pacquiao "fought dumb" there. That recklessness is part of who Pacquiao is and how he became successful.
Bradley proved he can compete with Pac. He won lots of rounds against the guy. He just fought inconsistently. That says literally nothing about Pac one way or the other.
 
Bradley proved he can compete with Pac. He won lots of rounds against the guy. He just fought inconsistently. That says literally nothing about Pac one way or the other.

I know, I was just giving my take on intelligence vs physical capability.

But I completely disagree with saying Bradley just fought inconsistently. You can say that about any fighter in any fight.

Cotto won round against Floyd, he just did it inconsistently. So, he could have won if he was smarter?
 
I know, I was just giving my take on intelligence vs physical capability.

But I completely disagree with saying Bradley just fought inconsistently. You can say that about any fighter in any fight.

Cotto won round against Floyd, he just did it inconsistently. So, he could have won if he was smarter?
I believe at the elite level, the best fighters have the ability to beat the other top fighters, yes. Yes, Cotto proved he can win some rounds vs Floyd. Was there some limit as to how many?

Bradley had some success in the first fight as the boxer puncher, so he comes out in the rematch as a slugger? Thats dumb.
I just thought he seemed lost in the third fight. He didn't seem to know what he wanted to do.
 
Back
Top