All Forums | Boxing

Explain this line to me (Guzman/Arthur)

...
Participants:
Search
Views: 941
Posts: 24
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #1
Ok. Guzman is the WBO champ but other than that the fight looks pretty even to me. Guzman 28-0. Arthur 26-1. No ko's for Guzman since 2004. Reasonable inactivity for Guzman. Big venue advantage for Alex. Seeming power advantage for Arthur. Perhaps Guzman has faced the better education but not dramatically so and don't see him improving at 31. Don't see any reason for a -600/+500 type price here.

I'm thinking possibly the over 9.5 at a plus price and Arthur at the big plus price.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2007
Posts: 5053
Posted: #2
Arthur basically has no chance -- that's why the big odds.

He got knocked down and nearly beaten by Stephen Foster in his last fight, and most people who have followed Arthur's career agree that he'll be completely outclassed in this one.  Joan Guzman is a fast, excellent boxer who's faced a high caliber of opponent.  He'd probably beat Manny Pacquiao if they fought today, and that could be one reason why Pacquiao isn't hesitating to move up to lightweight.  Even though Guzman's been getting decisions lately, all of those fighters are better than Arthur.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Arthur retire or knocked out by the mid rounds (7th or 8th).

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #3
Did you watch the fight because the scores weren't all that close?
Foster is a solid opponent. Can't concur that nearly all of Calderon's opposition of late has been better than Arthur. I believe you're markedly underestimating the venue.

At this point in his career, Humberto Soto is basically a solid veteran, but not a threat to win a championship. I don't think a workmanlike decision over him is all that impressive. Nor do I like Ivan's layoff.

I think Manny is looking to make BIG fights against name opposition for $$. Regardless of ability, Calderon doesn't offer  that.

I could be wrong. Of course.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 132
Posted: #4
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Ok. Guzman is the WBO champ but other than that the fight looks pretty even to me. Guzman 28-0. Arthur 26-1. No ko's for Guzman since 2004. Reasonable inactivity for Guzman. Big venue advantage for Alex. Seeming power advantage for Arthur. Perhaps Guzman has faced the better education but not dramatically so and don't see him improving at 31. Don't see any reason for a -600/+500 type price here.

I'm thinking possibly the over 9.5 at a plus price and Arthur at the big plus price.

 

I am Scottish and have watched Arthur numerous times. Although I am Scottish and hate going against my countryman, A2C IS CORRECT. Arthur has NO CHANCE. He will be lucky to make it to round 7 without beinmg decked and cut to pieces.

 

You are not helping your point by calling Guzman, Calderon. 2 different fighters from different weight classes.

 

Good luck.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2007
Posts: 5053
Posted: #5
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Did you watch the fight because the scores weren't all that close?
Foster is a solid opponent. Can't concur that nearly all of Calderon's opposition of late has been better than Arthur. I believe you're markedly underestimating the venue.

At this point in his career, Humberto Soto is basically a solid veteran, but not a threat to win a championship. I don't think a workmanlike decision over him is all that impressive. Nor do I like Ivan's layoff.

I think Manny is looking to make BIG fights against name opposition for $$. Regardless of ability, Calderon doesn't offer  that.

I could be wrong. Of course.


I didn't watch the fight because I was travelling, but I remember getting first-hand accounts of the fight afterward, and people said it was way too close.  Arthur was heavily favored, and he was supposed to win a wide decision or KO Foster in the late rounds...The actual scores were very close (114-111 (twice), and 113-112), so I don't know what you mean.

Also, you are mischaracterizing Humberto Soto's ability.  He was close to elite status in the super feather division before his loss to Guzman.  And considering how slick Guzman is, that fight didn't really diminish my opinion of Soto.  Soto would kill Alex Arthur (probably within 5 rounds).
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #6
Yeah I called Guzman, Calderon a couple times. That's what happens w/o an edit function. But seriously I hope you guys are set to make some serious cash on this fight. Betting your houses on Guzman, holding your breath, hoping he can squeeze out a decision in his opponent's backyard.

Of course, w/o a KO in 4 yrs, he's due for one here. Both you guys might be experts, but as awful as Alex is, Boxrec has him highly rated. I'm assuming they know more than you guys, but maybe not.

