Khan Calls out Cotto at 155 for MW Title at 155!!...

First topic message reminder :

I'll love for someone to make a case for Khan

Boy has gone full Ret*rd-

Khan v @RealMiguelCotto I'd take that fight in a heartbeat at catch weight 155lbs for the @WBCBoxing Middleweight title

Stylistically cotto would be a great fight for me. He's a great champion. Just imagine that fight in UK.

Secondly what kind of disgraceful fight would this be if any fight happens for the MW title at 155!!! especially between a WW/small JMW vs a new WW.

You've never seen them fight Mate....

My advice to you....Read and learn !!!

As soon as I have sent my bank account details over the net in order to collect my recent Ugandan jackpot lottery win I will be all ears to the this latest nugget of digital gold

catchweight wrote:As soon as I have sent my bank account details over the net in order to collect my recent Ugandan jackpot lottery win I will be all ears to the this latest nugget of digital gold

Ha!!

I thought a knackered old Minter should have got the nod against Hamsho....and I wasn't alone...

Just a rough house fighter....

Good thing is I got to watch these fighters as I was growing up.....Ordinary fighters like Roldan too..

Gives me a more considered opinion than most Brits..

I did say the division sucked, that obelmejias was a poor challenger, that lee was dreadful but a late replacement so forgiveable, rate scypion was way out of his depth and antuofermo and hamsho were tough but limited. I stand by all of those comments. If it wasn't for duran, hearns and leonard, it would have been an unremarkable reign in terms of opposition and one not befitting of hagler's talents. No-one would argue that any of those three were at their best at middleweight.

I'm not interested in an "old fighters are all great new fighters are all rubbish, oh no they're not, oh yes they are" pantomime.

I'm just calling what I see.  If that's seen as belittling a great fighter then sorry.

milkyboy wrote:I did say the division sucked, that obelmejias was a poor challenger, that lee was dreadful but a late replacement so forgiveable, rate scypion was way out of his depth and antuofermo and hamsho were tough but limited. I stand by all of those comments. If it wasn't for duran, hearns and leonard, it would have been an unremarkable reign in terms of opposition and one not befitting of hagler's talents. No-one would argue that any of those three were at their best at middleweight.

I'm not interested in an "old fighters are all great new fighters are all rubbish, oh no they're not, oh yes they are" pantomime.

I'm just calling what I see.  If that's seen as belittling a great fighter then sorry.

You seem to have contradicted yourself throughout the thread. The division sucked? Well it certainly hasn't been any better in the decades since. If it sucked then what the hell is it now?

Leonard, Hearns and Duran may have been better at lower weights but they were all great the night they fought Hagler.

Kept out of this as it always goes the same way but you're spot on Milky, Duran was no great shakes at Middleweight which leaves Haglers signature win as Hearns some undeniably better at 154lbs. Sibson and Minter were both good, would be tempted to say that as Brits they're rated slightly higher over this side of the pond while Antuofermo was tough but not much else.

The problem with any long title reign is that the majority is usually uninspiring, decent but not great opposition but numerically stands up well so gets a bit over rated. I'd argue myself that Sibson and Minter are no better than Macklin, Barker and Murray.

It also leads to some absurdities. Barker would be called a beneficiary of the Alphabelt soup but at the same time we'd then get told that Sibson would have won said world title were he around today as if that then means something.

Hagler was a great middleweight but was the beneficiary of having three greats move up to face him and even then he lost one and almost inexplicably lost another.

Haz you don't seem to be getting the game being played. You should be focusing on slating Mayweather and SRL. Throwing in the KO of Tommy Hearns by Barkley is also good. That second punch as Tommy was going down was wicked.

milkyboy wrote:I did say the division sucked, that obelmejias was a poor challenger, that lee was dreadful but a late replacement so forgiveable, rate scypion was way out of his depth and antuofermo and hamsho were tough but limited. I stand by all of those comments. If it wasn't for duran, hearns and leonard, it would have been an unremarkable reign in terms of opposition and one not befitting of hagler's talents. No-one would argue that any of those three were at their best at middleweight.

I'm not interested in an "old fighters are all great new fighters are all rubbish, oh no they're not, oh yes they are" pantomime.

I'm just calling what I see.  If that's seen as belittling a great fighter then sorry.

Well I would consider saying the division sucked to be underrating Hagler opposition. Most of his opponents were at worse good fighters. I cant speak for every middleweight era, but certainly since Hagler there hasnt been a better middleweight division or middleweight title reign (few years post Hagler were handy enough though). The division now is a farce.

