Humble Pie: What I Say?

First topic message reminder :

Just watching the fight now, but from what I read and despite the judges trying to rob him, Rigo dominated!

Boo ya!

emore new, did you, Ghosty????

Thoughts on the fight gang?

Does anyone know the tune accompanying the video I posted a while back?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeaVS6yR7XA

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So everyone has to bow to you and agree that it was a masterclass when in fact in fact it was a dire boring performance.

i agree with you it was very boring and the crowd were booing for the whole fight.

I don't think it was a masterclass as Rigo landed very few shots of his own and probably only about 3 flush shots throughout the whole fight. Poor fight and poor performances by both men.

Victor I understand as fan you want to see action - but for me it was brilliant. There was so much to take in during the none action. Truly amazing. I could watch this over and over again (but admittedly I'm a bit of a technique/tactic geek).

To be fair to Rigondeaux, he was in there with a very dangerous, world class two handed puncher who was bigger than him. He had to box the way he did to win the fight and he did so extremelly well. He was far from poor. He contrlled most of the fight and outbxed Donaire. Even when Donaire went gung ho at the end needing a knockout, Rigondeaux had the answer and looked closer to getting the stoppage himself after busting Dnaires eye with a peach of a shot. If Donaire was feather fisted or one handed I would have looked for Rigondeaux to engage more but the guy has real power and Rigondeaux boxed a smart fight.

I can see why people thought the fight was boring but I actually didnt becaue Donaire is the kind of fighter that can change a fight with one punch and even though he was getting outboxed you still felt he was in the fight and capable of finding a KO at any point.

Spot on Manos.
I'm amazed Donaire said afterwards that he'd not studied Rigo. Incredible lack of preparation.

The fight was very tactical and was a chess match. But it terms of entertainment i believe it was poor because of the lack of punches thrown. There were some rounds when no one threw a meaningful punch.

If you wanted to watch great footwork and a tactical masterclass from rigo then this is a great fight. But if youw anted to watch an entertaining fight then it was poor as there was only about 3/6 meaningful punches thrown by both men for the entire 12 rounds.

I think Donaire overlooked him to be honest, he's been after Mares for so long now and it's long been the fight he's had his heart set on, not an excuse but I don't get the impression he put everything into it.

TumblingDice wrote: I'm amazed Donaire said afterwards that he'd not studied Rigo. Incredible lack of preparation.

What a load of rubbish (not from you Tumbling, from Donaire)

Agree Mackem. I've no idea what benefit Donaire gets from saying that, whether true or not.

The scoring reminded me of Hamed Barrera too, was expecting a wider margin.

This is a great day for you now with the derby win too!

Naz flatten Rigondeax though. Naz KO 1

TumblingDice wrote:Agree Mackem. I've no idea what benefit Donaire gets from saying that, whether true or not.

The scoring reminded me of Hamed Barrera too, was expecting a wider margin.

This is a great day for you now with the derby win too!

And me with my victory!

ShahenshahG wrote:Naz flatten Rigondeax though. Naz KO 1

As Father Doogal would say: 'Right Ted'.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:in fact in fact it was a dire boring performance.

Come on now, Ghosty. How can comprehensively outboxing a consensus top three pound for pound operator and modern great be a "dire" performance? Sorry to say it, but it just sounds like sour grapes. To beat a fighter of Donaire's quality takes nothing less than an excellent performance and that's just what Rigondeaux produced.

I think people are missing the point when they bemoan how little Ridondeaux countered. For the most part - particularly the first two thirds of the fight - it was the Cuban who was initiating the exchanges, particularly with the jab (an area in which he bossed Nonito). Rigondeaux was usually only 'running' when Donaire was looking to counter him, as it goes, but Rigondeaux's speed and defence was too good to allow it. It was Rigondeaux getting off first and, as he was keeping Donaire's replies so handily in check, the onus was on Donaire to adapt, not Rigondeaux.

Superb display in my eyes. Here's a guy (in Donaire) who has been flattening world champions from Flyweight to Super-Bantam, and yet Rigondeaux practically shut down Donaire's attacking arsenal completely save for round ten.

As for Donaire, well he was made to look pretty one-dimensional and ordinary last night - but I don't think he's been 'exposed' or anything of the like. He's still a great fighter, but Rigondeaux is perhaps just that little bit better than we already thought he was. I picked Donaire to get to him eventually, but was amazed at how many were simply predicting that he could take the Cuban out whenever he felt like it and box with impunity. Rigondeaux is something special - I just hope more people appreciate that now.

Chris I found the majority of Whitakers career to be dire, I just don't rate or value anybody who effectively runs and stinks the joint out.

88Chris knows, Imperial, you need to stop eating them sour grapes. Cliché style.

You're an intolerable tool.

If you're arguing that the fight / performance wasn't exciting, then I'd agree. An 'exciting' fight would have favoured Donaire so more kudos to Rigondeaux for dictating that the action was on his terms, I think.