I don't think being Scottish gives you any additional credibility and I still don't see a 114-111 verdict as all that close. AA may lose and may even get stopped, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad gamble @ +500.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2007
Posts: 1233
Posted: #7
I faded Guzman against Soto, and that is the last time I will be making that mistake. How do you beat a guy that can't be hit?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2007
Posts: 5053
Posted: #8
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Yeah I called Guzman, Calderon a couple times. That's what happens w/o an edit function. But seriously I hope you guys are set to make some serious cash on this fight. Betting your houses on Guzman, holding your breath, hoping he can squeeze out a decision in his opponent's backyard.

Of course, w/o a KO in 4 yrs, he's due for one here. Both you guys might be experts, but as awful as Alex is, Boxrec has him highly rated. I'm assuming they know more than you guys, but maybe not.

I don't think being Scottish gives you any additional credibility and I still don't see a 114-111 verdict as all that close. AA may lose and may even get stopped, but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad gamble @ +500.


I'm not betting on Guzman at that price, although I may include him in a parlay.  So, I don't know why you're making comments about "betting my house" on Guzman.  And if I did, I wouldn't have to "hold my breath" for a decision because he's going to hit AA flush all day without getting hit back.  You're going to lose a lot of money if you start going by boxrec ratings in evaluating fighters (but I do hope that you and others bet the over so that I can get better value on the under, as I see AA retiring or being TKO'd by the end of 8)...Also, I didn't say that AA is awful.  He's just in a class below Guzman.  AA can have a nice career on the British circuit, but he's not going to be a world-class boxer...And 114-111 is quite close, especially when the other judge sees it 113-112, and it's a British-promoted fight, where the bigger name fighter usually wins the close ones.  AA won by a combined 7 points when you aggregate the scores: that's close.  There really shouldn't be an argument about that.  Although boxrec's PTBF rules are hardly the be-all, end-all of defining close, wide, and dominant decisions, I agree with them (pasted below):

CLOSE = Fight's decision is a split decision, majority decision, or a unanimous decision where the total difference in points are 8 (7 for 10-rounder) or less for the winning fighter.

WIDE = Fight's decision is a unanimous decision where the total difference in points are between 9 and 19 (8 to 16 for 10-rounder) for the winning fighter.

DOMINANT = Fight's decision is a unanimous decision where the total difference in points is 20 (17 for 10-rounder) or more for the winning fighter.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 132
Posted: #9
Being Scottish might not give me credibility but it DOES mean I have had more exposure to Arthur than most.
 
I DO know more about boxing than the guys at boxrec. Just because you have a website does not make you the be all and end all of boxing. Your credibility takes a hit when you call the fighter the wrong name and then quote boxrec as your expert source.
 
I would not be holding my breath waiting on a decision as Arthur is going to get beaten to a pulp, well within the distance.
 
+500 is a shitty bet when it is a sure loss. It's your money, so piss it up against the wall if you wish.
 
This is Colin Jones/Donald Curry all over again.
 
Good Luck.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2007
Posts: 5053
Posted: #10
Quote Originally Posted by weepaul:

Being Scottish might not give me credibility but it DOES mean I have had more exposure to Arthur than most.
 
I DO know more about boxing than the guys at boxrec. Just because you have a website does not make you the be all and end all of boxing. Your credibility takes a hit when you call the fighter the wrong name and then quote boxrec as your expert source.
 
I would not be holding my breath waiting on a decision as Arthur is going to get beaten to a pulp, well within the distance.
 
+500 is a shitty bet when it is a sure loss. It's your money, so piss it up against the wall if you wish.
 
This is Colin Jones/Donald Curry all over again.
 
Good Luck.



Weepaul, I like your style, and you seem to know boxing.  U should post here more often, as I'd like to hear your input.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 132
Posted: #11

Quote Originally Posted by A2C:




Weepaul, I like your style, and you seem to know boxing.  U should post here more often, as I'd like to hear your input.

