Broner-Paulie R-b-R

A case could be made that he walks around at 147 anyways :dunno:

What gets me over and over is that a single right from Hatton had Paulie in all sorts of trouble. Hatton was never a banger as such with the right. If Broner is this amazing force he is supposed to be, then he's got to be putting more of a dent in dudes.

 

Either;
1) Broner struggled with Paulie more than he expected to
2) Broner fought a lazy fight
3) Broner just knows one way of fighting and can't adapt
4) Broner just didn't get out of 1st gear
5) He fought the way he did because he was conserving energy as he has poor stamina

Paulie did say that Broner doesn't hit very hard.

 

6) Broner is simply nowhere near as good as advertised.

 

Forgot to mention this one but yeah, this is what the majority feel.

 

Broner took off in the public eye after he blitzed shitzau.

Shitzau. I mean that says it all.

 

In my next write up, I want people to know what the overall consensus (of fightbeat) is on Broner. The title that stands out to me is...'Adrien Broner...all aboard the hype train!'.

 

And just like that, Broner has gone from overrated to underrated over night.

 

You feel he's underrated?

 

Underrated? LOL.

The jury was out on him, the evidence was presented, and the jury returned a verdict of "Not that good".

I said before the Paulie fight that he hadn't really fought anyone worth a damn, he STILL hasn't, and what's more the guys shortcomings have already been uncovered for all to see.

 

I feel that people are overreacting and writing him off too quickly. He's still only 23 years old, and moved up two weight classes to beat not an elite fighter, but a world class fighter and a guy with a lot of experience against the elite. Also the first time he ever went 12 rounds, so it is a positive that he finally got 12 round experience.

Broner is only overrated if you buy into the "next Floyd" crap, but only mainstream idiots would believe that. All us knowledge fans KNOW that the kid isn't a fraction as good as Floyd, and never will be.

That doesn't mean that he's not a very good fighter though, and at only 23 it's likely we have yet to see his best.

If yall are willing to give Conman a 2nd chance after getting dusted in less than a round by a BUM, then why write off Broner after going the distance with Paulie?

Food for thought, but at 23 nobody thought a goddamn thing about Andre Ward. He didn't peak and become elite until 25-26. Does that mean Broner will ever be as good as Ward? Possibly not, but it's premature to write a 23 yr old off as a fraud after winning an 8-4 decision over a world class, experienced fighter.

 

See my reply to Jimmy.

The jury is STILL out on Broner. The only thing we know for sure is he'll never be the calibre of a Floyd, Roy, Whitaker, ect, but we ALWAYS knew that.

It's apparent he has talent, but how good he is has yet to be determined.

Writing him off after winning an 8-4 decision is comical.

 

I've always considered decision losses or disputed decisions more damning than being splattered on the canvas. A KO loss can be put down to an error, a misjudgement, and being caught. It can be rectified. Not to say Khans flaws haven't been clearly exposed now, but at the time it wasn't AS apparent as now. Being outboxed is different, in most cases it shows fundamental flaws in your fighting make-up, which would be more worrying to me.

 

The difference is, other than being shaken a few times and dropped by Boone, Ward might have looked bad but never looked close to losing. Broner has had a few close calls already.

 

DISPUTED decison? LMFAO! Are you the idiot judge who scored it for Paulie or something?

This is what I mean by overreacting. There wasn't a goddamn thing DISPUTED about the decision, and Paulie didn't "outbox" shit!

Paulie performed better than expected, and was competitive. That's it.

Broner won the fight clearly.

 

Broner's had ONE close call, against Ponce a few years ago. He's CLEARLY improved since then, and anybody who thinks otherwise is brain dead.

8-4 isn't a close call. It's a competitve, yet clear win.

 

I was referring to the De Leon and Quintero fights, they were disputed. Broner won this fight, I could see 7-5 or 8-4 in his favour, but the truth is nobody who is any good should be having close fights with Malignaggi.

 

:atu: at underrated. Who has he beaten to be underrated?

I said at the time not to put any stock into the DeMarco win. Demarco sucks.

The best opponent of his career is Malignaggi and he only managed a lacklustre split decision. Over a guy Khan dominated. Underrated? I think not.

 

And nobody who's any good should be going life and death with a corpse of Wholio Diaz.

 

Agreed, Khan is no good either, that's why Khan Vs Broner is a pick em fight.

 

Lackluster is a good term to describe it.

But there was hardly anything that jumped out Sat night that caused me to think he's crap.

Had he been opening up all night, and STILL went life and death, I might be alarmed. But everytime he let his hands go, the difference in class was apparent. Therefore, the jury is still out.

He would fuck up Khan, and if that fight ever happens, I'll put money on it against you.

 

Khan doesn't come into it. I answered your question re: why he should have been given a second chance after the Prescott loss. His strengths and flaws have been established since then so we know where we stand with him now. As I said before, being outboxed is more damning than being knocked out early. You can put the latter down to luck, not the former.

 

Only a pick em fight if it's stipulated in the contract that Adrien isn't allowed to punch Khan in the face.

 

It would be alarming if Paulie outboxed Broner. However, he didn't.

 

Well he won more rounds against Broner than he did against Hatton and Khan combined. If he's dropping four or five rounds against Malignaggi, what's he gonna be like when he actually fights someone good?

 

That's the thing, I think it was Paulie's performance that caused Broner to fight like a mook. Paulie can't punch, but he moved a lot and threw a lot. Nobody likes to get hit in the face, power puncher or not, and Broner less than most. He wasn't prepared to really walk Paulie down and open up, he also looked frustrated at times behind all the clowning.

He's simply not very good. He has very good handspeed and accuracy, OK power, and that's it. Defense average, stamina and workrate below average, movement below average, etc, etc.

 

Depends on who it is.

Based on styles, I think guys like Rios and Garcia are made for him.

I think Matthyse would knock him out.

Khan would give him trouble if his chin wasn't pathetic, but it is.

Bradley would be trouble for him.

Floyd? We already know he could never beat Floyd. Until the day Floyd has two feet in the grave.

 

So don't write off David Price just yet! ::

 

We'll see. I still think he has potential to be very good. Great? Probably not, but I never bought into any greatness hype about him.

The only apparent thing is he's not a once in a generation talent like Floyd is, and Roy was.

 

Looking at Broner's career to date, he has been very one-dimensional.

 

I disagree. Although Broner is talented He's not that good of a fighter. Ponce De Leon beat him IMO that really goes to show how much of a hype job Broner is. He's too flat footed and a guy like Rios who brings tremendous pressure will cause havoc for him. Rios will keep coming and is a very good puncher with a very good chin. If Paulie was able to touch up Broner with body shots can you imagine what Rios could do?