london2k

Guys, for what it's worth, a good friend of mine who is trainer to one world champ, and a few other contenders,  occasionally gives me tips. They are ALMOST always right. He tells me that Cunningham will easily handle the limited Mansour, and that -110 is incredible value.

Take it or leave it. Personally, I put a major lump on Cunningham.

In all fairness, Cunningham DOES have major skills, and turned up at the weigh-in in great shape. Mansour's one hope is landing the big KO shot, but will Cunningham LET him? Cunningham is world level, having beaten Adamek (and been robbed).

Who has Mansour beaten. An over the hill Maurice Harris and an ancient Dominick Guinn. And Mansour is now past 40 himself. What has he done to show that he deserves to be an even money fight with Cunningham who HAS been at world level...and WON there?

Without my friend's tip I probably wouldn't have thought to bet this fight, but when I look at it, and how Cunningham has shown true world class skill levels, and Mansour really has shown little other than having a big punch.....the bet makes good sense.

Great to see you back, man. Your picks are always solid.

Don't be a stranger!

I went to the weigh-in for Quigg/Munroe today, and also watched Ryan Rhodes and Rabchencko being weighed in. I was just a few feet from them and had a very good look.

A good friend of mine has been working with Rabchencko the last couple of weeks. Even HE says that Rabchencko has little chance to beat Rhodes.......he's just a little soft. I saw the same thing when they stripped down to be weighed. Despite being older, Rhodes in in amazing shape, and moves like a wolverine....quick, coordinated, dangerous. Rabchencko looks to be in decent shape, but not really great boxing shape. He's been highly protected so far, having fought next to nobody. Rhodes has fought at the highest Euro level, and though he lost to Saul Alvarez, he looked good, and made it to the 12th before losing by TKO. Rabchencko hasn't been NEAR anyone of that level.

The only reason the odds on this fight are close to even is that Rhodes is 35, but any fears I had about betting on a 35 year old disappeared today when I saw them both up close. Rhodes should run rings around Rabchencko, and is a bargain at -120 or so.

Being in the UK, I also have bets available on the method of victory, and can get +180 on a Rhodes by points outcome. Rabchencko is a big tough guy...though slow. Rhodes is a flashy boxer, so a points win by Rhodes at +180 is pretty tempting as well.

The small risk is that Rabchencko DOES have a very, very hard punch. I doubt he'll land it successfully, but there is an outside chance of him KOing Rhodes (though he'd never win on points, in particular in Manchester). So a small cover bet on Rachenko by KO could be do-able...and the odds are +300.

The main thing is that Rhodes is great value. Just seeing the two of them side-by-side was really revealing. Rab sort of plods around, looking slow and clumsy. Rhodes is like a coiled spring.

Rhodes....easy.

I'm going to the Scott Quiqq/Rendall Munroe fight in Manchester on Saturday, and have a fairly healthy bet on Munroe at +175, as I consider the fight to be a coin toss....and getting +175 on a coin toss is a great bet.

One of the undercard fights is Rhodes vs Rabchenko, and there is a betting line on the fight. I know next to nothing about Rabchenko, but since I'll be there watching, I wouldn't mind betting on the fight, if there's a sound reason to do so.

From what little I've seen of Rabchenko on Youtube, he seems to lack snap in his punches. But then Rhodes is getting up there in age.

'Anyone have any thoughts on this fight?

Many thanks.

I had a LARGE bet on Pac by KO...which I was SURE I was going to win after the first few rounds, when Pac was pounding Bradley, and it became obvious that despite looking in shape, Bradley has NO power.

But I also had a cover bet at +700 on Bradley by decision. Just enough to cover the loss on the Pac by KO bet, in case Bradley should get the points win.

Since I'm in the UK, the fight didn't end until 5AM my time, and I was falling asleep in my chair. As soon as the fight ended I went to bed, not bothering to stay awake to here the actual scorecards being read. It was so fucking obvious that Pac had won, and BOTH of my bets had gone down the toilet, that I just went to bed, kicked my wife, and went fast to sleep.