 

Sounds good Bud . I am a long time lurker here and enjoy the posts from guys like yourself and fullbrights. There is only one forum that I post my picks on and it's because ALL the guys are cool and there is no pissing matches. Most other forums are ruined by know nothing knobs who like to mouth off.

 

I will start to post a bit more often although this week is pretty dead boxing wise.

 

Good Luck.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #12
Well given your logic, being from Scotland gives you less exposure to non European fighters and makes you LESS knowledgeable. But I guess logic isn't your strong point.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2007
Posts: 5053
Posted: #13
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Well given your logic, being from Scotland gives you less exposure to non European fighters and makes you LESS knowledgeable. But I guess logic isn't your strong point.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2007
Posts: 5053
Posted: #14
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Well given your logic, being from Scotland gives you less exposure to non European fighters and makes you LESS knowledgeable. But I guess logic isn't your strong point.


Come on, man.  Do you really have to have the last word and make this a pissing contest?  Just because he has a lot of exposure to regional Scottish fighters doesn't mean he has less exposure to world-class guys like Joan Guzman (who has had lots of televised fights, and you can access them from anywhere).  I like what weepaul said about people using these forums to actually discuss fights instead of trying to one-up the other person with snide remarks.  I liked your thread topic, but you lost some of my respect with that last post.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 132
Posted: #15
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Well given your logic, being from Scotland gives you less exposure to non European fighters and makes you LESS knowledgeable. But I guess logic isn't your strong point.

You are correct bud!! In Scotland we still use outhouses to go to the toilet. Could you explain to me this new invention I keep hearing about called electricity? What about the iron horses I see in America?

 

I hope you show up on this board after the fight.

 

Good luck.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #16
Why so you can regale in the fact that you correctly picked a 6/1 favorite to prevail and I wrongly suggested that a 5/1 dog had a shot against an aging inactive fighter across the pond for the first time in front of a partisan crowd. You're really stepping out there. I see that elsewhere you pick Oscar to beat Steve Forbes. Wow. From a betting perspective, you'd need to win this fight 6 of 7 just to break even. So a Guzman win isn't a confirmation of your knowledge or money management. If Arthur gets dominated, I'll acknowledge that but when you start mindlessly throwing out absolutes, you're not making yourself look savvy. At the very least, it's a fight and anything can happen.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2007
Posts: 5053
Posted: #17
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Why so you can regale in the fact that you correctly picked a 6/1 favorite to prevail and I wrongly suggested that a 5/1 dog had a shot against an aging inactive fighter across the pond for the first time in front of a partisan crowd. You're really stepping out there. I see that elsewhere you pick Oscar to beat Steve Forbes. Wow. From a betting perspective, you'd need to win this fight 6 of 7 just to break even. So a Guzman win isn't a confirmation of your knowledge or money management. If Arthur gets dominated, I'll acknowledge that but when you start mindlessly throwing out absolutes, you're not making yourself look savvy. At the very least, it's a fight and anything can happen.


You seem to be confused.  I look for value all the time -- that's the only possible way to win at sports gambling.  So if I saw any possible value in this fight, I'd be all over it.  But the fact is that Guzman is just too fast for Arthur.  Why are you attacking me and weepaul about a valid boxing opinion without offering reasons why Arthur has the ability to beat Guzman?  You're making arguments about value in these odds, but you're not giving us any reasons to dissuade us from the opinion that Guzman is simply in a different class.  Guys who are dogged at +600 don't just randomly win, and when there is such an upset, it's usually the case that someone's made a gross miscalculation in overrating the fave.  Why is Guzman being overvalued in this fight?   If you're backing AA, you should have a reason why Guzman should be faded.  He really didn't look like an "aging inactive " guy his last time out.  In fact, he was quite impressive.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 387
Posted: #18
If Guzman is aging and inactive, then he must have fought some fights that I haven't seen. I think he might be the most underrated guy in the sport. Pacquiao is moving up to lightweight to avoid him in my opinion.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 132
Posted: #19
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Why so you can regale in the fact that you correctly picked a 6/1 favorite to prevail and I wrongly suggested that a 5/1 dog had a shot against an aging inactive fighter across the pond for the first time in front of a partisan crowd. You're really stepping out there. I see that elsewhere you pick Oscar to beat Steve Forbes. Wow. From a betting perspective, you'd need to win this fight 6 of 7 just to break even. So a Guzman win isn't a confirmation of your knowledge or money management. If Arthur gets dominated, I'll acknowledge that but when you start mindlessly throwing out absolutes, you're not making yourself look savvy. At the very least, it's a fight and anything can happen.

