Greatest mismatches

First topic message reminder :

we on here all like to go through the possible great match up over the generations that could/should/wished/dreamt to have happened and how the best of the match ups would have gone. we have gone through many a great match up but what match ups between the greatest boxers would have been all wrong? try to keep it to the best in the divison (top 20ish) and prime v prime, we all know that ali v valuev would have been a mis match!! few examples starting with the heavies:

george foreman v wlad klitshcko: just see foreman walking right through wlad, prime v prime wlad has a good defence but dont see his jab then grab tactics working on a bull like foreman, see foreman being strong enough to shake him off and hurt him, george might have been crued but he was effective and much better moving boxers then wlad were often caught by him. see a very early ko nearly all the time in this one. while wlad might not be the greatest heavyweight of all time would have thought he would be in most peoples top 20.

ali v tyson: people often use this one as their dream match up, but i only ever see a one sided beating for tyson. tyson was a bully and with ali you have one of the greatest chins around and fantastic recovery (if ali could recover from frazier left hook he could easily do the same with tyson, has to be one of the greatest non knock out punches of all time!) see ali frustrating tyson and tyson tiring to get stopped late. you also have to consider what mental state tyson would have been coming into the ring after ali had finished with him. tyson known to be weak mentaly would have been a mess before they even entered the ring.

so do people dis/agree with my couple of examples? im sure there loads more i can think of but i'll leave them to you!

"p4p fighters like Fitz are never beaten easy"

True Duran may have been trashed against Tommy in the first and not the second!!!!

What a perverse statement...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"p4p fighters like Fitz are never beaten easy"

True Duran may have been trashed against Tommy in the first and not the second!!!!

What a perverse statement...

How I've missed your delicate wit Trussman. As well as your imaginative ability to bring rolling and drunks into most arguments - although I do appreciate your assessment of Duran as a p4p all time fighter at last.

If, of course - we place the statement in its context, rather than acting like schoolyard children - we would notice that it was a reference to Az's assertion that a MW Robbo would beat Fitz (not unreasonable at all) and a MW Leonard would beat Fitz (the man who squeaked past Hagler, if at all - and then lost to hearns and Camacho? no - not reasonable at all).

The idea either beats Fitz easily does the great man a disservice.

Frankly - anyone who refers to Fitz as "just a skinny blacksmith" needs to be nailed to a desk, with eyelids held open by matchsticks, until they have actually read something about boxing history. Even if they don't change their opinion - a loud ill-informed opinion is never justifiable and extremely intolerable.

Supporting such opinions, even if indirectly, does tend to tarnish one's future comments.

oxring wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I've never understood how a man with a primitve style and no defense could weigh in at under 160 pounds yet perform respectably against fully fledged heavyweights. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

The heavyweights were alot smaller and equally primative back then for the most part.

But Jeffries was a decent sized and heavy handed fighter for any era. Fitzsimmons gave him a very tough fight. If he was just there to be hit he'd surely be taken out in one round by any heavy with a decent dig. If he had no defense he must've had a P4P chin that made Lamotta look soft.

Looks like a nostalgia debate is about to start...

Before we go too much further - I will point out that even Fitzsimmons famously didn't consider himself a HW (sitting in the sauna after winning the title - "eavyweight champion of the world - and I'm only a bleeding middleweight"). Fleischer's rating of him as the #3 all time HW is ludicrous.

However - equally - Az's idea that someone with a punch that could fell an elephant and ring skills and smarts that allow him to compete against genuine top weight heavies - and yet will be unable to provide an "argument" against someone who edged an aged Hagler - lost to Hearns in most people's eyes and then was torn apart by Camacho - is frankly rather stupid.

p4p fighters like Fitzimmons are never beaten "easily". Comfortably, perhaps. But without difficulty? Nope.

That quite frankly is singularly the most ridiculous comment you have made towards me.

Of course Fitz was a freak of nature. So were so many old times. All freaks of nature. Of course. For me the only freak of nature in that era was Armstrong. His pulse rate was not even human.

