More unpopular boxing opinions from v2

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon fellas, hope that you guys are finding this first day back at work after the Easter weekend a little easier going than I am.

If you can forgive me for a blatant rip off, I'd like to resurrect a great idea of Adam's from all the way back in 2011 where we all voice our unpopular boxing opinions. This can be anything within reason; a fighter (either currently active or from back in the day) who you rate a lot lower than just about everyone else, a fighter who you rate higher than just about everyone else, your take on a certain fight or decision from any era, a minority view on how a hypothetical match up would go, etc. You get the picture.

This took off really well last time and, given it's been a slow day so far, hopefully this could give us all something to at least get our teeth in to.

I'll get the ball rolling with a few unpopular boxing opinions of my own, which tend to go against general consensus and ruffle a few feathers.....

* The Manny Pacquiao, Tim Bradley fight from last summer just wasn't anything like the highway robbery that just about everyone else reported it as.

* Roy Jones Jr starts as favourite against just about any other Light-Heavyweight who ever drew breath, with the exception of Bob Foster (Bob being the narrow-ish favourite, for me) and, perhaps, Ezzard Charles who I'd put at 50:50.

* James J Corbett is, perhaps, the most overrated fighter in history.

* Mike Tyson at his best would beat both Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes in their pomp.

* Tommy Ryan is the most underrated all-time great of them all - even more underrated (in relative terms, remember) than Mr Burley and Mr Langford.

Any more for any more, then? If you've got an unpopular boxing opinion that you feel sure plenty of people will disagree with, the floor is yours and hopefully it'll get the debate flying again.

Cheers, everyone.

Herman, froch was using jc's name for publicity. He 'd done nothing to Warrant a shot. Neither had half the dross that jc did fight, to be fair, but hey.

I'm in the froch more over-rated than under-rated camp myself, but not by much. Think jc would have won pretty comfortably had they fought.

Milks, you are entitled to your opinion like everyone else and who's to say you aren't right.


But I think people have got to stop with the using his name for publicity argument already.

He wanted his shot at the champion to prove he was the best. It's what he'd dreamt about. And he was ready to fulfil it. Ok, maybe not pre Pascal, but post Pascal he deserved his shot. Seeing as how Pascal was better than anyhing Joe boxed with the exception of Hopkins, Chris being past his best etc. Now if Joe had rematched Hopkins, then took on Dawson, there'd be no grounds for any complaints...

But to dismiss Froch's chances so readily is to ignore the uncomfortable truth for Calzaghe fans. Namely that Froch had got Joe where it hurts. Upstairs.

I think Froch is rated about right by most. Not the fastest - or skillful, but tough, reasonably heavy handed, iron willed and with a good chin.

Those attributes can be assigned to Calzaghe, except Calzaghe was fast and fairly skilled too.

Anyone else think that Marquez would have given Duran an absolutely torrid time at Lightweight and, dare I say it, maybe even beat him if he had a proper set of judges?

Styles make fights and the more I think about it, the more I feel that Juan Manuel might be the last kind of fighter Duran would want to come across, even at his best weight of 135 lb. It's just as easy to see Duran taking it, and he starts as favourite, but in a series of fights I'd expect Marquez to pick up a couple of wins and, from a stylistic point of view, he might just have Roberto's number to a certain degree.

Got a little inebriated last night.....If I was a little over the top I apologise...

Mid-life crisis...No offence intended..

No real jc fan hermy, annoyed me that he stayed in his comfort zone for so long and then chased the dollar with the big names. Can't blame him financially but from a fan's perspective it was frustrating.

I don't blame froch for calling him out, which he did well before he'd proved anything himself. I just don't blame jc for ignoring it, there were bigger fish out there financially for him, as he chased his last few paydays.

Just happen to think jc was a better fighter, much as I admire what froch has achieved.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Got a little inebriated last night.....If I was a little over the top I apologise...

Mid-life crisis...No offence intended..

You were a little feisty but took it as late night banter truss. So in the cold light of day you agree.. Honey tops the pile

Herman Jaggery wrote:I just don't see how Froch is overrated Pedro.

He's also really struggled to break in to US p4p charts despite having a record that is very strong. This is largely because he's seen as defensively poor, quite slow, and, at times, technically ragged. So he's been underrated at times - until he strted beating a bunch of people. If anything, he's rated just right now. In the p4p 10-15 range and just about to fight to attempt to put a stamp on his position as no.2 SMW. That's pretty much where he's seen by most.

