[pouyasophy]

Raising his hand as they announced the winner as if he won...I'd be so mad if I had Rampage...

Fortunately, I didn't put $$$ on Rampage and put down 4 units on Glover....

[v1y]

not glover itd and glover dec cashed for me.

[Hannibal]

Good fight
MD called it

Hannibal, as I've said numerous times, anyone who pays attention can see how mediocre Glover's striking is.



Tough question to answer; lots of variables. Rather than give you a definitive answer, I'll give you a comparison to Glover's striking. They're both rather predictable, powerful punchers who don't effectively utilize kicks. The major differences are in their fundamentals. Rampage is a fundamentally sound boxer whose ridiculously low fight IQ has lead him to just head-hunt relentlessly, instead of using the boxing technique which brought him success in the first place. Glover is a technically mediocre boxer with similar head-hunting to Rampage; he's looser and maybe even a bit faster, but his predictability is even higher, and his defence isn't as good. The biggest difference between the two is simple: Rampage understands how to strike. He understands the striking game and, even if he underutilizes these mental tools, he possesses them. I'm not convinced that Glover really understands boxing; he's the epitome of head-hunting.
I think the deciding factor is going to be Rampage's ability to exploit Glover's predictable combos and Glover's lack of an answer to Rampage's adjustments.