Being Green - Is it a valid excuse ???

Funny how we can use the green argument for fighters we don't like.........

Salvador Sanchez is rightly credited with a great win over Azumah Nelson.........Yet 50% of posters on here put down RJJ's win over Hopkins despite the fact Hoppo never really changed in style.......

Because Khan is widely disliked...He got hammered for the Prescott loss and yet wasn't he "Green"......How many fighters that lose would beat the fighters who beat them when they weren't "green".......

Holmes nearly lost to a "GREEN" Witherspoon.........Why because Witherspoon put his technique up against Holmes and should have won in my opinion...

Which is what Boxers do...........They pitch their technique against other fighters techniques..........Great fighters have better ones and truly great fighters have a plan B...But very few !!!

Would Hoppo ever have beaten RJJ...........Would Nelson have ever beaten Sanchez......Think the answer is no unless they change what made them special in the first place...and you don't have to be GREEN to try something else....

Don't buy this green stuff in Boxing.........You do your thing..he does his.........and you win or you lose !!

Don't think Nelson could ever be ruled out in a rematch, he was named the professor for a reason.

The Hopkins isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be, he had no amateur experience, no championship experience and had about 22? fights going into the Jones bout, definitely not enough preparation for taking on such a gifted athlete. Would he have ever beaten him, maybe not but a win over Hopkins when he was in the midst of his middleweight tenure would have meant a darn sight more, it's slightly revisionist to make that a great win for Jones because he was a relative nobody at the time.

The same goes for Nelson of course, the Sanchez bout made his name without a doubt and I struggle to see how somebody with only 15 fights doesn't go on to improve especially when he wins countless future world titles. Personally I think Sanchez would have won a rematch easier as he knew what to expect, we're not talking about a Hopkins fighting in America but an african fighter fighting in Africa where the coverage would have been far less.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Don't think Nelson could ever be ruled out in a rematch, he was named the professor for a reason.

The Hopkins isn't as cut and dried as you make it out to be, he had no amateur experience, no championship experience and had about 22? fights going into the Jones bout, definitely not enough preparation for taking on such a gifted athlete. Would he have ever beaten him, maybe not but a win over Hopkins when he was in the midst of his middleweight tenure would have meant a darn sight more, it's slightly revisionist to make that a great win for Jones because he was a relative nobody at the time.

The same goes for Nelson of course, the Sanchez bout made his name without a doubt and I struggle to see how somebody with only 15 fights doesn't go on to improve especially when he wins countless future world titles. Personally I think Sanchez would have won a rematch easier as he knew what to expect, we're not talking about a Hopkins fighting in America but an african fighter fighting in Africa where the coverage would have been far less.

Good rebuttal Mate.........However Hoppo's style was his style.........To beat RJJ he would have had to change...perhaps at the expense of what he did best....

Now as he's basically fought the same way as do most other green types one has to assume it's above his pay grade to do so....

Very few fighters can do it.......Forrest-Mosley............being a good example and Mosley wasn't green.........

Your opinion is good but mine is you are what you are.......Nelson never fought anyone as good as Sanchez so winning more titles is irrelevant as is Hoppo's stint at middle.

I think to say Hopkins always fought the same way is a bit misleading, he varies his style slightly depending on the opposition and his mind set going into the fight. I have to assume his mindset in a Jones rematch is much like it was against Trinidad where he had a point to prove, he veered away from his safety first spoiling in an effort to embarrass Tito which he pulled off perfectly. His performance in that fight was very different to how he approached most fights where he could coast to a degree.

I'm not saying Hopkins could beat Jones but he would make it far more interesting going into the fight with a different mind set and more importantly experiencing the Jones style first hand, by and large I agree that boxers are who they are but you've chosen the two worst possible examples.

Really..........Hoppo and "Azumah" Nelson fought as much as they were allowed too.......

Sanchez and RJJ were simply better skilled fighters..........

But your opinion is welcomed and noted.......Going to zoom onto another thread now... 

Hopkins was not green against RJJ did they both not have about 22/23 fights by that stage! If Hopkins won would we be saying that rjj was green

Jones' olympic silver(gold) medal would say a bit differently there, as would his extensive amateur career as a whole.

Benitez loses to Cervantes he's green....Camacho loses to Limon he's green...Leonard to Benitez....

Styles make fights.

Peak against peak, I'm not at all sure what Hopkins can do to beat Jones. His only chance would be to convince Jones to change his style and fight purely on the inside and that's not happening.

If he forces the issue more than he ordinarily would (ala the Tito fight) he opens himself up to Jones' pot shotting him and steping back out of range.

You're talking about athletically gifted boxers in Benitez, Camacho and Leonard something Hopkins never was, they relied on those gifts which are god given whereas BHop relied on his brain something you don't acquire over night.

