Your unpopular Boxing opinion.....

First topic message reminder :

This might go down as the worst idea ever with you lot but fortune favours the brave and all that....

One of the other sections has a thread where people post something they truly believe in but goes against popular opinion. In other words, let us know something outlandish which you believe to be true.

Dont make them up and remember the house rules before you go and tear people apart for their post - remember its their opinion and they are entitled to it.

So for example, you might think that Manny won the fight on Saturday comfortably or that Tyson v Bruno had the best opening round ever - let us hear about it and don't be ashamed! Share with your secrets with us all......

Remember - dont post things just to get a reaction. Only post things you actually believe in.

Off you go!

should be 100% based on what you do who you beat not where you beat them.

You mean when he got caught pitching a shutout over Mccallum..

Stop wumming...

Starling, Breland, Duke mckenzie, KO and the Ring all shut up Chris knows best..

I see the 'Devil's Advocate' bit was lost on you, Truss.

I'll say it again..watch the interview after Starling's pathetic and very sad drubbing off Honeyboy....

When most fighters big up their wins this guy said it like it was...

"I told you he was ordinary..caught Curry on a bad night"

errrmm Marlon beat Brown, Breland and Honey and always claimed Curry to be his hardest opponent..

But hey what did he know...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:1. That Honey got Lucky....(like my honey did!!)

2. That a guy completely outclassed and rolled could never be top 10 material..

3. That you have to make it big in America to be a p4p great...

When asked for your unpopular boxing opinions Truss, why dont you cut to the chase and just say "all of them".

Should have known better than to try and have some light-hearted fun over Curry losing.

88Chris05 wrote:

Should have known better than to try and have some light-hearted fun over Curry losing.

There are some things you just don't joke about Chris.

Oh were you joking????

And if everybody started making their names in another country would that make that country the new mecca of boxing?

Something tells me that's not all. The US is in a position where it is currently able to provide greater commercial input and promotion. It's where the money is in managerial terms as well as in fighting terms. As with all things, that'll change in time, whether that change will occur during our lifetime is debatable.

if all the great heavyweights fought each other foreman would come out on top with most wins

also different climate and different circumstances foreman would have beaten ali

im just a big foreman fan it seems

You could be right knowsit....certainly hard times over there at the moment..

What a wonderful article and thread! Thought I would try and resurrect it for a short while.

Please treat me gently. I'm an old duffer normally found on the cricket boards and think Windy is a cool, young guy.

Having tried to butter you up and get my excuses in early, I'd better tell you my apparently unpopular boxing opinion.

It's that I like the boxing commentaries of Harry Carpenter. I've noticed he often gets a poor reception on your threads. One poster referred recently to ''Harry Carpenter's usual unprofessional commentary where he flaps like an excited schoolgirl''.

It may be my lack of boxing knowledge (I'm very much a flyweight compared to heavyweight experts like most of you) but I find this view of him surprising and disappointing. Growing up in the 1960s and '70s, Carpenter's fight commentaries and interviews always seemed to be mixed with knowledge, understanding and enthusiasm.

Maybe some of you are doubtful of him as boxing was not his only sport. As well as anchoring Grandstand and SportsNight, Carpenter also presented Wimbledon, the British Open Golf and the Boat Race (when it was of much greater interest to the general Britsh public). To me (and probably his bosses at the BBC), this didn't detract from his boxing role but simply showed he had a wider sporting knowledge and was both a dependable and flexible presenter.

I thought of Carpenter recently whilst watching the shameful and shoddy features (rightly condemned by several of your regular posters at the time) being shown on BBC and ITV for Smokin' Joe Frazier. At the very least, Carpenter could have been relied upon to deliver an appropriate, accurate and respectful tribute.

In the words of Muhammad Ali to him during an interview: ''I would like to say that you are not as dumb as you look, Harry''.

guildford interesting read but whats your point do you think that carpenter was the best commentator or something?

Alex - I don't claim Carpenter is the greatest sports commentator of all time but do think he was a very decent bloke and commentator. That view seems to go against the popular opinion of many of the posters on here who slate him ferociously.