Boxing has been around for over 100 years. I personally dont consider the 80s "old". It did however have much better fighters than what have been around the last few years - minus the pound for pound multi weight crappola.

Not far off adding Hagler to the old frauds list now.

catchweight wrote:Not far off adding Hagler to the old frauds list now.

I love the argument he ducked a load of fighters to pick on smaller guys and crud. That's almost rivalling the theory that Golovkin is pretending to be avoided so that he himself can actually avoid everyone.

I'm thinking up a completely contrarian argument to try and rival those - just think of an incontrovertible truth and argue the opposite. Currently choosing between Lewis ducked Bowe and Leonard was an introvert.

Strange guy Marv....Remember his immortal quote after Hearns banged out number one Shuler..

"Hearns don't deserve a rematch"..

Vito, Hamsho and Oby did though...

Like I said strange guy....

Yeah if there is one thing I will never forget about Hagler its his immortal quote about the Hearns rematch.

The actual fight with Hearns pales in comparison.

Vito Antuofermo mate...not Vito Corleone..!!

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I did say the division sucked, that obelmejias was a poor challenger, that lee was dreadful but a late replacement so forgiveable, rate scypion was way out of his depth and antuofermo and hamsho were tough but limited. I stand by all of those comments. If it wasn't for duran, hearns and leonard, it would have been an unremarkable reign in terms of opposition and one not befitting of hagler's talents. No-one would argue that any of those three were at their best at middleweight.

I'm not interested in an "old fighters are all great new fighters are all rubbish, oh no they're not, oh yes they are" pantomime.

I'm just calling what I see.  If that's seen as belittling a great fighter then sorry.

You seem to have contradicted yourself throughout the thread. The division sucked? Well it certainly hasn't been any better in the decades since. If it sucked then what the hell is it now?

Leonard, Hearns and Duran may have been better at lower weights but they were all great the night they fought Hagler.

Where have I been inconsistent Haz. You said we were in agreement at one point and I had to point out we were'nt! I've complimented Hagler as a fighter and questioned the calibre of the opposition outside of the fab 3 moving up. Saying some were ok contenders and some weren't. He was champion for nearly 7 years, and we're having to argue over whether the best guy he fought from his own weight division was tony sibson or mustapha hamsho.

If you don't think that the middleweight scenes of the late 80's and early 90's.... nunn, toney, mccallum, mcclellan, jackson, graham, jones, benn, eubank, watson, collins, reggie johnson, kalambay....was superior in depth to one that has obelmejias and hamsho getting two shots then we truly are wasting our time here. And yes it has been crap since, but much crapper than obelmejias and hamsho getting two bites at the cherry? I'm not so sure.

He had some great quotes too

I think the whole "I made him an offer he couldnt refuse" originated from Hagler ducking him

He hardly granted Antuofermo an unnecessary rematch did he? The others were mandated.

After the Mugabi fight, Hagler struggled for motivation but the Petronellis expected him to round off his career with another Hearns fight......until Leonard interjected.

If that is a real quote I imagine it was designed to keep Hearns in check - they hated one another back in the day. Two big egos at play.

If Catchweight is related to McIlvanney then I'll happily take everything I've said on this thread...back !!!

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I did say the division sucked, that obelmejias was a poor challenger, that lee was dreadful but a late replacement so forgiveable, rate scypion was way out of his depth and antuofermo and hamsho were tough but limited. I stand by all of those comments. If it wasn't for duran, hearns and leonard, it would have been an unremarkable reign in terms of opposition and one not befitting of hagler's talents. No-one would argue that any of those three were at their best at middleweight.

I'm not interested in an "old fighters are all great new fighters are all rubbish, oh no they're not, oh yes they are" pantomime.

I'm just calling what I see.  If that's seen as belittling a great fighter then sorry.

You seem to have contradicted yourself throughout the thread. The division sucked? Well it certainly hasn't been any better in the decades since. If it sucked then what the hell is it now?

Leonard, Hearns and Duran may have been better at lower weights but they were all great the night they fought Hagler.

Where have I been inconsistent Haz. You said we were in agreement at one point and I had to point out we were'nt! I've complimented Hagler as a fighter and questioned the calibre of the opposition outside of the fab 3 moving up. Saying some were ok contenders and some weren't. He was champion for nearly 7 years, and we're having to argue over whether the best guy he fought from his own weight division was tony sibson or mustapha hamsho.

