Frampton vs.Gonzalez Jr

Henno30

It's hard to put Frampton's performance into perspective without seeing what Gonzalez does against another top level fighter. In the circumstances I was impressed with how he dug it out, but the fight raises questions. Gonzalez doesn't have the resume of a puncher but he hurt Carl several times throughout the night. Carl's lack of head and upper body movement was very noticeable, and if they're thinking about featherweight then they'd seriously need to think about how they're going to address that. Given how short he is it's a real problem.

Frampton's work is still beautiful at times though. He's so sharp and neat when he gets the upper hand. And he will have earned a lot of respect with the Mexican audience last night. At the very least he has put himself on their radar which was the main objective last night after all.

walshb

Not sure why some think weight may not have been an issue. Carl is ripped at the weight. Remember, 6 years ago he was winning an Irish title aged 22/23 at 125 lbs, and now, 6 years later he's still 3 to 4 lbs lighter.Maintaining that weight as a mature man must be extremely difficult, and his height has little to do with it. His body and frame is as it is.

efb

Has Team McGuigan brought him as far as they can?

Henno30

No better man than Haymon to sow the seeds of discontent.

Big Ears

When I saw Frampton in the ring before the fight, the first thing that came to mind was how much bigger he looked from the Avalos fight.
I believe Shane McGuigan has a Sports Science degree and more importantly is also Poliquin trained, on top of this Frampton also works with the guys from ISI (The Irish Strength Institue) who are well regarded and also sort Conor McGregor's S&C work.

But with all that in mind by, by mistake or design they've overdone it on the hypertrophy. Too much bulk clearly made the weight cut too severe, and he looked a weight drained fighter in the way he fought. Regardless of how heavy handed Gonzalez is, Frampton has always shown a very solid chin, and he was hurt by some average looking shots. His own shots seemed to lack their usual snap, and his movement was off aswell.

He's got the right guys behind him to maintain most of his strength and speed, while reducing muscle mass slightly, there's certainly no need for him to go to Featherweight.
I suppose one benefit of this fight is other top fighters certainly won't have any fear of getting in the ring with him, and it may help get him fights.

As for Gonzalez, he was probably better than we expected, but I'm not willing to label him a top fighter yet. I think a good inside fighter who'll push him back would do a job on him. The only reason Frampton didn't fight that way is he looked troubled almost everytime a decent shot landed on him.

I also didn't see the last 3 rounds of the Crolla fight, but Perez had been doing the much better work before that for me. A battle of the jabs which he was winning, and with that in mind even if he lost the last 3 and with the point off I still wouldn't call the draw a robbery against Crolla. Sky's cheerleading of him was outrageous as usual. Not as bad as the time they painted a picture of him putting a clinic on Gavin Rees, when in truth Rees was actually outworking and outfighting him, but bad all the same.

mushykeogh

Big Ears wrote: »

I believe Shane McGuigan has a Sports Science degree and more importantly is also Poliquin trained,

Poliquin is widely regarded as a complete clown by anyone with a shred of knowledge in S&C.

gaybeer

Has anyone heard rumours of Frampton getting knocked out in sparring? Not the most reliable of sources Eddie Hearn!

Big Ears

mushykeogh wrote: »

Poliquin is widely regarded as a complete clown by anyone with a shred of knowledge in S&C.

He's a controversial figure no doubt, and does indeed say a lot of bull**** and spend a lot of time pushing supplements with little peer reviewed evidence.

However I've a degree in Sports Science, an MSc in S&C, CSCS accredited, have worked as a Lecturer in Sport. I've also worked as an S&C coach with Professional teams & International & Olympic level athletes.....so I've likely got a shred of knowledge in S&C.
Now despite me not believing in a huge amount of what he does/suggests, to call him a complete clown is just simply incorrect.

When you ignore all the bells and whistles, most people I've met who've trained under him are pretty knowledgeable and decent coaches. Now maybe that's coincidence, and that people who are willing to spend vast sums of money and time are likely to pick up some good knowledge somewhere, but I'd find it more likely that people are indeed learning some things of value from him.

mushykeogh

Big Ears wrote: »

However I've a degree in Sports Science, an MSc in S&C, CSCS accredited, have worked as a Lecturer in Sport. I've also worked as an S&C coach with Professional teams & International & Olympic level athletes.....so I've likely got a shred of knowledge in S&C.