Carpenter and Gutteridge were very good commentators. 'Arry got a bit carried away in the Brumo Tyson R1 though. But we can all forgive him a little bit. Certainly better that the current cop of wasters.

carpenter liked bruno i can imagine most at the time were pretty excited seeing tyson wobble can let that slide.

can only speak for myself but i dont have a problem with harry.

AlexHuckerby wrote:
can only speak for myself but i dont have a problem with harry.

Alex - me neither which I trust is now completely clear. Some certainly seem to though ....

My most unpopular opinions seem to be the following:

1. Marciano brutalises Wlad over 3/4 painful rounds
2. Dariusz Michalczewski would have had every chance of beating Roy Jones jnr
3. James J Jeffries gets thoroughly outboxed by the majority of subsequent heavyweight champions over 12/15 rounds but knocks most out over the 25 round distance.

hatton would outpoint witter to a victory. seems most on here think the opposite.

vitali would absolutely destroy tyson.

tyson was good but not 'that' good.

haye is a great fighter.

khan is a great fighter.

manny can give marquez a very tough challenge, which makes him an EXCELLENT fighter.

last but not least - my most unpopular is YOU LOT. this fight against marquez - and suddenly mayweather / manny is a sure thing. the day of the fight you lot were saying it'd be a walk over for manny and mayweather wa a 50 / 50 fight. very shallow you all are, i afraid.

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:This might go down as the worst idea ever with you lot but fortune favours the brave and all that....

One of the other sections has a thread where people post something they truly believe in but goes against popular opinion. In other words, let us know something outlandish which you believe to be true.

Dont make them up and remember the house rules before you go and tear people apart for their post - remember its their opinion and they are entitled to it.

So for example, you might think that Manny won the fight on Saturday comfortably or that Tyson v Bruno had the best opening round ever - let us hear about it and don't be ashamed! Share with your secrets with us all......

Remember - dont post things just to get a reaction. Only post things you actually believe in.

Off you go!

Thats practically everything I write.

OasisBFC wrote:hatton would outpoint witter to a victory. seems most on here think the opposite.

vitali would absolutely destroy tyson.

tyson was good but not 'that' good.

haye is a great fighter.

khan is a great fighter.

manny can give marquez a very tough challenge, which makes him an EXCELLENT fighter.

last but not least - my most unpopular is YOU LOT. this fight against marquez - and suddenly mayweather / manny is a sure thing. the day of the fight you lot were saying it'd be a walk over for manny and mayweather wa a 50 / 50 fight. very shallow you all are, i afraid.

ive been saying manny loses 9 rounds to 3 for a fair while.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My most unpopular opinions seem to be the following:

1. Marciano brutalises Wlad over 3/4 painful rounds
2. Dariusz Michalczewski would have had every chance of beating Roy Jones jnr
3. James J Jeffries gets thoroughly outboxed by the majority of subsequent heavyweight champions over 12/15 rounds but knocks most out over the 25 round distance.

think most agree with number 3 to be fair.

Froch's level of opposition hasn't been as great as many seem to think..

Jermaine Taylor - MW who had been previously KO'd and then thoroughly out boxed by the average and exposed Pavlik. Since been KO'd by Abraham which means he was knocked out in 3 of his last 5. Was giving Froch a boxing lesson up until the 12th.

Andre Dirrell - An 18 fight novice. What had he done prior to facing Froch? Also gave Froch a boxing lesson and has gone AWOL since the Abraham fight.

Mikel Kessler - A good solid fighter. Froch seems to get more credit for losing to him than Calzaghe does for beating Kessler.

Arthur Abraham - Another MW who many claimed was a stay at home protected fighter till he entered the Super 6. Has lost 3 of his 5 fights at supermiddle.

Glen Johnson - Journeyman. Has lost nearly 1/4 of his fights.

ward up next.

paperbag_puncher wrote:Froch's level of opposition hasn't been as great as many seem to think..

Jermaine Taylor - MW who had been previously KO'd and then thoroughly out boxed by the average and exposed Pavlik. Since been KO'd by Abraham which means he was knocked out in 3 of his last 5. Was giving Froch a boxing lesson up until the 12th.

