Ever revisited a fight and found it was different to how you remembered??

Been with my chain nearly 24 years now.....Met her the night Rosario fought Chavez when I was dragged to a party when I wanted to stay in and watch that fight!!!

Wish I'd stayed in..

Anyhow I watched the re-run..... but never since the other night when I revisited the fight had I seen it since!!

My old perception was Chavez just pinned Edwin to the ropes, bullied him and battered him for 11 rounds....which wasn't the case for 6 odd rounds it was quite competitive with Chavez taking over later...actually a good fight..

Kind of wonder if you've ever had a perception of a fight changed after you've revisited.... kind of not how you remembered it!!!..The mind does play games on you...

Mayweather De La Hoya is one for me. I thought it was extremely tight at the time, possibly even leaning toward Oscar as he had been the busy and aggressive fighter, but when I watched it again a couple of weeks back I preferred Floyd's cleaner work and gave it him by a couple of rounds.

Leonard v Duran 2. The first time I saw it, it wasn't live but I didn't know the result. I was just a kid at the time and all I remembered was Leonard clowning the whole fight and making Duran look like a fool before he quit.

I saw the fight years later, and this time it looked so different. Duran actually did win some rounds and it wasn't until a few rounds were done, that Leonard starting clowning. I wish Duran would have stuck at it.

Was in London celebrating a mates' twenty-first the night Holyfield challenged Valuev. Absolutely hammered, I wandered in to a sports bar to watch and, at the time, my drunken state (and the fact that my eyes were wandering between the fight and the lovely ladies around me) lead me to believe the 'Evander was robbed!' hype.

In a more sober state, I revisited the fight and found myself wondering what all the fuss had been about. I think a few too many people got confused between Holyfield performing better than most thought he would and him actually doing enough to win, which are two different things. In no way did he derserve the nod in my eyes (Valuev was just that little bit less woeful on the night) and he didn't do a better job on the Russian giant than Haye did either, which is another claim I've heard a few times.

Still waiting for the day when I change my mind on Leonard-Hagler, mind you (everyone keeps telling me it will definitely come). No matter how many times I watch it, how I perceive their respective performances and regardless of whether the commentary is on or off, I just can't score it anything other than 115-113 in Leonard's favour. Still don't know why so many persist in claiming that Hagler was the victim of a rank injustice in that fight.

I did this a few months ago with Morales-Maidana. I watched it live and gave Maidana the benefit of the doubt in every close round and thought he won it. Having watched it a couple of times since it's fair to say I was very wrong. Maidana clearly won that fight.

88Chris05 wrote:Was in London celebrating a mates' twenty-first the night Holyfield challenged Valuev. Absolutely hammered, I wandered in to a sports bar to watch and, at the time, my drunken state (and the fact that my eyes were wandering between the fight and the lovely ladies around me) lead me to believe the 'Evander was robbed!' hype.

In a more sober state, I revisited the fight and found myself wondering what all the fuss had been about. I think a few too many people got confused between Holyfield performing better than most thought he would and him actually doing enough to win, which are two different things. In no way did he derserve the nod in my eyes (Valuev was just that little bit less woeful on the night) and he didn't do a better job on the Russian giant than Haye did either, which is another claim I've heard a few times.

Still waiting for the day when I change my mind on Leonard-Hagler, mind you (everyone keeps telling me it will definitely come). No matter how many times I watch it, how I perceive their respective performances and regardless of whether the commentary is on or off, I just can't score it anything other than 115-113 in Leonard's favour. Still don't know why so many persist in claiming that Hagler was the victim of a rank injustice in that fight.

How did you watch Valuev vs Holyfield twice? It made Sprott vs Skelton look exciting.

The fight I remember is Hagler vs Mugabi, where Hagler stood toe to toe with Mugabi, then the hardest and most feared puncher around, and out brawled him through sheer force of will. I could almost here Mugabi's heart break!! I now hear that Hagler was a shadow of the man he was, Mugabi was only a light middleweight (true enough) and a poor showing all round. I'll have to Utube the fight again, although I suspect the truth is something between the two.

Fists of Fury wrote:Mayweather De La Hoya is one for me. I thought it was extremely tight at the time, possibly even leaning toward Oscar as he had been the busy and aggressive fighter, but when I watched it again a couple of weeks back I preferred Floyd's cleaner work and gave it him by a couple of rounds.

