Boxing Thread

[wandshogun09]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he's fighting has beens but that's a criticism I hear on Khan. When he fought Barrera and now fighting Judah and the talk of Morales.

 

It mainly comes from casual boxing viewers, Khan fights someone dangerous like Maidana and they haven't really heard of him. Khan fights a name they've heard of and they say yeah but he's past it. Used to hear the same with Calzaghe towards the end of his career. I remember when Calzaghe battered Jeff Lacy and my mate went yeah but who's Jeff Lacy? He beat Hopkins and the same mate said but Hopkins is old. Look at Hopkins now.

 

People just like to have a moan.

[Taylorslade]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he's fighting has beens but that's a criticism I hear on Khan. When he fought Barrera and now fighting Judah and the talk of Morales.

 

It mainly comes from casual boxing viewers, Khan fights someone dangerous like Maidana and they haven't really heard of him. Khan fights a name they've heard of and they say yeah but he's past it. Used to hear the same with Calzaghe towards the end of his career. I remember when Calzaghe battered Jeff Lacy and my mate went yeah but who's Jeff Lacy? He beat Hopkins and the same mate said but Hopkins is old. Look at Hopkins now.

 

People just like to have a moan.

 

The fighter which I've heard this old chestnut used with, is Mike Tyson. His supporters just cannot accept that he was not a GREAT fighter, but a very very good one. If you weren't in fear of him, and fought like you weren't in fear of him, then it was going to be a long night for Iron Mike. They have an excuse for every fight he lost ; the Buster Douglas defeat was because of his marriage and turmoil surrounding him, the first loss to Evander Holyfield was apparently because Tyson wasn't the same guy who he was before he went to Jail, and of course, Lennox Lewis would've been wheeled out on a stretcher had they fought in 1987.

 

1- Buster Douglas just put in the performance of a lifetime, he had the skills to beat anybody but he was lazy and didn't want it. However, losing his Mother a little while before the fight allowed him to put a whoopin on Mike. He took Mike's best shots, even getting up after than savage uppercut knockdown. He was better on that night, simple as that. However, you don't judge a fighters career on one night, you look at how consistent they were and the standard of opposition, along with a few other things.

 

2- Tyson's excuse makers forget a few important things ; Tyson, while he did not have Kevin Rooney, who was important to Tyson, he was still capable of all the exact same moves and executing the same tactics which made him look so invincible from 85-89, and lastly....Evander himself had been through 3 damaging fights with Riddick Bowe from 92-95, he was meant to be nothing more than heavyweight cannon fodder for Tyson and was labelled "shot" by everyone, he had been through a battle with Hepatitis C, and had suffered from some sort of heart disorder which left it enlarged. There were fears for Holyfield, geniune ones. However, he went in, took all of Tyson's best punches (go back and take a look if you don't believe me), Tyson did everything to Holyfield that night which he would've done if it was 1988. Holyfield was just a better fighter. Holyfield = Great fighter. Tyson = very very good.

 

3 - I'll admit Tyson was a shell of his former self when he fought Lewis, but Lennox was no spring chicken himself, although a lot closer to his prime than Mike. I'm of the belief that Lewis would've always beat Tyson no matter when. Great telephone pole like jab, booming right cross and a sickening uppercut all spelled bad news for Tyson, but that's all speculation.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching Tyson as much as anyone, but it's ridiculous when people say "he's the greatest heavyweight ever", and even "he's the best fighter who ever lived"....it's all opinion, but that's just absolute rubbish. To be great, you need longevity, Tyson had five good years.

 

Whilst we are on the subject....greatest fighter who ever lived? Well, it's all opinion, but I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that Sugar Ray Robinson was the man. For me, there's Ray Robinson, and then there's everyone else.

 

He was flawless.

 

 

------------------

 

Its just the way it is, Hattons best wins were against Tszyu and Castillo, one was an inactive fighter at the twilight of his career, the other was an old Mexican fighting for money

 

Yeah, you're right. But almost everyone picked Tszyu to beat Hatton, and easily. So it's easy to say now that Kostya was finished, but as Buncey says "SHOW ME YA BETTIN SLIP THEN SAN!!".

 

Look, we all know that the young guys always end up picking on the old guys, but the problem with Khan was he did an interview for somewhere, I forget the publication or website, but it was quite mainstream, so it was heavy shit when he said ;

 

"Boxing is all about fighting the right guys at the right time, you fight them when they are finished and washed up, so you fight guys who you know you will beat, not because you're a better fighter, but because of the situation, and you stick it on Pay Per View so you make the most money on it."

