McDonnell Kameda

First topic message reminder :

No-one watching this.

Not a bad tussle. I have it 2-2 after 4

When I see someone other than Andre ward look like they're on the verge of world domination under hunter, I'll buy into his genius. Looking thoughtful and talking softly isn't doing it for me. Until he differentiates his record from enzo calzaghe's, I'll reserve judgement. 

I think Paulie is too busy jabbering on with his professional New Yorker act to actually bother watching the fight he's meant to be talking about.

Reminds me of the old story when Sugar Ray Robinson was building his part up and proclaiming his brilliance on the back of how good Sugar Ray was, someone asked him if he was that brilliant why was every fighter he trained not as good as Ray. Hunter is just flavour of the month, as milky has alluded to can we honestly say Khan has come on leaps and bounds since joining up with him?

Even CBS have McDonnell winning going into the 10th though. They don't seem to be able to acknowledge success from both sides, once McDonnell started to take control they ignored a lot of what Kameda was doing. I think they're just poor at commentating, not biased.

Are you sure you've watched the right fight, CBS had Kameda winning the fight PfP.

I think the people who scored this fight for Kameda are those that prefer flash over substance. He's inaccurate and he's lazy for most of the round but his hands are fast.

Guess that seals it why most Americans thought Kameda won

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Are you sure you've watched the right fight, CBS had Kameda winning the fight PfP.

First 3-4 rounds they do seem to focus mainly on Kameda's successes, even when his shots were blocked or missed but then announced their card as 3-1 McDonnell. I wrote my previous comment before they gave their score and it sounded to me like they were ignoring McDonnell's work and that would be reflected in their card. It wasn't, I was wrong.

BoxingFan88 wrote:Guess that seals it why most Americans thought Kameda won

To be fair to Kameda, he did hit McDonnell's gloves quite hard at times.

IUKRowley wrote:Reminds me of the old story when Sugar Ray Robinson was building his part up and proclaiming his brilliance on the back of how good Sugar Ray was, someone asked him if he was that brilliant why was every fighter he trained not as good as Ray. Hunter is just flavour of the month, as milky has alluded to can we honestly say Khan has come on leaps and bounds since joining up with him?

It's not Virgil's fault if fighters won't follow his advice though rowley... Maybe  his "Look. Just fight like Andre dammit" whilst undoubtedly good advice, is just falling on deaf ears. 

Perhaps Its beyond amir's capacity to follow such a simple instruction.... and beyond all the other canvas-backed cart horses in his stable.

Jesus that interviewer was rude. First Question: "Jamie, a controversial decision but are you happy to get the win?"...

Pound-for-Pound wrote:

BoxingFan88 wrote:Guess that seals it why most Americans thought Kameda won

To be fair to Kameda, he did hit McDonnell's gloves quite hard at times.

HAHA, he also controlled the action by backing off and fought at a much higher pace than he wanted to.

Pound-for-Pound wrote:Jesus that interviewer was rude. First Question: "Jamie, a controversial decision but are you happy to get the win?"...

As soon as I heard him say that, I went online to see what everyone else was saying and couldn't believe it.

Rowley wrote:Reminds me of the old story when Sugar Ray Robinson was building his part up and proclaiming his brilliance on the back of how good Sugar Ray was, someone asked him if he was that brilliant why was every fighter he trained not as good as Ray. Hunter is just flavour of the month, as milky has alluded to can we honestly say Khan has come on leaps and bounds since joining up with him?

That will be difficult to tell until Amir fights someone who can punch and has power but based on his last outing you would say he has not improved under Hunter too much

wheelchair1991 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Reminds me of the old story when Sugar Ray Robinson was building his part up and proclaiming his brilliance on the back of how good Sugar Ray was, someone asked him if he was that brilliant why was every fighter he trained not as good as Ray. Hunter is just flavour of the month, as milky has alluded to can we honestly say Khan has come on leaps and bounds since joining up with him?

That will be difficult to tell until Amir fights someone who can punch and has power but based on his last outing you would say he has not improved under Hunter too much

He was so much better under Roach, why the hell did he leave him? He got caught with a good shot against Garcia, then decided to trade with him, despite Roach telling him not to, then to top it off he gets knocked out and blames Roach!!

Roach is an excellent coach, just look at what he has done with Cotto

I thought Khan looked excellent against Alexander... Really measured and in control. But maybe Alexander was made for him regardless.

Then he fought algieri... Who also  looked made for him. Hmmm.

Alexander is/was a boxer. Boxers don't beat Khan. Made for him.

... no sh*t... and algieri

milkyboy wrote:... no sh*t... and algieri

If you remember though after the last iffy performance against Algieri Amir blamed Hunter for over training him

I'd say Algieri is a bit more pressure based, certainly his performance versus Khan, hence Amir's struggles.

Think Khan just struggled with fighting a strong man with similar size and reach to him for the first time. He learned how to deal with him quick enough.

i guess algieri did have a game plan for that fight to be fair... not cricket really, when you've been hand picked as feather-fisted shooting practice.

So Hunter's pants then. Glad that's sorted. He certainly can't judge a fight.

Khan looked horrible against Diaz as well.

He did, molina too, though I guess they were early days with hunter. Did a job on Collazo to be fair.

Aye. I don't think hunter is pants. I just think the Ward, Calzaghe, Wlad type fighters are successful because they're willing to learn from their fights and constantly adjust around a basic skillset which they expand through judgement, opportunity and necessity. So the guys trainers can train well are the guys who learn well on their own. Trainers are good for fine tuning but wholesale changes kind of ruin things unless the fighter is pretty intelligent in the first place. I think hunter is good for Khan in that he's teaching him a little restraint and taught him to wrestle and clinch early to stop his being snowballed by the opponent. And Khan seemed to adjust well in both the Alexander and Algieri fights so clearly he is creating an environment in which Khan can learn but I think the complete transformation is too much to ask for no matter how good a trainer Hunter is.

I'm ragging on hunter because of his judging of the fight shah. I don't really have a strong opinion on him as a trainer. Clearly some trainers are better than others, but to a degree they're only as good as the fighters at their disposal. Unless, you've personally worked with a whole host of them it's hard to say who's good who's not. Some guys do better under one trainer than another, others don't. Are some great trainers, more great talent spotters or self publicists to attract talent? I dunno, genuinely. 

We rave over how manny steward got Lewis and wlad to stop hanging their chins out, but I reckon most of us could have improved them!

Anyway, have we found a Brit boxing fan who thought kameda won yet?

Not even close

Plenty of Americans calling it a robbery, I just don't get it

We need more than a head scratching emoji, we need a gap toothed emoji in a lumberjack shirt playing a banjo with his feet and gobbing 'baccy into a spittoon.

Not that I go into national stereotyping, obviously,  unless it's a truss baiting session.

haha