For me he's too easy to hit for Calzaghe who takes him on points (about similar to what Joe did to Kesslar).

Over my dead body............

TheMackemMawler wrote:"Too much credit for fighter's where too little footage"

"George foreman was pants and the whole era is overrated because it was competitive"

I'd pick Wlad over Jeffries and Johnson as well, but as rowley said their style fits their era, and I think they'd both be contenders whenever. Also it's hard to judge Jeffries by the Johnson fight as he'd been retired for six years.

On Foreman, do you think the 90's heavies weren't much good either because he was competitive then, too, when way past his best?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Over my dead body............

... Don't do it truss, it's just a mid life crisis, it'll pass.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:"Too much credit for fighter's where too little footage"

"George foreman was pants and the whole era is overrated because it was competitive"

I'd pick Wlad over Jeffries and Johnson as well, but as rowley said their style fits their era, and I think they'd both be contenders whenever. Also it's hard to judge Jeffries by the Johnson fight as he'd been retired for six years.

On Foreman, do you think the 90's heavies weren't much good either because he was competitive then, too, when way past his best?

Post any JJJ footage you like, you'll be unable to convince me could compete in any era.


RE: Forean.

Pants was an exaggeration. Very over-rated. Only power.

The only person note he beat in the ninties was Moorer (himself a footnote).

Wins over Lou Savaresse, and the like, don't mean much.

I don't have any decent footage of Jeffries. If I did it would show him being the best of his era when he was at his best.

I disagree he had only power. If it was just power then Shavers would be an ATG too. Foreman was accurate. He pawed with his punches then when he let them go he landed. His footwork was far better than he'll seemingly ever get credit for - well schooled in making the ring tiny.

Moorer was good enough to beat Cooper and Holyfield. Foreman also beat an old Cooney (younger than Foreman though) and Alex Stewart. Gave prime Evander Holyfield a good fight. If he was just powerful when he was young then the 90's must've been pretty awful if a 45 year old version of a guy so limited in his prime could be so competitive.

Jeffries was lucky because he had the opponents..........

Sharkey...Fitz and Corbett albeit long in the tooth (Two of them) are more eye catching than any Wlad opponent..

Herman Jaggery wrote:I just don't see how Froch is overrated Pedro. He's taken on everyone and only properly beaten once. And back to back the most gruelling run of fights in the division's history. Second best SM in the world today. Who's calling him the best? Also Calzaghe treated him like he had rabies.

Calzaghe fighting him then is the same as Froch fight Groves or De Gale now, different stages in their careers. I don't blame Froch for calling him out though.

"Properly beaten once"? Can you explain what you mean by this?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I don't have any decent footage of Jeffries. If I did it would show him being the best of his era when he was at his best.

I disagree he had only power. If it was just power then Shavers would be an ATG too. Foreman was accurate. He pawed with his punches then when he let them go he landed. His footwork was far better than he'll seemingly ever get credit for - well schooled in making the ring tiny.

Moorer was good enough to beat Cooper and Holyfield. Foreman also beat an old Cooney (younger than Foreman though) and Alex Stewart. Gave prime Evander Holyfield a good fight. If he was just powerful when he was young then the 90's must've been pretty awful if a 45 year old version of a guy so limited in his prime could be so competitive.

If you have power and physical strength, combined with a fear factor, it's easier to cut the ring off. He was also skilled in 'pawing and pushing'. Those things contributed to him cutting the ring off just as much as his basic footwork. Foreman footwork is better than people give him credit for, but anyone that says it is good is crazy.

Also a portion of Foremans accuracy can be accredited to the first punch landing and sub-concussing an opponent (the opposition stops thinking straight, momentarily freezes and Foreman proceeds to T-Off on a stationary target).

90's foreman was smarter than early the Foreman but still got beat off the only good fighters he fought.

Foreman was being beat by the small, above average, Moorer.......he was behind on all three cards before landing a single right-hand in the tenth.

Shavers is not an ATG simply because he got beat off good fighters. He gave everyone a good fight but ultimately came off second best. You don't make ATG by coming second. Norton was his best win, but Norton didn't like big men with power.

