Composure Determines the John Ryder vs Jamie Cox Betting Odds

By:

Posted: May 2, 2018

Updated: May 22, 2018

Tony Bellew’s clash with David Haye will not be the only bout on 5 May that promises to be a good fight. What’s more interesting is that the John Ryder vs Jamie Cox betting odds are determined to a great degree by mental preparation.

The super middleweight clash will take place at the O2 Arena in London and is already creating a decent level of anticipation among boxing enthusiasts. No wonder, since this is a really good match-up.

Boxing Style

Dellboi’s Boxing News points out that the contestants are somewhat similar, infighting being the forte of the both of them. However, this doesn’t mean that the John Ryder vs Jamie betting odds are even. The channel argues that Ryder is more likely to win as he has squared off against bigger names in the past than Cox. Even more importantly, Ryder is a composed fighter who knows what to do in the face of adversity.

Cox, on the other hand, has sometimes played dirty in tough situations; Dellboi cites bouts where he reverted to fouls and low blows and risked disqualification. That being said, there is something that makes betting on Jamie Cox tempting: his sheer intensity. Ryder has struggled against boxers with good, steady pressure, which means this will be a difficult fight for him.

Cox also seems to be aware of the problem Dellboi pointed out. He told iFL TV that he learnt from his recent loss to Groves: it taught him to be more patient and “calm down a little bit” instead of simply rushing in.

The Official John Ryder vs Jamie Cox Betting Odds

Internet sportsbook sites in the UK are on the side of Dellboi: they are offering a higher multiplier for Cox (6/5) than Ryder (13/20). Does this help you in deciding between betting on Jamie Cox or John Ryder? Support your favorite on Unibet Sportsbook and root for him on 5 May!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x