K2 killing boxing?

by azania Thu 25 Oct 2012, 11:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

By any stretch of the imagination they are wonderful athletes, great boxers and come across as genuinely nice guys (business practices aside). But they lack the X factor that makes the heavyweight champion the flag bearer of boxing. In public they say the right things, do the right things and come across as UN ambassadors to boxing. Inside the ring they fight in a manner that leaves the viewing public comfortable. Sorry but the viewing public generally likes to be on the edge of their seat when watching boxing and especially the big men. They say that in HW boxing one punch changes everything. With K2, its a succession of jabs and the occasional right cross until the opponent is either stopped by the ref of by their corner.

You can't be nice both in and out of the rind and get the general public going. They both lack spite in and out of the ring. Their continuous dominance is killing boxing in the sense that they do not represent fight fans (not just boxing fans) but boxing purists. History will be kind to them as it should be. But the current cannot be. Hardly anyone outside of eastern europe looks forward to their fights and hardly anyone can say they deliver edge of seat stuff. Obviously their style of boxing will not change. But perhaps they can do something to get worldwide fans excited. Shag a granny instead of helping her across the road. Get done for DUI, stir the pot a little. All this Mr Nice guy "Oh look at me I am a throwback to the gentleman days" is boring. Deliver some excitement.

Rant over.

by WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:44 pm

Did this thread really have to be made, the K Bro's aren't killing boxing and its ridiculous to think so, it was created just to start an argument

There's literally loads of reasons about what is killing boxing and the Brothers aren't one of them

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:49 pm

azania wrote:
Contenders today could develop a plan A-Z they still wouldn't beat Wlad. That is not my point.

Well you'll have to forgive me Az as I am struggling to grasp what your point is beyond as the brothers do not fulfill some pre conceived notion as to what a heavyweight should be they are killing the sport, one does have to wonder why if all it took was for a heavyweight champion to fail to blow away overmatched opponents as quick as some people think they should to kill the sport, how the sport even managed to survive the Jack Johnson era.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:53 pm

Union Cane wrote:So when you titled the article with a question mark that was a mistake, as you are not asking, you are telling.

You have decided, and that is that.

Ok.

I'll leave you to it.

Right. Spot the mouse in the room but ignore the elephant.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:55 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
azania wrote:

People still talk of Tyson's 96 second detruction of Spinks.

People still talk about Hitler's blitzkrieg occupation of Russia, but it was the slow, methodical Red Army that won that war.

I appreciate that this has very little, if any, relevance, but I thought it sounded really cool.

Errr, ok.

What is more talked about. Tyson's 96 second win or Wlad's complete control of Haye? Which gets people on the edge of their seats?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:56 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:
Contenders today could develop a plan A-Z they still wouldn't beat Wlad. That is not my point.

Well you'll have to forgive me Az as I am struggling to grasp what your point is beyond as the brothers do not fulfill some pre conceived notion as to what a heavyweight should be they are killing the sport, one does have to wonder why if all it took was for a heavyweight champion to fail to blow away overmatched opponents as quick as some people think they should to kill the sport, how the sport even managed to survive the Jack Johnson era.

Are boring fighters good for the sport? Especially when they should be the flag carriers of the sport seeing as they are heavyweights?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:56 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:
Contenders today could develop a plan A-Z they still wouldn't beat Wlad. That is not my point.

Well you'll have to forgive me Az as I am struggling to grasp what your point is beyond as the brothers do not fulfill some pre conceived notion as to what a heavyweight should be they are killing the sport, one does have to wonder why if all it took was for a heavyweight champion to fail to blow away overmatched opponents as quick as some people think they should to kill the sport, how the sport even managed to survive the Jack Johnson era.

The Johnson era had an added element to it.

by Super D Boon Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:59 pm

azania wrote:
rowley wrote:
azania wrote:
Contenders today could develop a plan A-Z they still wouldn't beat Wlad. That is not my point.