Foreman secures an all time place because he demolished the man who beat the man.

Also we need to big Foreman up so that Ali is EVEN MORE SPECIAL

Boxtthis wrote:

jammin wrote:

*Mayweather beats Sugar Ray Leonard at their primes

Oh no, no, no.

jammin wrote:*The majority of fighters are on PEDs

Probably true.

Okay, I say that apprehensively, but that don't think its out of the realms of possibly. Mayweather is heads and shoulders above any fighter of his era. I think Mayweather gets a SD! Its only unpopular because Leonard is so revered but once Mayweather has retired, I think he will have a place next to and maybe even above the 2nd most celebrated disaccharide in boxing.

5. Tommy Hearns is vastly over rated.

***

Sacrilege

RE: Mayweather beast Leonard.

Mayweather doesn't live with one of the greatest natural welters of all time. Think about where they started where they got to (SRL light-heavy). That's not an insignificant point. Then think if Mayweather ever fought a natural light-middle.

There's not much I'd put beyond Mayweather more often than not, but beating the second Sugar Ray might have to be one of them.

Leonard just as good for me, and either shut down or found ways around some truly phenomenal fighters, the type of which Floyd just doesn't have on his record. Ray just had everything, as I've said before; he could feint and box his way to victory on the outside, taking away his opponents trump cards (Benitez, Duran II), he could go toe to toe and win in slug fests (Kalule), he could fight his way back from the brink of defeat (Hearns I, Lalonde) and he could outpsyche an opponent and frustrate them in to fighting his kind of fight (Hagler).

Leonard was just a ridiculously complete fighter and he was ultra-fast, smooth as butter, had a great chin and could get on his bike and use the ring space.

The only edge I'd give to Mayweather is defence and even a fighter like Leonard has got his work cut out in trying to land cleanly enough and regularly enough to break him down, but while this is happening I just don't see Mayweather getting in to the fight enough from an attacking point of view to win it.

That's not even taking in to account that Leonard was the bigger man here. Great big'un, great little'un and all that jazz. Leonard against Mayweather at 147, and my money goes on Ray every single time.

yup

Celebrated disaccharide. Don't you come on here with your fancy words dissing the Leonard!

Actually, I'd give mayweather at decent shout at Leonard too. Think he might just get out worked and Srl more natural at the weight, but its a close one.

Calzaghe fighting him then is the same as Froch fight Groves or De Gale now, different stages in their careers. I don't blame Froch for calling him out though.

"Properly beaten once"? Can you explain what you mean by this?[/quote]



Not so, both the two you mentioned are quite some way yet from becoming Froch's mandatory.


To the question, my answer is no. Sorry.

Had the pleasure of meeting Ray some time ago and he was posed the question how he would fare against Floyd. Ray's response was I fought his father and all he had to say on the matter was "like father, like son"

Cool response and as amusing as it is true.

Leonard would have beaten Floyd handily for me.

Marquez had a tough old time up at lightweight against the likes of Casamayor and Katsidis. Can't see him beating Duran (the more natural at the weight).

I'd fancy Tyson against Lewis but the Holmes fight would be close.

Hearns would have knocked Mayweather out.

Bernard Hopkins beats Leonard

Pipinho Cuevas flattens De la Hoya.

Trinidad wasn't that good

Calzaghe Beats Hagler

Agree with Trinidad nit that good

I'm having trouble typing today

Julian Jackson hit like a girl ...




...in the throes of pregnancy.

ShahenshahG wrote:Bernard Hopkins beats Leonard

Pipinho Cuevas flattens De la Hoya.

Trinidad wasn't that good

Calzaghe Beats Hagler

Hopkins would be favourite, I'd have thought. Oscar flattens cuevas. Agree on Trinidad. Jc hagler would have been a good fight

milkyboy wrote:Celebrated disaccharide. Don't you come on here with your fancy words dissing the Leonard!

Actually, I'd give mayweather at decent shout at Leonard too. Think he might just get out worked and Srl more natural at the weight, but its a close one.

Good little debate I think.

SRL being one of my favourites of all time, I wouldn't dare Milky! SRL yes, amazing at the weight, but Mayweather being small at the weight is myth. He is a properly fully grown natural operator at welter.