It felt like the Twilight Zone when I woke up this morning and saw the result. Although I was saved from a BIG loss by this fiasco, there is less than ZERO doubt that this was a complete screw job. There is no way that Bradley was even CLOSE to winning that fight.

I was watching a free stream online (and anyone who wants the site I use, just PM me...it carries EVERY fight for free). The only weapon we have against this thievery is to STOP paying for the Pay Per View fights. This is getting just stupid. The Pac/Marquez fight was bad enough.....but this is like the Great Train Robbery. Utterly fucking outrageous.

Thanks for screwing up my bet! I already have a good sized bet on Chambers, who is in TOP shape for this fight and as far as I'm concerned should be no worse than pick 'em. But now you, who as far as I know has NEVER won a bet that you posted here.....every....fucking...bet has lost, end up on the same side. I'm seriously tempted to put money on Adamek to cancel out my Chambers bet. Shit.

I think it's easy to over-analyse this fight.

To me it comes down to this....

Pac can almost certainly take Bradley's best punch, and keep on coming.

Bradley can almost certainly NOT take Pac's best punch, and would likely be KO'd by it.

If the above theory is indeed correct....Pac has no reason to avoid Bradley, he can wade in firing with both barrels. If Bradley slips up ONE time...his great footwork notwithstanding, the fight will be over.

You can get +150 on Pac by KO. So the linesmaker is saying that Bradley, on average, would only get caught once every 18 rounds.
I think that is WAY out of line. Bradley won't, I'm almost sure, be in the survival mode....just backpeddling to avoid exchanges. And if he gets into repeated exchanges, Pac is likely to land the big one.

This is like the Superbowl.....very often the line and matchup is one that you wouldn't even bother betting if the game were a regular season game.....but you bet it because everyone has to have a bet on the Superbowl. I don't see this as a great betting opportunity.......but because it's a "Superbowl-type" fight, I want some action on it. The Pac by KO at +150 seems the most logical way forward to me.

You're only getting +565 on Bradley by dec.?  See if you can open an account or two in the UK. You can get +700 here from about 5 different bookies. And unlike the ones in the islands, you will ALWAYS get paid by the UK books. Obviously, Pinny and a few other Caribbean books are pure gold, but a LOT of them are smoke and mirrors.

In the long run, the difference between only getting +565 and being able to get +700 can make the difference between a winning year and a losing year.

I make more money on the NFL than boxing, but do come out ahead most years on my boxing bets. But getting a line that's bad by +135 points is putting a HUGE load on yourself!

Sorry....I'm not getting this?  What bet is out there at "+16.5" on Bradley? It can't be round betting, as even a whitewash would only be 120-108...or 12 points........so what exactly does the +16.5 refer to?

Thanks,

This was a LOOOONG time ago, but looking back...I think it was 1982...which was a strike-shortened year. I was living the the 'States then.....in San Francisco, in fact. You won't read about it anywhere, because it wasn't treated as a big deal.....and I've never seen it used as a reason for the Niners going into the toilet after having just won a Superbowl....but it's my theory. I remember an obscure article in the SF Chronicle about the Niners' new "nutritional consultant" and how he was going to do away with the "old fashioned" dietary habits of NFL teams, which typically featured lots of beef and other fatty foods.

Nobody back then...including me.....knew that the diet that was so good for you in the LONG run, was the kiss of death if you were in a sport requiring explosive strength. The low fat, low cholesterol diet doesn't hurt marathon runners....in fact it makes them better at their sport. But for NFL, boxing, weights, etc, you NEED those high T levels. And if you take saturated fat out of your diet...you ain't going to have them...unless you're also juicing. Ok, some of the Niners no doubt WERE juicing....but not ALL of them. You don't have to compromise a whole team to turn them from winners to also-rans.