It just seems like you've decided in advance that Rigondeaux can't impress no matter what he does, which isn't exactly fair. It's hit and not get hit at the end of the day. There were plenty of times where the two of them were holding the centre of the ring as well, and again Rigondeaux was bossing those exchanges. He was superior on the night to Donaire in just about every way - not just in his so-called running skills.

If you're not a huge fan then fair enough, we all have our preferences, but he's one of the best fighters in the world whichever way you slice it, so I don't see how you can't rate him. Hopkins has been stinking halls out for fifteen years but I can't imagine too many people would be so quick to degrade him on that basis.

But somehow you tolerate me. Maybe it is my immense predictions of dominance, despite the onslaught of abuse and ridicule i face for the courage of my convictions.

Free at last, free at last, thank god almighty, we are free at last!

Hopkins has never been a runner though Chris, it's just not a style that I can appreciate.

Imperial can you accept that it was highly skilled though?

I didn't find it all that boring to be honest. Great skill on show and some good exchanges. Whilst Rigondeaux was definitely the matador in this fight, I think it's a little unfair to describe him as 'running'.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Chris I found the majority of Whitakers career to be dire, I just don't rate or value anybody who effectively runs and stinks the joint out.

I know I'll get slaughtered for this, but I think judges should favour aggressors more. When fights can be won so negatively in big, hyped up clashes between the top men of strong divisions it puts people off boxing.

Having said this the talent on display was exceptional.

Fully agreed, Mayweather is a defensive fighter but he always makes sure he has a strong offence to go with it and this isn't a slight on Rigondeaux because Donaire was just as bad but throwing less than 800 punches between them is shocking.

Punch stats anyone?

They were fighting like heavyweights

Rigo landed 129 of 396 punches while Donaire landed only 82 of 352 punches

http://www.fightsaga.com/news/item/3089-Nonito-Donaire-vs-Guillermo-Rigondeaux-Stats-Facts

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Chris I found the majority of Whitakers career to be dire, I just don't rate or value anybody who effectively runs and stinks the joint out.

I know I'll get slaughtered for this, but I think judges should favour aggressors more. When fights can be won so negatively in big, hyped up clashes between the top men of strong divisions it puts people off boxing.

Having said this the talent on display was exceptional.

I agree with this to an extent, and I think if the honours are even then aggression could perhaps be the deciding factor. In this case however, one man outboxed the other in a fairly uncontroversial fashion, so I don't think it needed to be brought into consideration so much. A greater focus on scoring aggression also clearly favours some types of fighters over others, why should rigondeaux have to come forward to an opponent with a lead hand like a scud missile? I certainly wouldn't.

I agree with you to an extent though, I think there is a line where a boxer becomes too negative. Obviously this imaginary line lies within the ineffable realm of subjective consciousness, but I would not consider Rigondeaux's performance devoid of positivity, as he did exchange at points.

If scoring rules were altered slightly to favour aggression, the best would adapt and still be the best and technical fights would be far more exciting.

They landed 211 punches between them. Granted, if Donaire were better - more effective - as an aggressor, it would've been a better fight. However there were rounds where Rigo was refusing to engage then might land a couple of jabs near the end, having denied us anay kind of exchange of punches for the vast majority of the round but still arguably winning it.

Anyone can throw hail mary's, it takes skill to evade and hit.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:If scoring rules were altered slightly to favour aggression, the best would adapt and still be the best and technical fights would be far more exciting.

They landed 211 punches between them. Granted, if Donaire were better - more effective - as an aggressor, it would've been a better fight. However there were rounds where Rigo was refusing to engage then might land a couple of jabs near the end, having denied us anay kind of exchange of punches for the vast majority of the round but still arguably winning it.

Again, I think your point makes sense to an extent. But seriously, could you deny that coming forward aggressively would have played into Donaire's hands? I think that your point definitely applies to fighters like Carlos Molina, who is basically just a master spoiler. I just don't think that we can use Donaire vs Rigondeaux as an example of a fight where more scoring for aggression was needed.

It was a clinic bar the knock down, which was a scrappy one that Donaire got off as they parted from a slight collision, a blind sided knock down.

I think judges should just favour whoever the better boxer is on the night, to be honest. I think going in to a fight with a certain mindset which says you should be more rewarding to a certain style is a little unhealthy.

If defensive work is good, legal and effective, then it should be rewarded. If offensive work is the same, then again, it should be rewarded. In this case, Rigondeaux's defence was good enough to basically take away all of Donaire's big weapons, save for the tenth round, and he was still in range enough to outpunch and outland Donaire (at a better percentage too, apparently). Impossible to find fault with that, really.

On the other hand, Donaire's attacking work was largely poor. He wasn't setting anything up through the jab and was loading up with big shots time and again, which Rigondeaux was easily able to avoid. There's no real reason why, in the context of this fight, that kind of work should have been rewarded.

Compare that to Dirrell's performance (well, from roughly rounds five to ten anyway) against Froch, for instance. Now that's an example of defensive work which, under the scoring system, doesn't deserve to be rewarded. Sliding so far back out of range that it's basically impossible to land a telling shot, taking yourself out of the scoring zone by ducking below the waist of your opponent etc. In that case, I'd certainly give the edge to Froch's aggression, even if it wasn't too impressive.