Well you'll have to forgive me Az as I am struggling to grasp what your point is beyond as the brothers do not fulfill some pre conceived notion as to what a heavyweight should be they are killing the sport, one does have to wonder why if all it took was for a heavyweight champion to fail to blow away overmatched opponents as quick as some people think they should to kill the sport, how the sport even managed to survive the Jack Johnson era.

The Johnson era had an added element to it.

In much the same way the K2 has that added "element". It's why a lot of black boxers and black people generally dislike them so much.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:59 pm

azania wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
azania wrote:

People still talk of Tyson's 96 second detruction of Spinks.

People still talk about Hitler's blitzkrieg occupation of Russia, but it was the slow, methodical Red Army that won that war.

I appreciate that this has very little, if any, relevance, but I thought it sounded really cool.

Errr, ok.

What is more talked about. Tyson's 96 second win or Wlad's complete control of Haye? Which gets people on the edge of their seats?

If your name is Randy or Buck or Chip then I guess Tyson's blowout would be a wet dream for you. But, let me ask my cousins Fritz, Jurgen or Matthias what they think?

by **Union Cane** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 12:59 pm

Spoiler:

by **88Chris05** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:00 pm

I don't see your point there, Az. Tyson's style was more exciting than Wlad's and was custom made for short fights. Wlad's isn't. But neither were the styles of Johnson, Holmes, Lewis, Jeffries etc.

You seem to be judging the Klitschkos against the most extreme standards and examples. Not many can be as good to watch and as dangerous early on as a young Tyson was. But that doesn't automatically equate to them being bad for the sport.

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:00 pm

azania wrote:
rowley wrote:
azania wrote:
Contenders today could develop a plan A-Z they still wouldn't beat Wlad. That is not my point.

Well you'll have to forgive me Az as I am struggling to grasp what your point is beyond as the brothers do not fulfill some pre conceived notion as to what a heavyweight should be they are killing the sport, one does have to wonder why if all it took was for a heavyweight champion to fail to blow away overmatched opponents as quick as some people think they should to kill the sport, how the sport even managed to survive the Jack Johnson era.

The Johnson era had an added element to it.

So does the Klitschko's, first Eastern Europeans to be heavyweight champions, first brothers to dominate a division, in fact thats two. They really are the gift that keeps giving.

by hogey Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:04 pm

azania wrote:
hogey wrote:Not much they can do about it they cant make the opposition suddenly improve in the heavies and any fighter is judged on who they beat and due to the terrible state of the division neither brother has ever beat anyone decent unless you count a blown up crusierweight. If they had a few good names on their records the fact they are as dull as ditchwater would not matter.

Its not about their opposition. If they are bad, get rid of them in a manner befitting of the dominant champions that they are. A fighter is also judged in the manner of victory.

Agree with that to be fair.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:07 pm

88Chris05 wrote:I don't see your point there, Az. Tyson's style was more exciting than Wlad's and was custom made for short fights. Wlad's isn't. But neither were the styles of Johnson, Holmes, Lewis, Jeffries etc.

You seem to be judging the Klitschkos against the most extreme standards and examples. Not many can be as good to watch and as dangerous early on as a young Tyson was. But that doesn't automatically equate to them being bad for the sport.

His style is similar to Holmes in that they relied on the jab to set everything else up. But can you say in all honesty that Holmes was a boring fighter?

I was asked what I prefer. A KO1 of distance fight. My point is simple. They are boring and therefore bad for boxing. They do not bring any excitement with them either in or out of the ring. Vit could replace Ban Ki Moon as UN Gen Sec for all its worth. But I prefer a HW champ to bring excitement into the ring. Whoever Wlad fights next anyone fan can predict not only the outcome, but the manner of victory. It would be better if that manner of victory were exciting. It isn't.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:08 pm

Super D Boon wrote:
azania wrote:
rowley wrote:
azania wrote:
Contenders today could develop a plan A-Z they still wouldn't beat Wlad. That is not my point.