But of course, Fitz after making shoes for horses would beat any MW-HW that ever existed. In between swigging on Jack Daniel to give him added determination. Perhaps he and Scot Harrison would be great drinking partners and duke it out later. I'd pick Harrison to over-come the primitive skills of Fitz. After all weights in those eras meant little.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I've never understood how a man with a primitve style and no defense could weigh in at under 160 pounds yet perform respectably against fully fledged heavyweights. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

The heavyweights were alot smaller and equally primative back then for the most part.

But Jeffries was a decent sized and heavy handed fighter for any era. Fitzsimmons gave him a very tough fight. If he was just there to be hit he'd surely be taken out in one round by any heavy with a decent dig. If he had no defense he must've had a P4P chin that made Lamotta look soft.

Jeffries was really the only top fully fledged heavyweight Fitzsimmons fought though. He was also pretty crude. That Jeffries won kind of highlights the massive impact size had. Fitzsimmons performed credibly by all accounts but in the end Jefries greater size, strength and durability just proved too much. Fitzsimmons seemed to be more skilled of the two though.

For me, if a guy weighing as roughly a super middleweight can win the the heavyweight title it says something about the era. At that time the heavyweight contenders were smaller in general. The likes of Maher, Sharkey, Corbett were basically light heavyweights. This as much as anything else is why I think Fitzsimmons was able to win the heavyweight championship. I just cant see Fitzsimmons winning consistently against top heavyweights who outweigh him significantly. I dont think himself, Corbett or Jeffries find success at heavyweight in most other era's although in the case of Corbett and Fitzsimmons I would doubt they fight at heavyweight in other eras with more established weight divisions to select from.

Early Jeffries was crude - certainly - HOWEVER - the later Jeffries was known for having decent boxing skills. It is grossly inaccurate to write him off as being just "crude".

Yes - I'm not taking issue with the fact that I don't see Fitzsimmons winning too many HW titles after Jeffries - although I'd back him to having been able to outpoint Johnny Ruiz - its the idea that Fitzsimmons wouldn't be able to beat a guy who was torn apart by Camacho. That's BS.
____________________________________________________________
Scott Harrison would beat Fitzsimmons? You really have jumped the shark today Az, well done. I'll add that into Tony Sibson beating Greb and Marciano being beaten by one of today's cruiserweights.

Further - he died of pneumonia with a gambling habit. Twas Sullivan who was known for his troubles with alcohol. Pick on the right old timer - hey?

Jeffries traded on his size Oxy he never had any real skill.....Durability and lot's of it...

If performing credible means almost killing the guy (Fitz-Jeffries was very one sided until Fitz got caught in the fight ending round!!!..look it up) then they'll have to change the definition of the word..

oxring wrote:Early Jeffries was crude - certainly - HOWEVER - the later Jeffries was known for having decent boxing skills. It is grossly inaccurate to write him off as being just "crude".

Yes - I'm not taking issue with the fact that I don't see Fitzsimmons winning too many HW titles after Jeffries - although I'd back him to having been able to outpoint Johnny Ruiz - its the idea that Fitzsimmons wouldn't be able to beat a guy who was torn apart by Camacho. That's BS.
____________________________________________________________
Scott Harrison would beat Fitzsimmons? You really have jumped the shark today Az, well done. I'll add that into Tony Sibson beating Greb and Marciano being beaten by one of today's cruiserweights.

Further - he died of pneumonia with a gambling habit. Twas Sullivan who was known for his troubles with alcohol. Pick on the right old timer - hey?

The thing is you guys put those primitive pugilists in such elevated pedestals it makes them appear better than they actually were. They wouldn't live with boxers who came 20 years later let alone now. Cut the nostalgia and get real. HUman beings are bigger, fitter, stronger, more intelligent (well some are.....others not so) and more knowledgeable. Its like comparing a Model T to a Mondeo. The performance of the Mondeo is more efficient. May not look as good (I like old cars) but its a far better car. Greb couldn't even jump rope without thinking of moving his feet.

After a few drinks Harrison would beat him.

I agree with you Az.....Can you see Tunney, Fitz, jeffries, Corbett, John L, schemelling etc coping with Tony Tubbs speed and jab????

Just rose-tinted garbage...

That was the younger version of the great champion truss - later reports have him outboxing people - and certainly - by the end of his career - he could outbox people.

