Ike Quartey vs Oscar De la Hoya

I revisited this last night and scored the bout to Quartey by 2-3 rounds, despite Oscar's last round rally. Couple of things:
 
The HBO commentary was atrocious. They were convinced this was the 90's answer to Leonard vs Hearns and that became their storyline of the night. They continually referenced it throughout to the point of annoyance. George Foreman put in one of the worst commentary shifts of all time. During some of the middle rounds (most of which went to Quartey) Oscar would barely throw a punch (something the ever astute Larry Merchant would point out -- not that anyone was listening) yet Foreman would declare he was winning the fight. At one point he said something along the lines of: "Not doing much is doing a lot". Even the replays at the end of each round focussed on Oscar's work rather than Quartey's.
 
The fight was intriguing but hardly a classic. Some rounds featured very little action, yet Quartey jabbed throughout, while Oscar -- his feet stuck in mud -- merely fenced and fired off the odd ineffective combination.
 
I was reminded of exactly why I found Oscar such a frustrating boxer to watch (and often scored against him). His punch output was low -- he'd confine himself to little bursts on the whole. But here's the thing: in almost every multi-punch salvo he'd miss with the majority of punches.
 
While the fight was close, the rounds were clear enough to score without much argument. While I take umbrage with those who declare a close fight a robbery, this seemed a slightly different case as most rounds weren't really open to interpretation -- they clearly belonged to one side or the other.
 
Quartey, for me, proved he was the better welterweight. Merchant (the only guy who didn't appear to be on the "Oscar is the second coming of Ray Leonard" bandwagon) scored it to Quartey by a couple of rounds. Lederman had it even (he was overly generous to Oscar in the first half). Even Lampley knew Oscar had lost -- along with Oscar's trainer Gil Clancy.
 
Had Oscar not managed to mount that last round rally (which was brilliant) and merely played keep-away to give Quartey the round -- he'd still have escaped with a draw!

Great fight remember it well.

Ike was a good fringe contender but staying focus was always a problem, could have done more in his career.

Round 11 was the round everyone remembers. Remember Atlas almost calling for the fight to be stopped but Ike returned fire.

Agree that Quartey-De la Hoya was more of an absorbing fight than a classic one, Haz. It was a relatively uspectacular fight which was saved by two outstanding rounds, the sixth (where both fighters hit the deck) and of course the twelfth, where Oscar came desperately close to finishing Ike off. Quartey was completely out on his feet by the end. Both Oscar and Ike were undefeated and, in essence, this was a match between two champions as Ike was dreadfully unlucky to be stripped of the WBA belt beforehand as well, which probably lead to people trying as best they could to dress it up as an all-time barnstormer.

Obviously, this is when De la Hoya and Trinidad were moving ever-closer to their massive showdown now that King was letting Tito fight on HBO. In fact, on that same network Trinidad defended against the returning Whitaker just one week later and, despite it not being as close on the cards, you'd have to say that Trinidad-Whitaker was probably the better, more enjoyable fight of the pair.

That being said, last time I watched it (which was about 18 months ago), I actually scored this fight in favour of Oscar thanks to that twelfth round burst. Close enough a fight for it to be argued either way but from what I can gather I do seem to be in a slight minority there.

Like you, I felt that Quartey was well in charge from about rounds 5 to 9, but this was one of the rare occasions in which De la Hoya's stamina didn't betray him and he was actually in the ascendancy in a big fight in the championship rounds. If I remember correctly (and there's chance my memory might be hazy on this!) he seemed to switch it up towards the end, reverting to a more patient attempt at countering as he was coming off second best to Quartey's jab when he tried to carry the fight to him beforehand.

For me, De la Hoya's brilliant twelfth just about pulled it out the bag, or at least was enough for me to feel that he shouldn't have lost the fight outright, as I could easily have accepted a draw.....But it was very, very close.

Oscar's greatest night as a Welterweight by a mile.

I had Quartey winning the first two (although I had to break from round two to stop the baby wiping butter on the furniture and so that one may need reviewing) and could only find two rounds for Oscar in the first six (Quartey took the sixth -- Oscar shut down completely after he was dropped in return).

Ike was more active in the middle rounds -- he kept Oscar in check with his jab and took away Oscar's left hook. Oscar nicked round ten but lost the eleventh (he went back to his corner shaking his head) and pulled out the last 10-8.

