Dare I say Glen Johnson is a bitch???

I'm tired of fans defending this guy. All he does is complain about decisions that go against him. There is a way around that, knock out your opponent and take the fight out of the judges hands or shut the fuck up.

i kinda agree, he has become a guy who takes top fighters close, but loses, almost getting to journeyman status. and yea if you hate the judges that much, knock the fucker out

Fights should be judged fairly. Go look back at the career of Jimmy Young and you'll see the same problem. Young won fights that were taken away from him. I understand where you guys are coming from. It does become annoying hearing the same guy complain about the same thing time after time. However, what if he's right? Also, everyone's not Marvin Hagler. Hagler started knocking people out when he realized decisions were not going to go his way since he didn't sign his life and money away to a big promoter. Glen doesn't possess that kind of power but is a pit- bull like fighter who stays on top of his opponent and wears him down. Glen's problems come from boxing not being a legislated sport. If you're not signed with a major promotion company, you can forget about a decision win against a name fighter. This has to change and I believe it will change. That's when the fans will get to see what they used to see. Great fights between great fighters on a consistent basis. Also, I think I may've put too many positive posts up about Glen which has the opposite effect on some people. He's not a bitch. He's a helluva fighter. He's fans just go overboard at times, me included.

I won't say he's a bitch because he never shies away from fights and generally takes less money to make them work. Plus I love to watch him fight. He's still slipping punches and landing his shots.

I am however, sick of guys complaining about scoring. The smaller name fighter, the away fighter, the less active fighter, or the aging (as opposed to up and coming fighter) is always at a disadvantage if it goes to the judges. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the way it is and has been for a long time.

It could be that way because of corruption; or because the crowd's influence; or the judges preconceived beliefs affecting how they perceive the fight; or because the judges don't have the same angles and replays we do watching at home; or because they are able to see different things up close; or any number of things. The point is judges can't be relied upon to give a fair scorecard when two fighters of different statuses are involved.

That's something a fighter has to prepare for. If a fighter doesn't prepare for it, they shouldn't complain because it's a part of the sport. Winning rounds decisively or ending the fight has to be part of the game plan for any challenger.

+1 Gumby, the scoring is the issue here

How many guys ranked in the top 10(of all weight classes) have a good knockout % for their wins? ALOT.

How many of those same guys have a decent % of knockouts against other top 10 ranked fighters? VERY FEW

Boxing is full of guys who make it to the top 10 and have been knocking out bums, journeymen, fellow prospects, and other contenders. When they get to the top 10 level and face top 10 guys, they don't knock them out!!!!!!!!!!!

There aren't many guys with the type of knockout ability that can be carried against top competition. It is the exception, not the rule.


Did Glen take rounds off and not give everything he had? No, he worked his ass off to try to win that fight. I thought he won it. Opinion seems to be leaning towards a close Cloud win.

I dunno. I've always thought in any sport that if you leave the outcome uncertain enough that an official can reasonably decide the outcome? You don't really have a complaint. For all the talk I have yet to see Glenn Johnson robbed. I've seen him lose a series of competitive decisions.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

I dunno. I've always thought in any sport that if you leave the outcome uncertain enough that an official can reasonably decide the outcome? You don't really have a complaint. For all the talk I have yet to see Glenn Johnson robbed. I've seen him lose a series of competitive decisions.

Yeah, but Marble, it's the nature of the sport that bothers me. He come out as the loser because he doesn't have a big promoter. I can see this type of thing happening in the 50's, but it's a little too late not to have major legislation in boxing. This is the 21st century.

Not to mention the 00's, 10's 20's etc. It is a subjective sport even if it is 100% fair.

Not sure there is anything to be done. I mean heck even we can't agree on the Johnson fight.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Not to mention the 00's, 10's 20's etc. It is a subjective sport even if it is 100% fair.

Not sure there is anything to be done. I mean heck even we can't agree on the Johnson fight.

: It was close enough to go either way. We agree on that. Let me make myself clear. Here's a better example. I don't think Marvin Hagler should've had to go through all the trouble he did to get a title shot. If our sport was legislated, he would've been a mandatory for Hugo Corro. Either Corro fights or is stripped of the title.

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Not to mention the 00's, 10's 20's etc. It is a subjective sport even if it is 100% fair.

Not sure there is anything to be done. I mean heck even we can't agree on the Johnson fight.

: It was close enough to go either way. We agree on that. Let me make myself clear. Here's a better example. I don't think Marvin Hagler should've had to go through all the trouble he did to get a title shot. If our sport was legislated, he would've been a mandatory for Hugo Corro. Either Corro fights or is stripped of the title.

And you base that on the Gov't long history of expertise in providing residential mortgages (both Fannie and Freddie bankrupt), it's history of honesty and fair dealing (Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters anyone?) or is it the ease and convenience of dealing with say the department of motor vehicles?