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:You're talking about athletically gifted boxers in Benitez, Camacho and Leonard something Hopkins never was, they relied on those gifts which are god given whereas BHop relied on his brain something you don't acquire over night.

Oh come on Mate......They had their styles which emphasised their gifts..........Nelson and Hoppo had styles that emphasised theirs..

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Jones' olympic silver(gold) medal would say a bit differently there, as would his extensive amateur career as a whole.

He also won a major belt 4 or so fights after that would he still be classed as green if he fought RJJ then and lost! When do you stop becoming green? How many belts do you need to win or is it fights?

Diamond in the rough wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Jones' olympic silver(gold) medal would say a bit differently there, as would his extensive amateur career as a whole.

He also won a major belt 4 or so fights after that would he still be classed as green if he fought RJJ then and lost! When do you stop becoming green? How many belts do you need to win or is it fights?

Thing is If he'd fought anybody else he wins and isn't green !!

[quote="TRUSSMAN66"]

Diamond in the rough wrote:

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:Jones' olympic silver(gold) medal would say a bit differently there, as would his extensive amateur career as a whole.

He also won a major belt 4 or so fights after that would he still be classed as green if he fought RJJ then and lost! When do you stop becoming green? How many belts do you need to win or is it fights?

Thing is If he'd fought anybody else he wins and isn't green !![/quote


Is alverez green just now? Even though he's ranked number 1 at lmw and rightfully so

Alvarez will be drained and green mate don't you worry...

I mean p4p number 8 Guerrero was garbage after the event..

Hahaha ooooooooooh taste the bitterness......!!

I don't think opinions changed on Guerrero, he was a good opponent, nothing more, nothing less. He didn't anything that was likely to challenge Mayweather while his p4p ranking was based absurdly on beating Berto. I don't see Soto Karass with an inflated ranking having beaten Aydin and Berto also.

Alvarez is too green and how anyone can say he is ranked number one at LMW with some justification is quite clearly on another planet.

He beat Matthew Hatton for the vacant title did he not? Then defended against top flyer Ryan Rhodes before going on to career lightweight Josesito Lopez which was after having fought The Contender fighter Alfonso Gomez. His only legitimate win was against an untested Trout who had only beaten Miguel Cotto, who lets be honest, is not the fighter he was. So for me, Alvarez shouldnt be good enough to get this fight and mayweather will walk all over him and make him look utter garbage, and easily so.

Alvarez is popular for his hair. That's it.

Oh.....and he also beat Mosley after having lost to Mayweather and Pacquiao and drew with Mora. Legendary stuff.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Alvarez is too green and how anyone can say he is ranked number one at LMW with some justification is quite clearly on another planet.

He beat Matthew Hatton for the vacant title did he not? Then defended against top flyer Ryan Rhodes before going on to career lightweight Josesito Lopez which was after having fought The Contender fighter Alfonso Gomez. His only legitimate win was against an untested Trout who had only beaten Miguel Cotto, who lets be honest, is not the fighter he was. So for me, Alvarez shouldnt be good enough to get this fight and mayweather will walk all over him and make him look utter garbage, and easily so.

Alvarez is popular for his hair. That's it.

Who would you have as number one at 154lbs then?

If Trout is untested having beaten Cotto, what exactly could he have done to prove himself?

I don't think it's ever cut and dry truss. Sometimes fighters learn and improve with age, some are never better than when they're young and hungry. I agree that often its just how the styles mesh and many fighters learn little regardless of their trainer.

Had the Sanchez nelson debate countless times. Nelson was someone who did change his style, and he was usually better in rematches. He was definitely green against Sanchez, but perversely the less crude version we saw later might not necessarily have done better against a technician like Sanchez. Hard to say really.

Beat Cintron too which wasn't a bad win and I can't think who'd rank higher than him at LMW? Or are you one of the big Lara fans mm8?

milkyboy wrote:I don't think it's ever cut and dry truss. Sometimes fighters learn and improve with age, some are never better than when they're young and hungry. I agree that often its just how the styles mesh and many fighters learn little regardless of their trainer.

Had the Sanchez nelson debate countless times. Nelson was someone who did change his style, and he was usually better in rematches. He was definitely green against Sanchez, but perversely the less crude version we saw later might not necessarily have done better against a technician like Sanchez. Hard to say really.

Only do what your opponent let's you..........

Alverez is better than Lara and when trout beats Lara it will become clear!

Lara beats Alvarez and so does Vanes Martiysan! Or however you spell his name!

The same Lara who has struggled with Martirosyan, Angulo and Molina, he is the definition of a hyped boxer. Who exactly has Martirosyan beaten, nobody as good as Trout that's for sure nor has Lara.

