Yup. I love the bluntness of the boxing analysists.......... especially Lampley.G. Keenan wrote:You're right. That one judge did give it to Spinks 117-111, which prompted Lampley to say that he should never be allowed to judge again. That cracked me up.Socnorb11 wrote:I don't necessarily disagree that it was a solid strategy to keep from getting knocked out, but there was no way he was going to win the fight like that, so what's the point?G. Keenan wrote:As I understood it Taylor's camp had offered that fight to many people before Spinks. If I'm Spinks and someone offers me a bunch of money to fight a guy I know I don't match up well against I'd do the exact same thing. No way does Taylor actually way only 160 lbs and no way can Spinks out-punch him. I thought he had pretty good strategy all things considered: counter-punch against a slower fighter and hope to steal the title.Socnorb11 wrote:I just watched it.
REALLY bad fight. I feel sorry for the folks that paid good money for tickets.
I was hoping Spinks would win, but it's hard to respect a guy like him that refuses to fight, and just runs all night.......
Spinks will have a hard time getting another lucrative payday, simply because boxing fans likely won't pay to watch him fight again.
Spinks vs Taylor Fight
-
Socnorb11
- The Last Word
- Posts: 21906
- Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
- Blitzer
- All-Star
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: May 4 06, 1:16 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
- Contact:
Yeah Pavlik definitely put on a show. That was a much better fight than the latter.robbotis wrote:That fight was a bore. Spinks can't hurt a fly.
But what about the Undercard? That was the fight.
Pavlik is the man.
Spinks' style is effective, but VERY boring. The way he fought was the best chance he had at beating Taylor. Though I did feel quite bored watching Taylor swat away the punches as if they were merely an annoying knat at a BBQ.
Blitzer