The Chronicle reports that in the second Corbett fight "by the third - Jeff's new born cleverness began to assert itself" - and this is against Corbett - who was supposed to be the archetypal "skillster" heavyweight. The referee then said "I was not prepared to see Jeffries outbox Corbett...".

Make no mistake - Jeffries in his prime could box a bit as well...

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Early Jeffries was crude - certainly - HOWEVER - the later Jeffries was known for having decent boxing skills. It is grossly inaccurate to write him off as being just "crude".

Yes - I'm not taking issue with the fact that I don't see Fitzsimmons winning too many HW titles after Jeffries - although I'd back him to having been able to outpoint Johnny Ruiz - its the idea that Fitzsimmons wouldn't be able to beat a guy who was torn apart by Camacho. That's BS.
____________________________________________________________
Scott Harrison would beat Fitzsimmons? You really have jumped the shark today Az, well done. I'll add that into Tony Sibson beating Greb and Marciano being beaten by one of today's cruiserweights.

Further - he died of pneumonia with a gambling habit. Twas Sullivan who was known for his troubles with alcohol. Pick on the right old timer - hey?

The thing is you guys put those primitive pugilists in such elevated pedestals it makes them appear better than they actually were. They wouldn't live with boxers who came 20 years later let alone now. Cut the nostalgia and get real. HUman beings are bigger, fitter, stronger, more intelligent (well some are.....others not so) and more knowledgeable. Its like comparing a Model T to a Mondeo. The performance of the Mondeo is more efficient. May not look as good (I like old cars) but its a far better car. Greb couldn't even jump rope without thinking of moving his feet.

After a few drinks Harrison would beat him.

Do you actually believe that?

Human beings are more intelligent? Stronger? Fitter? Prove it. You can't write that baloney without offering some evidence to back it.

As for Greb being unable to jump a rope - how do you know? You've claimed, previously - to have seen lots of footage of Greb - which we all know to be more baloney - but if you weren't wumming and lying - please send some across.

Why do you persist in bothering Oxy, it was made clear after his first post on this site he had zero knowledge of the sports history and if anything has regressed rather than progressed.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I agree with you Az.....Can you see Tunney, Fitz, jeffries, Corbett, John L, schemelling etc coping with Tony Tubbs speed and jab????

Just rose-tinted garbage...

All I can see is tubbs hurting his hands by hitting their heads so frequently. Hey, those guys were superhuman tough and refused to go down thereby defying human biology.

How old was Corbett by the second Jeffries fight?

I think Jeffries was crude, especially in relation to most of the heavyweights you would see populating the top 15 or 20 heavyweights of all time.

I think he existed in era that was well suited to his strengths. Generally much bigger than his rivals. In later eras he would most probably have lost to Fitzsimmons on cuts and Corbett on points (first fight) but the fact he was much bigger and stronger meant he could outlast those smaller guys. He could afford to get hit repeatedly, they couldnt. Hes just not a fighter I see translating across well to other heavyweight eras. He was there to be outboxed by most top heavyweights, especially over 12 rounders.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Early Jeffries was crude - certainly - HOWEVER - the later Jeffries was known for having decent boxing skills. It is grossly inaccurate to write him off as being just "crude".

Yes - I'm not taking issue with the fact that I don't see Fitzsimmons winning too many HW titles after Jeffries - although I'd back him to having been able to outpoint Johnny Ruiz - its the idea that Fitzsimmons wouldn't be able to beat a guy who was torn apart by Camacho. That's BS.
____________________________________________________________
Scott Harrison would beat Fitzsimmons? You really have jumped the shark today Az, well done. I'll add that into Tony Sibson beating Greb and Marciano being beaten by one of today's cruiserweights.

Further - he died of pneumonia with a gambling habit. Twas Sullivan who was known for his troubles with alcohol. Pick on the right old timer - hey?

The thing is you guys put those primitive pugilists in such elevated pedestals it makes them appear better than they actually were. They wouldn't live with boxers who came 20 years later let alone now. Cut the nostalgia and get real. HUman beings are bigger, fitter, stronger, more intelligent (well some are.....others not so) and more knowledgeable. Its like comparing a Model T to a Mondeo. The performance of the Mondeo is more efficient. May not look as good (I like old cars) but its a far better car. Greb couldn't even jump rope without thinking of moving his feet.