Lara beat Angulo to a pulp and Angulo causes problems for every fighter at LMW, i think Angulo or Vanes sparks ginger nut.

how can you sit with a straight face and say that Lara is a hypejob when Alvarez is one of the highest in my boxing memory.

Hype jobs don't shut down the whole offensive output of a fighter like Trout, whereas they do get knocked down by an ageing and past it Angulo. You give Lara credit for beating him but give none to Alvarez for beating Rhodes or Cintron despite them both being ranked higher than Angulo was.

Based on what do they knock Alvarez out because you don't name checked as Mayweathers most dangerous opponent for no reason.

Alvarez is a 154 pound JCC..........

He's nothing like JCC.

Like Mosley was dangerous for Mayweather?

Rhodes ranked higher by WBC probably because Uncle Soliman was involved in order for Alvarez to feed on a domestic level fighter as opposed to a genuine hard punching threat.......yeh.....Alvarez is a hype job and on Sept 14th you will be agreeing.

You're always praising GGG are you not mobile ??

And i agree Truss. He was gift wrapped a title by a Mexican against a fighter who has had a career at WW with no punch. Quality.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Like Mosley was dangerous for Mayweather?

Rhodes ranked higher by WBC probably because Uncle Soliman was involved in order for Alvarez to feed on a domestic level fighter as opposed to a genuine hard punching threat.......yeh.....Alvarez is a hype job and on Sept 14th you will be agreeing.

In fact he was ranked number 4 by the ring magazine and had been the number one contender for the WBC long before Alvarez came on the scene.

I'm still wondering what Martirosyan or Angulo have ever done to make you think so highly of them?

Yeh but the difference in GGG truss is that he has fought better names. Macklin was a better name then Hatton and Rhodes combined and nobody (not even Martinez) did that.

Is Macklin really that much better than Rhodes? Rhodes knocked out Jamie Moore who in turn knocked out Macklin so I doubt he's that much better.

GGG has Macklin and that's it, Alvarez trumps him with Trout.

Trout is better than Macklin...Leave it out..

Styles make fights.

Alvarez beat Mosley who in turn was hammered in a better fashion by May and Pac so there you go.

Trout beat Cotto who in turn pushed mayweather so trout should push mayweather. No.

If Groves loses to Froch, due to the fact he's inexperienced at World level, will the "green" argument be a valid one?

Never said he was Truss, just stated he is better than Rhodes and Hatton who Alvarez fought and defended against for his title.

Trout hasn't fought Mayweather so we have no idea how it would pan out.

Styles makes fights if you're at the same level not that I think it made a shred of difference to Rhodes/Macklin/Moore as the two fights were just all out wars.

Why is Macklin better than Rhodes?

Bearing in mind the war between Rhodes and Moore was when sorry?

So if Rhodes and Macklin fought this weekend who would win?

Alvarez didn't face Rhodes this year did he so how he would do now is fairly irrelevant, the strange thing is how Rhodes was in fact the higher rated of the pair but somehow there is a huge gulf in class according to you. What is that based on, rather than answering a question with another question just get to the crux of the argument.

DAVE667 wrote:If Groves loses to Froch, due to the fact he's inexperienced at World level, will the "green" argument be a valid one?

Maybe, but only in the context that already many are saying this has come 'too soon' for him. It's one of those things, I think you can get away with the argument more if you flag it early/before the event. Feels like less of an excuse then.

i think it's a pretty narrow minded way of looking at things. You have a style, yes, but over the years and fights you pick up things in the gym and in the ring, make subtle adjustments, improve technique, fitness, defence. Sometimes you may not notice them but they all contribute to making a good fighter much better. Plus confidence is a huge plus point, something that a run of good wins can give.

Whilst Rhodes was getting punched repeatedly in the face in Mexico, Macklin was (in my eyes) winning a world title in Germany a week later. He then also pushed p4p Martinez pretty far in their bout whilst Rhodes was tinkering around getting sparked by some Ukranian. Then Macklin goes and gets a 1 round KO of Alcine.....id therefore say Macklin is better in my eyes at the time Rhodes fought Alvarez.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Whilst Rhodes was getting punched repeatedly in the face in Mexico, Macklin was (in my eyes) winning a world title in Germany a week later. He then also pushed p4p Martinez pretty far in their bout whilst Rhodes was tinkering around getting sparked by some Ukranian. Then Macklin goes and gets a 1 round KO of Alcine.....id therefore say Macklin is better in my eyes at the time Rhodes fought Alvarez.

Styles make fights...

But like i said, Alavarez is probably related to the WBC board.

This fight with Mayweather will be a complete mismatch.

Gifted a title, defended against complete bums or fat blokes (Hatton moving up from welter....Lopez moving up from LIGHTWEIGHT).....

HAHA! Cheers Truss!