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.

Well may have exaggerated a little there, but the Katsidas and the Diaz (1) fights for me are 2 of my favorites in the last few years.

I love how Marquez had completely wreck a seriously aggressive hard hitting fighter. Its like magic.

But for me the Katsidas fight was a fight that practically ruined him.

You have to admire how jmm makes the very best of what he has and outsmarts guys who appear to have physical advantages over him. Works just about everytime til you meet a floyd, someone with everything you have but a bit better at it all.

Can't be that smart...........

He beat a guy 10-1-1 got robbed and allowed himself to keep getting mugged!!

88Chris05 wrote:

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!

I've come to accept that this is just one of those fights that I see differently to 90 percent of people, but it's the Holly Wilaboobie tat nature of many of the rounds, especially later on, that leave me not seeing a decisive victor. I've scored it Marquez' way by a point or two since first scoring it Pacquiao's by a point. I just wish it were a 15 rounder.




Sergio Martinez is better looking than he is at boxing.

Fair enough, JBW. As you'll know, I was one of the small minority who didn't consider Pacquiao-Bradley a highway job, so I see where you're coming from.

... Still can't see my take on Alexander matthysse though Chris !

1/ Lewis should have been given the benefit of the doubt in the first McCall fight and allowed to continue.

2/ Frazier would have beaten Ali in Manila if he'd come out for that last round because Ali collapsed afterwards and wanted his gloves cutting off. Proof if proof were needed that Ali was lucky.

3/ Witter would have beaten Hatton that's why he avoided him

4/ Amir Khan ducked John Murray and Jon Thaxton

Wouldn't Frazier have been lucky ......Behind on all the cards...getting a slap and half blind to have won..........

Ali deserved to win...

Witter was a bit to like Graham to make a statement like that...

I can see why the points you made are unpopular..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Can't be that smart...........

He beat a guy 10-1-1 got robbed and allowed himself to keep getting mugged!!

This 10-1-1 line is just never going to go away, is it Truss!?

Anyway, Marquez is a truly wonderful fighter, and I guess one of the things I like the most about him is that, although he's generally seen as a technician and back-foot slickster who gradually outsmarts and unlocks opponents, he's a rare case who can combine that side with a real cutting edge, too; when he gets his man hurt he's relentless and clinical. Great fighter.

Anyway, with regards to my idea that he could beat Duran at 135, it comes from watching Duran's fights against DeJesus, really. Marquez and Esteban have a fair bit in common, only that Marquez can perhaps absorb a bit more punishment than DeJesus and maybe has a shade more punching power.

Admittedly, Duran kept DeJesus pretty much in check throughout their third meeting (maybe his most consumate all-round performance) but the other two would give Marquez plenty of hope. Duran was always liable to swat first if the two fighters were holding in the centre of the ring, just as Pacquiao is, and Marquez definitely has the 'nads to stay in range to counter Roberto and take some of his shots in return (Mayweather, for instance, makes you miss and makes you pay as he's out of there much quicker than Marquez usually, whereas Marquez can make you miss and make you pay, or get hit but still make you pay). I think Marquez's chin and powers of recuperation are good enough to hold out, certainly if it's only a twelve rounder in any case.

Mayweather's really the only guy who's had Marquez's number, but he has sweet FA in common with Duran from a styles point of view. If Marquez can stay off the ropes and avoid getting caught cold, he'd be in with a pretty decent chance of upsetting Duran, for me.

I use it with rolled like a drunk..to show my consistency...........

I agree that stylistically Duran is the type of fighter you'd think was made for Marquez.. He's just better than those others.

I'd suggest Chris John maybe had Marquez' number... He made the counter puncher come to him. Stinker of a fight, but not the robbery jmm bleated about. Not lost on me that mayweather apart, he hasn't fought a Blackfoot slickster since.

Cherry picker!

Haven't seen the Marquez-John fight in a long, long time, Milky but I agree that it was no robbery at all. However, I do think Marquez has been one of a rare breed which gets better with age (see McCallum, Zoomy, Hopkins etc) and I think he became a better fighter in the aftermath of losing to John. Anyway, as I said it's really just a styles thing which makes me think that Marquez could upset the applecart in this one.

But you're right though, Marquez is a cherry picker!

Makes the three knockdown rule look like the garbage it is.... too.........

88Chris05 wrote:Haven't seen the Marquez-John fight in a long, long time, Milky but I agree that it was no robbery at all. However, I do think Marquez has been one of a rare breed which gets better with age (see McCallum, Zoomy, Hopkins etc) and I think he became a better fighter in the aftermath of losing to John. Anyway, as I said it's really just a styles thing which makes me think that Marquez could upset the applecart in this one.

But you're right though, Marquez is a cherry picker!

Not a fight i'd recommend anyone watching twice Chris! I agree jmm has improved with age, even if the latest example looked a bit... Unnatural. Certainly his style would give roberto something to think about

Think Duran batters him honestly chris - Marquez is slow as Frak in comparison and duran would laugh at his punch power. Marquez found Manny easy to hit clean - so did many others but they werent clever or good enough to limit the things coming back at em (even Marquez wasnt the first time). Marquez might have the slickness but the things he is very good at (distance, timing and movement - Duran is better). I think even an old version of Duran would beat Marquez like he beat Camacho in their first fight. Add to that that he is smaller and falls over himself everytime he gets one unexpectedly to the face - Duran, figures him out in one round and slips the cross to put him flat on his arse again and again and again.

Given Duran's record against skilled boxers..............

I'd pick Marquez.............