Watched it again and only had it by a couple of rounds ...Won 8 to 9 rounds easily...punching thin air does not win you rounds like when you said Ortiz was on his way to winning the fourth.

The haters keep on hating but Mayweather keeps on winning.

I remember thinking, "The guy is winning this round by a country mile!" when I watched it back, I found Ricky had been less than stellar that night!

The genius of PBF wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Mayweather De La Hoya is one for me. I thought it was extremely tight at the time, possibly even leaning toward Oscar as he had been the busy and aggressive fighter, but when I watched it again a couple of weeks back I preferred Floyd's cleaner work and gave it him by a couple of rounds.

Watched it again and only had it by a couple of rounds ...Won 8 to 9 rounds easily...punching thin air does not win you rounds like when you said Ortiz was on his way to winning the fourth.

The haters keep on hating but Mayweather keeps on winning.

Truss' threads are for adults, no wallies allowed...hasn't he taught you anything.

prettyboykev wrote:I did this a few months ago with Morales-Maidana. I watched it live and gave Maidana the benefit of the doubt in every close round and thought he won it. Having watched it a couple of times since it's fair to say I was very wrong. Maidana clearly won that fight.

I tend to disagree there, I think it was very close regardless of whether you award the real tight ones to Maidana or not. People always say Mayweather wins rounds through cleaner work, why can the same not apply to Morales? Because he certainly did do the cleaner work.

Fists of Fury wrote:

The genius of PBF wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Mayweather De La Hoya is one for me. I thought it was extremely tight at the time, possibly even leaning toward Oscar as he had been the busy and aggressive fighter, but when I watched it again a couple of weeks back I preferred Floyd's cleaner work and gave it him by a couple of rounds.

Watched it again and only had it by a couple of rounds ...Won 8 to 9 rounds easily...punching thin air does not win you rounds like when you said Ortiz was on his way to winning the fourth.

The haters keep on hating but Mayweather keeps on winning.

Truss' threads are for adults, no wallies allowed...hasn't he taught you anything.

Im trying to help you learn how to score fights

10-1-1 Marquez beat Pacquiao...watch this fight again Fists.

Fists of Fury wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:I did this a few months ago with Morales-Maidana. I watched it live and gave Maidana the benefit of the doubt in every close round and thought he won it. Having watched it a couple of times since it's fair to say I was very wrong. Maidana clearly won that fight.

I tend to disagree there, I think it was very close regardless of whether you award the real tight ones to Maidana or not. People always say Mayweather wins rounds through cleaner work, why can the same not apply to Morales? Because he certainly did do the cleaner work.

I had it a draw and IMO if you gave any more to Morales than that you're giving him too much. Anything close I gave to him for his cleaner work/defence, but Maidana won rounds big. Maidana had the fight in an overall sense, ignoring scoring.

Don't know why I bother.

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:I did this a few months ago with Morales-Maidana. I watched it live and gave Maidana the benefit of the doubt in every close round and thought he won it. Having watched it a couple of times since it's fair to say I was very wrong. Maidana clearly won that fight.

I tend to disagree there, I think it was very close regardless of whether you award the real tight ones to Maidana or not. People always say Mayweather wins rounds through cleaner work, why can the same not apply to Morales? Because he certainly did do the cleaner work.

I had it a draw and IMO if you gave any more to Morales than that you're giving him too much. Anything close I gave to him for his cleaner work/defence, but Maidana won rounds big. Maidana had the fight in an overall sense, ignoring scoring.

I had it by 1 round for Morales at first watch, and a draw after watching it a 2nd time. Very close though and a thoroughly enjoyable fight.

Fists of Fury wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:I did this a few months ago with Morales-Maidana. I watched it live and gave Maidana the benefit of the doubt in every close round and thought he won it. Having watched it a couple of times since it's fair to say I was very wrong. Maidana clearly won that fight.

I tend to disagree there, I think it was very close regardless of whether you award the real tight ones to Maidana or not. People always say Mayweather wins rounds through cleaner work, why can the same not apply to Morales? Because he certainly did do the cleaner work.

I had it a draw and IMO if you gave any more to Morales than that you're giving him too much. Anything close I gave to him for his cleaner work/defence, but Maidana won rounds big. Maidana had the fight in an overall sense, ignoring scoring.

