Fights that would've turned out differently if they'd met earlier?

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon, bit slow on here so a semi-serious look at some fights that have witnessed a one sided beating that could've been different if they'd happened earlier:

Wilde vs Villa: Wilde took an almighty beating, if memory servers me right he came out for the start of the 7th after taking a severe beating in the 6th. Men with granite chins by todays standards wouldn't have lasted 2 rounds such was the beatdown a faded and retirement ditching Wilde received. Who wins the showdown between the #1 and #2 great flyweights if they met each other some 2 years earlier?

Ali vs Holmes: The Ali that faced Holmes wasn't the Ali many were accustomed to. Holmes pretty much carried Ali through the fight. If Ali had met Holmes some 4 years earlier (which isn't out of the realms of possibility as Holmes fought Norton, Shavers etc from memory around then) would the result have been vastly different i.e. a big UD for Ali?

RJJ vs Calzaghe: The version of RJJ that fought JC was more shot than a Mexican drug dealer. It's naturally well within the realms of possibility these 2 could've met any time really before 2005, would it have been different of would've RJJ been finally exposed prior to the Ruiz fight which commonly gets used as a starter for his decline?

FMJ vs DLH: The latter still had something left @ 154 against the naturally smaller guy, would a prime 154lb version of DLH have had enough to figure out the defensive wizardry of FMJ if he'd moved up sooner? And most people had DLH losing by roughly 8-4, yours truly included and i was a big DLH fan.

Thanks

Coxy

Well considering Collins at his best could only just get past Eubank who was on the wane not sure how you come to that conclusion? He went in with quality fighters but lost it's a bit different to beating the likes of McClellan, Benn, Malinga, Holmes and Rocchigiani.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well considering Collins at his best could only just get past Eubank who was on the wane not sure how you come to that conclusion? He went in with quality fighters but lost it's a bit different to beating the likes of McClellan, Benn, Malinga, Holmes and Rocchigiani.

For a start those names you mentioned were spread over both Benn and Eubank, so you're pitching this in an unfair two vs one way!

I thought Mailnga was robbed against Benn and Eubank especially Benn who "LOST" twice against Malinga but it got counted as just once, thought Roccigiani beat Eubank as well but that was also close but won't argue too much with that. McClellan was Benn's best win for sure but there was more than a touch of a hype job with McClellan and he was coming up in weight. Holmes admitedly don't know about. Collins for me would be too big for Benn and too busy for Eubank. Also they dodged Collins earlier in their careers but at least they now have their apologists to give the usual "if they were in their prime they would have won" type nonsenses. A bit like BHop does for JC oh if only "they were in their PRIME"

Also Collins was two years OLDER than Eubank.

Its debateable whether Collins was at his best when he fought Benn and Eubank. They all retired close to the same time and were similar in age. I dont really buy into the proposition that Collins just showed up in the form of his life right when Eubank and Benn were finished. He was involved in very close fights with top names like McCallum, Kalambay and Johnson. despite losing these, his performances indicated that he was far from an easy nights work for a motivated Benn or Eubank.

Benn I think was faded when he faced Collins. I dont think Eubank was. Its the same Eubank that drew with Benn and had never lost. Even if you put the first fight down to lack of preparation or effort then theres no excuse for the second and he followed up his first loss to Collins with knock out wins. I dont think he can be accused of lack of interest or heart or motivation when he would go on to take on Calzaghe at a few days notice and then perform gallantly up at cruiser with Thompson.

Had Collins been outclassed in the U.S by his opponents, then his wins over Eubank and Benn would appear more suspect. But having watched him fight there and how close his fights against top operator were, it didnt come as a shock to me to see him pose so many problems to Eubank and Benn.

I think whenever these guys fight, they are going to be close encounters. Would not argue against a case for either beating the other. But I dont think Collins losses in the States are any worse than Benns to Eubank or Watson for example and from what I could tell was that the fighters were all well matched with an assortment of styles, strengths and weaknesses. Had Collins been in the U.K rather than the States then I dont see him being out of place amongst Watson/Benn/Eubank. He certainly wasnt a clear level above them, but I dont think he was a clear level below them either.

How on earth did they dodge Collins?!??! Every time Collins went in against a decent opponent he got beaten: McCallum, Kalambuy, Johnson - All around the "prime" of Benn/Eubank! Why on earth should they have fought him when he offered nothing and had lost 3 times in roughly 2 years?!