The late Mitch Halpern did a first class job refereeing by the way -- there are a few who'd have jumped between them when Oscar tried to finish, despite the fact he was missing a lot of those shots.

Just took a look at my scorecard for it, Haz (I love not being at work!).

I had Quartey winning the first, fifth, sixth (9-8, as I agree with you that he brushed his knockdown off better than Oscar, who had to hold and retreat after being shaken up by another big left), seventh and eighth. I had Oscar winning rounds 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12 (10-8). I had the ninth round even, as I thought that Quartey looked in control before getting careless towards the end, opening up and taking unnecessary big shots.

That left me with 114-112 for Oscar, or 114-113 if I gave Quartey the ninth round outright, which would be totally fair as a 10-10 in that round would be the kindest you could be to De la Hoya, I feel.

Have always just seemed to edge towards De la Hoya whenever I've seen this fight.....Might take another look soon to see if anything has changed.

88Chris05 wrote:Just took a look at my scorecard for it, Haz (I love not being at work!).

I had Quartey winning the first, fifth, sixth (9-8, as I agree with you that he brushed his knockdown off better than Oscar, who had to hold and retreat after being shaken up by another big left), seventh and eighth. I had Oscar winning rounds 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12 (10-8). I had the ninth round even, as I thought that Quartey looked in control before getting careless towards the end, opening up and taking unnecessary big shots.

That left me with 114-112 for Oscar, or 114-113 if I gave Quartey the ninth round outright, which would be totally fair as a 10-10 in that round would be the kindest you could be to De la Hoya, I feel.

Have always just seemed to edge towards De la Hoya whenever I've seen this fight.....Might take another look soon to see if anything has changed.

Check out the commentary if you do. Foreman, who's always been an oddball behind the mic, is on another planet.

I tend to watch most fights without commentary to be honest, mate, particularly if it's a fight where I'm taking interest in the scoring. But if George "The referee is the most important man in the ring in this fight apart from the two boxers!" Foreman's form is as outrageous as you say it is, I might have to listen in this time!

 

88Chris05 wrote:I tend to watch most fights without commentary to be honest, mate, particularly if it's a fight where I'm taking interest in the scoring. But if George "The referee is the most important man in the ring in this fight apart from the two boxers!" Foreman's form is as outrageous as you say it is, I might have to listen in this time!

Its fair to say Chris is a real fight fan   

I enjoyed that period of boxing. Great fighters emerging with Oscar as the figure head. Thought Quarty contributed his bit as well as Vargas, Gatti, and others.

Had a look at Whitaker vs Oscar last night. Scored it a draw or possibly by a point to Oscar (couldn't make my mind up about one round -- 5th I think).

Strange to think De la Hoya never decisively defeated any of his best opponents (other than an already mangled Vargas).

Ask a bunch of people who they thought won the Quartey, Trinidad and Whitaker fights and you'll get a raft of different answers.

Oscar had the knack for close or contentious ones right throughout his career. I scored De la Hoya-Whitaker 114-113 to Whitaker last time I had a go, so even though I had the other man by a single point we're basically on the same wavelength; extremely close, somewhat difficult to score, and one of those rare fights where you find yourself thinking that a draw might actually have been the fairest result for both.

I think the HBO team showed that with their remarks as the twelfth got underway. From what I remember, as the round started, Lederman stated that he had Oscar a point up. Roy Jones stated that he Whitaker in front, and that Pea just needed to make sure he didn't get stopped in the last round to win. Merchant said that he had Whitaker ahead slightly, too, but also that he didn't really feel sure if either man deserved to win it outright, given that low-key nature of many rounds. HBO also polled 26 publications who watched from ringside afterwards - 14 had it for Whitaker, 11 had it for De la Hoya and 1 had it dead even. Just one of those fights.

Don't have my card to hand right now, so might be slightly off with this, but my recollection is that I gave Whitaker rounds 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 (10-8 with the knockdown) and 11, Oscar rounds 2, 3 (10-8 with Whitaker's point deduction), 8, 10 and 12, with the 6th round a 10-10.

