Berto continues to be a joke

1. He is not really American.

2. He is not undefeated pfp yo

3. He lost to Vitor. Nobody loses to Vitor. Not even the Petersons lose to Vitor.

4. Mosley was going to beat him up before he pulled that earthquake trick out of the bag, which was obviously some voodoo shit.

5. He's boring. He's boring because of 1-4. He's boring because I've never heard Liev Schrieber say his name for me.

 

Who can say with Lib four Lib,.. I tell ya my guess is not with confidence, it's more of a proposition for him to correct,..a question if you will, for he's a rather interesting individual. There are some who deliver thier soul to you on a platter, like Xplosive and Illuminati,..but Lib four Lib's angles are rather mysterious, not just within boxing, they carry through into other topics aswell. He's not a predictable type, and that's usually a good sign of character.

 

Maybe he feels that there can only be ONE Richard Roundtree??

 

If this is indeed the case then I give Berto a pass on this one. I can't fault the guy for wanting to keep his belts, I just hope he'll fight more respectable competition, although it wouldn't surprise me if the IBF winds up being the one to keep Berto protected with easy defense after easy defense.

 

Berto's fights aren't boring persay but I don't enjoy a mindless slugfest ala Gatti the same way I do watching two skilled boxers have a chess match. Both are entertaining but not in the same way. Given my choice I'd much rather watch two skilled boxers such as Marquez-Vazquez over say Gatti-Ward or even Corrales-Castillo types.

The dislike I've always had with Berto is he doesn't seem to want to step up his competition and he seems to be a fraud. He wouldn't rematch Collazo, and he faced easy opposition for a long time before finally taking a chance with Ortiz. Apparently it was too big of a chance--and just as we saw in the Collazo fight--we see exactly why he's been fighting bums.

To put it simple he doesn't deserve to be a belt holder, he lacks real skills and lives and dies by one talent, hand speed, he fights easy competition. He's kind of exciting but only in a mindless slugger kind of way.

Well that's nice of you to say Kauki thanks. You've always been my homie even though it seems lately we've been on too many opposite sides of agreement, but either way you'll always have my respect.

 

Ok, but what if the chess match involves no pulse, lots of cuddles, the odd nervous pot,.. isn't it just alot safer to encourage aggression in terms of entertainment?,.. I remember when Winky fought Sam Solomon, and Lederman gave a few rounds to Winky throwing no punches,.."Look, you got to score rounds for good defence" he said nervously. Now if that was an official precedent, we would all have to die.
Sometimes the line between 'chess match' and 'scared to engage' wobbles rather awkwardly, :nono: fortune should favor the brave.

 

First of all, if this is your stance then how do you explain your big time love and defense of Wlad Klitchko?

Secondly, I can praise Berto for being a positive force when it comes to aggression and willingness to engage his opponents, but that doesn't mean I have to like every aspect of him. Sure there is a dearth of aggressive fighters out there but there are is also a dearth of talented ones and just because there is a dearth of one or the other doesn't mean I should be satisfied when one does comes along and then just count my lucky stars and give him glowing praise despite his other warts.

Yes Berto is good for the sport in that he fights aggressively and other fighters should probably follow his example. On the other hand he sets a negative standard on how a champion/belt holder ought to defend his belt and in that instance he should be criticized because we certainly don't want fighters following that example of him.

 

:nono: Uh uh uh uh uh uh uh!,...My defense for Wlad is only ignited when I hear a plethora of bluff criticisms which I know are NOT being enforced by these bitter editorialists through a never-ending campaign against THIER adored fighters who consistantly commit the same crimes. It's just 'base rage' of which they cannot elaborate. If we enforce the rules to bring down Wlad,.. YES PLEASE,.. Lib four Lib please infact,.. but that would mean as a sloppily incorperated philosophy ...............we'd have to bring down some of America's 'greats' as a consequence,....oh no no no no no.
So double standards is the only territory from where I could defend Wlad,... I don't blame you for not reading many of my posts, but I don't praise, nor like his style and have mentioned how monotonously excrutiating he is,.. and think that his complete lack of counter-punching is a very, very, very poor exhibit for a world champion, very poor indeed.

I can understand your frightening piranha needles on Berto's choice of foe, but now he's not a paper-titlist,..now he'll have to work his way back to contention, and we'll all tune in because he's too good to be a journeyman, and he likes to let his mittens go. Most people would miss him if he chose to skip around the perimeter looking to score on 'ring generalship' and 'tactical brilliance' ...(Terms invented to give Bernard Hopkins some rounds)... :crafty: your much loved Hopkins, there we go, your much loved Hopkins!!!.

 

Fair enough Kauki, fair enough. I know you'll not be swayed from your love affair with Wlad and Berto so I'll try to lower my grunts to a soft huff if possible.

 

Bernard Hopkins left jab to the nuts is a thing of beauty.

 

Well, you always said a prime Mayorga was invincible, that for those two fights against Forrest, there would be nobody in history who could touch him, you made up your mind and stuck to your guns for years.

 

Not exactly what I said. I said every fighter has a fight where he is at his absolute best and for Mayorga that was his first fight against Forrest. He indeed looked unstoppable that night as he walked right through some of Forrest biggest shots, the same type of shots that felled Mosley twice and had him screaming in pain. As for any other part of his career and the 2nd Forrest fight included, Mayorga was a pretty limited and extremely overrated fighter.

And I can be swayed, I'd even come to realize Mosley's limitations, especially after the Cotto fight. However I've got no problem with a man sticking to his guns and I'm not saying you shouldn't do so.

 

You HATED Mayorga,..:: ,..he was your equivalent of my Bernard Hopkins psychotic-trigger,.. ^ I highlighted your deliberate pot-shot and I quote 'your love affair for Wlad' to write a post in responce, as to state something that is untrue for what you did to me :crafty:. You dismissed that it's the principle of double standards that I am drawn to defend Wlad, from those who I suspect are extrapulating veiled criticisms that are REALLY powered by vicarious inner-evils and not as a philosophy because they do not worry about these 'standards' when it comes to other fighters,.... and that's it.

Wlad's style is excrutiating. The proposition of Wlad's 'high entertainment value' is a lost battle and an advanced arse-whupping. You know my criteria already,.. it's YOUR criteria that could fit Wlad in to your preferences slot better than mine,..:nono: Wlad's a 'technical chess match' man,.. Haye vs Wlad was a technical chess-match, you appear to be having a double dip!? :nono: Lib four Lib perrrrleeeeease.

 

Mayorga? How could anyone "love" him.

KauKi doesn't "love" Wlad, he merely finds his existence useful, in the war against fascism.

 

There are probably 100 welterweights who would have beaten the shit out of Mayorga on that "invincible" night

 

Middle stump. :truce:

 

I agree, probably.

In fact, it's probably actually more than likely.

The point isn't that Mayorga would have been unbeatable just that that was the best Mayorga was ever going to be at any point in his career.

 

ah, well, no argument here