Is Change Good for Tim Bradley,  with Bam Bam Rios in his Face?

Welterweights Tim “Desert Storm” Bradley and Brandon “Bam, Bam” Rios saw this fight coming down the tunnel a long time ago.

Both are Southern California elite prizefighters, one African-American and the other Mexican-American. That formula usually equals a dynamic, crowd-pleasing match up.

WBO welterweight titlist Bradley (32-1-1, 12 Kos) finally meets Rios (33-2-1, 24 Kos) in the prize ring on Saturday, Nov. 7, at the Thomas and Mack Center in Las Vegas. HBO will televise the Top Rank main event.

“I always had an eye on Bam Bam,” said Bradley, who trains in Indio. “I knew one day we could possibly meet.”

Rios, who moved up to welterweight after dominating the lightweight division, said Bradley’s name had been mentioned as a possibility the last two years.

“I finally have a fight and I’m happy about it,” said Rios, who trains in Riverside. “Bradley is a warrior and that’s what I expect.”

From his first pro fight Bradley exhibited extraordinary speed and agility. In the beginning he was overlooked by the big promoters and landed in the lap of newly formed Thompson Boxing Promotions. For the first three fights he was virtually untouchable at shows in Corona and Ontario, Calif.

Under the guidance of Joel Diaz and brothers, the speedy Bradley transformed into a real prizefighter, including possessing a willingness to engage in all-out war. At the same time he showed tremendous heart and fortitude. Those are things you cannot teach.

Rios arrived as an amateur slugger in Southern California who had problems with boxer types. He had problems sparring the quick, fleet fighters like Vicente Escobedo. But if someone stood in front of him, he blew them out, as he did the first time I saw him at the Maywood Activity early in his career.

Rios has always been under the guidance of Robert Garcia and quickly learned how to fight sluggers, runners, holders and dirty fighters. He loved to fight and seemingly opened the big guns full bore whenever someone tagged him with a good shot. You can’t teach that.

A new component for Bradley has been the addition of trainer Teddy Atlas. The ESPN boxing analyst who was mentored by the late great Cus D’Amato has always been a strict disciplinarian.

During one visit Atlas drilled Bradley on the intricacies of inside fighting. Every facet of Bradley’s movements were analyzed and dissected by the trainer and rehearsed like the pivotal line from Hamlet.

“You’re too far over,” Atlas told Bradley. “Your hands are a little too low.”

They were infractions that were maybe an inch or too incorrect, according to Atlas.

Will Bradley be thinking about these subtleties inside the ring when Rios has a mad dog rush on him?

Rios has one gear and though changes and additions have been added to his repertoire, they’re not as minute as those Bradley must learn.

“Oh, we’ve made some changes to Brandon,” said Garcia, a former world champion. “I have him moving his head more so he doesn’t take as many punches. He’s much better at it now.”

On paper it would seem that Bradley has a tremendous advantage in pure athleticism and defensive capabilities. But if his own history tells us anything it’s that he has a warrior’s heart. At what point will the “Desert Storm” stay in the pocket exchanging rockets with Rios?

“Teddy has me focused,” says Bradley. “It’s a mind game.”

Rios has one speed, one dimension and one goal: that’s to knock the other guy out. It’s simple and direct. No alternative plan or miss-directions necessary.

“I’ve been sparring with all kinds of different styles,” said Rios. “I’m ready for whatever.”

WATCH RELATED VIDEOS ON BOXINGCHANNEL.TV

COMMENTS

-Radam G :

NO! Change this time is a neutral thing for TB with benefits. He didn't need a change, though. Trainer Joel Diaz was doing fine. And would have grown on TB like the world's best wine. But TB's wifey ran interference. And TB will be a calmer, mentally-in-control pug who will make @$$ whuppin' easier for it. TA -- with the ghost of the late, great Cus D'aMato smelling and yelling all up in his essence and grill -- will have TB gaining snap, crackle and pop from simply edgy relaxation while zooming here and there and everywhere. His hands will be crooming. Word on da pugvine is that TB is looking so sharp that a rubber match with Da Manny is looming. Holla!


