Best ESB Film Analysts?

[cross_trainer]

To begin with, I'm not one of them.






Who are the best posters here at analyzing styles on film? If you wanted to judge a fighter's ability from some Youtube clips, which posters would you contact? (Both General and Classic forums apply)



Two come to mind initially--Manassa and Achilles. Kurgan was pretty good at it when he takes the time. Who are the others?

[Manassa]

This is the second time you've nominated me in the last few days, cross_trainer, but I really don't deserve it. And I'm not just saying that to sound modest (because I'm an arrogant fuck), I just haven't posted anything worthwhile in a long time.

[cross_trainer]

This is the second time you've nominated me in the last few days, cross_trainer,.

Yep.


but I really don't deserve it. And I'm not just saying that to sound modest (because I'm an arrogant fuck),,.

I know. :yep

But you're a good analyst, as your dissection of Louis and Pep demonstrates. The fact that you haven't had an opportunity to prove that analytical ability recently doesn't diminish it.



I just haven't posted anything worthwhile in a long time.

Which is why it's good that you're back, particularly since recently discussions in the Classic section have revolved around boxing technique of the 30's-60's and whether it proves the strength of eras. I've made this thread as the first step to creating a way to get more objective analysis on all fighters--by putting together a committee to refer questions to. From what I've seen, you, Kurgan, and Achilles fit the bill well.

[Amsterdam]

I'm very good at this actually, I use film to pick fights and have a high success rate at doing so. Rarely do people disagree with me in fantasy match ups when it comes to a stylistic comparison and then a projection just off of that.

Of course, I'd come from the general forum and only hold this statement in accordance to modern boxing.

[Manassa]

Yep.



I know. :yep

But you're a good analyst, as your dissection of Louis and Pep demonstrates. The fact that you haven't had an opportunity to prove that analytical ability recently doesn't diminish it.





Which is why it's good that you're back, particularly since recently discussions in the Classic section have revolved around boxing technique of the 30's-60's and whether it proves the strength of eras. I've made this thread as the first step to creating a way to get more objective analysis on all fighters--by putting together a committee to refer questions to. From what I've seen, you, Kurgan, and Achilles fit the bill well.

Over the weekend I'll make a special effort to make some decent posts.

[cross_trainer]

Over the weekend I'll make a special effort to make some decent posts.

:good

[cross_trainer]

I'm very good at this actually, I use film to pick fights and have a high success rate at doing so. Rarely do people disagree with me in fantasy match ups when it comes to a stylistic comparison and then a projection just off of that.

Of course, I'd come from the general forum and only hold this statement in accordance to modern boxing.

Post an example of your best analysis. Consider it a competition. :D

[Dempsey1238]

Me.

[McGrain]

How else would you appraise a fighter? I mean if there is a film of him at all.

With one or two exceptions, isn't this another way of saying, "who do you agree with the most?"

Possibly CT's fine debates with Amsterdam illustrate this as well as anything else - you'll generally feel the guy who "won" is the guy who you agreed with before the first post.

[Amsterdam]

Post an example of your best analysis. Consider it a competition. :D

I throw 'em out all the time mate.

The one running now is that stylistically, Pavlik makes short work of Jermain Taylor. I have come to the conclusion after detailed study of both on tape.

- For a top level guy, Taylor has relatively poor footwork.

- Taylor has a poor defence, poor accuracy and limited head movement.

- Taylor has been slighly buzzed by Wright and Ouma, indicating possible chin problems, they were slight, but they were also visible if you watch hard enough.

- Taylor doesn't react well to pressure or bullying, he loses game plan.

- Taylor's speed is only marginally better than Pavlik's, he's also not an excellent power puncher.

So basically, his claim to fame is competitive fights with Hopkins and Wright, he matched up well stylistically with Hopkins because Hopkins can be offset by a jab and Taylor's right had Hopkins thinking far too much instead of throwing, this is all just a stylistic flaw from Hopkins, who's a tactical inside fighter for the most part and conservative.

Against Wright, he was being pushed around and owned at times, he used his size and heart to come back into it, it also helped that Wright cannot hit a lick, but he displayed immense problems that a pressure fighter would just have their way with, which is Pavlik.

Ouma also exposed his pressure coping skills and survival skills to be very poor, if you are observant, which many boxing fans in the general forum and from the classic have not noted. Many good posters who know about the game even think that someone staying on top of him with a workrate will benefit him, when I've found that it disrupts him completely.

Pavlik KO from rounds 3-7, I'll chose 5.