If you don't think that the middleweight scenes of the late 80's and early 90's.... nunn, toney, mccallum, mcclellan, jackson, graham, jones, benn, eubank, watson, collins, reggie johnson, kalambay....was superior in depth to one that has obelmejias and hamsho getting two shots then we truly are wasting our time here. And yes it has been crap since, but much crapper than obelmejias and hamsho getting two bites at the cherry? I'm not so sure.

The best he fought from his own division would be one from: Monroe, Hart, Briscoe, Seales, Antufermo or Minter rather than Sibson or Hamsho. Throw in Hearns, Leonard, Duran and Mugabi and it's a cracking record.

Ah yes the massively over rated philly middleweights, all of them would have beaten Hopkins don't you know.

It's a good record but it isn't anything special in comparison to the elite, the greatness of Hagler was the number of defences and on the whole the path of destruction he left.

It's the nature of being a one weight fighter in an era that wasn't overly strong, what has come since has no relevance, nobody is saying that Martinez is greater than him for instance.

Couldn't have put it better myself...The Philly sloppy seconds..

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I did say the division sucked, that obelmejias was a poor challenger, that lee was dreadful but a late replacement so forgiveable, rate scypion was way out of his depth and antuofermo and hamsho were tough but limited. I stand by all of those comments. If it wasn't for duran, hearns and leonard, it would have been an unremarkable reign in terms of opposition and one not befitting of hagler's talents. No-one would argue that any of those three were at their best at middleweight.

I'm not interested in an "old fighters are all great new fighters are all rubbish, oh no they're not, oh yes they are" pantomime.

I'm just calling what I see.  If that's seen as belittling a great fighter then sorry.

You seem to have contradicted yourself throughout the thread. The division sucked? Well it certainly hasn't been any better in the decades since. If it sucked then what the hell is it now?

Leonard, Hearns and Duran may have been better at lower weights but they were all great the night they fought Hagler.

Where have I been inconsistent Haz. You said we were in agreement at one point and I had to point out we were'nt! I've complimented Hagler as a fighter and questioned the calibre of the opposition outside of the fab 3 moving up. Saying some were ok contenders and some weren't. He was champion for nearly 7 years, and we're having to argue over whether the best guy he fought from his own weight division was tony sibson or mustapha hamsho.

If you don't think that the middleweight scenes of the late 80's and early 90's.... nunn, toney, mccallum, mcclellan, jackson, graham, jones, benn, eubank, watson, collins, reggie johnson, kalambay....was superior in depth to one that has obelmejias and hamsho getting two shots then we truly are wasting our time here. And yes it has been crap since, but much crapper than obelmejias and hamsho getting two bites at the cherry? I'm not so sure.

The best he fought from his own division would be one from: Monroe, Hart, Briscoe, Seales, Antufermo or Minter rather than Sibson or Hamsho. Throw in Hearns, Leonard, Duran and Mugabi and it's a cracking record.

The Philly middles of the 70's were a good bunch of fighters and eventually after a few slip ups hagler proved himself better than them. No doubt a good learning ground and hagler had a tougher route to a title bout than most. All accepted and acknowledged by most.

However, as you know, I was referring to his title reign, and comparing that period with a similar period directly afterwards that had a vastly superior depth of quality of fighters who were either belt holders or contenders at middleweight. A point which you chose to ignore for fairly obvious reasons ie it might involve having to admit you were wrong.

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I did say the division sucked, that obelmejias was a poor challenger, that lee was dreadful but a late replacement so forgiveable, rate scypion was way out of his depth and antuofermo and hamsho were tough but limited. I stand by all of those comments. If it wasn't for duran, hearns and leonard, it would have been an unremarkable reign in terms of opposition and one not befitting of hagler's talents. No-one would argue that any of those three were at their best at middleweight.

I'm not interested in an "old fighters are all great new fighters are all rubbish, oh no they're not, oh yes they are" pantomime.

I'm just calling what I see.  If that's seen as belittling a great fighter then sorry.

You seem to have contradicted yourself throughout the thread. The division sucked? Well it certainly hasn't been any better in the decades since. If it sucked then what the hell is it now?

Leonard, Hearns and Duran may have been better at lower weights but they were all great the night they fought Hagler.