Other than style, there's also the size factor that came up in Leonard v Mayweather. Marquez won't go higher than welterweight, where he is small in comparison to most welters. Duran was a massive lightweight, and would balloon in weight between fights, he was a welterweight long before the Leonard fight and ended up fighting at middleweight and super middleweight. Could we imagine Marquez ever standing up to Barkley?

Physically Duran has it in his favor, but also he had the ability to come forward without getting hit cleanly, while launching his own debilitating offense. Marquez isn't the sort to do anything but impress while losing to a fighter like Duran, but lose he would in my eyes.

Can the feature that holds posts to let you know a new one has been sent while you were writing yours be removed somehow?

Good points, Shah, but I don't think Duran can afford to laugh at Marquez's punching power. De Jesus put him over twice so Roberto can't be too complacent against a puncher as sharp as Juan Manuel.

I don't really see size playing too big a part here. Duran's a big bigger naturally but Marquez is a tough guy to get hold of and man-handle. Besides, Duran was weighing in on the day of the fight in his Lightweight pomp and there will have been a few Super-Feathers from more recent years who'd be scaling more on fight night than Duran was for a few of his Lightweight defences.

I definitely think that there's a chance of Duran blasting Marquez out early as Marquez can be caught napping, but he generally grows in to the fight as it goes on and, if he finds that same rhythm, I find it hard to see Duran completely dominating like that, personally. If he gets settled and doesn't let Duran push him around then I see his countering and legs giving Duran plenty to think about.

Duran was an awesome Lightweight, but like anyone else he did have certain styles and opponents who could really extend him and I think Marquez might have been one of them had they boxed at 135 in the same era, even if Duran wins more than he loses against him.

But hey, there's a reason I put it on the unpopular opinions thread - because I knew basically nobody else would agree!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Given Duran's record against skilled boxers..............

I'd pick Marquez.............

You're just angry because Duran would whoop the Don arse worse than Honeyghan did

I agree with Shah on this one, Duran was a smarter boxer than he's given credit for, Hearns was the only guy who ever had the power to really trouble him so don't think he's going to be too worried with Marquez. He's bigger, stronger, more durable, more powerful and a little bit smarter.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Wouldn't Frazier have been lucky ......Behind on all the cards...getting a slap and half blind to have won..........

Ali deserved to win...

Witter was a bit to like Graham to make a statement like that...

I can see why the points you made are unpopular..

Everytime the "Thriller..." topic crops up there's always some dingbat claiming Frazier would have won the fight if Futch hadn't pulled him out. Ali was a mile ahead and even Marvis Frazier has said he heard Futch tell Joe at the end of the 13th that he was only going to give him one more round. Still doesn't stop the Ali haters from claiming Ali is the jammiest fighter walking the planet.

Hatton didn't help himself by not taking out Witter. On his day, Witter could be a very tricky slippery customer and THEORETICALLY run rings around Hatton. However, as he showed on more than one occasion, he generally stunk the place out when it mattered and I think Hatton would have done to him what he did to Malignaggi, hit him early, make him retreat into his shell and dominate him for a wide UD.

DAVE667 wrote:Everytime the "Thriller..." topic crops up there's always some dingbat claiming Frazier would have won the fight if Futch hadn't pulled him out. Ali was a mile ahead and even Marvis Frazier has said he heard Futch tell Joe at the end of the 13th that he was only going to give him one more round. Still doesn't stop the Ali haters from claiming Ali is the jammiest fighter walking the planet.

Bad, but not quite as bad as Holmes' (and Tyson's biggest critics') claim that Larry was about to lay a beating on Mike in the fourth round until his glove got caught on the ropes immediately before he got knocked out!

*Don King has ruined more the lives of more black boxers than any promoter in history*
*Boxing is not dying, in fact it is alive and well*
*Muhammad Ali lost the damn Norton series 3-0 (yeah, I said it)*

*Don King has ruined more the lives of more black boxers than any promoter in history*


When was this considered an "unpopular opinion"??

*If Joe Calzaghe had fought Roy Jones Jr in 2003 at Light Heavy (about the time Jones did his heavyweight thing) it would have been a closer fight than most would give him credit for.

Mr Bounce wrote:*If Joe Calzaghe had fought Roy Jones Jr in 2003 at Light Heavy (about the time Jones did his heavyweight thing) it would have been a closer fight than most would give him credit for.

Well if he'd have fought him in late 2003 (so after Jones came back down from Heavyweight, rather than before), then I think Calzaghe would have been well placed to upset Roy, actually. His critics can talk about how nonsensical it was all they like, but it's clear that coming back down from 193 (which he scaled when he boxed Ruiz) to making 175 again eight months later really did take its toll on Jones. Add in the fact that his reflexes were being dimmed by age, and I think Calzaghe may well have managed what Tarver couldn't quite at the back end of '03.

Tarver wasn't quite daring enough (or quick enough) to really put the result beyond doubt, despite having a Jones in front of him who looked soft, off balance and tired pretty early on. Work rate would never be a problem for Calzaghe, and in that fight it was clear that Jones just didn't have the reflexes or anticipation to evade punches like he could in the past - his only form of defence was to stick the 'ear muffs' on, tuck his elbows in and retreat to the ropes. Calzaghe wouldn't have let rounds slip away like Tarver did by just not doing enough.

Uhm... Well, I thought people thought Arum took the title

Not a direct response to kingraf but something I've read many times: Norton was robbed all three times against Ali.

Norton was not robbed in the first fight; he got the verdict and the win.

I've also never seen why the 2nd is seen as a clear Norton victory.

9/10 ali loses to either klit

Modern boxers are far superior than their predecessors

Unpopular opinions not insane opinions.