 

Yes, he actually said that. Sometime last years. Richard Shaeffer and De La Hoya of GBP were reportedly furious, too right aswell.

 

------------------

 

The whole argument of "if he was in his prime", "he's damaged goods" etc.....it's a load of hypocritical bollocks. You get these so-called "experts" who love to harp on about the days when a loss didnt signal the end of a fighter's career, and they were allowed to re-build and come back stronger. Yet these same guys, when, for example....Manny Pacquiao bashed Miguel Cotto up. When Manny won, after the fight, all I heard was "Cotto isn't the same fighter he was before Margarito, he's damaged goods". Well, that's one loss on an otherwise fantastic record of a guy who was a brilliant amateur, and about 4 years ago was the guy who everybody claimed Mayweather was avoiding. One loss in a tough fight, against a guy who probably had loaded hand wraps, and they write him off, and dis-count Pacquiao's win, by saying that Cotto wasnt the same man he was. Yeah, Cotto took a good bashing in the Margarito fight, but look at the Pacquiao fight ; he was very very highly competitive for the first four rounds, the best four rounds I've seen for years, with both fighters operating on an incredibly high skill level at the same time. If Cotto was "damaged goods", or "not the same guy" then he wouldn't of been anywhere near as competitive as he was in that fight until Manny turned up the heat, if he was a shot fighter, you can bet that a fighter with the speed and firepower of Pacquiao would've took care of him within 2 rounds. Then there's what Cotto has done after the Pacquiao fight, he's had some good wins, headlined the first show at the new Yankee Stadium.

 

------------------

 

For anyone who might be interested, I'll be posting my review of the boxing season of 2010/2011, later on tonight. There will be imaginary awards, hyperbole, and ruthless burial of those who provided the absolute most shitty-arse parts of this season. I'll be doing it later on tonight, so....have a butchers.

 

Oh, and Ebb, about Graham Earl, I've just noticed your question....

 

Like the guys have said, he was one of those guys who don't know when to say when. To be honest, and I really don't want to insult him because I like Graham, but he's a little dozy, and he is very stubborn, so he will keep going and going, often with not very much method in his madness. He's one of those fighters that need saving from themselves, they absorb a punch so well and stay on their feet, but they still accumulate the same punishment in their skull and because they take this full blooded shots and lot of them, they are a danger to themselves. The cornerman, which I think was Johnny Eames (although not sure, just off the top of my head), it's worth remembering that no only would he know this, but he has also been witness to whatever hard, potentially damaging sparring that Earl had taken part in. Sparring sessions often fly under the radar in terms of how they take their toll on guys.

 

Anyway, Eames, I think jumped the gun a little quick. Good job that they had a great referee in there in Mickey Vann, who knows the histories of all the guys he officiates, and treats them accordingly at certain times like when to save guys and when to let them have a little more of a chance if they have a history of pulling it out the bag like Earl, or someone like Evander Holyfield, and also if they are a defending champion etc.

 

If a fighters chief second throws in the towel, it doesn't mean automatic stoppage. That's just the corner saying that THEY have seen enough, but also because it could've been anyone who threw the towel in and not the main man in the corner. It's up to the referee though, but if the corner object to the referee overruleing their call and walk in the ring, then it becomes an automatic DQ, which is why you will often see cornermen running in the ring when a guy gets knocked down and doesn't look like beating the count, they get in the ring so it's declared a DQ and not a KO. This is something that's dying out, it was only relevant and useful back before the internet era with things like boxrec or youtube, and they did it because it was seen to be something really negative on a guys record if he stayed out for the ten, and if it just said DQ on the record then the managers or promoters looking for guys to fight their guys, they looked and saw someone who could give their prospect a good night's work. Like I say, it might seem daft now, but this was prevalent during the 1930's to the early 1980's, when fights werent all taped, back then - certainly the 30's - 60's, it was expensive to film fights and promoters werent keen on that of course. So if you looked at a guys record back then, then that was how it went down. Shit, a lot of guys didn't even keep fighter's RECORDS back then! Even up to the 1980's, boxing fight records werent reliable at all, and the ones that were in existence were mainly done by a guy called Raplh Citro, who was Cut-man for the Kronk gym in the 80's among others. It's down to his efforts that a massive amount of the material on BoxRec survives now.