It's pretty obvious to most that Benn/Eubank were there on their games around the 1990 mark or so, almost killing 2 guys pretty apparently didn't exact make them a greater fighter - quite obviously the opposite happened.

Age means very little, the Eubank who beat Benn first time around doesn't lose to an average fighter like Collins and very strange how every win either achieved was either a robbery or over a hype job in your eyes. I could quite easily say the same thing for Calzaghes best wins over Hopkins, Kessler and Lacy for instance. In no way did Rocchigiani beat Eubank you must really be clutching at straws with that one.

Exactly Coxy, obviously nearly killing Watson didn't effect Eubank in any way and was still at his absolute best thereafter.

You guys are banging on about a Eubank pre-Watson like he was some kind of legend before that second fight! What exactly was so great about Eubank before the Watson fights? Oh yes, that should have been disqualified "performance" by headbtting Dan Sherry that's right, ah yeah that's what legends do! Eubank for his natural gifts was a watser in the ring before and after Watson. How many rounds did he throw by posing around? How many rounds did he take a breather in? And for Collins lack of quality wins what exactly was Eubank's career defining win that didn't involve Nigel Benn?

Collins was a superior athlete to Eubank and Benn for my money and would have beaten both at any stage. Benn would have been overpowered (too small) and despite Eubank's better natural abilities Collins outworks him every time.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Exactly Coxy, obviously nearly killing Watson didn't effect Eubank in any way and was still at his absolute best thereafter.

Where has anyone argued this?

....oh no, my mistake, a pre-Watson Eubank beat Gary Stretch! Damn I knew there was a hall of famer in there somewhere!

Super D Boon wrote:....oh no, my mistake, a pre-Watson Eubank beat Gary Stretch! Damn I knew there was a hall of famer in there somewhere!

Or he'd taken out Benn in an utter war, don't exactly remember him fighting with that much intensity post Watson.

Collins caught Eubank and Benn as they were on the slide, admit it - the 1990 version (or so) of Eubank/Benn weren't on the same level as the 1995 (or so) version of either. Can you honestly hand on heart say they hadn't slid based on post form?! And in the case of Benn an obvious dip in prior form in losing to Malinga?!

Colonial I agree with your unbiased analysis. It's just one of those things that irk me when people automatically say Collins feasted on Eubank and Benn leftovers and would not have been a match for them in their primes. In my opinion, the primes of both Benn and Eubank were not that great and I can't see any convincing argument to say Collins couldn't have beaten them at such and such a time.

The primes of both were far better than the fighters Collins eventually fought, he caught them at the right time as he did most of his opponents, he performed ok against McCallum but it was still a very comfortable win for the bodysnatcher.

Colonial Lion wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Exactly Coxy, obviously nearly killing Watson didn't effect Eubank in any way and was still at his absolute best thereafter.

Where has anyone argued this?

So lets not try making out it was anywhere near the best version of Eubank that Collins beat then.

Benn fought and beat GMan in an unfortunate epic, are you saying that version of Benn was always never a match for Collins?

Likewise the version of Eubank that went to war with Benn?

You're the one who's building up Collins without, in any way sort of form, acknowledging that Benn and Eubank had slipped in performance. They weren't the same fighters they were in the late 80s/early 90s. Yet you seem to want to ignore that.

Collins had improved, Benn and Eubank had slipped.

That's an honest appraisal, and it's pretty much got fact sploshed all over it.

I dont really argue too much either way on whether Collins would beat Eubank/Benn around the 1990 mark. There are arguments either way. However Collins was mixing it with top operators then and performing well despite his losses. The nature, opponent and manner of the losses is relevant in this case and unless one thinks Eubank and Benn were a class above McCallum, Kalambay or Johnson - which I certainly dont given what McCallum did to Watson and the opposition all three have beaten amongst other things - then I think that its reasonable to assume Collins at a bare minimum gives them a very competitive fight. I find it hard to just dismiss him and think that the idea that he is to be considered in the peak of his life while Eubank in particular is shot to be off the mark. Eubank had never lost so if we consider him shot since the Watson fight (who he had struggled massivley with) then how is it nobody else beat him, Benn included, and how did he go on to pt in such credible performances against Thompson at cruiser? Is this really a shot fighter?