-Radam G :

NO! Change this time is a neutral thing for TB with benefits. He didn't need a change, though. Trainer Joel Diaz was doing fine. And would have grown on TB like the world's best wine. But TB's wifey ran interference. And TB will be a calmer, mentally-in-control pug who will make @$$ whuppin' easier for it. TA -- with the ghost of the late, great Cus D'aMato smelling and yelling all up in his essence and grill -- will have TB gaining snap, crackle and pop from simply edgy relaxation while zooming here and there and everywhere. His hands will be crooming. Word on da pugvine is that TB is looking so sharp that a rubber match with Da Manny is looming. Holla!
And a trainer does make a difference. As I previously posted, TA would have TB as sharp as a knife despite the interference of TB's wife. Holla!


-stormcentre :

Rios is not enough of a test for us to tell if Bradley changing trainers was the best thing to do to Bradley's in-ring performances. That may be one of the reasons why Rios was chosen. Diaz would have got the same result with Bradley against Rios. :) :)


-ericfarrell85 :

Rios is not enough of a test for us to tell if Bradley changing trainers was the best thing to do to Bradley's in-ring performances. That may be one of the reasons why Rios was chosen. Diaz would have got the same result with Bradley against Rios. :) :)
Rios "may" not have been enough of a test to determine the value of Atlas in the corner. Rios "might" have been chosen specifically, due to information the public was not aware of. There is no disagreeing with those points. Your third point, however, should stay in line with the previous two. Diaz "may" have gotten the same result again Rios. You cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place. Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value.


-stormcentre :

Rios "may" not have been enough of a test to determine the value of Atlas in the corner. Rios "might" have been chosen specifically, due to information the public was not aware of. There is no disagreeing with those points. Your third point, however, should stay in line with the previous two. Diaz "may" have gotten the same result again Rios. You cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place. Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value.
You sure there's no disagreeing with my first 2 points. Based on your assessment of my third point; A) You should have issues with my first point also. B) My 1st and 3rd points are in line because I have portrayed them in an absolute sense. As far as your comments; ""there is no disagreeing with those points"", and also . . ""you cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place"" . . . . . I am not sure about that. Why can't you speculate about it? Isn't the title of the thread asking us to do that? The very definition of speculation is to form a theory without possessing firm evidence. Which is - quite accurately I might add - exactly what I did. Eric, I believe these above facts also have implications for your comments . . . ""Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value"". Not in the least as prior to the fight I speculated about the answer and the result then coincided with pre-fight predictions. Furthermore, after the fight I assessed the merits of Atlas and according to my knowledge and observations I then speculated with a not to shabby degree of accuracy that when Bradley is in against sub-par competition that is not enough for us to make a conclusive decision (therefore we must speculate) on whether his win against Rios can be wholly/partly attributed to Atlas. However, the speculation (and justifications for it) doesn't end there either; as since there is; A) No evidence that Bradley would not have achieved the same result without Diaz, whilst there is evidence that Bradley (when in with better competition than Rios) has achieved the same and/or better results with Diaz. B) No evidence (yet) that Bradley can achieve anything with Atlas that he has not already achieved with Diaz. It is also not unreasonable to speculate about these matters, and even stray into the territory of being absolute about some matters. You yourself have clearly done that by accepting my first term. The above approach to speculation is commonly called probability, and that is an area of math that is regularly used in gambling and scientific circles on a daily basis. If Rios was a good enough test to determine the value of Atlas in his corner then there would be something tangible to point to and use by way of demonstration and differentiation that proved that; but there is not. Therefore the test itself (Bradley V Rios) is not adequate enough for the purposes of the question; which means - even if you take out the other factors that all support the requirement for speculation as much as they also could feed into explaining a different performance for Bradley - there is no way to answer the question without speculating and/or probability. So you see speculation is justified and it can work. You just have to understand its meaning, limitations, and application.
Storm. :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