After a few drinks Harrison would beat him.

Do you actually believe that?

Human beings are more intelligent? Stronger? Fitter? Prove it. You can't write that baloney without offering some evidence to back it.

As for Greb being unable to jump a rope - how do you know? You've claimed, previously - to have seen lots of footage of Greb - which we all know to be more baloney - but if you weren't wumming and lying - please send some across.

Fitter? Marathon runners have better times than yesteryear.. Distance runners getting faster all the time. You cant run a marathon without being extremely fit. Stronger? Look at the lifting records now and compare to 100 years ago. Intelligent? See what I put in brackets. Look on you tube for greb 'skipping'/ Hilarious. Almost benny hill type comedy.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why do you persist in bothering Oxy, it was made clear after his first post on this site he had zero knowledge of the sports history and if anything has regressed rather than progressed.

This is a joke right. Can you see any of those HW's living with Greg Page or Tubby for that matter. Add Dokes to the list. Michael Spinks would be superman in those times. The Spinks jinks would be another freak of nature punch. Foreman would be on the right hand of Zeus.

So you're basing your opinion based on one single video? Now that is funny.

Running a marathon faster does not mean you are fitter and even then we would be considering the elite of a very specialised sport. Runner A from 2010 running faster than Runner B from 1900 does not mean that boxers of 2010 are fitter than boxers from 1900, some might well be but the same could also be said in reverse.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why do you persist in bothering Oxy, it was made clear after his first post on this site he had zero knowledge of the sports history and if anything has regressed rather than progressed.

This is a joke right. Can you see any of those HW's living with Greg Page or Tubby for that matter. Add Dokes to the list. Michael Spinks would be superman in those times. The Spinks jinks would be another freak of nature punch. Foreman would be on the right hand of Zeus.

You obviously have no idea why Fitzsimmons and Wilde were considered to be freaks of nature but do persist with the generalisations.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So you're basing your opinion based on one single video? Now that is funny.

Running a marathon faster does not mean you are fitter and even then we would be considering the elite of a very specialised sport. Runner A from 2010 running faster than Runner B from 1900 does not mean that boxers of 2010 are fitter than boxers from 1900, some might well be but the same could also be said in reverse.

Runner A from 2010 has specialised training specifically for his event. So does Boxer A. More science involved in training and better dieticians. Far superior facilities.

Never mind. Boxing is the only sport where sports technology is ignored and time stays still.

Where are my sepia glasses?

Yep, Fits the blacksmith didn't use a hammer and anvil. He punched the metal. Such freakish power.

So the stronger, fitter and faster boxer always wins then I assume?

manos de piedra wrote:How old was Corbett by the second Jeffries fight?

I think Jeffries was crude, especially in relation to most of the heavyweights you would see populating the top 15 or 20 heavyweights of all time.

I think he existed in era that was well suited to his strengths. Generally much bigger than his rivals. In later eras he would most probably have lost to Fitzsimmons on cuts and Corbett on points (first fight) but the fact he was much bigger and stronger meant he could outlast those smaller guys. He could afford to get hit repeatedly, they couldnt. Hes just not a fighter I see translating across well to other heavyweight eras. He was there to be outboxed by most top heavyweights, especially over 12 rounders.

Tracy Callis disagrees with you - he sees Jeffries as competing well in any era. This is an excellent point, of course - in that size wise - Jeffries was big enough to compete today. Power and chin were strong an enough to compete today. Leaving boxing skills - and frankly - if those who saw his later career were impressed by his boxing abilities both in sparring and in the ring - then I'll accept that he has sufficient skills to compete today. Much depends on how much credence we give to those opinions who said that he was skilled in the latter part of his career. If none - then he's crude. If some - then he's not - and is a decent titlist at any level throughout history.

azania wrote:Yep, Fits the blacksmith didn't use a hammer and anvil. He punched the metal. Such freakish power.

I'll take that as a no then Az?

I know why Ghosty. Skinny legs, big shoulders. Big puncher. yadda yadda Nothing unique.

Actually Az his body dimensions are fairly unique for a power puncher but obviously it's because he was a blacksmith much like Tyson is a pigeon racer.

