Tweet
Amongst fighters, rivalries beyond that described by governing body’s contention ranks are commonplace. For the most part they’re good for the game. They provide knowledge about boxer’s, psyche, skills and determination. Furthermore they can drive a fighter to aspire for a more comprehensive and conclusive win. Out of this, both the promoters and the fans can win because everyone knows no matter what is said, only one fighter can win. There were no exceptions to this with respect to the rivalry between Glen Kelly and Paul Briggs as their careers dovetailed into common ground and they approached each other on a collision course in 2002.
Common opponents often allow analysts insights as to how fights may unfold and for the most part they make interesting breakdowns. Observing each boxer’s capabilities and adjustments in response to a similar opponent’s style, power, and strategy, casts some light on how each boxer may respond to the strengths and weaknesses of each other when they meet. At the time Kelly and Briggs shared previous common domestic opponents in Paul Smallman and Jaimie Wallace, and both opponents were considered very capable and durable domestic opponents when Briggs and Kelly both beat them.
A noteworthy fact presenting itself from this is that Briggs didn’t require overtime for the same assignments, and that Kelly did - again Briggs had completed his work before the time allocated.
Briggs had KO’d both Smallman and Wallace before the end of the 4th stanza, whilst Kelly had defeated them both via points decisions approximately 3-4 years earlier than when Briggs had feasted on them. Perhaps Kelly had them when they were much less shop worn, there certainly can be a case put forward for that viewpoint. However, armed with benefit that hindsight now allows us to see past Briggs’ performance in the Wallace & Smallman bouts, the smart money says If Briggs would have fought them when Kelly did, Briggs most likely would’ve still won both fights by KO. [details]
Common opponents often allow analysts insights as to how fights may unfold and for the most part they make interesting breakdowns. Observing each boxer’s capabilities and adjustments in response to a similar opponent’s style, power, and strategy, casts some light on how each boxer may respond to the strengths and weaknesses of each other when they meet. At the time Kelly and Briggs shared previous common domestic opponents in Paul Smallman and Jaimie Wallace, and both opponents were considered very capable and durable domestic opponents when Briggs and Kelly both beat them.
A noteworthy fact presenting itself from this is that Briggs didn’t require overtime for the same assignments, and that Kelly did - again Briggs had completed his work before the time allocated.
Briggs had KO’d both Smallman and Wallace before the end of the 4th stanza, whilst Kelly had defeated them both via points decisions approximately 3-4 years earlier than when Briggs had feasted on them. Perhaps Kelly had them when they were much less shop worn, there certainly can be a case put forward for that viewpoint. However, armed with benefit that hindsight now allows us to see past Briggs’ performance in the Wallace & Smallman bouts, the smart money says If Briggs would have fought them when Kelly did, Briggs most likely would’ve still won both fights by KO. [details]
Comment