 

No, not so that I can regale the fact that I picked a heavy favourite to win but that I picked a heavy favoutite to win well inside the distance. The odds on that are much closer. After all Caldoron (oops) has not stopped anyone in years. Your money should be safe.

 

This is my reasoning. Guzman is lightning fast, has an iron chin and good stamina. Arthur has been KO'd at a domestic level and was decked in his last fight against a guy who only punches hard at a domestic level. He was glad to hear the final bell. He struggled badly against Koba Gogoladze and was behind on points until Koba started running out of gas. He was cut to pieces in that fight as well as others. As A2C has already pointed out, Soto would massacre Arthur but you probably went on Boxrec and discovered he has 6 losses, so he must be shite.

 

You are also saying that I picked Oscar to win? WRONG, I pick Oscar to win before 9 1/2 rounds at +300.

 

You should be a politician, you already have twisting peoples words to suit your theory's down to an art form.

 

I wish you would post your winnings for this year and I would blow you out of the water.

 

Of course, that would be a waste of time as you would accuse me of fudging the numbers.

 

A2C, I have another boxing forum that I post my picks on with no Wankers. If you are interested, give me a shout.

 

Good luck all.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2006
Posts: 4377
Posted: #20
Tough thread.

Eldorado, you kind of got owned there with that last post.  I see where you were going with your initial post, but trust me if you had watched a few of Arthur's fights you would see why the odds are where they are.  Even you have to laugh at your first post in the thread, I have never backed a fighter because he has faced the "better education."  I didn't know that Guzman took his studies so seriously.

Good insight on Alex Weepaul.  I thought he looked pretty bad last time out against Foster.  If that Arthur shows up I also see an mid rounds stoppage for Guzman.  I agree with A2C, you should start posting more over here.


 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 708
Posted: #21
[Quote: Originally Posted by Fullbrights] Tough thread.

Eldorado, you kind of got owned there with that last post.  I see where you were going with your initial post, but trust me if you had watched a few of Arthur's fights you would see why the odds are where they are.  Even you have to laugh at your first post in the thread, I have never backed a fighter because he has faced the "better education."  I didn't know that Guzman took his studies so seriously.

Good insight on Alex Weepaul.  I thought he looked pretty bad last time out against Foster.  If that Arthur shows up I also see an mid rounds stoppage for Guzman.  I agree with A2C, you should start posting more over here.

how did i get owned there with that last post?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #22
Fulbrights: I actually have to kinda laugh at your post. The very first word was kind of a copious gaffe. Oh I know you'll assert it was intentional. As intentional as your losing record for the year. And why the love for BRS, but I guess that's your issue.

Hak: By definition if Guzman has been inactive, then he hasn't been fighting and you haven't missed any of his bouts. Thank you for the chuckle.

A2C: Good of you to own the loss on the fight Friday night. Good luck.

WeePaul: Too bad we didn't get to see this fight shake out. It's probably quite the commentary on Scottish boxing that the card was canceled. Perhaps Arthur does stink and you are correct, perhaps even badly enough that a self aggrandizing internet warrior could take him out within a couple rounds. Good luck with that. A good half of your posts are devoted to patting yourself on the back.
And why the inch between lines?? What happened to DLH destroying little Stevie Forbes? After all, Oscar dominates smaller foes.

As far as your purported winnings betting boxing or possibly other sports dwarfing mine, if true, good for you. I am in the black, but generate my livelihood as an attorney and sports are a diversion.
For the record though, I am holding a ticket on the under 11.5 for the Hatton fight in three weeks at 4/1. (Proof available). Compare that to the prevailing odds which are more a less even @ 10.5 and you'll have to agree that is significant value.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2006
Posts: 4377
Posted: #23
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Fulbrights: I actually have to kinda laugh at your post. The very first word was kind of a copious gaffe. Oh I know you'll assert it was intentional. As intentional as your losing record for the year. And why the love for BRS, but I guess that's your issue.