Both have a knack of always winning, amazing ring IQ's, which is what it would come down to. Either way, Ray wouldn't have Floyd in his back pocket as some as suggested. Would be a close one. Ray wins the trilogy though!

ShahenshahG wrote:Julian Jackson hit like a girl ...




...in the throes of pregnancy.

When did you meet mrs milky... Is there something I should know?

Trinidad's a tricky one.

His record on paper is absolutely exceptional, and even his biggest critics would have to concede that he crammed in a shed load of fights against some genuinely top-class opposition with great regularity, despite being, for all intents and purposes, finished within the sport by the age of twenty-eight / twenty-nine.

You can't knock a guy who unified belts at Welter in 1999, unified belts at Light-Middle in 2000 and then, by 2001, was taking part in a knockout tournament to identify an undisputed champion at Middle!

They often say that true 'super fights' died at the end of the eighties, but Trinidad's showdowns with Oscar and Vargas weren't far off that status. Great value for money fighter who gave the fans some awsome moments of excitement.

That said, I think he probably overachieved and, when you watch him back, I can sort of appreciate why some might retrospectively downgrade him. For a pound for pound great, Tito was alarmingly one-dimensional; very reliant on his huge left hook, not a great mover, leaky in defence etc. Some greats are good all-rounders with no really notable weaknesses, whereas others are plainly average in a lof of areas but make up for it by being truly exceptional in one, maybe two others. In Trinidad's case, it was his fantastic punching power and enormous heart which made up for these shortcomings. If Roy Jones has a record which doesn't do his talent justice, then Trinidad has one which flatters his own gifts.

Looking back at Tito's career it's a bit difficult to ignore that his best moments always came when his opponent was right in front of him (Campas, Vargas etc). He beat a couple of 'runners' in Blocker and Whitaker, but Blocker was one of the more serviceable 147 lb champions and Whitaker was a shell, who'd almost certainly have burst the Trinidad bubble had they boxed to unify their Welterweight belts between 1993 and 1995. Against guys who could work some magic going away and who were at their best, it was a different story. Hopkins dealt with him decisively, De la Hoya made him look woeful for nine rounds before mentally checking out of the fight (and despite that, I still can't make a case for Tito getting the decision) and Winky outclassed him too, albeit that was Trinidad returning from a long lay off.

Still a brilliant fighter, but not as great as most thought he was at or around the turn of the century.

jammin wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Celebrated disaccharide. Don't you come on here with your fancy words dissing the Leonard!

Actually, I'd give mayweather at decent shout at Leonard too. Think he might just get out worked and Srl more natural at the weight, but its a close one.

Good little debate I think.

SRL being one of my favourites of all time, I wouldn't dare Milky! SRL yes, amazing at the weight, but Mayweather being small at the weight is myth. He is a properly fully grown natural operator at welter.

Both have a knack of always winning, amazing ring IQ's, which is what it would come down to. Either way, Ray wouldn't have Floyd in his back pocket as some as suggested. Would be a close one. Ray wins the trilogy though!

Srl started there and floyd finished there, he has a naturally bigger frame I'd say. Whichever, Leonard was the easier to hit of the two, so he's the one with the harder riddle to solve. i see it pretty cagey but think leonard puts the pressure on down the stretch, not one I'd bet my life on.

milkyboy wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Julian Jackson hit like a girl ...




...in the throes of pregnancy.

When did you meet mrs milky... Is there something I should know?

Er... I was working as a plumber at the time

... And the old boiler needed servicing I take it

Yeah, the problem was that who ever serviced it before only clean the pipes around the bottom off the pipe - as if he couldn't reach the top

Lucky you brought your extension gear with you then or we'd have had to call out dynarod

Wouldn't have mattered, they have hired me for the job

Mackem RE Foreman.
Although he didn't have the most imaginative feet I've always seen his pressuring work as clear evidence he could work the ring and the ropes to his advantage. Well drilled stuff. You say his opponents would often freeze due to being shaken/intimidated, but it was Foreman who shook/intimidated them. That adds to how good he was. Whether he stops them from getting away due what he does with his feet or what he does with his eyes/fists he stopped them from getting away. Call me crazy again, but purely from a pressuring point of view, I think Foreman had very good footwork. On the other hand your views on in the ring techniques tend to be right on so maybe I'm wrong.

