Isn't there a silver lining to Kirkland and Lemiuex being knocked out?
Dan Rafael from ESPN (among others) said that Kirkland and Lemiuex may never be factors again in Boxing. I think this is very harsh, especially considering the likes of Wlad Klitschko and Amir Khan both coming back from much more brutal knockouts early in their careers.
They are both young fighters, and losses like these will make them realize their weakness and work on it, so they will become better fighters in the long term. Better something like this happen to them while they are young and can have lots of time to improve, rather then if they got older, continued to win, and then were exposed with less time in their careers to get better.
Do you agree? Or have you come to the conclusion that both will probably never be much of a factor again?
@Seabiscuit: I agree, nice post.
@Richard: No doubt man, you're totally right. Lemieux can't run through guys just because of his power. It kind of reminds me of Kermit Cintron when he fought Margarito both times. Plaster aside, Kermit had no back up plan when he realized Margarito could take his shots and not go down. Same thing with Victor Ortiz, when Maidana took his shots and never stopped coming forward, Ortiz realized he couldn't outpunch the guy and wasn't capable of outboxing him, so he folded. Power can only get you so far at the elite level.
- 10 years agoFavorite Answer
Rafael, who was critical of the Youtube boxing community and many others who were not him, is being needlessly harsh. He sounds like these casual fans who don't follow the sport much.
Lemieux, for all his power, has very little experience doing much of anything other than just walking in and trying to fire his punches through people. It would work like a charm against the lesser-tier opponents that were feeding him at this stage, but against a real, experienced professional like Marco Antonio Rubio, who was not going to be intimidated, it was not going to work and it didn't. Because Lemieux's reach is just 64 inches, he has to work to get inside on his opponents and fire away. Jabbing once in a while and moving would go a long way to helping the young Canadian, who is a hard worker and should take this loss as a reason to work on defense.
As for Kirkland, I have to admit, his loss against a light puncher was shocking, considering he's taken bigger, harder shots flush on the chin and still kept coming forward. All that time off, plus the weight gain, didn't do him any good, unfortunately. His hyper-busy comeback schedule did not help any either, as he was wobbled in his last fight and nearly stopped. Kirkland, if he can get back down to 154, will have regained his speed, power, and maybe his chin, which was better then. He should, more than anything, work on defense and stop trying to be Harry Greb. It will do wonders for him.
I am not counting either man out just yet. Let's see how they do in their next fights, let's see if they've improved or not.
- Anonymous10 years ago
As a fighter I could care less about a fighter getting beat that is part of the game. The problem now days we have a small group of people who put everything on a perfect record including some of the media and promoters. The promoters know that undefeated records sell better than a guy with a couple of losses. The two fighters you mention were never going to be anything. I have only seen Lemiuex fight once and I was not impressed as far as Kirkland he is just a tough kid who does not know how to box and if you go back on my post you will see I have been saying this forever. Someone above me made the statement that Khan, Klitchko and a couple of other fighters had gotten better after being beaten a couple on tmes some fighters do get better but not these two they got better matched thats all they are the same fighters they were before they got beat the first time . To fight at a high level you have to spar and fight guys at a high level you don't become great by your self you have to have a great partner. I love to bet on fights and for the most part I do very well but the promoters are making it really hard on me because they are bring guys in that we don't get a chance to see and we know the guy they are fighting is only brought in to lose and he wins. Boxing is a mess right now I have all ways said that boxing is the truth sport it always comes out in the ring.
- 10 years ago
^ I see some great points from Pretty Boy but slow down mate. Let me correct you on a few points.
- Jon Jones isn't undefeated. He has 1 loss. Though I see your point since his loss was technically a DQ loss. I though he was handily winning that fight.
- Pacquiao-Morales 1 was a close but clear win for Morales. All judges had scores of 115-113, 7 rounds to 5 in favor of Morales. That's as close as it can get as far as clear wins are concerned. Saying "he wasn't able to do anything in their first fight" is going overboard, especially considering the the huge cut from a headbutt and the 10oz gloves.
