Great fights remembered for all the wrong reasons

Afternoon lads.

With all the fall out of the first Froch-Groves fight, I've seen a lot of fans (understandably) bemoaning the fact that people want to talk about Howard Foster's stoppage call first, Froch apparently not fancying the rematch second, the psychological games / battles between the two fighters third, while often losing sight of the fact that the fight in itself was a cracker. Hell, even now the furore over how many tickets have been sold for the rematch seems to be a more interesting topic for many than what has already happened (and what might subsequently happen again) in the ring between the two men.

Which got me thinking - how many other fights are there which should be remembered, first and foremost, as absolutely fantastic, crowd-pleasing bouts, which which are instead remembered for things on the periphery?

One stand out for me is Mark Kaylor against Errol Christie. Even speaking to people who were around and following boxing at the time of the fight, I'm always amazed at how they bring up the racial undertones of the build up, the scuffles between Kaylor and Christie at the press events leading up to the fight, the involvement (at Terry Lawless' request, oddly enough) of Cass Pennant's West Ham thugs in crowd control, as many thought that the Police alone wouldn't be able to contain the hostilities.....And yet, when they talk about how the actual fight unfolded itself, it's as if they don't remember - it's all secondary.

They know / remember that Kaylor knocked Christie out, of course, but there was so much more to it, and it was one of the most stunning back and forth, ebb and flow battles of its era; Christie down within twenty seconds of the first bell and still all over the place when he got up, Kaylor down later on in that very same round. Christie then looking like he's taking over the fight and knocking Kaylor down for a second time in the third round, but then having to be saved by the bell himself in that very same stanza. Saved again by the bell in the fourth and on the edge of defeat in the fifth, but slowly works his way back in to it and in the seventh, both of them were in a spot of bother. All of that before Kaylor's famous knockout.

Sure, the fight is remembered as a huge 'event' in a golden era of British boxing, but when people talk of great fights to have taken place on these shores, it hardly ever gets a mention, particularly in comparison to the tussled between Watson, Benn and Eubank a few years later.

Similarly, most view Ray Leonard's career post-Hagler with a degree of disdain and contempt. They think of the Lalonde fight, and the first thing which springs to mind is Lalonde, the WBC Light-Heavyweight champion, coming down to 168 lb to allow Leonard to also potentially claim the WBC Super-Middleweight belt. At first glance, the fight is just an established star hand-picking a limited fighter for a gimmicky title, and weight-draining him to put the final insult on it all. A few months later in April 1989, Leonard (defending his WBC Super-Middleweight title) boxes a draw with old rival Thomas Hearns (the WBO titlist) in a unification bout. Most of the attention at the time, as well as in hindsight, is focussed on how sad it was that these two were so far past their best compared to their first fight eight years before, how fortunate Leonard was to get a share of the spoils on the cards and also what was happening in Hearns' personal lift at the time, what with his brother having been arrested and charged with murder in the hours before the fight.

Now I don't dispute most of what I've said above there, but let's not blank out the positives altogether. Regardless of circumstances, Leonard-Lalonde was a top class, enjoyable fight with some great action. Despite cutting additional weight, Lalonde performed impressively and enhanced his reputation, so it wasn't sadness all round. Leonard, despite being past his best, still displayed some of that old Sugar Ray magic, too.

Likewise against Hearns. The rematch often gets painted as a sad spectacle, undeserving of being the sequel to their 1981 classic down at 147 - but taking peripheral matters out of it, was the fight any less enjoyable? Hearns-Leonard II was a mini-classic in its own right, and even with the unsatisfactory draw, I can't help but feel that many more people would acknowledge it as such if it weren't for the fact that it was between two big starts, thus overshadowing the great entertaining and action the fight gave us.

There have been other fights, such as Pryor-Arguello I for instance, which continue to be controversial talking points many years later for matters not always inside the ring, but in general I'd say that fight is still remembered for being a great bout first and foremost. In the cases I've mentioned, the quality and entertainment of the fights seems to be totally forgotten in some quarters, which does them less than justice for me.

Any other examples? Do you agree or disagree with the ones I've picked? Cheers everyone.

Benn/G-Man
Eubank-Watson II

Two mentioned by Dave are what I instantly thought of.

If we are talking about in the ring then Chavez-Taylor...

Outside....Hoppo-Trinidad, the flag and the lynch mob.

You thought Hopkins-Trinidad was a great fight, Truss? Great performance by Bernard, but not much of a spectacle, for me - I didn't give Tito a single round, and he landed about one decent left hook in the entire fight. Mind you, even if you did class it as just a great performance from Hopkins rather than a great fight, I guess you could still argue that Hopkins' antics beforehand took some shine off it, so you might be on to something.

Cotto v Margarito 1

Cheers Rodders

For me Pacquiao Marquez 1 is often only remembered for the controversy and not the quality of the actual fight with the control constantly shifting between them.