Andre Dirrell - An 18 fight novice. What had he done prior to facing Froch? Also gave Froch a boxing lesson and has gone AWOL since the Abraham fight.

Mikel Kessler - A good solid fighter. Froch seems to get more credit for losing to him than Calzaghe does for beating Kessler.

Arthur Abraham - Another MW who many claimed was a stay at home protected fighter till he entered the Super 6. Has lost 3 of his 5 fights at supermiddle.

Glen Johnson - Journeyman. Has lost nearly 1/4 of his fights.

Twice out boxed Hopkins who is considered an ATG. Go figure.

azania wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:This might go down as the worst idea ever with you lot but fortune favours the brave and all that....

One of the other sections has a thread where people post something they truly believe in but goes against popular opinion. In other words, let us know something outlandish which you believe to be true.

Dont make them up and remember the house rules before you go and tear people apart for their post - remember its their opinion and they are entitled to it.

So for example, you might think that Manny won the fight on Saturday comfortably or that Tyson v Bruno had the best opening round ever - let us hear about it and don't be ashamed! Share with your secrets with us all......

Remember - dont post things just to get a reaction. Only post things you actually believe in.

Off you go!

Thats everything I write.

Yep

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:This might go down as the worst idea ever with you lot but fortune favours the brave and all that....

One of the other sections has a thread where people post something they truly believe in but goes against popular opinion. In other words, let us know something outlandish which you believe to be true.

Dont make them up and remember the house rules before you go and tear people apart for their post - remember its their opinion and they are entitled to it.

So for example, you might think that Manny won the fight on Saturday comfortably or that Tyson v Bruno had the best opening round ever - let us hear about it and don't be ashamed! Share with your secrets with us all......

Remember - dont post things just to get a reaction. Only post things you actually believe in.

Off you go!

Thats everything I write.

Yep

And they're all wrong and I'm correct

azania wrote:

paperbag_puncher wrote:Froch's level of opposition hasn't been as great as many seem to think..

Jermaine Taylor - MW who had been previously KO'd and then thoroughly out boxed by the average and exposed Pavlik. Since been KO'd by Abraham which means he was knocked out in 3 of his last 5. Was giving Froch a boxing lesson up until the 12th.

Andre Dirrell - An 18 fight novice. What had he done prior to facing Froch? Also gave Froch a boxing lesson and has gone AWOL since the Abraham fight.

Mikel Kessler - A good solid fighter. Froch seems to get more credit for losing to him than Calzaghe does for beating Kessler.

Arthur Abraham - Another MW who many claimed was a stay at home protected fighter till he entered the Super 6. Has lost 3 of his 5 fights at supermiddle.

Glen Johnson - Journeyman. Has lost nearly 1/4 of his fights.

Twice out boxed Hopkins who is considered an ATG. Go figure.

Have you seen the fights? I wouldn't say he outboxed Hopkins by any stretch of the imagination. That was also a long time before, at a different weight and a far different version than the one Froch beat. Go figure..

My most unpopular opinion
Dempsey takes every heavy bar Louis and Ali quickly
Ray Robinson.... a class above every welter and middleweight ever
Ray Leonard..a future ATG top 10 similar the other sugar ray
Duran.. lost or quit the crucial fights.No mas counts

skidd1 wrote:My most unpopular opinion
Dempsey takes every heavy bar Louis and Ali quickly
Ray Robinson.... a class above every welter and middleweight ever
Ray Leonard..a future ATG top 10 similar the other sugar ray
Duran.. lost or quit the crucial fights.No mas counts

How can you say Dempsey takes out every heavyweight bar Ali and Louis early? He didnt even do that in his own era. Tunney, Gibbons, Brennan etc

Surely Duran v Leonard I counts as a crucial fight?

Crucial fights would also have to include Moore, Barkley, Buchanan and Palomino.

He lost to Leonard, Hagler and Hearns but which former lightweight champions would we honestly give much of a chance to?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Crucial fights would also have to include Moore, Barkley, Buchanan and Palomino.