The perfect example is actually Canadian George St. Pierre. After that humiliating upset loss to Matt Serra, he is now 10x better. He used the loss as a fuel to become even better than he already is. Whenever he wins matches, he tells his opponents "this will make you stronger." Kirkland and Lemiuex can get a lot from that ideology. Of course in boxing, Manny Pacquiao is the perfect example. A guy who lost in his early career and is now at the top of the sport.
- Pretty Boy FloydLv 510 years ago
I think people read way too much into losses these days.They are very few fighters at the top of their game who are still undefeated.With the exception of Mayweather and Jon Jones from the UFC just about every fighter has suffered losses at some point of his career.Just about every top fighter in MMA has losses.Manny Pacquiao even suffered a couple of embarrassing defeats then came back and then lost again to Morales but look where he is now.Look where Amir Khan is now after his KO loss to Prescott and where is Prescott,nowhere to be seen that's where.
It's only natural for fighters who possess power to be naive enough to think that they can blow everyone away.Pacquiao is the perfect example.He couldn't do nothing to Morales in their 1st fight then adjusted and KO Morales in the 2nd and the 3rd fight.Guys like Lemieux and Kirkland can only learn from these losses and found out that this is boxing and having power is only a small part of the sport.Source(s): @Truth X- I know Jones has that DQ loss but he was easily winning the fight as you said and know one has even come close to beating him What i meant regarding Pacquiao is that he never looked like he was going to get the knock down he needed until Morales switched to south paw in the last round and by that time Morales knew he had the fight won.I only used Pacquiao as an example because he's come back from big losses. You make a good point about GSP.He suffered a embarrassing KO loss to Matt Serra and came back and won his title by destroying Serra.He also vowed never to let that mistake happen again and has so far kept to his word!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- RichardLv 610 years ago
Couldnt agree with you more, I think in both cases both boxers have been protected slightly to try and build up their star status but overlooking their overall progression as a result.Lemiuex was never going to just turn up and KO all the top stars once he got to that level, this will have taught him lesons regarding stamina and not leaving himself open,he needs to learn to win a fight on points if need be and not just recklessly go after the KO.
Kirkland must have learned that he needs to work on his defense, being knocked down (they may have been flash KD's but they still count) 3 times by someone not known for either their agression or punching power will hopefully have taught him to watch his back and that he is not invincible.
Both are exciting boxers and if they have no part to play in (mainstream)boxing anymore then that is boxings loss. Boxing cannot afford for critics to simply write off boxers after one loss, far too much is made about boxers losses, it is how they respond to these that is the making of a true fighter.If both the boxers mentioned can work on the aspects of their game that let them down they will make for good viewing in future and I will support them.
- SeabiscuitLv 710 years ago
I only saw Kirkland's and I don't think he took a career damaging KO, he was able to get up 3 times, it's just that his eyes were a little glossy. Time will tell if he has a glass jaw or not, but I think he if he has any type of dedication than he can come back. Sometimes you need that lost to help you improve and it could end up a blessing for him. He had to of learned that he needs to respect his opponents more and not try to run through them.
- Anonymous10 years ago
Both of them are young. They have long ways to go. A knock out loss doesn't guarantee you are washed up. In fact some of the greatest fighters in the world became better after a knock out loss.
- Anonymous10 years ago
I think the lineage will be a great factor for deciding if a boxer can still push through with his career. For Lemieux since he's from white American descent the chance of coming back successfully is very high, whereas Kirkland a black American may experience a lot more hilarious knockouts from feather-fisted fighters. You know the trend mate - it only takes one punch, same is true with Jacobs and Williams, have they come back recently? I guess not.
- Anonymous10 years ago
Lemiuex got tired while that black boy James Kirkland just do not know what the hell to do when he is getting attacked!