Jeffries could run 100yds in 11 seconds and jump nearly 6ft in height. How many HWs of today can do that? How many HWs since could do that?

All round athlete at any level.

You've said that Scott Harrison beats Bob Fitzsimmons. Not sure anyone's listening to you now Az. Step too far.

This debate has run its course before I believe. Persistence on the old timer debate on this thread will be deemed as dragging the debate off topic.

Thank christ for that Oxy.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:How old was Corbett by the second Jeffries fight?

I think Jeffries was crude, especially in relation to most of the heavyweights you would see populating the top 15 or 20 heavyweights of all time.

I think he existed in era that was well suited to his strengths. Generally much bigger than his rivals. In later eras he would most probably have lost to Fitzsimmons on cuts and Corbett on points (first fight) but the fact he was much bigger and stronger meant he could outlast those smaller guys. He could afford to get hit repeatedly, they couldnt. Hes just not a fighter I see translating across well to other heavyweight eras. He was there to be outboxed by most top heavyweights, especially over 12 rounders.

Tracy Callis disagrees with you - he sees Jeffries as competing well in any era. This is an excellent point, of course - in that size wise - Jeffries was big enough to compete today. Power and chin were strong an enough to compete today. Leaving boxing skills - and frankly - if those who saw his later career were impressed by his boxing abilities both in sparring and in the ring - then I'll accept that he has sufficient skills to compete today. Much depends on how much credence we give to those opinions who said that he was skilled in the latter part of his career. If none - then he's crude. If some - then he's not - and is a decent titlist at any level throughout history.

I dont think his skills were good enough to see him be a chmpion in the majority of other eras. Ive read reports of his fights and in many of them hes basically a bloody mess at the end of the fight and this against guys weighing similar to light heavies. Hes often outboxed in his fights for large periods. If reports are anything to go by he was fairly easy to hit. His durability was good, so he could get away with it against smaller men but if we are talking about the likes of Demspey, Foreman, Lewis, Liston etc pinging him with the same or greater success then I cant see how he wins.

I see the Jeffies fights against Fitzsimmons and Corbett as a classic case of size simply outdoing skills.

oxring wrote:Jeffries could run 100yds in 11 seconds and jump nearly 6ft in height. How many HWs of today can do that? How many HWs since could do that?

All round athlete at any level.

You've said that Scott Harrison beats Bob Fitzsimmons. Not sure anyone's listening to you now Az. Step too far.

This debate has run its course before I believe. Persistence on the old timer debate on this thread will be deemed as dragging the debate off topic.

Why the red? Pretty silly imo.

For the record, Hearns has broad shoulders and skinny legs. Fearsome puncher. Not a freak of nature.

If you have issue with moderation, as I'm sure you remember - you need to inform Hobo with your complaints.

This thread is not for another old timer debate. If you want another old timer debate - make a new thread.

I'd have thought even a man who claims that Scott Harrison would beat Bob Fitzsimmons could understand that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Good job that Oxy is the moderator and not you then isn't it.

Yes it is. Oxy is a first class mod. I'll disagree with something he does but his intentions are always with the board in mind.

He's human. He'll make mistakes......like this.

Toodle pip.

oxring wrote:If you have issue with moderation, as I'm sure you remember - you need to inform Hobo with your complaints.

This thread is not for another old timer debate. If you want another old timer debate - make a new thread.

I'd have thought even a man who claims that Scott Harrison would beat Bob Fitzsimmons could understand that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thread is greatest mismatches. Harrison/Fitz fits the bill perfectly.

Mismatches?

How about David Haye v Lennox Lewis. Haye was all hype and would not last more than a couple of rounds against Lewis.

Froch v Eubank/Calzaghe/Benn/Collins. Another hyped up fighter on Sky and not in the same league as some of the previous great British middleweights.

Calzaghe might be a mismatch but in no way is Froch over hyped or hyped at all, he'd give Benn, Eubank and Collins all a very good fight.

Interesting - but I'd back Froch to beat Collins. Maybe that's because I've never rated Collins all that highly - but given Froch's recently shown boxing skills - as well as his well known power and chin - there's enough there to make him a heavy favourite.