Even as Whitaker's biggest chair leader on here, I have to acknowledge that De la Hoya winning in itself wasn't the travesty, as there's a case to be made for it. It was nothing like Ramirez I or Chavez, which were stone wall robberies. Rather, it was the margins in Oscar's favour which were appalling; 4, 6, and 6 points respectively. No idea how anyone could score it that wide, regardless of who you had winning it. Had Oscar nicked a split decision by something like 113-114, 115-113, 114-113, then I don't think the fight would be viewed as a rip off the way it is in some quarters today. As Merchant said afterwards when the pair of them were interviewed, it just looks like Whitaker had to win by a knockout which, let's be frank, was never going to happen.

Chris you have your scorecard from 18 months ago? You've just brought boxing nerd to a new level.

88Chris05 wrote:Oscar had the knack for close or contentious ones right throughout his career. I scored De la Hoya-Whitaker 114-113 to Whitaker last time I had a go, so even though I had the other man by a single point we're basically on the same wavelength; extremely close, somewhat difficult to score, and one of those rare fights where you find yourself thinking that a draw might actually have been the fairest result for both.

I think the HBO team showed that with their remarks as the twelfth got underway. From what I remember, as the round started, Lederman stated that he had Oscar a point up. Roy Jones stated that he Whitaker in front, and that Pea just needed to make sure he didn't get stopped in the last round to win. Merchant said that he had Whitaker ahead slightly, too, but also that he didn't really feel sure if either man deserved to win it outright, given that low-key nature of many rounds. HBO also polled 26 publications who watched from ringside afterwards - 14 had it for Whitaker, 11 had it for De la Hoya and 1 had it dead even. Just one of those fights.

Don't have my card to hand right now, so might be slightly off with this, but my recollection is that I gave Whitaker rounds 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 (10-8 with the knockdown) and 11, Oscar rounds 2, 3 (10-8 with Whitaker's point deduction), 8, 10 and 12, with the 6th round a 10-10.

Even as Whitaker's biggest chair leader on here, I have to acknowledge that De la Hoya winning in itself wasn't the travesty, as there's a case to be made for it. It was nothing like Ramirez I or Chavez, which were stone wall robberies. Rather, it was the margins in Oscar's favour which were appalling; 4, 6, and 6 points respectively. No idea how anyone could score it that wide, regardless of who you had winning it. Had Oscar nicked a split decision by something like 113-114, 115-113, 114-113, then I don't think the fight would be viewed as a rip off the way it is in some quarters today. As Merchant said afterwards when the pair of them were interviewed, it just looks like Whitaker had to win by a knockout which, let's be frank, was never going to happen.

Yep, linked to an HBO show taped the following week where Merchant mentioned a quote from Oscar where he'd suggested he'd be favoured on points due to his earning potential (with the WBC).

The WBC had a bizarre rule in place back then, that if a fighter was cut as a result of an accidental butt, the referee would take a point from the other guy. Not that it affected the result but if you discount that -- which in my view we should -- then it was as close to a draw as it gets.

Great performance from Whitaker who was physically outgunned.

Ha ha, I think it must be an OCD kind of thing, jimdig, because I just have to keep a scorecard or notes for just about every fight I've ever watched! Not healthy......

88Chris05 wrote:Ha ha, I think it must be an OCD kind of thing, jimdig, because I just have to keep a scorecard or notes for just about every fight I've ever watched! Not healthy......

We need to cryogenically freeze Chris05 so that the history of boxing is preserved.


I hear the other 606 is doing the same with D4.   

hazharrison wrote:Had a look at Whitaker vs Oscar last night. Scored it a draw or possibly by a point to Oscar (couldn't make my mind up about one round -- 5th I think).

Strange to think De la Hoya never decisively defeated any of his best opponents (other than an already mangled Vargas).

Ask a bunch of people who they thought won the Quartey, Trinidad and Whitaker fights and you'll get a raft of different answers.

You can add the mosley fights to that list too haz.

He never decisively defeated them but wasnt decisively defeated by any of them either.

Had Oscar winning the Quartey fight. As above have said was unspectacular save for 2 rounds, other than a pretty 'marish fight to score and devoid of any sustained periods of action.. One I prefer to forget about save for said 2 rounds and still want to execute Lampley via castration to boot.

Trinidad, for me, was a bit of a robbery but only has himself to blame for coasting. Even with that I personally struggle to see how he lost that fight. But hey, I had Froch almost level with Groves and guess it's how you see each round etc.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Had a look at Whitaker vs Oscar last night. Scored it a draw or possibly by a point to Oscar (couldn't make my mind up about one round -- 5th I think).