 

Even now, effects of this shoddy record-keeping in the pre and post war era are still showing up now, as you can see if you go on BoxRec a couple times a week, a lot of the fighters records from those decades are being chopped and changed everyday. There's a ridiculous amount of effort those guys have to put into that site.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Taylorslade

[Egg Shen]

yeh, post that shit up! ill read through it.

 

you writing it for a specific site?

[Mr Lawrence]

The fighter which I've heard this old chestnut used with, is Mike Tyson. His supporters just cannot accept that he was not a GREAT fighter, but a very very good one. If you weren't in fear of him, and fought like you weren't in fear of him, then it was going to be a long night for Iron Mike. They have an excuse for every fight he lost ; the Buster Douglas defeat was because of his marriage and turmoil surrounding him, the first loss to Evander Holyfield was apparently because Tyson wasn't the same guy who he was before he went to Jail, and of course, Lennox Lewis would've been wheeled out on a stretcher had they fought in 1987.

 

1- Buster Douglas just put in the performance of a lifetime, he had the skills to beat anybody but he was lazy and didn't want it. However, losing his Mother a little while before the fight allowed him to put a whoopin on Mike. He took Mike's best shots, even getting up after than savage uppercut knockdown. He was better on that night, simple as that. However, you don't judge a fighters career on one night, you look at how consistent they were and the standard of opposition, along with a few other things.

 

2- Tyson's excuse makers forget a few important things ; Tyson, while he did not have Kevin Rooney, who was important to Tyson, he was still capable of all the exact same moves and executing the same tactics which made him look so invincible from 85-89, and lastly....Evander himself had been through 3 damaging fights with Riddick Bowe from 92-95, he was meant to be nothing more than heavyweight cannon fodder for Tyson and was labelled "shot" by everyone, he had been through a battle with Hepatitis C, and had suffered from some sort of heart disorder which left it enlarged. There were fears for Holyfield, geniune ones. However, he went in, took all of Tyson's best punches (go back and take a look if you don't believe me), Tyson did everything to Holyfield that night which he would've done if it was 1988. Holyfield was just a better fighter. Holyfield = Great fighter. Tyson = very very good.

 

3 - I'll admit Tyson was a shell of his former self when he fought Lewis, but Lennox was no spring chicken himself, although a lot closer to his prime than Mike. I'm of the belief that Lewis would've always beat Tyson no matter when. Great telephone pole like jab, booming right cross and a sickening uppercut all spelled bad news for Tyson, but that's all speculation.

 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching Tyson as much as anyone, but it's ridiculous when people say "he's the greatest heavyweight ever", and even "he's the best fighter who ever lived"....it's all opinion, but that's just absolute rubbish. To be great, you need longevity, Tyson had five good years.

 

Whilst we are on the subject....greatest fighter who ever lived? Well, it's all opinion, but I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that Sugar Ray Robinson was the man. For me, there's Ray Robinson, and then there's everyone else.

 

He was flawless.

 

 

------------------

 

 

 

Yeah, you're right. But almost everyone picked Tszyu to beat Hatton, and easily. So it's easy to say now that Kostya was finished, but as Buncey says "SHOW ME YA BETTIN SLIP THEN SAN!!".

 

Look, we all know that the young guys always end up picking on the old guys, but the problem with Khan was he did an interview for somewhere, I forget the publication or website, but it was quite mainstream, so it was heavy shit when he said ;

 

"Boxing is all about fighting the right guys at the right time, you fight them when they are finished and washed up, so you fight guys who you know you will beat, not because you're a better fighter, but because of the situation, and you stick it on Pay Per View so you make the most money on it."

 

Yes, he actually said that. Sometime last years. Richard Shaeffer and De La Hoya of GBP were reportedly furious, too right aswell.

 

------------------

 

