Lets all go Cher....

If I could turn back time,
If I could find a way....

Now I am not asking you all to go out and straddle a huge weapon whilst singing (although I reckon most of you might in your spare time anyway) but if you could turn back time and change one outcome in history, what would it be and how would boxing have moved on?

I will give you my nomination:

Haye vs Maccarinelli

I would change it so that the lumbering Welsh man would have knocked Haye into tomorrow. We would have been spared Hayes lacklustre heavyweight run including all of the false dawns. Enzo would have gone on to get knocked out anyway (probably) but he could have had a few more easy defences first before retiring and not being regarded as a joke.

An odd choice, not sure why you'd want to change the result so that the less talented and fair embarrassment to British boxing because of his lack of talent wins.

Castillo beats Mayweather, might change the furore of keeping a fighter unbeaten and might have pushed the Manny fight earlier.

I like Enzo as a person and who knows what the Haye defeat took out of him?

But more importantly, it would have spared us from the rubbish that Haye subjected us to since. This isnt for the good of Macc but for the detriment of Haye.

Would make more sense and be more realistic if Mormeck beat Haye, has to be some sort of realism to these things.

McDermott getting the deserved nod over Fury would have saved us a load of old garbage.

1. Curry v Honeyghan...........

Not just because he was my favorite fighter but because the options were endless for him......

Backup.......Hearns v Leonard 1.............Tommy deserves better than to be remembered as the guy who lost all his biggest fights...

I'd go back in time and slash the tyres on Sanchez car............Because we missed out on Nelson 2, Gomez 2, Mcguigan ??, Chavez and maybe Camacho.........

It's weird, I was supporting Calzaghe when he fought Hopkins and was pleased that he got the decision. A few years down the line I look back on it and find myself thinking that I wouldn't have minded Bernard getting the nod after all and might even have preferred it. Nothing so much against Calzaghe (and I don't think the decision was particularly unfair on Hopkins, either) but Calzaghe has acquired a really hardcore set of acolytes and fanatics who help pedal these Mayweatheresque theories, which isn't good for boxing and to be honest just gets on my nerves more importantly!

"46-0, was ducked by everyone, G.O.A.T, no blue print, Spinks / Jones Jr / Toney / Monzon / Hagler all have losses on their record so how can you compare them to Joe" etc.

Whitaker against Chavez is always an obvious one for me, though. I know there's no real dispute over Pernell beating Julio in most people's eyes, but after putting on that kind of performance against an 87-0 fellow all-time great in a pound for pound one versus two clash after conceding plenty of ground in the negotiations, he deserved to get the 'W' on his record for the history books. Would and should have been the absolute crowning moment of his career.

anyone of Herol Grahams world title losses. He deserves to be remembered as one of Britains best. Not just the best brit not to win a world title.

Jermaine Taylor not being able to hold on for another 14 seconds against the Slimester Froch

Oh and Lee Froch's mother not having a headache the night he was concieved

Great song

Cher at her absolute best mid 80's to mid 90's

love it.

Wasn't Liston married to her for a while?

horizontalhero wrote:anyone of Herol Grahams world title losses. He deserves to be remembered as one of Britains best. Not just the best brit not to win a world title.

I think the fact World titles have become devalued in a way has helped Graham's standing.   If not Boxing.....

It doesn't seem to matter much now...that a talent as good as his didn't get an alphabet when fighters like Stuart Hall are world champions....

Graham-Mccallum was one of the last fights I saw back home before coming here and we expected to see a big talent and a comfortable win for the Brit..... Especially considering Kalambay beat Mike !!........But for some reason he didn't "go" for it !!.............

Maybe the problem with him was psychological because he should have beaten Kalambay, Mccallum and Jackson..........Thought he was better than Brewer too......

Disappointed with Herol............Think though he should be more disappointed with himself...........Lesser fighters are living a life of luxury....

The apple was there for him on the tree....he just didn't pick it !!....

Joins Page and Tubbs on the list of biggest underachievers of the 80s..

How come you don't like Stuart Hall Truss?

88Chris05 wrote:Wasn't Liston married to her for a while?

WOW really? did'nt know that

I thought she was married to a ski instructor or tree surgan or something???????

anyway great singer, great voice and what a classic video

sitting on top of a cannon so suggestive brilliant.

He's one of Britain's worst world champions and highlights the exact problem with the alphabelt soup we currently have, he wasn't even amongst the ten best Bantamweights in the world when he was made number one contender by the IBF.

