Tonights Action SPOILERS

First topic message reminder :

Thread for all of tonights action. First fight is supposed to be starting at around 8.05 and is going to be Chris Jenkins vs Tyrone Nurse in a rematch for the vacant British title.

I think you're being a bit sensitive/over defensive simply because two people saw a different fight to you. Not sure what bf88 predicted but I never called a cotto victory. I thought it would be decided on engine. When it only came down to a size/strength disparity

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I think people are trying to be smart by suggesting Cotto won that, the subtle skill didn't achieve anything nor did he land with any regularity, the guy landing ALL the big shots does win the rounds and rightfully so.

Seems to be a growing trend that certain posters are unable to accept that predicted a fight wrong, grasping at anything so that they can say their man won.

What do you mean by big shots though? Isn't it CLEAN punches that count, otherwise non punchers should just give up

I've been wrong plenty of times before

Alvarez landed the cleaner and harder punches, Cotto was stopped in his tracks multiple times in that fight whereas it didn't happen once the other way round.

...bcause of the size difference

Your point being what that Cotto should get extra credit for being smaller?

Its hard to evaluate Alvarez as a fighter when he relies so much on being bigger and stronger than opponents. Cotto was simply outgunned in the fight. His punches didnt slow Alvarez down and when Alvarez landed it really hurt Cotto. If they were the same size, fair enough, you could say Alvarez power and strength is the difference maker. But the looked at least a weight class apart in there. Alvarez is able to get away with walking through fighters that are physically smaller. It would be great to see him in with an opponent like Golovkin weighs about the same in the ring. Lets hope de la Hoya makes it happen.

Can't see Oscar wanting GGG for his poster boy yet

No. Canelo won because he was bigger. Cotto boxed the better of the two. Canelo had the size to walk him down and got the decision, fair enough. No more complicated than that really.

3fingers wrote:No. Canelo won because he was bigger. Cotto boxed the better of the two. Canelo had the size to walk him down and got the decision, fair enough. No more complicated than that really.

I was shocked that Cotto couldn't make a dent, but then again Canelo was huge compared to him.

BoxingFan88 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You do ignore that Cotto was barely landing anything clean himself, Alvarez was the cleaner, harder more accurate puncher for the majority of the fight and that's why he won. Cotto retreating while throwing nothing isn't smart boxing, if you're on the back foot you do need to throw punches at the same time which he didn't do.

???? Cotto was landing, it wasn't as hard but he was landing, he was sometimes landing 3-4 punch combinations.

As for accuracy, Alvarez was hitting air a lot as well or getting blocked.

I mean when he did land it definitely looked flashier and harder.

Cotto boxed a very good fight - the difference was purely Canelo's size, strength and power. I didn't score it but there was nothing in it. Cotto won his fair share of rounds - possibly enough for a draw.

Cooney was huge compared to Spinks.....Hagler was bigger than leonard...Barkley was bigger than Duran.....etc etc..

Didn't win just because he was bigger.......That's just plain crap...

3fingers wrote:No. Canelo won because he was bigger. Cotto boxed the better of the two. Canelo had the size to walk him down and got the decision, fair enough. No more complicated than that really.

Spot on.

hazharrison wrote:

3fingers wrote:No. Canelo won because he was bigger. Cotto boxed the better of the two. Canelo had the size to walk him down and got the decision, fair enough. No more complicated than that really.

Spot on.

Yep let's not give Alvarez any credit..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Cooney was huge compared to Spinks.....Hagler was bigger than leonard...Barkley was bigger than Duran.....etc etc..

Didn't win just because he was bigger.......That's just plain crap...

Did you see the fight? He won because he was much too big for Cotto. Cotto looked the better boxer of the two - just had to work so hard to cancel out Canelo's more sporadic, heftier blows.

You don't win fights because you're too big.......

Or else everybody bigger would win....

If Cotto boxed the better of the pair he would have won but he didn't, utilising size advantages is all part of boxing.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

3fingers wrote:No. Canelo won because he was bigger. Cotto boxed the better of the two. Canelo had the size to walk him down and got the decision, fair enough. No more complicated than that really.

Spot on.

Yep let's not give Alvarez any credit..

He won and good luck to him - Cotto got what he deserved mixing with far bigger men. Alvarez hardly set the world alight, though. Something missing with him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You don't win fights because you're too big.......

Or else everybody bigger would win....

Did you watch the fight?