Hak: By definition if Guzman has been inactive, then he hasn't been fighting and you haven't missed any of his bouts. Thank you for the chuckle.

A2C: Good of you to own the loss on the fight Friday night. Good luck.

WeePaul: Too bad we didn't get to see this fight shake out. It's probably quite the commentary on Scottish boxing that the card was canceled. Perhaps Arthur does stink and you are correct, perhaps even badly enough that a self aggrandizing internet warrior could take him out within a couple rounds. Good luck with that. A good half of your posts are devoted to patting yourself on the back.
And why the inch between lines?? What happened to DLH destroying little Stevie Forbes? After all, Oscar dominates smaller foes.

As far as your purported winnings betting boxing or possibly other sports dwarfing mine, if true, good for you. I am in the black, but generate my livelihood as an attorney and sports are a diversion.
For the record though, I am holding a ticket on the under 11.5 for the Hatton fight in three weeks at 4/1. (Proof available). Compare that to the prevailing odds which are more a less even @ 10.5 and you'll have to agree that is significant value.


Lol, I didn't even realize that I had typed the wrong name in my post until I saw this.  My apologies Eldorado, you are correct Esplanade that was a gaffe.  I guess we are even with misspeaking in the thread unless you truly meant that Guzman had faced the better education.  Don't really understand where you are going with the stab at me having a losing year, lol, I admit that.  It hasn't been my year so far, will it last I don't know, but I will continue posting all my plays.

As annoying as Bert is sometimes, I do like his old stories and thought the picture was a cool one.  I thought I would finally move onto something else since I had the Valero picture up for so long and it really hadn't been lucky of late.

Trust me if you had seen Arthur you would agree with a lot of the stuff that was posted in here about this fight.
 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 132
Posted: #24
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:

Fulbrights: I actually have to kinda laugh at your post. The very first word was kind of a copious gaffe. Oh I know you'll assert it was intentional. As intentional as your losing record for the year. And why the love for BRS, but I guess that's your issue.

Hak: By definition if Guzman has been inactive, then he hasn't been fighting and you haven't missed any of his bouts. Thank you for the chuckle.

A2C: Good of you to own the loss on the fight Friday night. Good luck.

WeePaul: Too bad we didn't get to see this fight shake out. It's probably quite the commentary on Scottish boxing that the card was canceled. Perhaps Arthur does stink and you are correct, perhaps even badly enough that a self aggrandizing internet warrior could take him out within a couple rounds. Good luck with that. A good half of your posts are devoted to patting yourself on the back.
And why the inch between lines?? What happened to DLH destroying little Stevie Forbes? After all, Oscar dominates smaller foes.

As far as your purported winnings betting boxing or possibly other sports dwarfing mine, if true, good for you. I am in the black, but generate my livelihood as an attorney and sports are a diversion.
For the record though, I am holding a ticket on the under 11.5 for the Hatton fight in three weeks at 4/1. (Proof available). Compare that to the prevailing odds which are more a less even @ 10.5 and you'll have to agree that is significant value.

 

How do I pat myself on the back? I give my opinions on fights and it does not jive with you opinion, so that makes me an internet warrior.

 

Here is some "self aggrandizing" to make you feel better.

I bet on the Oscar under and lost. Forbes has a great beard.

I bet on Wilson and lost. Arslan has a good chin and work ethic.

I bet on Ishe Smith and lost. Great talent but not active enough.

I bet on Sarritzu to finish a 4 man parlay and lost.

Shall I continue to pat myself on the back.

 

This is my first losing week in a while but them's the breaks. I can see you are no dummy and are literate when the mood strikes, so I hope you will contribute to discussions without ostracizing the whole board.

 

Or you can continue acting like a wankstain on the boxer shorts of life. Your choice.

 

I do agree, your ticket for the Hatton fight does have significant value. Just as my bet tonight on the under had value as well.

 

Good luck.

All Forums | Boxing
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Privacy Choices Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo
Covers Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.