So do i, and UKSCA accredited, and accredited with the Irish institute of Sport, and i still think he is a clown!

Big Ears

mushykeogh wrote: »

So do i, and UKSCA accredited, and accredited with the Irish institute of Sport, and i still think he is a clown!

Fair enough, we'll agree to differ on that. I'm not a particular fan of him, I just believe 'complete clown' is overly harsh considering the success he's had with athletes, and also the quality of some of the coaches I've met who've done some of his courses.

In fact aren't the guys who own the Irish Institute of Sport themselves Poliquin trained ?

mushykeogh

Big Ears wrote: »

Fair enough, we'll agree to differ on that. I'm not a particular fan of him, I just believe 'complete clown' is overly harsh considering the success he's had with athletes, and also the quality of some of the coaches I've met who've done some of his courses.

In fact aren't the guys who own the Irish Institute of Sport themselves Poliquin trained ?

Your confusing the irish strength institute with the irish institute of sport!

walshb

Big Ears wrote: »

I also didn't see the last 3 rounds of the Crolla fight, but Perez had been doing the much better work before that for me. A battle of the jabs which he was winning, and with that in mind even if he lost the last 3 and with the point off I still wouldn't call the draw a robbery against Crolla. Sky's cheerleading of him was outrageous as usual. Not as bad as the time they painted a picture of him putting a clinic on Gavin Rees, when in truth Rees was actually outworking and outfighting him, but bad all the same.

The problem with sky and their punditry is that if their guy is any way competitive they are shocked and disgusted if the guy loses, failing that, they are shocked that they lost by a wide score.

I thought the fight was very pedestrian. Predictable and one paced. Two very ordinary boxers. Crolla's work was boring, but he was working, and that is why he did well.

walshb

Regarding Carl. I think the criticism, constructive and otherwise is a little OTT. Carl boxed as good as ever, the same Carl from previous fights. He happened to get caught a few times and was wobbled. It's pro boxing, and can happen to anyone. The opponent had a good dig on him. A foe's record can be misleading. In boxing a few heavy shots here and there can change a fight.

Carl knew that when he was in range this guy could hurt him, but he also knew that he had to be aggressive to win, and aggressive to make sure the 1st rd 10-7 score didn't leave him playing catch up too much. He went out there with real character and guts, and championship mentality, and won back the fight convincingly. Walked through some heavy shots to get his own, and more off! Boxed very fluidly and showed excellent stamina and variation. Overall the performance was a positive one. That guy was no slouch.

Spudman_20000

walshb wrote: »

Regarding Carl. I think the criticism, constructive and otherwise is a little OTT. Carl boxed as good as ever, the same Carl from previous fights. He happened to get caught a few times and was wobbled. It's pro boxing, and can happen to anyone. The opponent had a good dig on him. A foe's record can be misleading. In boxing a few heavy shots here and there can change a fight.

Carl knew that when he was in range this guy could hurt him, but he also knew that he had to be aggressive to win, and aggressive to make sure the 1st rd 10-7 score didn't leave him playing catch up too much. He went out there with real character and guts, and championship mentality, and won back the fight convincingly. Walked through some heavy shots to get his own, and more off! Boxed very fluidly and showed excellent stamina and variation. Overall the performance was a positive one. That guy was no slouch.

My biggest concern for Carl is his defence. Keeping his hands so low is a recipe for disaster and it's only going to get worse as his opposition improves down the line.

One thing I've learned watching boxing all these years is that if your defence is this leaky at this point of his career, it ain't going to improve.

Big Ears

mushykeogh wrote: »

Your confusing the irish strength institute with the irish institute of sport!

Sorry, knackered and just misread your post.

walshb

Spudman_20000 wrote: »

One thing I've learned watching boxing all these years is that if your defence is this leaky at this point of his career, it ain't going to improve.

I think some fighters are the way they are. They stand and position the way they are. It's just who they are as stylists. Can be very difficult to change that without disrupting who they are as fighters, and how successful they are as fighters. Couple tweaks here and there can help.