Rigondeaux's boxing was demonstrably differet to that, however. If was good defensive work, just as Marquez's was against Manny in their third fight, for example. Most had Marquez the winner (despite the official outcome) even though he threw and landed less than Pacquiao. I suspect a lot of the people moaning about how terrible Rigondeaux's performance was when he outlanded and outpunched his foe won't be so critical of Marquez's performance there.

Boxing and scoring is a mix between both aspects, so it doesn't sit well with me that any judge should go in to a fight thinking that one or the other deservers preferential treatment.

B-Hop would have lost a hell of a lot of fights if output and aggression one them all. So would many other fighters.

I know you're right chris, I knew what I was saying wasn't "correct" when I wrote it, but boxing would be more entertaining if you were wrong.

Rigo still wouldve won if he hadn't been so negative, however he wouldve also been cheered.

davidemore wrote:B-Hop would have lost a hell of a lot of fights if output and aggression one them all. So would many other fighters.

However if he knew aggression would be favoured, he wouldn't have been so purelý defensive.

Rigo v B-Hop would be a pure stinker

Ban him.

He didn't run. Khan runs. Every movement Rigo made was done with purpose, for a reason, and with exquisite timing. He read every movement donaire could make before Donaire had even thought about it. Every piece of footwork was executed precisely.

He was moving and taking Donaire off balance with him, an he would move at the exact moment Donaire wanted to set base for an attack (very frustrating).

Other time's Rigo would move and hold his feet. He'd then hit Donaire with something before donaire even realised he had a stationary target in front of him.

On the occasions Donaire realised he had a stationary target (and was at the same time set for offense) he would rush forward. Rigo's answer? simply use Donaires momentum against him by hook/cuff/grabbing the side of Donaire head and pivot around the side of him (very frustrating).

When Rigo thought Donaire was setting a rythm he'd hold his feet attack and then move. Donaire then became more focused on constantly trying to re-establishhis rythm than engaging.

I'll finish up. I want to go on but the Mrs is shouting.....

Rigo purposefully slowed the tempo and frustrated Donaire. He made Donaire overthink and tighten in the shoulders. This happened almost immediately.

Once your frustrated and tight in the shoulders its difficult to let your hands go. From the then on there would only be one winner.

Master class by Rigo.

wrote that in a rush, haven't read it back. probably lots of mistakes. sorry.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I think Donaire overlooked him to be honest, he's been after Mares for so long now and it's long been the fight he's had his heart set on, not an excuse but I don't get the impression he put everything into it.

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? He did not overlook someone of Rigo's calibre. Not a chance. The better boxer won with ease I may add.

He put his all into it and came up short. It's like saying SRL overlooked Benitez (had he lost) because he was after Hearns. Rubbish argument Ghosty.

TheMackemMawler wrote:He didn't run. Khan runs. Every movement Rigo made was done with purpose, for a reason, and with exquisite timing. He read every movement donaire could make before Donaire had even thought about it. Every piece of footwork was executed precisely.

He was moving and taking Donaire off balance with him, an he would move at the exact moment Donaire wanted to set base for an attack (very frustrating).

Other time's Rigo would move and hold his feet. He'd then hit Donaire with something before donaire even realised he had a stationary target in front of him.

On the occasions Donaire realised he had a stationary target (and was at the same time set for offense) he would rush forward. Rigo's answer? simply use Donaires momentum against him by hook/cuff/grabbing the side of Donaire head and pivot around the side of him (very frustrating).

When Rigo thought Donaire was setting a rythm he'd hold his feet attack and then move. Donaire then became more focused on constantly trying to re-establishhis rythm than engaging.

I'll finish up. I want to go on but the Mrs is shouting.....

Rigo purposefully slowed the tempo and frustrated Donaire. He made Donaire overthink and tighten in the shoulders. This happened almost immediately.

Once your frustrated and tight in the shoulders its difficult to let your hands go. From the then on there would only be one winner.

Master class by Rigo.

Classic stuff mate.

davidemore wrote:Ban him.

Ban it

Donaire became frustrated.

The problem is you think your frustration can be channeled into effective aggression but it can't. You want to knock your opponents block off, but instead - tense up, load up, and throw less.

That's exactly what Rigo wanted (and got).

Cheers Emore.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's not a style I appreciate and to be honest the fight bored me, I only like watching a defensive master when he's constantly countering and making his opponent pay.

How come you're such a bog fan of Pep who is called a defensive maestro but hardly made his opponents pay. Winning a round without throwing a punch (myth) is hardly punishing an opponent.

But I agree, the fight was dire.

TumblingDice wrote:Spot on Manos.
I'm amazed Donaire said afterwards that he'd not studied Rigo. Incredible lack of preparation.

He lied.

davidemore wrote:And me with my victory!

I called it for Rigo also.

Good work AZ.