Discussion in 'Boxing Discussion' started by MMALOPEZ, Dec 6, 2020.
I don't see how this criticism makes any sense. All the top Haymon WWs have fought each other aside from Thurman and Spence (and that's partially on Thurman running and being injured for more than 2 years). What top guys do you want Spence to fight that he hasn't (or at least hasn't chased)? Also where does the Danny Garcia decline narrative come from? Looked like the same guy we always saw, it's just that he was fighting a better opponent.
Are you asking to seek clarification or asking even though you've already made up your mind? There is a difference.
Firstly the criticism makes sense because look at when they fought. Spence didn't get around to the other WW's yet. He wasn't a name, so the money wasn't there. As he was becoming more recognizable (not really recognizable though as literally no one outside of boxing knows who he is, he won't ever be a publicly recognizable name, just the way it is for some fighters: some breakthrough, some don't), then the fights lined up. Sometimes their peaks line up, sometimes they don't. You don't match yourself as a prime name against an unrecognized threat unless you are a stone cold mother who truly believes in himself, or you are willing to take a loss....basically nobody is willing to absorb a defeat when they are undefeated. Usually a manager who works both sides (Haymon for all intents and purposes IS a manager even though he goes by advisor) will wait until the unrecognized threat has become recognized and in the meantime you get your money's worth out of the established name. If he fades, then you build the up the establishing one off the back of the established one. In rare opportunities, when both are in their primes and are recognizable, the fight needs to happen, and in boxing it still doesn't always (part of the reason SRL vs Hearns 1 is such a special fight).
Secondly, you are right that he "looks LIKE the same guy," but he isn't. You can't tell the difference between him now and his Thurman/pre-Thurman fights? I'll tell you that when you start to see the little slips and reductions in the way a guy fights you'll know. Most people attribute the defeat of a fighter who is apparently in the same form to the opponent that serves him the defeat, when it is not JUST that, but also combined with WHEN the fight happens. The nearly-imperceptible slip happens before everyone is like, "wow he aged suddenly". You need to have the eye for it. It happens even in a fighter's KO wins. You just gotta see the minute things.
You're arguing that Haymon waited to put Danny in with Errol until he was clearly passed it, which I think requires a bit more evidence than some nebulous reference to "minute" things. You're suggesting Spence was very selectively matched with Garcia purposely at just the right time because Danny had slipped and that because of this, the win ought to be clearly devalued. What are the "minute" things that indicate Danny Garcia has clearly fallen off?
Plenty of guys are cashed out when they pass their best before date, but Haymon's elite WWs have been fighting each other consistently. I really don't know what else you'd want from that stable, aside from Thurman not getting injured and wasting two years of his prime before returning a clearly diminished fighter.
I can only imagine what Pacquiao’s positions on LGBTQ issues will be after the beating Spence would put on him.
Southpaw v Southpaw fights are always fascinating. And with these two... I can’t recall the last time either fought a fellow leftie. This is a fight I definitely want to see. Spence deserves the payday and potential superstar status that beating Manny would bring. Manny has earned the right to keep fighting as he still has a claim to being the man at 147. And a win over Spence would probably cement him as the goat
I think it's David Diaz for Pac and van Heerden for Spence. So awhile.
I didn't say CLEARLY past it, I said he was past it. Bro, if you think "it's nebulous" you are right. What to look for depends on the fighter. And I didn't say Spence's win was devalued.
Do you read every word of the post you reply to, or do you handpick?
I said there is a combination at play, the skill and ascendancy of one, and the occurring though difficult to perceive slippage of the other. A fighter can be in their prime but past their peak. I did NOT say devalued. I say it's how boxing does its business.
When you see that difference you will see the timing of some of these fights. Bro, I didn't even see the fight but I called exactly how it would go.
If I get time I promise you I will watch it, look at it and tell you, but the reality is that the stuff you need to look for is happening before the fight in question. That's how it always goes.
I don't expect more from these guys who look at money first and the sport second. Who would expect anything else in a sport so crooked? I accept that business means you don't force a new unrealized product over a presently successful one that is still raking in money if you don't have to. You wait until the new brand starts making money and then it will make real money OFF the other one when that established brand is starting to waver. You only have two top equal products compete against one another if it's unavoidable. If they both emerge at the same time and have equal value. These fighters take so much abuse in preparation for a fight and in the actual fight. You deplete your inventory as you use it. If one has been on the shelf longer you get what you can from it first. These fighters are brands.
What did you expect from an older, smaller man who started out at 140 and has looked a bit suspect in his recent outings (he's been waiting on his punches a hit more, hasn't he? There's something for you to look for), who has a name, but it's not at the forefront like it used to be. Now he faces a naturally larger guy, on his way to 154 (a division whose fighters are much heavier than we think), who is much younger and is growing a name. You really think the smaller guy who has been waiting on punches a bit more than we are used to seeing, who doesn't move his feet to get into position (and is actually more slow of foot, though ways flat footed), will win? Danny lost his zip. His chance was his uncanny timing, but his timing has slipped with age. It doesn't need to be a landslide for a fighter to slip. Incremental.
Of course you devalued the win. You said this:
You suggested that Spence, at the behest of Haymon, isn't looking for big fights and that they opportunistically picked Garcia because Garcia had clearly fallen off.
So you were saying this without even watching the fight?