Rios "may" not have been enough of a test to determine the value of Atlas in the corner. Rios "might" have been chosen specifically, due to information the public was not aware of. There is no disagreeing with those points. Your third point, however, should stay in line with the previous two. Diaz "may" have gotten the same result again Rios. You cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place. Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value.
You sure there's no disagreeing with my first 2 points. Based on your assessment of my third point; A) You should have issues with my first point also. B) My 1st and 3rd points are in line because I have portrayed them in an absolute sense. As far as your comments; ""there is no disagreeing with those points"", and also . . ""you cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place"" . . . . . I am not sure about that. Aside from why you can agree with my first point and then disagree with the third when, according to your assessment, they both suffer from the same issues you raise; why can't you speculate about it - especially "after" the experiment has yielded all its results? Isn't the title of the thread asking us to do that; speculate? The very definition of speculation is to form a theory without possessing firm evidence. Which is - quite accurately I might add - exactly what I did. Eric, I believe these above facts also have implications for your comments . . . ""Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value"". Not in the least as "prior" to the fight I speculated about the result/answer and as it turns out the actual result coincided my pre-fight predictions/speculations. Furthermore, "after "the fight I "again" assessed the merits of Atlas and according to my knowledge and observations I then effectively "speculated "- and with a not to shabby degree of accuracy either - that when Bradley is in against sub-par competition that is not enough for us to make a conclusive decision (therefore we must speculate) on whether Tim's win against Rios can be wholly/partly attributed to Atlas. However, the speculation (and justifications for it) doesn't end there either. As, since there is; A) No evidence that Bradley could not have achieved the same result without Diaz - whilst there "is" evidence that Bradley (when in with better competition than Rios) "has" achieved the same and/or better results with Diaz. B) No evidence (yet) that Bradley can achieve anything with Atlas that he has not already achieved with Diaz. It is also therefore not unreasonable to speculate about these matters, and even stray into the territory of being absolute about some aspects of them. You yourself have clearly done that by accepting my first absolute term. The above approach to speculation is commonly called probability, and that is an area of math that is regularly used in gambling and scientific circles on a daily basis. You just have to know how to apply it. If a coin toss has resulted in 35 heads in a row, why would the probability necessarily state that there is a better chance of a tails next - as opposed to being driven by the fact that heads (for that coin) seems to come up more? So, we see, that interpretation of data and results plays a big part of professional speculating; probability, stock market, and casinos. As stated above, you just have to know what speculation means, and how/when to apply it. If Rios was truly a good enough test to determine the value of Atlas in his corner then there would be something tangible for us all to point to and use by way of demonstration and differentiation that conclusively proved that; but there is not. Therefore the experiment and/or test itself (Bradley V Rios) is not adequate enough for the purposes of the question; which means; A) The existing data we have on Bradley (with Diaz) is superior - even for the purposes of speculation - when used correctly; than that which seems to be in existence but is not tangible related to Atlas. B) Even if you take out the other no-Atlas factors that (are not discussed in this post, but) all support the requirement for speculation as much as they also could feed into explaining any different performance for Bradley; there is no way to answer the question without speculating and/or probability. So you see speculation is justified and it can work. You just have to understand its meaning, limitations, and application.
Storm. :) :) :)
PS: If I have anything wrong above, please let me know where/what and I will consider.


-stormcentre :

Rios "may" not have been enough of a test to determine the value of Atlas in the corner. Rios "might" have been chosen specifically, due to information the public was not aware of. There is no disagreeing with those points. Your third point, however, should stay in line with the previous two. Diaz "may" have gotten the same result again Rios. You cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place. Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value.
You sure there's no disagreeing with my first 2 points. Based on your assessment of my third point; A) You should have issues with my first point also. B) My 1st and 3rd points are in line because I have portrayed them in an absolute sense. As far as your comments; ""there is no disagreeing with those points"", and also . . ""you cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place"" . . . . . I am not sure about them either. Aside from why you can agree with my first point and then disagree with the third when, according to (some aspects of) your assessment, they both suffer from the same issues you raise; why can't you speculate about it - especially "after" the experiment has yielded all its results? Isn't the title of the thread asking us to do that; speculate? The very definition of speculation is to form a theory without possessing firm evidence. Which is - quite accurately I might add - exactly what I did. Eric, I believe these above facts also have implications for your comments . . . ""Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value"". Not in the least as "prior" to the fight I speculated about the result/answer and as it turns out the actual result coincided my pre-fight predictions/speculations. Furthermore, "after "the fight I "again" assessed the merits of Atlas and according to my knowledge and observations I then effectively "speculated "- and with a not to shabby degree of accuracy either - that when Bradley is in against sub-par competition that is not enough for us to make a conclusive decision (therefore we must speculate) on whether Tim's win against Rios can be wholly/partly attributed to Atlas. However, the speculation (and justifications for it) doesn't end there either. As, since there is; A) No evidence that Bradley could not have achieved the same result without Diaz - whilst there "is" evidence that Bradley (when in with better competition than Rios) "has" achieved the same and/or better results with Diaz. B) No evidence (yet) that Bradley can achieve anything with Atlas that he has not already achieved with Diaz. It is also therefore not unreasonable to speculate about these matters, and even stray into the territory of being absolute about some aspects of them. You yourself have clearly done that by accepting my first absolute term. The above approach to speculation is commonly called probability, and that is an area of math that is regularly used in gambling and scientific circles on a daily basis. You just have to know how to apply it. If a coin toss has resulted in 35 heads in a row, why would the probability necessarily state that there is a better chance of a tails next - as opposed to being driven by the fact that heads (for that coin) seems to come up more? So, we see, that interpretation of data and results plays a big part of professional speculating; probability, stock market, and casinos. As stated above, you just have to know what speculation means, and how/when to apply it. If Rios was truly a good enough test to determine the value of Atlas in his corner then there would be something tangible for us all to point to and use by way of demonstration and differentiation that conclusively proved that; but there is not. Therefore the experiment and/or test itself (Bradley V Rios) is not adequate enough for the purposes of the question; which means; A) The existing data we have on Bradley (with Diaz) is superior - even for the purposes of speculation - when used correctly; than that which seems to be in existence but is still not tangible and/or absolute in relation to Atlas and his influence on the experiment. B) Even if you take out the other (many) non-Atlas factors that (are not discussed in this post, but) all support the requirement for speculation as much as they also could feed into explaining any different performance for Bradley; there is still no way to answer the question without speculating and/or probability. So you see speculation is justified and it can work. You just have to understand its meaning, limitations, and application.
Storm. :) :) :)
PS: I usually think about what I post, but if I have anything wrong in the above one, please accurately let me know where/what and I will meaningfully consider without running and making excuses.