The whole argument of "if he was in his prime", "he's damaged goods" etc.....it's a load of hypocritical bollocks. You get these so-called "experts" who love to harp on about the days when a loss didnt signal the end of a fighter's career, and they were allowed to re-build and come back stronger. Yet these same guys, when, for example....Manny Pacquiao bashed Miguel Cotto up. When Manny won, after the fight, all I heard was "Cotto isn't the same fighter he was before Margarito, he's damaged goods". Well, that's one loss on an otherwise fantastic record of a guy who was a brilliant amateur, and about 4 years ago was the guy who everybody claimed Mayweather was avoiding. One loss in a tough fight, against a guy who probably had loaded hand wraps, and they write him off, and dis-count Pacquiao's win, by saying that Cotto wasnt the same man he was. Yeah, Cotto took a good bashing in the Margarito fight, but look at the Pacquiao fight ; he was very very highly competitive for the first four rounds, the best four rounds I've seen for years, with both fighters operating on an incredibly high skill level at the same time. If Cotto was "damaged goods", or "not the same guy" then he wouldn't of been anywhere near as competitive as he was in that fight until Manny turned up the heat, if he was a shot fighter, you can bet that a fighter with the speed and firepower of Pacquiao would've took care of him within 2 rounds. Then there's what Cotto has done after the Pacquiao fight, he's had some good wins, headlined the first show at the new Yankee Stadium.

 

------------------

 

For anyone who might be interested, I'll be posting my review of the boxing season of 2010/2011, later on tonight. There will be imaginary awards, hyperbole, and ruthless burial of those who provided the absolute most shitty-arse parts of this season. I'll be doing it later on tonight, so....have a butchers.

 

Will do. Excellent posts on here.

[Taylorslade]

yeh, post that shit up! ill read through it.

 

you writing it for a specific site?

 

No brother just here, just for fun really, for you guys to read and hopefully spark some discussion.

 

[Taylorslade]

Sorry to add a seperate reply even though I've just posted, but I wanted to make sure you guys saw this, which is why I didn't just Edit my previous post but ....

 

There are two brilliant fights on tonight, ESPN classic ;

 

ESPN Classic ; 4:20 pm - Evander Holyfield Vs George Foreman

If you can only watch one, then make it this one. One of my all time favourites, both guys take just tee-off on eachother with a series of savage shots. I can't tell you how tough this fight was, in my opinion one of the most brutal in heavyweight history in terms of punches landed cleanly, and considering the size of foreman with his power and the shots just bounce off Evander like crabs getting the Derbac treatment.

 

ESPN Classic - 11:05pm - Holyfield Vs Mercer

Another good one, although not on the same level as the Foreman fight. Holyfield got a lot of stick after this fight.

 

Anyway the Foreman fight starts in a few mins, so if you havent seen it, watch it. If you have, watch the cunt again.

 

[jimufctna24]

What is everyones opinion of Prince Naz.

 

He is my favorite boxer ever, i recently bought this DVD which highlights his career up until just before the Barrera fight

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Naseem-Hamed-Best-...8297&sr=8-1

 

That fight with Kevin Kelly is a classic. I hae heard he didnt put the training in later in his career and with his damaged hands he didnt reach his potential. I always liked his risky style and attitude, but I could understand why some loathed him for being such a cocky prick.

[Taylorslade]

What is everyones opinion of Prince Naz.

 

He is my favorite boxer ever, i recently bought this DVD which highlights his career up until just before the Barrera fight

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Naseem-Hamed-Best-...8297&sr=8-1

 

That fight with Kevin Kelly is a classic. I hae heard he didnt put the training in later in his career and with his damaged hands he didnt reach his potential. I always liked his risky style and attitude, but I could understand why some loathed him for being such a cocky prick.

 

Naz was, in my opinion, the most talented British fighter of all time. I can't begin to describe how hard he hit, I sparred him for a charity appeal and of course that's NOT where I had first hand knowledge of that power, but I saw him do a few rounds on the heaviest Cleto Reyes heavy bag I've ever seen, and he abused it. Really.

 

Here's a story that Emannuel Stewart likes to tell. Of course he worked with Naz for the final few fights of his career, and he also trained Lennox Lewis of course. Well, Stewart has said, a few times, that Hamed hit harder than Lennox, and when he said that, he didn't mean in a Pound for Pound sense, but he actually generated more raw power from each of his punches than Lennox. They had some guy check it out with a pressure gauge. I believe it aswell, because I've seen hard hitters, but Naz's power had a much, much different edge too it than anyone elses.

 

Naz was massive Box Office, Sky Box Office was built on him. He changed the economic model in boxing and switched the attention on the lighter weights. He made that grand stage and when he left boxing, the Featherweight golden age featuring Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales and Marquez was seen by much more people and for much bigger purses because of the interest that Hamed generated for those guys to run with when he left.

 

And to think, whatever you think of the outcome would be....he almost signed to face Floyd Mayweather in 2000 at Super-Feather, and a young Manny Pacquiao who had just hooked up with Roach.