Strange to think De la Hoya never decisively defeated any of his best opponents (other than an already mangled Vargas).

Ask a bunch of people who they thought won the Quartey, Trinidad and Whitaker fights and you'll get a raft of different answers.

You can add the mosley fights to that list too haz.

He never decisively defeated them but wasnt decisively defeated by any of them either.

I thought the first fight was clear cut. Mosley deserved that verdict. I scored the second fight to him, also, but was in a minority.

I used to say that if the aim of football was to get the ball as close to the top of the bar as possible, then Stewart Downing would be the greatest.

If the aim of boxing was to get as many punches as close to your opponent's face without connecting, then Oscar would be the greatest fighter.

So there you have it: Oscar De la Hoya is the Stewart Downing of boxing. I bet that's never been said before.

You hide it beautifully, but I just get the sneaking suspicion of a hint of a suggestion of an undertone that you're not oscar's greatest fan haz.

I know, bit of a left field 'where did he pluck that one from' assertion on my part, but there I 've said it.

milkyboy wrote:You hide it beautifully, but I just get the sneaking suspicion of a hint of a suggestion of an undertone that you're not oscar's greatest fan haz.

I know, bit of a left field 'where did he pluck that one from' assertion on my part, but there I 've said it.

   

For every close fight Oscar won It has to be said...........There was another one he lost.......

I had Oscar winning both Mosley fights and the Trinidad one.........

Chavez was a top operator too...........and he beat him easy enough twice..........

Oscar doesn't get the credit he deserves on here.........Had he stayed at a weight jr/light... lightweight/......jr welt and done a Hagler.......He probably rules for ten years,,,,,

He was ambitious though.......Sad to see the treatment Oscar gets on here.......A bit like Calzaghe and Hatton get...........and Froch no doubt too when he retires.

The op hasn't a problem with just Oscar though.......Like Fleischer and theilk he resents the modern breed.......

Nothing they do will be good enough........

But It's fairplay...............My Dad thinks Nicklaus hammers Woods all day long.......My Grandpa thought Paul Pender beats everybody........

milkyboy wrote:You hide it beautifully, but I just get the sneaking suspicion of a hint of a suggestion of an undertone that you're not oscar's greatest fan haz.

I know, bit of a left field 'where did he pluck that one from' assertion on my part, but there I 've said it.

Not hiding anything - wasn't a fan. I was a Trinidad man.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:For every close fight Oscar won It has to be said...........There was another one he lost.......

I had Oscar winning both Mosley fights and the Trinidad one.........

Chavez was a top operator too...........and he beat him easy enough twice..........

Oscar doesn't get the credit he deserves on here.........Had he stayed at a weight jr/light... lightweight/......jr welt and done a Hagler.......He probably rules for ten years,,,,,

He was ambitious though.......Sad to see the treatment Oscar gets on here.......A bit like Calzaghe and Hatton get...........and Froch no doubt too when he retires.

The op hasn't a problem with just Oscar though.......Like Fleischer and theilk he resents the modern breed.......

Nothing they do will be good enough........

But It's fairplay...............My Dad thinks Nicklaus hammers Woods all day long.......My Grandpa thought Paul Pender beats everybody........

Chavez was physically overmatched.

I don't resent modern fighters. Resent implies some sort of bitterness - why would I be bitter? Despite the fact I wasn't a fan, had Oscar beaten one or two of those top welters decisively I'd have been the first to praise his achievements. I'm no fanboy like yourself - one of my favourite fighters of all time was Lennox Lewis yet I'm the guy arguing against his placement in an all time top ten on another thread.

The first Oscar fight was at 140...........A weight he had his best wins at against Meldrick and others...............

So I beg to differ...........

Oscar was a big 140 pounder...........But a 140 pounder he was........

Stop looking for little things to bring Oscar down..

Chavez was quality...........and excellent at 140...........................

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The first Oscar fight was at 140...........A weight he had his best wins at against Meldrick and others...............

So I beg to differ...........

Oscar was a big 140 pounder...........But a 140 pounder he was........

Stop looking for little things to bring Oscar down..

Chavez was quality...........and excellent at 140...........................