I don't understand the criticism of Froch, yes he's lost to Kessler and Ward but they are two fighters i'd back to beat Benn and Collins, very comfortably in Wards case. Are those losses any worse than Benns to Watson and Eubank, if anything i'd say Benns were worse.

You can't persuade me against Benn I'm afraid - am too much of a fan of his so I like to ignore his little limitations.

Think it's close a fight to call Oxy which was my point, Froch except for possibly Calzaghe isn't mismatched against any of the early 90's brits who I think have been elevated to a level higher than the reality.

Spot on analysis. Performance v Abraham one for the ages

I'd take froch to beat Collins and KO Benn

Benn at SMW was not as good as the MW version. His punch power was not as effective also. He went up to chase after Eubank (credit to him there). I reckon Froch will meet him head on and be able to take Benn's punches, whereas Benn wouldn't take Froch's punches.

I#d pick Watson over all of them except for Calzaghe and Ward.

Does Froch hit harder than Gman or Eubank? I'm not sure he does.

ShahenshahG wrote:Does Froch hit harder than Gman or Eubank? I'm not sure he does.

No. But I believe he'd be more durable than Gman, Eubank boxed against Benn and doubt Froch would opt to box. I think they'd meet head on and when the dust settles, Froch would be the one standing.

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I've never understood how a man with a primitve style and no defense could weigh in at under 160 pounds yet perform respectably against fully fledged heavyweights. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

The heavyweights were alot smaller and equally primative back then for the most part.

But Jeffries was a decent sized and heavy handed fighter for any era. Fitzsimmons gave him a very tough fight. If he was just there to be hit he'd surely be taken out in one round by any heavy with a decent dig. If he had no defense he must've had a P4P chin that made Lamotta look soft.

Jeffries was really the only top fully fledged heavyweight Fitzsimmons fought though. He was also pretty crude. That Jeffries won kind of highlights the massive impact size had. Fitzsimmons performed credibly by all accounts but in the end Jefries greater size, strength and durability just proved too much. Fitzsimmons seemed to be more skilled of the two though.

For me, if a guy weighing as roughly a super middleweight can win the the heavyweight title it says something about the era. At that time the heavyweight contenders were smaller in general. The likes of Maher, Sharkey, Corbett were basically light heavyweights. This as much as anything else is why I think Fitzsimmons was able to win the heavyweight championship. I just cant see Fitzsimmons winning consistently against top heavyweights who outweigh him significantly. I dont think himself, Corbett or Jeffries find success at heavyweight in most other era's although in the case of Corbett and Fitzsimmons I would doubt they fight at heavyweight in other eras with more established weight divisions to select from.

Jeffries most certainly did have a crude style and definitely relied on strength and durability, but that's not a bad thing, infact I'd call Jeffries the perfect heavyweight for those rules and era.

My point with Fitz being written off as having no skill is that a powerful, big fighter like Jeffries would only have to score a couple of good clean punches to knock Ruby Rob out. A middleweight being hit by a strong heavyweight, if he gets caught clean he's going down. Surely if Fitz didn't have any boxing skill as is being thought in one or two places, he would've been taken out within three. It's easy to forget that different rules call for different styles. A Mayweather shoulder roll is genius today, but with the tiny gloves of 1900 it'd be close to useless. I'm not one of those who think Fitzsimmons knocks out any modern champion yada yada, but he clearly had a skillset suited to the rules he fought under. Same as all great fighters.

I think that Fitzsimmons has the power to trouble anyone between middleweight and cruiserweight as well as a few genuine heavyweights but it's delivering that power which is the problem as Shavers shows. It is for that reason it's hard to completely write off a genuine power puncher with any degree of skill.

By "write off" - I presume you mean use the term "skinny alcoholic blacksmith"?

Something like that, if I said something similar of Jones i'm sure i'd be laughed at.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Something like that, if I said something similar of Jones i'm sure i'd be laughed at.

Short, lippy chicken farmer?

I'm not a huge fan of Jones but that's more because I felt he was hugely over rated but what he was able to do was fantastic. He was a one off talent who rewrote the book, much like Pryor he's the last person you would use as case study of how to box but it worked very well for him. Some posters it seem feel the need to completely disregard those they don't like.