I don't see ANY reason to believe the gov't is a good answer here. For the fans? The best answer is probably a UFC/Baseball/Jim Norris and the Mob style monopoly.

But if I were a fighter? That's the LAST thing I'd want.

Let me ask you a question in return. Would you guess Marvin's career earnings would have been higher in a "legislated" sport?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Not to mention the 00's, 10's 20's etc. It is a subjective sport even if it is 100% fair.

Not sure there is anything to be done. I mean heck even we can't agree on the Johnson fight.

: It was close enough to go either way. We agree on that. Let me make myself clear. Here's a better example. I don't think Marvin Hagler should've had to go through all the trouble he did to get a title shot. If our sport was legislated, he would've been a mandatory for Hugo Corro. Either Corro fights or is stripped of the title.

And you base that on the Gov't long history of expertise in providing residential mortgages (both Fannie and Freddie bankrupt), it's history of honesty and fair dealing (Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters anyone?) or is it the ease and convenience of dealing with say the department of motor vehicles?
I don't see ANY reason to believe the gov't is a good answer here. For the fans? The best answer is probably a UFC/Baseball/Jim Norris and the Mob style monopoly.

But if I were a fighter? That's the LAST thing I'd want.

Let me ask you a question in return. Would you guess Marvin's career earnings would have been higher in a "legislated" sport?

You missed me on this one by a mile, however I'll take the blame. No, I'm not an Obamacare guy and the less the government controls our lives, the better. However, the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. have a better system than boxing. If government cannot put an NFL like commission in place, than who can? Where did the NFL commission come from? How did Pete Rozelle do what he did? This is what I want for boxing. A commission, one title per weight division with a union for the figthers. Also, a responsible ratings system. How are we to put that together? I agree, the govt. is not the answer given their track record, however what is??

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Not to mention the 00's, 10's 20's etc. It is a subjective sport even if it is 100% fair.

Not sure there is anything to be done. I mean heck even we can't agree on the Johnson fight.

: It was close enough to go either way. We agree on that. Let me make myself clear. Here's a better example. I don't think Marvin Hagler should've had to go through all the trouble he did to get a title shot. If our sport was legislated, he would've been a mandatory for Hugo Corro. Either Corro fights or is stripped of the title.

And you base that on the Gov't long history of expertise in providing residential mortgages (both Fannie and Freddie bankrupt), it's history of honesty and fair dealing (Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters anyone?) or is it the ease and convenience of dealing with say the department of motor vehicles?
I don't see ANY reason to believe the gov't is a good answer here. For the fans? The best answer is probably a UFC/Baseball/Jim Norris and the Mob style monopoly.

But if I were a fighter? That's the LAST thing I'd want.

Let me ask you a question in return. Would you guess Marvin's career earnings would have been higher in a "legislated" sport?

You missed me on this one by a mile, however I'll take the blame. No, I'm not an Obamacare guy and the less the government controls our lives, the better. However, the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. have a better system than boxing. If government cannot put an NFL like commission in place, than who can? Where did the NFL commission come from? How did Pete Rozelle do what he did? This is what I want for boxing. A commission, one title per weight division with a union for the figthers. Also, a responsible ratings system. How are we to put that together? I agree, the govt. is not the answer given their track record, however what is??

The NFL sprung from the joining of several small leagues in the 1920's. Completely a private affair. It took off after WWII and became the only league (through merger with the AAC and attrition of the rest) until the AFL was formed in I think 1960. They merged in 1970ish. The NFL is entirely a function of smart businessmen that created a better product than the competition. But even the NFL gets challeneged from time to time. The World Football League destroyed the Dolphins dynasty, the USFL got Hershel Walker and Steve Young and the XFL tried as well. the story is similar with the NBA and NHL. MLB has an outrageous Congressional exemption from anti-trust laws.

I agree a monopoly sports product is better for the fans. But there's no way it is better for the fighters/players. See UFC paychecks as an example.

What's the answer? I think the answer lies in ESPN/HBO/Showtime (for starters) getting together and agreeing to not mention or recognize anything other than Ring Magazine Champions and ratings. The problem is the stupidity of fans who buy into the straps and accept the marketing of such. So promoters continue to feed on ignorance. Nothing new there

In other words, I have no enforceable answer.

We already have 3 boxing leagues boys:
Golden Boy
Top Rank
All other promoters

captainanddew wrote:

We already have 3 boxing leagues boys:
Golden Boy
Top Rank
All other promoters

I considered those when I wrote the post. They were my motivation.

I figured as much Frank.

captainanddew wrote:

I figured as much Frank.

Bitch is a strong word but I am fed up with Glen's constant complaining about decisions, the man is an extremely sore loser.