Well you'll have to forgive me Az as I am struggling to grasp what your point is beyond as the brothers do not fulfill some pre conceived notion as to what a heavyweight should be they are killing the sport, one does have to wonder why if all it took was for a heavyweight champion to fail to blow away overmatched opponents as quick as some people think they should to kill the sport, how the sport even managed to survive the Jack Johnson era.

The Johnson era had an added element to it.

In much the same way the K2 has that added "element". It's why a lot of black boxers and black people generally dislike them so much.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have read for a long time.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:09 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:
rowley wrote:
azania wrote:
Contenders today could develop a plan A-Z they still wouldn't beat Wlad. That is not my point.

Well you'll have to forgive me Az as I am struggling to grasp what your point is beyond as the brothers do not fulfill some pre conceived notion as to what a heavyweight should be they are killing the sport, one does have to wonder why if all it took was for a heavyweight champion to fail to blow away overmatched opponents as quick as some people think they should to kill the sport, how the sport even managed to survive the Jack Johnson era.

The Johnson era had an added element to it.

So does the Klitschko's, first Eastern Europeans to be heavyweight champions, first brothers to dominate a division, in fact thats two. They really are the gift that keeps giving.

Are they exciting? They have a good back story. Make a movie out of it. But this is boxing. Its an entertainment industry.

by **Union Cane** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:10 pm

azania wrote:That is the most ridiculous thing I have read for a long time.

Don't you read your own posts?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:12 pm

Union Cane wrote:
azania wrote:That is the most ridiculous thing I have read for a long time.

Don't you read your own posts?

Was that really neccessary? Why don't you hijack another thread with your personal insults. Everyone here has been mild mannered and respectful Why should a mod spoil that? Go away.

by **Union Cane** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:15 pm

If you set them up, I'm going to put them away mate, mod or not.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:16 pm

Union Cane wrote:If you set them up, I'm going to put them away mate, mod or not.

It was uneccessary and uncalled for. Go and ruin another thread.

by **Union Cane** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:18 pm

Didn't know you were so sensitive.

I'll let you carry on your calm and reasoned debate.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:19 pm

So you thik its fine to ruin a thread? I was under the impression it was your job to keep threads on ther straight and narrow.

Anyway, what's done is done.

by Mind the windows Tino. Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:23 pm

azania wrote:
Union Cane wrote:
azania wrote:That is the most ridiculous thing I have read for a long time.

Don't you read your own posts?

Was that really neccessary? Why don't you hijack another thread with your personal insults. Everyone here has been mild mannered and respectful Why should a mod spoil that? Go away.

You called someone a 'jerk' and a 'jackass' on a thread t'other day. That is quite insulting and personal, is it not?

You should have called them a nincompoop. I called someone that yesterday but it slipped through Union's net thumbsup

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:26 pm

Seems like UC has derailed a decent thread. Take a bow son. thumbsup

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:27 pm

azania wrote:Seems like UC has derailed a decent thread.

Where?

by Guest Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:28 pm

azania wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
rowley wrote:
paperbag_puncher wrote:

As for changing their personalities outside the ring that's a ridiculous point. If it takes a retarded thug who goes round bashing grannies and the like to get your juices flowing (a) their might be something wrong with you and (b)

Amen to that Paperbag, asking a genuinely nice guy educated to PhD level to put up some completely false personality as a brain dead moron perhaps says more about you Az than it does the brothers.

Aye, great post Paperbag and I can't really add anything to it. The only thing I would say, in terms of personalities, is that Wladimir was completely outshone on that infamous Ringside episode. David Hayes hilarious Borat impression had me rolling around on the floor. RALMAO (just for you, Jeff) infact. It was a real hoot...

I would love to give Az the benefit of the doubt and say he was trying to stimulate a decent debate on the subject, but 25 times bitten, 50 times shy. His thoughts on K2 are far too well known and this could, just maybe, be an attempt to engage the entire board against him again.

Yawn.