Also more recently, the Chisora Haye fight was actually pretty good while it lasted, but the press conference will always be remembered.

MANCINI / KIM

Constantly shifting control ?????

What round did Manny win after the second ??

Cant remember exactly as havent seen it as recently as I should have, but I thought it went Pac first couple of rounds then Marquez dominated for next few then Pacquiao took over again for a couple and then Marquez maybe edged the last couple.

Reading that back I should be commentating on Sky, thats the sort of quality we are treated to on a regular basis  

I do know that I didnt see it as much as a robbery as everyone else.

If a guy is 5 points down after 2 rounds and he's been robbed by consensus..

Hardly points to shifting control constantly..

Can see both sides there, really. As Bebop alludes to, I think the scoring controversies have overshadowed what's been a monumental series between Pacquiao and Marquez. Four fights to really saviour, the only possible exception being the third, which was the only real highway job of the series for me and also more of an interesting fight rather than a great one like the other three were.

But I agree with Truss that, after two rounds in the first bout, Pacquiao was always just trying to hold on to Marquez as he slipped through the gears. I don't think that Marquez pitched a shutout from round three onwards, but once he got the upper hand he never really relinquished it back to Manny. I thought Manny did pretty well between rounds 7 and 9, but even then I had those rounds split 1-1-1 between them last time I scored it.

Luckily for Manny, the fact that he racked up such a big lead early on meant that, even though he didn't get too many look ins for the remainder of the fight, it was always going to be close-ish at the end. I think a draw, all things considered, was just about ok and acceptable, but it favoured Manny a bit more than Marquez, for me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If a guy is 5 points down after 2 rounds and he's been robbed by consensus..

Hardly points to shifting control constantly..

Maybe your right, I need to look at it again but as Chris has mentioned the fact we are talking about the robbery & not the quality of the fight kind of supports the case for the series being included

Bowe v Holyfield II

Great fight (as was the first one) before someone flew in!

Good call, Adam.

I felt Bowe was a little unlucky to lose that one. If it hadn't been for Fan Man then maybe the decision would have been scrutinized a little bit more as well (albeit it was nowhere near a robbery).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If a guy is 5 points down after 2 rounds and he's been robbed by consensus..

Hardly points to shifting control constantly..

Yet you credit Bradley with his Pac 'win', interesting.........

Chris - interesting you mention Cass's involvement re security, wasn't aware of the fight at the time, but was the presence of his boys well known and clearly visible? Did it get much press coverage at the time?

I only know of it from reading his book, all arose from a friendship fostered with Frank Bruno I believe...

Toppy, there's a decent Steve Bunce interview online where he talks with Christie, Kaylor and Pennant about their recollections of it all. Should be easy enough to find on YouTube.

The plan had been to keep Pennant and his cronies' involvement under wraps and out of the press, but Pennant said it was almost impossible to do that, because he and the 16-20 other lads who'd been put on this assignment had to verbally put the feelers out to the troublemakers they knew from West Ham and let them know beforehand that the police would be having extra support on the night.

In commentary, Carpenter seemed aware of it, at least by the end of the fight, and Lawless spoke pretty openly about it after the fight, making no attempt to cover it up. Interesting that he took that approach as he apparently begged Pennant to keep it quiet beforehand, as he felt that boxing "was on trial" due to all the negative, race-driven coverage of the fight, and that any crowd bother in the arena would result in some kind of crusade to ban the sport in the UK.

That all stacks up pretty well with how Cass tells it in his book.

88Chris05 wrote:Good call, Adam.

I felt Bowe was a little unlucky to lose that one. If it hadn't been for Fan Man then maybe the decision would have been scrutinized a little bit more as well (albeit it was nowhere near a robbery).

I feel that Bowe would have knocked Bowe out if there hadnt been a 40 minute break (or however long it was). It looked like Evander was running out of steam when the fan man hit the ring. The break did more for Holy than Bowe.

Adam D wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Good call, Adam.

I felt Bowe was a little unlucky to lose that one. If it hadn't been for Fan Man then maybe the decision would have been scrutinized a little bit more as well (albeit it was nowhere near a robbery).

I feel that Bowe would have knocked Bowe out if there hadnt been a 40 minute break (or however long it was). It looked like Evander was running out of steam when the fan man hit the ring. The break did more for Holy than Bowe.

Tyson Fury style??

I call a win a win Toppy....

I have Paccy beating Jmm twice and Spinks beating Holmes twice...

Stop being silly

Bowe-Golota was a cracker, ruined by Golota's hard to break habit of punching Riddick in the gentlemen's vegetables and subsequently by the ring riot that followed.

The second fight was pretty good too. I couldn't believe that Golota did it again!

Golota was stupid as well as shameless..

That is for sure

Yep, he threw away a claim to greatness there - back to back comprehensive wins against someone as highly regarded as Bowe.

Though getting wiped out in a round next time out wouldn't have helped!!