[jimufctna24]

Naz was, in my opinion, the most talented British fighter of all time. I can't begin to describe how hard he hit, I sparred him for a charity appeal and of course that's NOT where I had first hand knowledge of that power, but I saw him do a few rounds on the heaviest Cleto Reyes heavy bag I've ever seen, and he abused it. Really.

 

Here's a story that Emannuel Stewart likes to tell. Of course he worked with Naz for the final few fights of his career, and he also trained Lennox Lewis of course. Well, Stewart has said, a few times, that Hamed hit harder than Lennox, and when he said that, he didn't mean in a Pound for Pound sense, but he actually generated more raw power from each of his punches than Lennox. They had some guy check it out with a pressure gauge. I believe it aswell, because I've seen hard hitters, but Naz's power had a much, much different edge too it than anyone elses.

 

Naz was massive Box Office, Sky Box Office was built on him. He changed the economic model in boxing and switched the attention on the lighter weights. He made that grand stage and when he left boxing, the Featherweight golden age featuring Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales and Marquez was seen by much more people and for much bigger purses because of the interest that Hamed generated for those guys to run with when he left.

 

And to think, whatever you think of the outcome would be....he almost signed to face Floyd Mayweather in 2000 at Super-Feather, and a young Manny Pacquiao who had just hooked up with Roach.

Steve Bunce said somthing along those lines as well, to which I agree. I was only 10 years old or so, but even I remember the Box Office hype for Naz and the unforgettable entrances he had.

 

Great story's in you're post, I would have loved to see Naz fight Pac Man or Mayweather, he was so young when he retied as well I believe he is only in his mid thirties now. His piss taking of Chris Eubank was a riot as well.

 

The documenatary of him before the Barrera fight is gold for those who havent seen it.

 

[DarloKid]

Great posts Taylorslade really enjoy reading them and looking forward to your season review tonight, from your posts it appears you have boxed how far did you get mate ?

 

 

also i was wondering if any of you guys have bought this http://www.mike-tyson-dvd.com/, looks a really good set i had a complete tyson set but was on 6 discs with just plastic wallets and has such i kept losing them (i think i have lent them out to me mate and he lost them), but this set is presented in box and some great cover art looks a steal at

[Taylorslade]

Great posts Taylorslade really enjoy reading them and looking forward to your season review tonight, from your posts it appears you have boxed how far did you get mate ?

 

 

also i was wondering if any of you guys have bought this http://www.mike-tyson-dvd.com/, looks a really good set i had a complete tyson set but was on 6 discs with just plastic wallets and has such i kept losing them (i think i have lent them out to me mate and he lost them), but this set is presented in box and some great cover art looks a steal at

[DarloKid]

I look forward to reading some of your stories mate and your review, that website their seems rather good although, have been looking for a complete naz fight collection you have any ideas?

 

Have you ever tried http://www.ring-side.co.uk/ they seem rather cheap, a bit to good to be true if am honest

[Taylorslade]

There are a few sets on Ioffer that all seem to have around 35 fights on, decent prices. Same for Ebay. As far as a fully complete collection, like I say, the best bet is 4PlayFights, full box art like you mentioned, but he's expensive. His ads are almost always in the back of Boxing Monthly, and I've just checked the latest advert he had in there,and he's asking

[Taylorslade]

I would just like to add something to the statement I made about Naseem Hamed being the most talented fighter that the UK has ever produced. I really do believe that, but I have to say that there was another guy who was easily on Hamed's level, just nowhere near the concussive one-shot KO hitter Naz was.

 

The fighter I'm talking about is Nipper Pat Daly, who fought through Flyweight to Lightweight, was mainly a Featherweight at the peak of his genius. A real wizard in the ring.

 

He turned professional at nine years old. Yes, NINE. By the time he was 16 he was the youngest fighter ever to be ranked in the top ten in any weight division by Ring Magazine, in 1929 when he debuted at Number 10 during September of that year, a record that still stands to this present day. He would also go on to fight in 33 contests in 1929 which was his busiest period by some distance, once again, this was at 16 years old.

 

When legendary MiddleWeight champion "The Toy Bulldog", Mickey Walker was over here to defend his title against Tommy Milligan in 1927, the 14 year old Nipper Daly served as a main sparring partner for Mickey Walker, and the champion and his manager, the fabled Jack "Doc" Kearns, were said to be in total disbelief because of his ability and extremely young age. Walker would later be quoted as saying that was probably the best sparring he ever had.

[Egg Shen]

9!?!?