He lost to Leonard, Hagler and Hearns but which former lightweight champions would we honestly give much of a chance to?

And given that he was a former lightweight, the fact he beat Leonard and gave Hagler a decent go means that-for me-he deserves a little slack for his losses (bar no mas). Would we give Paul Williams much credit if he rolled someone JMM's size inside two rounds? Would we hold it against the smaller man?

Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, James Toney !

Neither are ATG and are overrated

tcribb wrote:Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosley, James Toney !

Neither are ATG and are overrated

Toney's mouth isn't.

Oh - one from me. Not sure if this is "unpopular" or just goes against received wisdom - but...

Toney isn't an ATG. Too many losses to lesser men, too few great wins.

oxring wrote:Oh - one from me. Not sure if this is "unpopular" or just goes against received wisdom - but...

Toney isn't an ATG. Too many losses to lesser men, too few great wins.

Toney is a case of should've, could've but didn't.

Mine here. Bhop is not an ATG. Lost his defining fights and his greatness is based on his longevity only.

His main defining fight was Felix Trinidad which he won very easily, Jones was the best opponent he faced but at the time it happened it wasn't defining for either of them, neither were established enough.

On top I would say Tarver and Pascal were fairly defining as they were wins over the men widely considered to be the best in the division.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His main defining fight was Felix Trinidad which he won very easily, Jones was the best opponent he faced but at the time it happened it wasn't defining for either of them, neither were established enough.

On top I would say Tarver and Pascal were fairly defining as they were wins over the men widely considered to be the best in the division.

Beating Pascal doesn't make one an ATG. Is Froch an ATG for beating Pascal?

Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Doesn't matter. The point remains.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His main defining fight was Felix Trinidad which he won very easily, Jones was the best opponent he faced but at the time it happened it wasn't defining for either of them, neither were established enough.

On top I would say Tarver and Pascal were fairly defining as they were wins over the men widely considered to be the best in the division.

Beating Pascal doesn't make one an ATG. Is Froch an ATG for beating Pascal?

If you'd said it 5 years ago - fine - but beating Pascal after handing him a bit of a whupping first time out as well at 48 to become LHW#1 makes him an ATG.

Whereas Toney doesn't have nearly enough top wins and isn't as good a boxer IMO.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Doesn't matter. The point remains.

How does the point remain? Hopkins beat him at a weight and at a time when he had proved himself to be a very capable boxer having beaten Dawson and Diaconu.

azania wrote:Mine here. Bhop is not an ATG. Lost his defining fights and his greatness is based on his longevity only.

The problem is, Azania, that if we're going to diminish Hopkins for this we'd have to do the same for Archie Moore. Some say that winning when old like Hopkins has done is overrated - I can't agree, given that literally only two or three other fighters in history have operated so effectively in their forties. I just don't think we can downplay being the best in any division at that kind of age when so few others have done it.

By 'defining fights', then, I assume you mean to Jones Jr and, perhaps, Calzaghe? Likewise, Moore lost three times to the best fighter he faced in Charles, and given that he was trying to join the likes of Fitzsimmons, Tunney and Charles as great Light-Heavyweights who managed to take the Heavyweight crown, I supposed we'd have to conclude that being knocked out by Marciano and then Patterson were also defining fights which he lost.

To me, taking that kind of view of Moore would be unreasonable and extremely harsh - and I don't think it's any fairer when applied to Hopkins.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His main defining fight was Felix Trinidad which he won very easily, Jones was the best opponent he faced but at the time it happened it wasn't defining for either of them, neither were established enough.

On top I would say Tarver and Pascal were fairly defining as they were wins over the men widely considered to be the best in the division.

Beating Pascal doesn't make one an ATG. Is Froch an ATG for beating Pascal?

If you'd said it 5 years ago - fine - but beating Pascal after handing him a bit of a whupping first time out as well at 48 to become LHW#1 makes him an ATG.

Whereas Toney doesn't have nearly enough top wins and isn't as good a boxer IMO.

As I figured the issue is his age. That in itself is a phenominal achievement. But all things being equal, beating Pascal does not make anyone an ATG regardless being the #1 LHW. Have some perspective. Pascal is not 10% as good as Spinks or even Qawi.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Doesn't matter. The point remains.