"Alvarez is overrated...One dimensional..Only good against plodders.....Cotto will bust him up and stop him down the stretch!!" .........

Never mind hey !!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If Cotto boxed the better of the pair he would have won but he didn't, utilising size advantages is all part of boxing.

Cotto had to work twice as hard as Alvarez - boxed a well-ordered fight. Alvarez - as the much bigger, more powerful man - landed fewer shots, but the shots he landed were far more effective (as they had far more pop). It wasn't any more complicated than that.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Alvarez is overrated...One dimensional..Only good against plodders.....Cotto will bust him up and stop him down the stretch!!" .........

Never mind hey !!

I stand by that. I called it wrong - so what? I completely underestimated the size disparity.

How can you comment on a fight you didn't watch?

Lara...Trout......Cotto.......and still no respect !!

Because he let down people with high hopes of him beating an old Floydy !!!

Which is what this bitter crap is all about..

I don't know why the bigger fighter doesn't win every fight !!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lara...Trout......Cotto.......and still no respect !!

Because he let down people with high hopes of him beating an old Floydy !!!

Which is what this bitter crap is all about..

I don't know why the bigger fighter doesn't win every fight !!!

We're not all fixated on one fighter. I thought he looked average against the first two and Ok last night (but only won because he was too big and strong for Cotto to put a dent in). Cotto is a better fighter than Alvarez.

You love or you hate....

No in between....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Cooney was huge compared to Spinks.....Hagler was bigger than leonard...Barkley was bigger than Duran.....etc etc..

Didn't win just because he was bigger.......That's just plain crap...

Ones a Heavyweight fight.
Two are ATG vs 'not ATG'
One is ATG vs ATG, one of which was one of the most gifted boxers who's ever lived.
Probably same day weigh-ins

Not really sure how these examples compare to what we saw last night: two decent/good modern fighters, both of whom are not renowned for their technical prowess, who, in actual fact, mostly win due to their strength, going against each other where one outweighs the other massively on fight night.

One fighter is always bigger than another....

Cotto wasn't good enough to outbox him like Floyd did...

True.

However, in a fight between two fighters who's preferred style is to stand in front of an opponent an open up, and who are relatively similar in many respects, then the bigger man will invariably win.

if your jumping around the weights to pick up easy belts i dont have much sympathy for when you actually have to fight a guy whos big and can make that weight. been far too much of catch weight nonsense. if cotto is too small to fight at middleweight then dont do it. if your a good enough boxer you can easily win a fight against a bigger guy

I had no issue with the decision but I had Cotto edging a close win, he's jab was a scoring punch and although Alvarez landed the more substantial blows he goes a long time without actually landing anything. Big shame on boxing again if Canelo doesn't fight GGG they guy weighed in 175lbs and is moaning about catchweight fight (sigh)

Cheers, Rodders

I'm in agreement with a few on here - I had Cotto winning by a round. As predicted, the more eye catching punches were from Canelo but he didn't sustain that work to a point where he was winning the fight for me.

A some have alluded to, it would seem that being bigger and stronger guarantees you about 4 rounds of a fight before the first bell.

Thought Cotto boxed an excellent fight.

CallMeBenji wrote:

A some have alluded to, it would seem that being bigger and stronger guarantees you about 4 rounds of a fight before the first bell.

Thought Cotto boxed an excellent fight.  

Better get boxers in the weight gym then If it means 4-0 before it starts..

CallMeBenji wrote:I'm in agreement with a few on here - I had Cotto winning by a round. As predicted, the more eye catching punches were from Canelo but he didn't sustain that work to a point where he was winning the fight for me.

A some have alluded to, it would seem that being bigger and stronger guarantees you about 4 rounds of a fight before the first bell.

Thought Cotto boxed an excellent fight.  

I agree - he couldn't have done any more realistically. Both he and Roach were happy campers at the closing bell.

I personally thought Cotto did well to get to 109 on the complimentary Canelo card. Must have fought really well

Did you have Cotto 5-1 up after 6...

I had Cotto 5-1 at half time but then had him losing 5 of the remaining 6, so that's a draw on mine. However I do admit that Canelo's rounds were a lot more convincing and maybe being biased I shaded a few of the 50/50 ones in Cotto's favour.

Result I can accept but if you've got a 119-109 card then your impartiality has to be questioned.

I'm at a loss with Canelo, I think he's had far too many close calls to have only one loss on his record especially since his output is usually pretty low but then when you look at the names he's defeated, he must have something about him.