It goes without saying that this is a business and they want to maximize their earnings, but Haymon's WWs haven't been handled with kid gloves at all since 2017. They've essentially all fought each other. Thurman's 2+ year injury is really the only big thing to get in the way. The idea that they've all been carefully handled recently simply doesn't match reality at all. It's seems like you're starting from the point where you assume each fight made necessarily has to have a safe winner and loser with relatively little risk for the "money" fighter (which obviously happens, but is hardly a universal rule for every fight made in boxing), regardless of reality.
How has Garcia looked any worse in recent outings? Which fights and how? He looked pretty much like he always does against Porter (many thought he won that fight) where he suffered from the same things he always did (lack of volume and initiative). He blew out a dececnt journeyman in Granados (same Granados who gave Porter a decent fight, arguably beat Broner) and shut out another journeyman in Redkach after that. There was no talk about Garcia declining beforehand from anyone, nor was there much to see in terms of decline from Garcia in the fight. Having said that, most expected Spence to win because he's the best WW in the division according to the majority of observers and he matched up reasonably well. Garcia can still be around his prime and an elite WW while being clearly picked to lose. That doesn't make this a safe fight at all (it's even more ridiculous to call it a safe fight considering he was coming back off a crash that almost killed him).
i think it would be entertaining.
spence fucks him up something fierce in the second half of the fight, but old pacman can still fight. i didn't think he could pull it off against keith and he beat him convincingly.
spence wins, but it's competitive for at least a little while.
I don't know how to break up these quotes. How do you do that? Is it easier on a PC? I usually just fire these off when I have a second while I'm on the go throughout the day. Let me know, please. Would make some extended replies easier and I would switch to PC for some of them. It'll have to wait, can you imagine that six year olds will spill apple juice on keyboards and not tell their parents because they were embarrassed? Poor kid. For now I'll keep using my phone, it's easier in some ways but the interface is more annoying to access and to use these chat options
I never said "at the behest of" but Haymon has power of veto for all those PBc guys. And anyway, I already knew Spence was willing to fight. He went to England to fight an English man named Kell Brook. Good work, Spence. My paying attention to how promoters and managers work can be disentangled from what fighters want. You know this, I believe. For a while there were a couple of WW's all around the same weight around the same age and like I said in a previous post when those things happen then it's ideal because the names are established and in or close to their primes. But this is not always, in fact it's in the minority of instances. This fight happened at an opportune time for Spence, but less so Danny, who would have had an uphill battle anyway to due my previously mentioning of styles and weight classes. You agree with me that promoters do this. Great. I'm saying it happens and it's happened in PBC and I saw it happening again in this particular fight. Has it happened forever and always in the PBC? No, but they do it. You don't have to agree with me.
I don't get why you say I am devaluing something when this is a pre-fight thread where I already called what would happen. I already felt it wasn't as big a deal as other fights. In terms of age, points in career, and styles this fight had no surprises for me and held little value to me. This why we have subscriptions and ppv services. I felt the fight was not worth my time to watch, so I ultimately did not watch it live. That's how I always felt, and it wasn't retroactive. So for me to say what I see, doesn't mean you have to get up in arms and think I'm tearing down the institution. Some people didn't think it was worth buying certain ppv's that I ended up buying over the years, and sometimes I agreed with them after the fact. That's their own determination. I don't let it affect how I felt about their opinion going in, or even if I still disagreed after. At the same time, what I said can be true even if you don't agree with my opinion. I caught bits and pieces afterward and I saw what was already there. Danny a bit slow on pulling the trigger. Danny a bit more limited in his punch selection, as I've been seeing, too. His instincts to go after it a bit more blunted over time. Danny smaller. Spence being taller and longer making a flat footed guy move to him means he did not get much traction. We know where Danny is best. His chances were narrowed by a number of things about him when he fought Spence. And these are all things I've seen slightly trending to where it became more apparent against Spence. I don't take away the win because I knew what Danny was bringing into it to begin with. I took what I brought so to speak as far as how I saw it all act out. You don't have to agree with me there.
To clarify, I say "safe" I mean in relative terms. Safe money was on Spence (just look at the betting lines which, iirc, ranged from -400 to -500) for all my reasons about Danny and Spence.
These were my instincts about the fight going in. I felt its was foreshadowed by the above (even without the betting lines). I ended up being right. I wish I was wrong. Seeing fighters on the back end of their career reverse their inevitable and trending slide are some of my favourite moments in the sport--but they are VERY rare moments.
I respect your opinion, but we just won't agree, and I'm okay with that.
Edit: for spelling and sentence construction (people that obsess over spelling to win an argument, yeeesh, right? And anyhow, winning or not winning is immaterial to me, spirited conversation is good enough, thanks again if I did not say it the first time)
Man, where’s Tidwell to shit all over PAC in this thread?
hard to see PAC winning against Spence. As long as he doesn’t get Marquez 4ed, I wanna watch it though!
Pac moves forward and his jab is better. Don’t think his legs can hold up against Spence though if Spence is bullying him. But I’ll never count Manny out. Matches up better with Spence than he does Bud though.
Manny is crazy enough to win this.
You can do it on your phone fairly easily. You just surround what you want to quote with [ quote ] and [/ quote ] (without the spaces between the parentheses and quote).
It will have been nearly two years since Pac beat Thurman. Spence will destroy him.
well that's true.
There you go. So it's basically been a decade for both and, checks Boxrec, both won via stoppage in the 8/9 round. I'd say neither fight tells us much in terms of how they would fare head to head right now. Spence would be the deserved favorite but Manny would have a legitimate shot
spencer got the edge, but would be real bad if he lose.. Pac has a very good chance to win too.. Pac got everything to gain. Spencer got everything to lose. May be a bad gamble for spencer.
Separate names with a comma.