[mcvey]

But you are truthful:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Amsterdam]

How else would you appraise a fighter? I mean if there is a film of him at all.

With one or two exceptions, isn't this another way of saying, "who do you agree with the most?"

Possibly CT's fine debates with Amsterdam illustrate this as well as anything else - you'll generally feel the guy who "won" is the guy who you agreed with before the first post.

CT is a great film analyst, he often sells himself short, I've read many boxing write ups from many seasoned 'experts' and CT's own personal analysation's have been as good or better in my opinion.

I told him 'just because they have credentials and are high up, doesn't make them any better'.

[McGrain]

CT is a great film analyst.

I agree, he's my favourite.

My point is more along the lines of people will see what they want to see.

[Amsterdam]

Well your whole, Roy Jones stops Hagler in 10 thing has me questioning that greatly.

I said that it was 'possible', not a 'definite'.

I also said that it would be accumulative damage, not a 'KO'.

[janitor]

I throw 'em out all the time mate.

The one running now is that stylistically, Pavlik makes short work of Jermain Taylor. I have come to the conclusion after detailed study of both on tape.

- For a top level guy, Taylor has relatively poor footwork.

- Taylor has a poor defence, poor accuracy and limited head movement.

- Taylor has been slighly buzzed by Wright and Ouma, indicating possible chin problems, they were slight, but they were also visible if you watch hard enough.

- Taylor doesn't react well to pressure or bullying, he loses game plan.

- Taylor's speed is only marginally better than Pavlik's, he's also not an excellent power puncher.

So basically, his claim to fame is competitive fights with Hopkins and Wright, he matched up well stylistically with Hopkins because Hopkins can be offset by a jab and Taylor's right had Hopkins thinking far too much instead of throwing, this is all just a stylistic flaw from Hopkins, who's a tactical inside fighter for the most part and conservative.

Against Wright, he was being pushed around and owned at times, he used his size and heart to come back into it, it also helped that Wright cannot hit a lick, but he displayed immense problems that a pressure fighter would just have their way with, which is Pavlik.

Ouma also exposed his pressure coping skills and survival skills to be very poor, if you are observant, which many boxing fans in the general forum and from the classic have not noted. Many good posters who know about the game even think that someone staying on top of him with a workrate will benefit him, when I've found that it disrupts him completely.

Pavlik KO from rounds 3-7, I'll chose 5.

A bold prediction.

You are brave I will give you that.

Personaly I predict exactly how the fight will unfold but still manage to get the outcome wrong.

[McGrain]

To tell the truth, I don't think it's possible for him to stop him in any way, I think Roy would be on his bike the whole fight and have to win the pot-shot decision way.


Put it this way, Roy might start sitting down, but if he does that he risks losing the fight - assuming he has a lead (a big assumption) I agree, he'd be on his bike for 12/15.

[Amsterdam]

To tell the truth, I don't think it's possible for him to stop him in any way, I think Roy would be on his bike the whole fight and have to win the pot-shot decision way.

Roy would be landing a lot of combinations all night long. He was always on his bike at times, he was a fighter who ran and counter punched, but also jumped in with his speed and exploded with a hail storm of punches at times also, making him exciting.

[doublesuited]

boxbible and Manassa are the first two who come to mind.

[doublesuited]

And me.

[Manassa]

boxbible and Manassa are the first two who come to mind.

Bollocks, you hate me.

[doublesuited]

Bollocks, you hate me.I don't hate you. I just find entertainment in making jokes about you. Doesn't mean I can't recognize that you're an excellent poster who provides quality insight on boxing, among other things.

[doublesuited]

Definitly, you are also my favourite poster on the whole board. :goodAh, yes. I need to start sharing more of my excellent views on boxing.

[doublesuited]

And in terms of people who think that they how to analyze boxing, Sweet Pea is your guy.

My left nut has more boxing knowledge than Sweet Pea. Hell, even China_hand_Joe's clit has more boxing knowledge.

[Amsterdam]

A bold prediction.

You are brave I will give you that.

Personaly I predict exactly how the fight will unfold but still manage to get the outcome wrong.

Has little to do with 'boldness' or 'brave', this is how the fight is going to happen by my estimation after a careful study, could even happen easier for Pavlik if he came out guns blazing for this occassion and cracked Taylor's suspect jaw.

But watch out Janitor, people will be flipping out after the result and will proclaim Pavlik as a top P4P fighter, even though I stand by the fact that this is bout contested between two B+ level, non-P4P operators.