I had it by 1 round for Morales at first watch, and a draw after watching it a 2nd time. Very close though and a thoroughly enjoyable fight.

I was probably over stating it a bit by saying Maidana won it clearly but I do think he won it by a couple of rounds.

I've got to go back to Buchanan-Duran, and get my excuses in early by saying that 1) I was very young when I saw the fight for the first time (6 years old, in fact) and 2) Buchanan was my hero, so I wasn't very likely to be objective about the fight in any case.

I couldn't watch the fight again for years. I therefore rowed in all too happily with the theory that Buchanan was getting stronger as the fight progressed and that Duran's foul cost Buchanan a genuine chance of, at worst, winning the last three rounds and outpointing the Panamanian. Having seen the fight many times since, I realise, of course, that this was simply an urban myth. Duran had dominated the first two-thirds of the fight, well as Ken had fought, and although Buchanan remained an intense nuisance, nothing short of an unlikely KO would have saved his crown, even if the fight had continued.

I still think that Duran should have been thrown out for the low blow, but that's a different story....

Maybe another look Michael Brodie's first fight with In Jin Chi would have me thinking that Michael was fortunate to be given a draw. Epic performance from Michael that night but it's stretch to say he was robbed.

I always get grief for this but when i watch the MAB v Naz fight i can't help thinking it isn't the one sided destruction that people make out. I dont give the fight to Naz (obviously) but he wasn't that far off imo.

Second that, anytime Naz threw a combo, MAB was rocked, he landed some decent ones outside but not enough to beat the mexican.

Yeah it wasn't the 'schooling' 'one sided beating' 'embarassment' that I have seen it described as, amongst other things.

Naz just wasn't on his game and was basically outhustled whilst being caught with some quality shots from MAB. Still devastated about that result to this day.

Barrera was in control by the late rounds though, enough to risk a point decution and then beat him up for the second half of the last round. I got the feeling if Barrera had to turn it up to win, he could have at any time.

Manny Pacqiaou versus Miguel Cotto, I watched that live on SKy Sports when it happened but I rewatched the fight on Youtube it was HBO commentary, strangely enough listening to it with different commentary gave a very different feel for the fight. Whereas when it was Sky Sports commentary it seemed like Manny beat Cotto no problems whatsoever whereas in the HBO one although Manny was on top it felt like Cotto could come back. (Apart from after the fourth round.) I think commentary does make a difference.

Hagler,Leonard I was a huge Leonard fan and got caught up in the atmosphere(watched it in a nightclub) thought Leonard had won easily,watched it again several times man it was close.I can see why Hagler felt bitter about the result Leonard showboated in some rounds and hardly threw a punch.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Barrera was in control by the late rounds though, enough to risk a point decution and then beat him up for the second half of the last round. I got the feeling if Barrera had to turn it up to win, he could have at any time.

The whole reason for his cautious approach was because If he tried anything more, Naz would have decked him. Thats why he wrestled and stayed behind the massive reach. Made Naz come towards him, stepped around the outside. Anyone around Naz' weight comes to him open and aggressive gets totalled - simply because of his raw power.

ShahenshahG wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Barrera was in control by the late rounds though, enough to risk a point decution and then beat him up for the second half of the last round. I got the feeling if Barrera had to turn it up to win, he could have at any time.

The whole reason for his cautious approach was because If he tried anything more, Naz would have decked him. Thats why he wrestled and stayed behind the massive reach. Made Naz come towards him, stepped around the outside. Anyone around Naz' weight comes to him open and aggressive gets totalled - simply because of his raw power.

Very true, but I must admit the argument that Naz wasn't as sharp due to slacking in training is there however, I'm unsure he would have won the fight if he had been 100% there. Barrera fought the exact way you had to against Naz, I'm unsure that if he had been a bit sharper he would have won, Barrera's fight plan was awesome and Naz was a bit dim at the best of times, I'm not sure he would have taken him out as Barrera was very wily and knew the Naz power would have taken him.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Barrera was in control by the late rounds though, enough to risk a point decution and then beat him up for the second half of the last round. I got the feeling if Barrera had to turn it up to win, he could have at any time.