He may have been smarter when he came back, but he was also older, slower and fatter. I'm well aware of the circumstances in which he beat Moorer, but he did it. That's part of the advantage a puncher has, he only needs to win ten seconds of a fight to get the W. He beat the man who beat the man who beat the man who beat the Tyson, fair and square.

The Shavers bit: You've made my point better than I did. They both have ridiculous power, but Foreman achieved much more, so he must've had more than just power or he'd just be another Shavers.





Ronald Mcintosh is the most magnificent pundit in the history of the universe.

Big powerful scary guy who used his physicality well and stopped people getting round the side, one way or another. I do agree he had more than power. His place in history is secure. I just think he's overrated.

I haven't seen enough of Shavers to be able to say why he didn't achieve as much as Foreman. My guess from his stats alone would be his size (6ft 0") and his chin (stopped 7 times from 14 defeats).

From watching him, he seems a bit dumb but tried to 'box'. Watch him bounce around and follow Quarry around ring like donkey chasing a carrot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEpVPBH12Ik

Fair play.

Shavers had many faults besides size. Stamina, defense, technique, chin. By technique I mean things like no kind of respectable jab, usually followed people rather than cornering them like Foreman. Wasn't great at putting punches together - usually a left swing (not aimed at the body or head particularly, just aimed towards his opponent generally) followed by an overhand right. That overhand right just happened to be one of the most devastating punches in history.

He an 80 odd inch reach if memory serves correct. With a slicker jab and more responsibility he could've been a better pressure fighter than he was. Had an absolute war with Ron Lyle which would've been a KO victory for Ernie if it happened today.

azania wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't try to bulls**t me..........................

No point- you can't bullsh*t a bullsh*tter!

Pacquiao was robbed in Marquez 4.

It was a quick count.

That some of us can rate Boxers on their attributes and achievements whilst unfortunately others can't look past the color of their skin...

John Bloody Wayne wrote:None of the Marquez/Pacquiao fights were robberies individually.

You really got me thinking with this one, JBW, to the point where I had to watch their third fight again this week to see if I can get along your line of thinking (as I agree that, while Marquez was maybe a shade unlucky in the first one, a 1-0-1 scoreline in favour of Pacquiao for the first two fights wasn't exactly an injustice).

However, I still can't find a way of making a case for Manny in the third one! There weren't too many rounds which were won very clearly and totally outright, but those which were always seemed to belong to Marquez, for me. There were some close rounds, but I tend to think that Marquez was still doing enough to be appreciably better in many of them, if not overwhelmingly better. I ended up with another 116-112 card in Marquez's favour (third time I've seen the fight and I've had it 8-4 in rounds every time) and, even if I give Pacquiao some extra benefit of the doubt, I still can't find a way to make him the winner, or even get a share of the spoils.

I agree one hundred percent that neither of the first two fights were anything to cry about, but the third still leaves a sour taste, for me - and the word 'robbery' still applies in my eyes.

Incidentally, none of the HBO commentators or analysists should have been paid for that appearance - absolutely dreadful, verging on the disgraceful, work by the lot of them!

hazharrison wrote:Leonard would have beaten Floyd handily for me.

Marquez had a tough old time up at lightweight against the likes of Casamayor and Katsidis. Can't see him beating Duran (the more natural at the weight).

I'd fancy Tyson against Lewis but the Holmes fight would be close.

I have watched the Marquez vs Katsidas fight about 10 times and this myth that Marquez struggled absolutely baffles me!!

Apart from getting caught with a fire cracker in the 3rd round, Marquez give Katsidas one of the worst beatings of recent times. Katsidas standing throwing punches all over the place and not many of note landing is nothing new to Marquez, he had his back to the ropes and the punches he was countering back with were snapping Katsidas' head back to the point were it was hard to watch. After the 3rd round it was a sorry sight for Katsidas and the finish was sad also, especially under the circumstances of his brother dying etc.

But in no way did Marquez struggle in that fight, a flash knock down was the only thing that even resembled a struggle in that fight.

Marquez knew what way Katsidas was going to fight and he did a brutal number on him.

10 times? You need to get out more reborn.

Although it was close on the cards, I think he pretty much had casamayor sorted half way through the fight too. That said, we're talking a casa on the slide.

Neither casa and especially not katsidas are Duran though!