How does the point remain? Hopkins beat him at a weight and at a time when he had proved himself to be a very capable boxer having beaten Dawson and Diaconu.

Beating who? FPlease get real. Would those guys live with Spinks, Qawi, Eddie Gregory, Saad, Conteh, Galindez, Jones Jnr and many others from the 70s onwards? Do me a favour. Pascal is decidely average at best.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Mine here. Bhop is not an ATG. Lost his defining fights and his greatness is based on his longevity only.

The problem is, Azania, that if we're going to diminish Hopkins for this we'd have to do the same for Archie Moore. Some say that winning when old like Hopkins has done is overrated - I can't agree, given that literally only two or three other fighters in history have operated so effectively in their forties. I just don't think we can downplay being the best in any division at that kind of age when so few others have done it.

By 'defining fights', then, I assume you mean to Jones Jr and, perhaps, Calzaghe? Likewise, Moore lost three times to the best fighter he faced in Charles, and given that he was trying to join the likes of Fitzsimmons, Tunney and Charles as great Light-Heavyweights who managed to take the Heavyweight crown, I supposed we'd have to conclude that being knocked out by Marciano and then Patterson were also defining fights which he lost.

To me, taking that kind of view of Moore would be unreasonable and extremely harsh - and I don't think it's any fairer when applied to Hopkins.

In no way am I trying to diminish Hop. What you guys are doing is bringing his age into the equation. I am not. For me his age is irrelevant. The fact remains, beating Pascal does not make you an ATG. In 5 years time Pascal will be a footnote. Nothing more nothing less.

I'm not going down the route of debating old timers. I have work tomorrow morning. Especially when your post contains fouls and abusive language when you mention a certain Rocky and Patterson.

Mods I'm being baited again. Ban them. .

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Doesn't matter. The point remains.

How does the point remain? Hopkins beat him at a weight and at a time when he had proved himself to be a very capable boxer having beaten Dawson and Diaconu.

Beating who? FPlease get real. Would those guys live with Spinks, Qawi, Eddie Gregory, Saad, Conteh, Galindez, Jones Jnr and many others from the 70s onwards? Do me a favour. Pascal is decidely average at best.

You cant have it both ways. You've already cited Taylor's wins over Hopkins as a reason as to why Taylor was a good win for Froch. Now your saying Hopkins isn't that good anyway. How does that work? Hopkins is as clear cut an ATG as we've had in the last 20 or so years.

What defining fight did Hopkins lose?

His defining fights for me were Trinidad on the back of lengthy MW reign where he well and truly cleared out the division, and to a lesser extent De la Hoya and Tarver. He was already a great by the losses to Taylor for me and everything else after that (Tarver, Pavlik, Wright, Pascal) whilst in his 40s just underlines that. Even a SD loss to Calzaghe (a fight where I thought he won) isnt really a cripppling blow and definately wasnt considered a defining fight at the time.

Really cant see how he isnt an ATG.

paperbag_puncher wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Was Pascal the universally recognised number one when he was beaten by Froch? No he wasn't, completely different circumstances behind the two fights.

Doesn't matter. The point remains.

How does the point remain? Hopkins beat him at a weight and at a time when he had proved himself to be a very capable boxer having beaten Dawson and Diaconu.

Beating who? FPlease get real. Would those guys live with Spinks, Qawi, Eddie Gregory, Saad, Conteh, Galindez, Jones Jnr and many others from the 70s onwards? Do me a favour. Pascal is decidely average at best.

You cant have it both ways. You've already cited Taylor's wins over Hopkins as a reason as to why Taylor was a good win for Froch. Now your saying Hopkins isn't that good anyway. How does that work? Hopkins is as clear cut an ATG as we've had in the last 20 or so years.

FFS, what is wrong with you people. Too much projection and not enough reading what is actually written.

I have never said Hop is not that good. Hop is good. Very good. But short of being an ATG. Absolutely fantastic for a 48 yr old to do what he has done. Credit to him.