-Radam G :

Rios "may" not have been enough of a test to determine the value of Atlas in the corner. Rios "might" have been chosen specifically, due to information the public was not aware of. There is no disagreeing with those points. Your third point, however, should stay in line with the previous two. Diaz "may" have gotten the same result again Rios. You cannot speculate about the worth that comes with changing trainers and in the same breadth proclaim the result would be the same had no change taken place. Either you don't the know answer and need more information or you know the answer and determined there is no additive value.
Bam Bam was a good test, PERIOD! He was a bionic never-been-knocked-out -- in the amateurs or pros -- pug who T-Brad KTFO because of the correct, effective ways that Teddy Atlas quickly taught T-Brad. It is a myth that pug cannot be changed from a career of flaws to finesse in a New York second. Great trainers -- and even typical trainers -- do dat syet on da reg. A new look is often the key to flash-time enbetterment. T-Brad got an instant new-look benefit from TA. And any Di€k or chi€k with an iota of a boksing mind knows that. Holla!


-stormcentre :

Bam Bam was a good test, PERIOD! He was a bionic never-been-knocked-out -- in the amateurs or pros -- pug who T-Brad KTFO
because of the correct, effective ways that Teddy Atlas quickly taught T-Brad. It is a myth that pug cannot be changed from a career of flaws to finesse in a New York second. Great trainers -- and even typical trainers -- do dat syet on da reg. A new look is often the key to flash-time enbetterment. T-Brad got an instant new-look benefit from TA. And any Di€k or chi€k with an iota of a boksing mind knows that. Holla!
OK, aside from your last 2 sentences - which themselves seem to manufacture problems/issues that are not in question, and/or worthy of and/or being debated as a means of showing us how your boksing mind works - some (
the bolded) components of your 1st sentence do seem to "provide the appearance" of being reasonable. Here is the test for them though. Can you please detail what exactly it was that Atlas taught Bradley that he didn't already know, and can you also please show how that which you claim was taught was actually put to use by Bradley with Rios in ways where it would also positively work with other better competition; of which - in the welterweight division - there is a lot of? When that's done we can see whether you're a Di€k or chi€k (or a DoubleWorldChampion as you claim) with an iota of a boksing mind. *
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?21165-Time-for-GGG-to-call-out-Lil-Floyd&p=89483&viewfull=1#post89483 Speculation, probability, your history of making claims that are unproven, and also the smart money says you cant address/explain the above. But then - just because you typically almost always fail to back up all you say (no matter how extreme and/or even, if with the *questionable claim you release, you state you *can/will substantiate) - that doesn't mean this sentence could be wrong (or right) too. I feel like we're at a circus. Love it !!!! :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