Bradley has a lot of skills, so he will still do well...but that's not really the issue. The issue is that if he was getting reasonable amounts of red meat....or other sources of cholesterol, he'd do even better.

As it happens, in my opinion, Bradley's BIGGEST problem is that he lacks a "keep away" punch. I don't know how many on here have ever boxed...more than a few I'd bet.....but anyone who's boxed knows that if you have no fear of your opponent's BEST punch....there's nothing to keep you from walking right through his defence....take a few shots on the way in that don't hurt you seriously, and then knock the fuck out of him.

This is what has made Wlad's career. Try bum rushing him and you'll get hit by his nuclear-powered overhand right...and everyone he fights KNOWS this. The fear of this punch keeps them away...just look at Haye, who seemed mostly concerned with not being a victim of Wlad's "money punch".

But Bradley doesn't really have that.....no super-hard overhand right....no terrifying left hook. So my guess is that Pac will not be afraid of taking a few medium-strength shots to get inside. And Pac DOES have a money punch, which I reckon he is going to successfully apply to Bradley's head. Kendal Holt put Bradley down twice. Holt's got a good punch, but not at the same level as Pac. So logic says that eventually Bradley's fancy footwork will fail him, and Pac will barge in and take him out.

But if the random flow of the fight ends up with Pac not being able to land the bomb, Bradley would have a chance to win on points. I don't think that's the most likely outcome, but a small cover bet at +700 seems sensible to me. My bets are sized in such a way that if Pac wins by KO, I clean up. If Bradley wins on points, I break even, as the winnings on that bet will just cover the loss on the Pac by KO bet. Any other result......and I'm toast:-)

The thing is, you wouldn't ever really "See a guy lose because of diet"....any more than you'd "see" a guy lose because he'd not been getting enough sleep, or been arguing with his wife. He'd just lose, and you wouldn't know why.

Diets low on animal fat, LOWER testosterone. This is a biological fact. Lower T means less power and aggression. I doubt anyone really disagrees with this any more.

The reason for this is that cholesterol is a precursor of testosterone...so if you want naturally high testosterone, you NEED the cholesterol. If Bradley isn't juicing he will come in with a severe disadvantage in the testosterone department.

Interestingly, a study was done with chimps, which are just a couple of DNA strands away from being humans. When they'd put two male chimps in a cage...they'd almost ALWAYS end up fighting. The scientists conducting the study would then draw blood and do testosterone tests on the chimps. The one with the higher testosterone levels was almost always the one who won.

This is just a tangent to the main arguments for who will win this fight, but it's not an insignificant one. But it's why I think that if the fight is a slugfest Bradley has little chance. But if the flow of the fight ends up being one of boxing, rather than slugging, Bradley might have a shot to win on points. Hence, the hedge bet on Bradley by dec.

I tend to agree with this play.......although for a slightly more obscure reason. I watched with some interest a video of a lean, glowing Bradley in the gym. He was extolling the virtues of his Vegan diet. He says he's now eating a soy-based protein, in the place of all animal protein.

Sorry, but Vegan may be the healthiest diet in the world, and it may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, and increase your life span....but it also lowers your testosterone. You need cholesterol to form testosterone.

Ironically, the diet most likely to make you a great athlete in the short run, which is a diet with plenty of animal fat and protein, is also the worst for you in the long run. But you FIGHT in the short run, and need those high T levels (in particular against Pac, who has....ehhmmm...VERY high T levels).

I remember back in the 80's after the Niners had won a number of Superbowls. Some new-age grass eater came along and took the whole team off their meat-based diet and had them eating fish and vegetables. Boom. They didn't even make the playoffs that year, with almost the same players as the year before.

You can't overstate the value of high testosterone in boxing (or most sports, for that matter), which is why so may boxers juice. Deliberately adopting a diet which will do the OPPOSITE of what you need to do to maintain high T levels can NOT be a good thing.
To make matters worse, soy increases estrogen in men, which is the last thing on earth you want if you're trying to compete in athletics at the highest levels.