Purely boxing debates. No politics and less focus on out of the ring stuff. Are a couple of nice guys but dullards ruling the roost of boxing good for the sport?

Why wouldn't they be good for the sport? I consider them decent role models for the sport, even though we don't here about it so much there's still the anti boxing lobby & those that want to ban MMA, labeling both sports thug sports for unintelligent thugs. Do we need more gangsters in the sport?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:29 pm

Nevermind rowley. I won't respond to inane provocation. Smile

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:31 pm

sohotnot wrote:
azania wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
rowley wrote:
paperbag_puncher wrote:

As for changing their personalities outside the ring that's a ridiculous point. If it takes a retarded thug who goes round bashing grannies and the like to get your juices flowing (a) their might be something wrong with you and (b)

Amen to that Paperbag, asking a genuinely nice guy educated to PhD level to put up some completely false personality as a brain dead moron perhaps says more about you Az than it does the brothers.

Aye, great post Paperbag and I can't really add anything to it. The only thing I would say, in terms of personalities, is that Wladimir was completely outshone on that infamous Ringside episode. David Hayes hilarious Borat impression had me rolling around on the floor. RALMAO (just for you, Jeff) infact. It was a real hoot...

I would love to give Az the benefit of the doubt and say he was trying to stimulate a decent debate on the subject, but 25 times bitten, 50 times shy. His thoughts on K2 are far too well known and this could, just maybe, be an attempt to engage the entire board against him again.

Yawn.

Purely boxing debates. No politics and less focus on out of the ring stuff. Are a couple of nice guys but dullards ruling the roost of boxing good for the sport?

Why wouldn't they be good for the sport? I consider them decent role models for the sport, even though we don't here about it so much there's still the anti boxing lobby & those that want to ban MMA, labeling both sports thug sports for unintelligent thugs. Do we need more gangsters in the sport?

I said purely boxing in the post you're responding. In purely boxing terms, do you find them exciting?

by WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:32 pm

Tyson may have been entertaing but being a r***ist and biting Holyfield's ear off didn't help the sport in anyway

Haye-Chisora was more damaging for the sport than anything the brothers have done. 90% KO percentage, fought everyone, don't duck, sell out repeatingly and attract huge TV audiences.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:34 pm

alma wrote:Really I think K2 are no worse for boxing than Lennox. Extremely tall, good jab, affable personas to the point of being dull. Probably won't get the recognition they deserve when it comes to how they're viewed in history, as they're not American, although as boxing becomes less and less important in the States, and 'history is written by the victors', or whatever the quote is, their standing in history may be higher than we think.

Lennox had his moments although infrequently. He was dominant and went on the attack sometimes. See Grant, Botha, Ruddock, Golota for example. When have you seen K2 go on the attack in a destructive manner?

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:35 pm

In terms of excitement I don't find them as bad as many but would not say I find them exciting, however the same could be said of Pernell Whitaker, Winky Wright, Lennox Lewis to a degree and countless others I could list. Do I consider these guys bad for the sport or find them dulling my interest of the sport?

Not at all, the opposite it true if anything, the different styles out there and how these styles mesh and match up with other styles is part of the appeal of boxing or indeed any sport. Kevin Pietersen is a more exciting batsman than Jonathan Trott, does not mean Trott is bad for the sport.

by **superflyweight** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:37 pm

You should have called them a nincompoop. I called someone that yesterday but it slipped through Union's net

Or compare them to an infection of the nipples like I did with that Josiah fella yesterday without censure.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:37 pm

WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs wrote:Tyson may have been entertaing but being a r***ist and biting Holyfield's ear off didn't help the sport in anyway

Haye-Chisora was more damaging for the sport than anything the brothers have done. 90% KO percentage, fought everyone, don't duck, sell out repeatingly and attract huge TV audiences.