Aside from that, I believe Watson incident or not, Eubank was a somewhat lazy fighter prone to drifting in and out or fights, taking breaks and posturing to look good. The styles Collins posseses makes life very difficult for him and theres a distict danger of being outworked much as he was when they fought in 1995. He had to come from behind to beat Watson and Benn previously remember, and knocking out Collins is no easy task if the cards slip away from him. Of course hes more than capable of winning himself but I dont dismiss Collins out of hand as little more than an opportunist as he has the style to trouble Eubank and Benn and the chin to and workrate to last with them. I could make a case for Eubank or Benn winning also just as easily.

coxy0001 wrote:
That's an honest appraisal, and it's pretty much got fact sploshed all over it.

Carefull, you sound a bit like TysonKings on the old 606. I'm sure you don't want that!

Colonial pictures the situation very eloquently. I do however, tend to think Collins would have beaten them whenever. Just my opinion no more.

holy moly, polarised opinions on collins eubank benn. Is it allowed to think the truth is somewhere in between? To me the MacClellan fight finished Benn, and Eubank had lost something by the time he fought Collins (as emphasised by the fact that he didn't follow up when he had him in trouble. However, i do think we sometimes view eubank and Benn with rose tinted spectacles. Collins would have been a very tough nights work for both at any time. Personally, at their best i think they both would have beaten him, but i wouldn't stake my life on it.

Anyway Hamed Barrera anyone?

Collins would have always been a hard night but alot of the appetite Benn & Eubank had had obviously gone & the wars had clearly taken there toll. I feel Collins in the mix during the Watson, Benn Eubank, et al days would have fallen short. Probably gone to points but still come 2nd. For me Collins came along at just the right time & got out at the right time as well.

Agree with whotobeA

Never said Collins would be easy, but just feel that both Benn and Eubank lost something post both their respective tragic fights.

Is epitomised when Eubank had Collins hurt and stood off him, if you rewind he'd have had him out of there.

Would have personally loved Collins to have beaten either Johnson or the body snatcher as he'd have then been in the frame. We could have had a 3 way humdinger rather than just Eubank vs Benn.

Christ, the mind boggles.

JDandfries wrote:Eubank pre Watson would have had too much heart for Calzaghe and I could see him winning by a stoppage.

RJJ would have made Joe quit

Not sure how you see Calzaghe getting stopped, the 4 times he went down, he got up to win (obviously), one of which was in the same round, twice caught cold when he himself was well past his best, but never once in a 46 fight career did he look really hurt or in serious trouble.

Joe also was renowned for brittle hands and fought on a few occasions with broken mits without quiting so not sure where your coming from, also whilst i don't think Calzaghe would beat Jones, it is highly unlikely that the fight would be a 120-108 affair and would be competitive at any stage of their careers once JC hit championship status so the chances of him quitting are no chance!

Just to annoy Coxy will add Hamed Barrera, fight happens two years earlier Naz spanks him six ways to sunday

as per earlier post, Jeff, i was surprised it hadn't cropped up earlier. Flippancy aside, i'm in the group that believes this is a very different fight a few years earlier, not just down to Naz's decline (though to me that was obvious post ingle), but also due to MAB's style being more reckless then.

Not saying he'd spank him

How about Ali vs Frazier 1? How do people think it would have turned out if it had happened a few years earlier if Ali didn't get banned and they fought in 1968 or 1969. I'd favour Ali by a narrow decision.

certainly a more mobile ali then, bellchees. The vietnam years are the big if for Ali. As i, and most others, rate him the best heavy ever, i'd have to say ali by decision... but frazier's style would always have been a hard nights work for ali

Though De La Hoya beat Chavez in both fights I wonder what would have been the outcome if they had met a couple of years earlier?

Khan-Barrera= Do not think it would be an easy nights work for Barrera by any stretch of the imagination, but would have him to win a unaminous decision.
Tyson-Lewis=Tyson was at his one and a half decades before this fight had taken place. He may not have walked through him like a lot of his early opponents, but I would say he could of at least forced a split decision in his favour.Most people who are involved in boxing or have fought as an amateur seem to share this view also.

Not really sure that Barerra v Khan would ever be a feasible fight given the respective weight classes. Khan at his best has been Light Welterweight whereas Barrera at his best was probably feather/super feather which Khan would never realistically be able to make.

With Lewis-Tyson, when Tyson was at his best Lewis had barely gone pro so had the fight happened then it would likely be a walkover for Tyson. 1996 would probably have been the fairest time for the fight to happen when both were more evenly matched but 2002 was way too late for Tyson and the 80s was way too early for Lewis.

I do enjoy the old addage of anyone involved in boxing shares this view without anything to back that assumption up.