Bradley is highly skilled, so he'll do well in SPITE of this, but I doubt he'll be able to overcome the handicap of his too-healthy diet against a T-monster like Pac.

My money is on a Pac KO, with a hedge of a Bradley on points.

'Not sure I agree. To me, betting is all about knowing things that everyone else doesn't know. What EVERYONE knows is already in the line...so there's no betting value. The fights at domestic level are often easier to get a bit of inside info on. Since I am friends with people inside British boxing, I often get reports on how people are looking in camp, for example.

In this case, I know that Quigg himself questioned how the hell he was a 2/1 favourite in the fight. That doesn't mean he won't win, but a lot of people, including one of the fighters, don't think the odds reflect the true abilities of the two fighters.

Another example is Haye/Chisora. Casual fans seem to like the Chisora bet.....he fought 12 rounds with Vitali, etc, etc.  People I know who are inside the British game say it's a NO BRAINER. Haye is at a completely different level than Chisora, and virtually can't lose this fight. The odds aren't great...you'll have to lay -250 or so. But that's still a good payoff on a near sure thing.

Chisora is a mid-high-level domestic fighter. Haye, though I hate the asshole personally.....is, like it or not, at the international level.

You get paid money  when you win a domestic bet just the same way you get paid if you bet Mayweather/Pacquiao. It's like betting small conference college basketball games...sometimes it's easier to get an edge on the bookies on the more obscure games. That's why I bet domestic boxing as well as the bigger fights.

Well, we shall see. Your opinion is certainly one I pay a LOT of attention to. With you on the other side I'll probably keep my bet on Munroe modest in size, to be honest.

Scott is training his ass off for this fight, I've seen him doing some amazing things in the gym.

And although my money is on Munroe, simply as a matter of business, if it turns out you're right, I won't be disappointed to lose a few quid. I'd actually hate to see Quigg lose...he's really a nice guy.

But the last fight of his in Bolton...v Jamie Arthur, I was in Row 2, and had a VERY good look at the fight. I didn't see world class ability in Quigg yet. Euro-level, yes. World level?? 'Not so sure. He may very well get to that level, but I'm not convinced it's there YET. To me, it's a value play...getting +175 on a fight that could go either way.

Anyway, I'll be sitting ringside for the Quigg/Munroe fight, so if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to know:-)

I live in Manchester. I know a bit about these two fighters. A good friend of mine is part of Quigg's team.

Another great pick, Walk. To go against a favourite who was up to -500, and have the fight end in a draw shows that you were *100%* on the right side of the bet. Great work!

Walk.......there are only 2 guys on here whose opinions will cause me to make a bet on a fight that I have no personal opinion on. You are one of them.

I hope you're f**king right about this one...I stuck $2,000 on it at +333 with B365. A huge price compared to the other books I saw, none of which were even as high as +300.

 If I win, I owe you a big "Thanks!!"

If I lose, I will track you down and kill you!!!!  But....since you're a nice guy....I'll make it painless!!!

Thanks Mack,

Your opinion is one I definitely listen to.

As it happens, a good friend of mine is part of Quigg's camp, and I know he's been training VERY hard for this fight, and will be at his best. I hope he wins, he's a great guy.

But I question whether he's at the same level as Munroe? I am not convinced. Quigg is a top level British fighter, and probably a high level Euro fighter. Is he world class? He hasn't proven this yet. Munroe has.

I'm not going large on this one, but getting almost +200 on what I THINK is the somewhat better fighter is too tempting to pass up completely.

I was quite surprised to see the line come out on this fight, with Quigg as a -200 favourite. Munroe has fought at a higher level, and is still prime.

'Anyone have any ideas about this?

Many thanks.

Walk...do you ever have a losing day? Your picks absolutely ROCK.
I guess another question might be does jersey boy ever have a WINNING day....though the answer is pretty obvious.

Anyway, thanks for the picks....again!!