Who do you think the paying public would rather see? Think the man on the street. Who do you think he would rather see fight? They may rather see K2 debate golbal politics on newsnight though.

by JabMachineMK2 Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:40 pm

Put in Lewis with Vitali, look what happened. Fantastic fight which was push and pull while it lasted. Ask about the quality of fighters they're against. They're giving fans their moneys worth. Tyson was lucky that people in America want to see a guy blast another out, its why MMA is so massive over there.

Put a good opponent against Wlad/Vit and we'll see the best of them. The best Wlad has faced is Haye, and that was ruined by various different factors. Vit has Lewis to say "thats what I fight like when against quality"

Blame the division, not the boxers.

by Rowley Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:40 pm

azania wrote:

Who do you think the paying public would rather see? .

Sorry Az but that argument only holds any water if they were struggling to shift tickets or draw crowds, you know as well as me the complete opposite is the case, we also know it ain't the under cards that are drawing the crowds through the gates.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:41 pm

rowley wrote:In terms of excitement I don't find them as bad as many but would not say I find them exciting, however the same could be said of Pernell Whitaker, Winky Wright, Lennox Lewis to a degree and countless others I could list. Do I consider these guys bad for the sport or find them dulling my interest of the sport?

Not at all, the opposite it true if anything, the different styles out there and how these styles mesh and match up with other styles is part of the appeal of boxing or indeed any sport. Kevin Pietersen is a more exciting batsman than Jonathan Trott, does not mean Trott is bad for the sport.

As bad as many is an excellent phrase. Many find them boring. I maintain therefore that they are not good for the sport. Joe Sixpack wants to be excited when he tunes in to see a boxing match. He doesn't really care what he does outside the ring in raising millions for anti poverty campaign. But controversy sells. Inside the ring is where it matters and they get wins and respect but remain boring to watch.

Pernell is a good point. Great but boring. No controversy or smack talk to fall back on. Floyd is another. Boring but an interesting person. As for cricket, I'd rather watch paint dry.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:43 pm

rowley wrote:
azania wrote:

Who do you think the paying public would rather see? .

Sorry Az but that argument only holds any water if they were struggling to shift tickets or draw crowds, you know as well as me the complete opposite is the case, we also know it ain't the under cards that are drawing the crowds through the gates.

Take them to a neutral venue. Side by side on the same night. Tyson fighting at the Albert Hall and K2 fighting at Wembley Arena. Who do you think the public would want to see.

by WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:44 pm

azania wrote:
WHU_Champo_League_in_7Yrs wrote:Tyson may have been entertaing but being a r***ist and biting Holyfield's ear off didn't help the sport in anyway

Haye-Chisora was more damaging for the sport than anything the brothers have done. 90% KO percentage, fought everyone, don't duck, sell out repeatingly and attract huge TV audiences.

Who do you think the paying public would rather see? Think the man on the street. Who do you think he would rather see fight? They may rather see K2 debate golbal politics on newsnight though.

The klitschkos do bigger numbers than Haye-Chisora did, obviously not over here as they aren't British but overall, so to answer you question, the paying public would rather watch the brothers rather than 2 British chavs

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:45 pm

Thats because you choke like clockwork every semi final AZ :P Eid mubarak to anyone else stuck at home an trawling the boards.

Jabs post was right - Put in a good opponent see a good fight. Haye fight was bad because it was like spike chasing tom around the kennel - round and round endlessly

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:46 pm

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Put in Lewis with Vitali, look what happened. Fantastic fight which was push and pull while it lasted. Ask about the quality of fighters they're against. They're giving fans their moneys worth. Tyson was lucky that people in America want to see a guy blast another out, its why MMA is so massive over there.

Put a good opponent against Wlad/Vit and we'll see the best of them. The best Wlad has faced is Haye, and that was ruined by various different factors. Vit has Lewis to say "thats what I fight like when against quality"

Blame the division, not the boxers.