Where have I been inconsistent Haz. You said we were in agreement at one point and I had to point out we were'nt! I've complimented Hagler as a fighter and questioned the calibre of the opposition outside of the fab 3 moving up. Saying some were ok contenders and some weren't. He was champion for nearly 7 years, and we're having to argue over whether the best guy he fought from his own weight division was tony sibson or mustapha hamsho.

If you don't think that the middleweight scenes of the late 80's and early 90's.... nunn, toney, mccallum, mcclellan, jackson, graham, jones, benn, eubank, watson, collins, reggie johnson, kalambay....was superior in depth to one that has obelmejias and hamsho getting two shots then we truly are wasting our time here. And yes it has been crap since, but much crapper than obelmejias and hamsho getting two bites at the cherry? I'm not so sure.

The best he fought from his own division would be one from: Monroe, Hart, Briscoe, Seales, Antufermo or Minter rather than Sibson or Hamsho. Throw in Hearns, Leonard, Duran and Mugabi and it's a cracking record.

The Philly middles of the 70's were a good bunch of fighters and eventually after a few slip ups hagler proved himself better than them. No doubt a good learning ground and hagler had a tougher route to a title bout than most. All accepted and acknowledged by most.

However, as you know, I was referring to his title reign, and comparing that period with a similar period directly afterwards that had a vastly superior depth of quality of fighters who were either belt holders or contenders at middleweight. A point which you chose to ignore for fairly obvious reasons ie it might involve having to admit you were wrong.

Well, you've conjoined a couple of periods there really and chucked in name fighters who made only fleeting visits to the top table. I think that an era containing: Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Schuler, Mugabi, Sibson, Antuofermo, Minter etc. and add in the pre-title Philly fighters then they stack up alongside that lot (or at least make the term "vastly superior" seem a little over the top) . Saying that, 1992 was a good year for the division in terms of name value.

Looking at the Brits alone, is there much daylight between Sibson, Finnegan and Minter and Benn, Eubank, Collins and co. (the middleweight versions only)?

Hagler had to clean out a tougher crop of fighters before he won his championship - who are also garbage now apparently (not you)!

Hagler had to clean out a tougher crop of fighters before he won his championship - who are also garbage now apparently (not you)!

Don't seem to remember much in the way of Hagler before winning his championship. In the preceding 10 fights his oppo had a record of 343-102, with not one of them exactly being much to write home about. Save for Antefemo (or whatever his name was), who was EBU level and not exactly a HoF (and didn't he draw with him first time out, albeit in a bit of a robbery).

Actually haz, had hagler's reign started the day he lost to Leonard, rather than ended then, and lasted the same amount of time... All the guys I mentioned would have been viable opponents at middleweight at some point during the period, actually I missed out Hopkins, and if you want duran and hearns then I'll have them too. Obviously, there's  not clear daylight between all of the names I listed and all the ones you did, the point was as a group of fighters within a direct comparable time frame, there is clear daylight.

Its a shame in many respects... There'd have been some great fights for hagler then. If he came through the best of that lot unscathed his reign more than trumps monzon's.... Alongside some genuinely tough match ups, young jones, green Hopkins, toney, mccallum, we might have had an intriguing fight with graham, some fun little tear ups with benn, mclellan Jackson maybe.

Ah well, we did hagler hearns and the event/intrigue of hagler Leonard. Mustn't grumble!

milkyboy wrote:Actually haz, had hagler's reign started the day he lost to Leonard, rather than ended then, and lasted the same amount of time... All the guys I mentioned would have been viable opponents at middleweight at some point during the period, actually I missed out Hopkins, and if you want duran and hearns then I'll have them too. Obviously, there's  not clear daylight between all of the names I listed and all the ones you did, the point was as a group of fighters within a direct comparable time frame, there is clear daylight.

Its a shame in many respects... There'd have been some great fights for hagler then. If he came through the best of that lot unscathed his reign more than trumps monzon's.... Alongside some genuinely tough match ups, young jones, green Hopkins, toney, mccallum, we might have had an intriguing fight with graham, some fun little tear ups with benn, mclellan Jackson maybe.

Ah well, we did hagler hearns and the event/intrigue of hagler Leonard. Mustn't grumble!

Hagler versus Toney and McCallum would have been good, technical fights. I don't think the "green" Hopkins would have posed him too many problems and Jones was a tad protected at 160 (his Dad - who Hagler beat up - wouldn't let him off the leash).

Benn wouldn't have made it far enough up the rankings. McClellan and Jackson would have been fun, though, going off the Mugabi fight.