Chavez was better than quality. He was an all-time great but he was years past his best and a 7-1 underdog second time around. Oscar was massive alongside him (not that it's worth arguing the toss with you).

We've had this one out before haz and I don't have the stomach for it but in my view Oscar Chavez 1 was a legit fight. Jcc was certainly past his best but he had matured into light welter years earlier and still only had the Randall defeat) plus the Whittaker 'draw' as his losses. It was Oscar that was moving up in weight. At their respective ages it was the weights they were, no blowing up or boiling down.

That said, it clearly wasn't prime chavez and the win carries that caveat.. A good win, not a great one.
The second fight was a waste of everyone's time.

Well first and foremost, before size gets brought in to it, I think that Chavez being clearly on the downturn for the first fight, and more or less shot by the second, is the primary reason for why Oscar was able to trample all over him the way he did. Who knows, maybe De la Hoya could have beaten a peak Chavez, too. I wouldn't rule it out. But if he did, it would never have been in such a one-sided manner, I feel.

And so on to size. Well, usually we only complain about a fighter being overmatched if they're taking steps in to a new division for the first time, or competing in a weight class which is alien to them and clearly a step too far. Clearly not the case for Julio, here. His record very possibly entitles him to be called the most successful 140 pounder in history.

That said, Julio was a Light-Welter for any era, who generally only scaled about 142 / 143 on fight night in any case. On the other hand, I'm not sure that De la Hoya, certainly a 1996 version at the age of 23, ever gets down to Light-Welter without weigh ins taking place 36 hours before the fight.

By the letter of the law, though, if you make Light-Welter for the weigh in, you're a Light-Welter and unfortunately for Chavez, that's part and parcel of boxing now, and was in 1996, too. Oddball fighters who can squeeze big frames down to weights which seem unlikely from the outset have been around since weight classes were introduced, and they always will be. If you're only dipping your toes in to a weight class for a one-off experiment, or you're really going some just to compete at that weight, then by all means be mindful not to take on such fighters. But when it's a division in which you've produced many of your greatest performances and results in a truly glittering career, the excuse doesn't quite wash as well.

That said, I would be interested in seeing the difference in weigh between Julio and Oscar on fight night when they actually stepped through the ropes. But as far as I know, HBO never asked for those weights.

Don't know the ring weights either chris, but he came in at 139 and had been making lightweight 6 months earlier... Can't see he had to kill himself.

I wish there had been some bigger fights at light welter for him. Always though Oscar looked a better fighter below welter... Faster and more mobile.

Chavez had been tiring of the business for years - I can recall him looking almost bored against Andy Holligan in '93 -- dropping his hands nonchalantly like he was going through the motions -- and it cost him against Randall who boxed wonderfully and put him on his butt. Chavez had begun to slide - he looked like losing the rematch and was very lucky to have had the chance to dip out with the cut when he did.

If memory serves me correct King was pondering putting him in with Terry Norris which would have been assisted suicide.

It wasn't disputing it was a legitimate 140 pound fight only that physically, Chavez was like a Cadillac on its last legs -- a vet of almost 100 bouts who was starting to cut and bust up, while Oscar was as fresh as a daisy. He was huge at the weight also while Chavez had maxed out there.

It was a great name at the right time.

See what you're saying, Milky. I guess the fact that De la Hoya ended up having to strip butt naked on the scales to make Welter, never mind Light-Welter, by the time he was 26 and ended up fighting at about 165 lb when the bell rang(while looking in great nick physically, if not in his performances) during his Light-Middle campaigns just means that I can't get my head around him being a 140 man in the days of same-day weigh ins, whereas Chavez could. But hey, like I said, that's just one take on it and far from fact.

Haz, the crazy thing was that, apparently, Chavez told King that he'd be willing to fight Norris (if Norris met him half way at 147) if King could guarantee him a $10 million purse. Kind of suggests, as you alluded to, that by 1995 or so Chavez did possibly have one eye on the exit door, albeit he took a full decade after that to finally shuffle through it!

Typical of Norris though, really. All the time between 1990 and 1997 people were waiting for him to show just how special he might be by finally leaving the (relative) safety of 154 by putting his silky skills to the test against the likes of McClellan, Jones, Toney, the Johnsons, Nunn, Hopkins etc.....And instead he starts calling out a career Lightweight / Light-Welter in Chavez. Which Chavez fight was it where Norris climbed through the ropes in Chavez's post-bout interview to start mouthing off about a fight? Jakubowski perhaps?