The whole reason for his cautious approach was because If he tried anything more, Naz would have decked him. Thats why he wrestled and stayed behind the massive reach. Made Naz come towards him, stepped around the outside. Anyone around Naz' weight comes to him open and aggressive gets totalled - simply because of his raw power.

Very true, but I must admit the argument that Naz wasn't as sharp due to slacking in training is there however, I'm unsure he would have won the fight if he had been 100% there. Barrera fought the exact way you had to against Naz, I'm unsure that if he had been a bit sharper he would have won, Barrera's fight plan was awesome and Naz was a bit dim at the best of times, I'm not sure he would have taken him out as Barrera was very wily and knew the Naz power would have taken him.

If you are talking a sharp Naz - then you are talking about a Naz who throw combos all the way through, isnt so flat footed and focused on the one punch KO and comes at Barrera like an octopus. Naz wins a tight fight by UD. Conjecture of course but I think not without merit.

But thats the problem with Naz, he just went after KO's too often. I'm unsure a bit 50/50 on it to be truthful though if someone put a gun to my head I would pick Naz.

If Hamed had fought Barrera 100 times he loses 100 times,one of the biggest myths in boxing is that Hamed hadn't trained properly for the most defining fight in his carreer,he was beaten by a mexican great who had his measure.
I had a big bet on Barrera and was telling everyone 2 years before the fight took place what would happen.

100 times? With Naz's power? You're mad. If you're being literal.

Nico the gman wrote:If Hamed had fought Barrera 100 times he loses 100 times,one of the biggest myths in boxing is that Hamed hadn't trained properly for the most defining fight in his carreer,he was beaten by a mexican great who had his measure.
I had a big bet on Barrera and was telling everyone 2 years before the fight took place what would happen.

Please look up the word myth in the dictionary.

There is a huge amount of factual information from documentaries to press reports to eyewitness accounts of how Naz was living it large in the few weeks lead up to the fight.

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't make stuff up if you're not articulate enough to justify it.

Fact not myth Barrera is a Mexican great ,to suggest the reason Barrera wins the fight is because Hamed is not 100 percent fit is scandalous.
No question Hamed had power but so does Barrera with boxing skills to match, IMHO if they fight at anytime in their careers Barrera wins.

I think Hamed would just sit on him now to be honest.

AlexHuckerby wrote:But thats the problem with Naz, he just went after KO's too often. I'm unsure a bit 50/50 on it to be truthful though if someone put a gun to my head I would pick Naz.

Actually Alex, Naz was renowned for carrying fighters well after he could have knocked em out - even most of the world champions (past or future). I think he picked the wrong trainer in steward who asked him to set himself a little more before punches, which threw his timing off, should have stuck with ingle - or failing that - maybe whitaker.

As for Nico. Seeing as Naz was shown messing about in training for the 3 fights upto the Barrera one and is clearly seen to be training 17 round sparring session in with middle and light heavyweights only a couple years previous indicates that there was a lack of focus and fitness which contributed to that loss.

Love it how Naz gets away with this but pretty much the exact same situation with Tyson isn't...

Also yes he did carry fighters, but I'm talking about the ones that actually stood a chance, he went in for the knockout too much.
After the fight against Barrera he was in his changing room just telling everyone he just wanted to knock him out too much, I didn't think.

Oh fair point. Sorry I thought you meant overall. Yes the latter stages of his career included just knockouts rather than outboxing and finishing when the opening arose.

I don't think its the same with Tyson although I agree that both were a waste of greatness. Tyson got battered from pillar to post in his fight. Naz gave Barrera a decent fight.

The comparison is fair as regards to the desire of either. Only difference being that Naz realised he couldn't put the effort and legged it with his health and decent wealth. Tyson just fell deeper everytime he tried to get out.

Just feel what Tyson was lambasted for is too similar to what Naz did but doesn't quite get as much stick for.
Tyson basically stopped training in the 3 fights leading UP to Buster Douglas. trained even less for the fight against Douglas and got knocked around in sparring a couple of times.
Similar to Naz though it's easier to keep the stamina at SFW unlike Heavies with the big muscles more difficult to keep the stamina up. tyson was knackered after a couple of rounds, barely threw anything because he didn't have much and Buster fought a perfect fight similar to Barrera though was more dominant but feel that was down to Tysons fitness.