Bam Bam was a good test, PERIOD! He was a bionic never-been-knocked-out -- in the amateurs or pros -- pug who T-Brad KTFO
because of the correct, effective ways that Teddy Atlas quickly taught T-Brad. It is a myth that pug cannot be changed from a career of flaws to finesse in a New York second. Great trainers -- and even typical trainers -- do dat syet on da reg. A new look is often the key to flash-time enbetterment. T-Brad got an instant new-look benefit from TA. And any Di€k or chi€k with an iota of a boksing mind knows that. Holla!
OK, aside from your last 2 sentences - which themselves seem to manufacture problems/issues that are not in question, and/or worthy of and/or being debated as a means of showing us how your boksing mind works - some (
the bolded) components of your 1st sentence do seem to "provide the appearance" of being reasonable. Here is the test for them though. Can you please detail what exactly it was that Atlas taught Bradley that he didn't already know, and can you also please show how that which you claim was taught was actually put to use by Bradley with Rios in ways where it would also positively work with other better competition; of which - in the welterweight division - there is a lot of? When that's done we can see whether you're a Di€k or chi€k (or a DoubleWorldChampion as you claim) with an iota of a boksing mind. *
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?21165-Time-for-GGG-to-call-out-Lil-Floyd&p=89483&viewfull=1#post89483 Speculation, probability, your history of making claims that are unproven, and also the smart money says you cant address/explain the above. But then - just because you typically almost always fail to back up all you say (no matter how extreme and/or even, if with the *questionable claim you release, you state you *can/will substantiate) - that doesn't mean this sentence could be wrong (or right) too. I feel like we're at a circus. Love it !!!! :) :) :)


-stormcentre :

Bam Bam was a good test, PERIOD! He was a bionic never-been-knocked-out -- in the amateurs or pros -- pug who T-Brad KTFO
because of the correct, effective ways that Teddy Atlas quickly taught T-Brad. It is a myth that pug cannot be changed from a career of flaws to finesse in a New York second. Great trainers -- and even typical trainers -- do dat syet on da reg. A new look is often the key to flash-time enbetterment. T-Brad got an instant new-look benefit from TA. And any Di€k or chi€k with an iota of a boksing mind knows that. Holla!
OK, aside from your last 2 sentences - which themselves seem to manufacture problems/issues that are not in question, and/or worthy of and/or being debated as a means of showing us how your boksing mind works - some (
the bolded) components of your 1st sentence do seem to "provide the appearance" of being reasonable. Here is the test for them though. Can you please detail what exactly it was that Atlas taught Bradley that he didn't already know, and can you also please show how that which you claim was taught (by Atlas) was actually put to use (by Bradley) with Rios in ways where it would also positively work with, not just (only when Bradley is with) Atlas (and not Diaz) - but also with, other better (than Rios) competition; of which (better fighters) - especially in the welterweight division - there is a lot of? Even aside from the fact that out of Rios' last 3 fights he lost 2 and had 1 DQ win (in a fight he struggled in), and what that means for your opening line ""Bam Bam was a good test, PERIOD""; these - what is detailed within the above paragraph - are the real considerations that need to be established to back up your pseudo-rebuttal claims - claims that really have all the hallmarks of a typical "ready, fire, aim, and think later DoubleWorlChampion" post specifically designed to recruit someone else that appears to have commonality to you solely because they have taken the time to raise an issue with my post. Which I have no problem with because I can substantiate and explain; you should try it sometime RG. Saves a lot of lying. Anyway, when the above-mentioned exercise is done we can then see whether "you're" a Di€k or chi€k (or a DoubleWorldChampion as you claim) with an iota (if any) of a boksing mind. *
->http://www.thesweetscience.com/forums/showthread.php?21165-Time-for-GGG-to-call-out-Lil-Floyd&p=89483&viewfull=1#post89483 Speculation, probability, your history of making claims that are unproven, and also the smart money says you cant address/explain the above. But then - just because you typically almost always fail to back up all you say (no matter how extreme and/or even, if with the *questionable claim you release, you state you *can/will substantiate) - that doesn't mean this sentence could be wrong (or right) too. I feel like we're at a circus. Love it !!!! :) :) :)


-Radam G :

I'm riding with my boy, talking head Max Kellerman: "Tim Bradley pairing with Teddy Atlas has a chance to be something special." And that is a fact, Jack! Holla!


-stormcentre :

Not surprised to see you're unable to explain; but then I did speculate on the probability of that, which itself was influenced by how often you have done similar things. Ah well, at least you know what you're good at. Good for you. :) :)