Anyway, like you said, unless making 147 took absolutely every last drop out of Norris and left him flat as a pancake, it'd have been a massacre. The kind of fight which would make Pacquiao-Hatton look competitive.

88Chris05 wrote:See what you're saying, Milky. I guess the fact that De la Hoya ended up having to strip butt naked on the scales to make Welter, never mind Light-Welter, by the time he was 26 and ended up fighting at about 165 lb when the bell rang(while looking in great nick physically, if not in his performances) during his Light-Middle campaigns just means that I can't get my head around him being a 140 man in the days of same-day weigh ins, whereas Chavez could. But hey, like I said, that's just one take on it and far from fact.

Haz, the crazy thing was that, apparently, Chavez told King that he'd be willing to fight Norris (if Norris met him half way at 147) if King could guarantee him a $10 million purse. Kind of suggests, as you alluded to, that by 1995 or so Chavez did possibly have one eye on the exit door, albeit he took a full decade after that to finally shuffle through it!

Typical of Norris though, really. All the time between 1990 and 1997 people were waiting for him to show just how special he might be by finally leaving the (relative) safety of 154 by putting his silky skills to the test against the likes of McClellan, Jones, Toney, the Johnsons, Nunn, Hopkins etc.....And instead he starts calling out a career Lightweight / Light-Welter in Chavez. Which Chavez fight was it where Norris climbed through the ropes in Chavez's post-bout interview to start mouthing off about a fight? Jakubowski perhaps?

Anyway, like you said, unless making 147 took absolutely every last drop out of Norris and left him flat as a pancake, it'd have been a massacre. The kind of fight which would make Pacquiao-Hatton look competitive.

Not sure Chris, didn't they get into a punch up at some fight? Norris didn't have a good enough chin to mix with middleweights - shame the Trinidad fight never came off at 154.

I think they had a bit of a Haye-Chisora style confrontation at an awards ceremony, Haz, although reportedly it was more their respective camps who ended up throwing most punches at each other. I think Norris said a few years later that it was more down to a breakdown of communication as Chavez's English was never that great. He apparently paid Chavez a compliment but Julio got the complete wrong end of the stick and though he'd been insulted, for some reason.

Similar maybe to his interview in the locker room with Merchant after the second De la Hoya fight when he thought Larry had called him a quitter and, before his translator had even got the question across to him, he started fronting up to Merchant and yelling the only word of English he knew in his face: "Bull****! Bull****!"

Great stuff!

Norris' chin was always a bit shaky but as he showed in the Brown rematch, he had the speed, movement and skills to take that out of the equation if he needed to and make it hard for anyone to get to. Can imagine him coming a cropper eventually, I guess, but considering he was often cited as the #3 pound for pounder behind Chavez and Whitaker between roughly 1992 and 1994, it would have been nice to at least see him give the Middleweights a go.

Oscar stripped butt naked on the scales, because they wouldn't let him wear fishnets, chris.

milkyboy wrote:Oscar stripped butt naked on the scales, because they wouldn't let him wear fishnets, chris.

And now I have THAT image in my head before I go to sleep. Thanks a bunch!

Sorry haz... Trinidad in fishnets and you'd go to sleep a happy man  

milkyboy wrote:Sorry haz... Trinidad in fishnets and you'd go to sleep a happy man  

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Terry Norris. Highly talented fighter, successful career. Somehow, when I see or hear the name my first thought is Julian Jackson starching him. What a punch that was.

And on that altogether more Macho note, I'll take my leave

Well while we're on the subject of dolling our favourite fighters up......250 lb of James Toney in a corset and a pair of daisy dukes, anyone?

Oscar may have been a tad lucky in getting the decision against Ike Quartey but surely he was robbed against Felix Trinidad. He won the first seven rounds comfortably and while he did cruise for the remains of the bout,he suffered no knockdowns but still lost the fight. He was a good fighter but for me he didn't quite achieve the greatness I expected from him after such a promising start to his career.

88Chris05 wrote:Well while we're on the subject of dolling our favourite fighters up......250 lb of James Toney in a corset and a pair of daisy dukes, anyone?

I'm not sure this is the right place to be indulging in your little fantasies chris. Though on a technical point do JCB make corsets?