True - I can accept that but remember Naz gets stick for getting battered from pillar to post and Barrera gets his just dues for outfighting Naz. Not true in the former and accurate in the latter. By no means a one sided beat down and Naz is often robbed of his place in the top 15 of his weight division.

Buster Douglas gets almost no credit - even though he annihilated Tyson, its always remembered for Tyson not training or the "long count" even though he was a 40-1 underdog. Excuses are always made for Tyson and he is always given a place in top ten above people who had a fair chance of beating him. He is lauded not by just casual fans but some people who know a fair bit about boxing especially in discussions that have nothing to do with him.

Tyson and Naz both had a huge impact on their weights and the whole of boxing - bringing in slews of fans yet Naz is never given credit for bringing people in to watch the lower weights.

Excuses are made for Naz but usually in response to the claims that he was a flat track bully or he was battered by barrera.

Tyson doesn't get lambasted for it, he is along with Naz probably the biggest waste of talent in the sport - yet Tyson is always given the well he could have treatment whenever the slightest question is asked of him - even up to the Lewis fight where he had no chance and forget the beating at the hands of Douglas or Holyfield, A lot of people remember Naz getting beaten by Barrera and as far as I know have yet to induct him into the hall of fame even though lesser fighters have. Mcguigan for one.

Leonard v Haglar . At the time, with the sound and commentry on had Leonard winning by 4-5 rounds. Only when watching again and noticing that alot of leonards punches were landing on Haglars gloves, and he was holding on for dear life when up close that I changed my mind a have Haglar wining by a round.

The problem Shahenshah is that many fight fans felt Naz should have boxed on and chased the big fights not many big names on Hameds record though its impressive.
Like it or not McGuigan beat Pedroza,Juan Laporte Bernard Taylor,big names in the division and moved up the rankings beating top 10 division fighters before he was WBA champ probably why his in the hall of fames.
Naz should definitely have been chasing the main men in the division Morales,Marquez.

Some people have Tyson as a hype job! Not many Hype jobs unify the division twice! I guess you have a good view on it too, perhaps it's just what we have read and the effects it's had on what the general opinions are on these two. Whereas I've seen a lot of guys stick up for Naz rightly or wrongly but I very rarely ever see many people stick up for Tyson, you may have seen that differently.
Pretty much agree with everything you say to be fair Shahshahshagahghaehneneg (Your Username is difficult to spell and I couldn't be bothered looking!)

But he was - Barrera only risked it because of his losses to Jones and his faslling stock. Even Morales didnt want any part of him. Naz was out there on TV after the Sanchez fight is the one which sticks out. Naz saying that he called all of em out and the only one who responded was Augie and Merchant acknowledging the point. That Naz toyed with fighters who were former or would go on to become champions and his biggest name was most probably Vasquez who he annihilated. Every other week there would be some or other report. Naz to fight Morales, Naz to fight this guy or that guy and they didn't even want to talk. Barrera didn't want to know until he needed the fight himself.

the only one who he should have fought but didn't was Marquez who wasn't a big name outside boxing circles at the time but probably deserved the shot.

Still it was something like 13 former or future world champions who were toyed with. There are very few fighters with that sort of stellar career and most of them are already in the IBHOF.

He's fought a more consistent higher level of opponent than Joe Calzaghe but he didn't quite get a Bernard Hopkins or perhaps even a Kessler really on his record.

Vasquez was vastly superior to Kessler even then

Bob wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:If Hamed had fought Barrera 100 times he loses 100 times,one of the biggest myths in boxing is that Hamed hadn't trained properly for the most defining fight in his carreer,he was beaten by a mexican great who had his measure.
I had a big bet on Barrera and was telling everyone 2 years before the fight took place what would happen.

Please look up the word myth in the dictionary.

There is a huge amount of factual information from documentaries to press reports to eyewitness accounts of how Naz was living it large in the few weeks lead up to the fight.

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't make stuff up if you're not articulate enough to justify it.

But why should Barrera have his win tarnished just because Naz couldn't be arrsed to train properly. A bit like saying James Toney would have done much better against RJJ if he'd not been such a big fat bloater needing to lose stones in such a short time before the fight.

ShahenshahG wrote:Vasquez was vastly superior to Kessler even then

"Vastly superior" - I doubt it!

Always thought Starling-Honey was 9-0....

But I gave him a share of the third the last time I watched it..

8-0-1.......