Put in a bad opponent and Lennox (if not flattened) generally gets rid of in less than 5 and looks good doing it. Can the same be said of K2? Do you thik a 38 year old Rahman would have lasted as long as he did against Lewis, Tyson, Holy?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:47 pm

ShahenshahG wrote:Thats because you choke like clockwork every semi final AZ :P Eid mubarak to anyone else stuck at home an trawling the boards.

Jabs post was right - Put in a good opponent see a good fight. Haye fight was bad because it was like spike chasing tom around the kennel - round and round endlessly

Salaam

And Wlad's excuses for other boring fights he's been boring us with?

by Boxtthis Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:47 pm

And he's off again.......

Should be 5 or 6 more pages of this before everyone gets tired.

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:50 pm

Boxtthis wrote:And he's off again.......

Should be 5 or 6 more pages of this before everyone gets tired.

Shoo!

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:51 pm

Which ones? Name them - it really is hard to knockout people who are running away and barely throwing a punch

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:53 pm

Fast Eddie Whathisname for one. How long did that go on for.

Rahman.

All his fights have been instantly forgetable.

by JabMachineMK2 Fri 26 Oct 2012, 1:58 pm

azania wrote:Put in a bad opponent and Lennox (if not flattened) generally gets rid of in less than 5 and looks good doing it. Can the same be said of K2? Do you thik a 38 year old Rahman would have lasted as long as he did against Lewis, Tyson, Holy?

Bad opponent....Mercer wasn't exactly a great prospect and Lewis showed us all he could dig deep and took the later rounds after struggling.

Mavrovic - quit after being shown up by Lewis.

Lewis tended to knock people out though and he had the same following in America that Wlad and Vitali have from you. Horses for courses mate. Just because you don't like their style doesn't mean the tens of thousands that go to the stadiums for a "Klitschko Event" don't love it.

You like excitement, I get it. I would also assume you don't like Sweet Pea?

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:01 pm

JabMachineMK2 wrote:
azania wrote:Put in a bad opponent and Lennox (if not flattened) generally gets rid of in less than 5 and looks good doing it. Can the same be said of K2? Do you thik a 38 year old Rahman would have lasted as long as he did against Lewis, Tyson, Holy?

Bad opponent....Mercer wasn't exactly a great prospect and Lewis showed us all he could dig deep and took the later rounds after struggling.

Mavrovic - quit after being shown up by Lewis.

Lewis tended to knock people out though and he had the same following in America that Wlad and Vitali have from you. Horses for courses mate. Just because you don't like their style doesn't mean the tens of thousands that go to the stadiums for a "Klitschko Event" don't love it.

You like excitement, I get it. I would also assume you don't like Sweet Pea?

And the Mercer fight was entertaining was it not? Mav got a thorough beating and God knows what kept him up. Tens of thousands went to watch Otke also.

Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

by **ShahenshahG** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:02 pm

Mavrovic barely survived a crippling illness Jab - he was a tough Bar Steward that gave Lewis a hard bloody fight. Defeated but unbowed.

Eddie spent half his time backing away and the rest behind his forearms blocking punchers. Reminded me of Bonecrusher against Tyson.

by JabMachineMK2 Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:06 pm

My point wasn't to rag on his opponents, more to show that Lewis didn't always knock out all and sundry if they weren't marquee names.

Lewis is one of my favorite boxers of all time, I have him 4th in my ATG Heavyweight list and somewhere around 13/14 in my full list (people call me mental) so I'm not ragging on him either.

by **88Chris05** Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:07 pm

azania wrote:Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

He was in the top 1, Az. Haven't you listened to anything I've said regarding Pernell over the past few months?

Wink

by azania Fri 26 Oct 2012, 2:16 pm

88Chris05 wrote:
azania wrote:Pernel I found boring. But he was a superb boxer who is probably one of the top 5 lightweights in history.

He was in the top 1, Az. Haven't you listened to anything I've said regarding Pernell over the past few months?

Not his fault he didn't have a big punch either. But Wlad is supposed to be a huge puncher. His safety first approach works for him, but for boxing as a whole, it is not good.

by Sponsored content