Fair enough, seemed a bit strange to keep digging at the boxer rather than the organisation, thought maybe he'd fell foul of the big fella

Blame the alphabet boys truss it is'nt hall's fault. I do agree with you that he was one of the weakest champions

wheelchair1991 wrote:Blame the alphabet boys truss it is'nt hall's fault. I do agree with you that he was one of the weakest champions

When did I ever say it was Hall's fault ??????????

Good luck to him..........But he's a joke champion.

Just sounded like you were digging at hall himself but i do agree with you he was a weak champion, what i found even more of a joke was that he lost fairly to paul butler and then in his next fight fought for the vacant title

IBF were hugely at fault for the Hall incident, stripped McDonnell who was having promotional issues. Seen fighters keep their belts a lot longer than he did without fighting.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:anyone of Herol Grahams world title losses. He deserves to be remembered as one of Britains best. Not just the best brit not to win a world title.

I think the fact World titles have become devalued in a way has helped Graham's standing.   If not Boxing.....

It doesn't seem to matter much now...that a talent as good as his didn't get an alphabet when fighters like Stuart Hall are world champions....

Graham-Mccallum was one of the last fights I saw back home before coming here and we expected to see a big talent and a comfortable win for the Brit..... Especially considering Kalambay beat Mike !!........But for some reason he didn't "go" for it !!.............

Maybe the problem with him was psychological because he should have beaten Kalambay, Mccallum and Jackson..........Thought he was better than Brewer too......

Disappointed with Herol............Think though he should be more disappointed with himself...........Lesser fighters are living a life of luxury....

The apple was there for him on the tree....he just didn't pick it !!....

Joins Page and Tubbs on the list of biggest underachievers of the 80s..

Allowing for the old saying that you make your own luck, Herol never seemed to get the rub of the green-should have got a shot at an ageing Haglar, only to see Leonard outbox Marvin, the first loss to Kalambay coincided with difficulties away from the ring, the point deduction against McCallum denied him a draw, getting caught by the only punch that mattered against Jackson, and generally being too good for his own good- the president of the who needs him club, he watched largely form the side lines as Benn, Eubank and Watson enjoyed the spotligths and accompanying paydays.
Funnily enough I have allways thought of Frioch as being his parallel opposite, for whom luck always shines on, not least in being in the super six series, which guaranteed rematchesand decent oppostion. Without it Froch's career at the top level may have been very different

I think the McCallum fight is the most galling of all Graham's world title / big fight defeats. What happened against Jackson is understandable, as Jackson did that countless times out of the blue against all sorts of fighters.

The first Kalambay fight, where he was well beaten for me (the one I've seen had about three rounds missing and I can only guess that Graham must have won them all clearly to have kept it so relatively close on the cards) doesn't look so bad when you consider that Kalambay followed it up by outclassing Barkley and then completely standing an undefeated McCallum on his head. In the second Kalambay fight a few years later Graham was arguably a shade unlucky when you consider how daft that second point deduction seemed (could argue that he'd got away with a fair few things that he shouldn't have done between the first and second deductions, mind you, but two wrongs don't make a right). That one was incredibly close, I thought, and Graham was already past his best by then. Likewise, Brewer was an inferior talent but this was a forty-year-old Graham who'd been in the wilderness for years. It was another cruel way to fall agonizingly short, but to be honest he did well just to make it a competitive fight in the first place.

But he was still fresh for the McCallum fight and McCallum wasn't in particularly great form as a Middle, the Watson fight aside. Graham got an absolute flyer in that fight and built up a sizeable lead as he did against Kalambay in their rematch, but unlike that fight it just seems as if Graham switched off or froze against McCallum as things progressed. He just stopped working and let McCallum get in close and work him over round after round. Obviously there was more point deduction issues for Graham in that one which cost him a draw - which is how I actually scored the fight. But he should have had it won without needing to worry about that.

McCallum was the best name on Herol's career record and getting that win over him would have confirmed him as one of Britain's most lavishly-gifted fighters ever, but he chucked it away to a large degree.

Agree with Horizontal that there was definitely an element of bad luck in Grham's career and that it wasn't all his own doing, though. Interesting comparison to Froch in that respect. As you say, when you put them side by side and take all the individual cases, Froch does look like a lucky man compared to Herol. But Froch has been better at making his own luck, to be fair to him.

Horizontal.......As Herol seemed to bollox up every big fight he had............Bit of a stretch to say he does a Leonard on Hagler...........I also didn't think he deserved to beat Mike Mccallum.....

Having knocked Shuler out and become number 1 contender Hearns was before Graham when it came to Hagler........

Disagree about luck..............He had the talent and he blew it.........

Don't think there is anything in your post I agree with...

Just my opinion though..

Peter Jackson waits two months til his ankle heals properly, beats Corbett who doesn't get a shot at Sullivan, Sully is forced to face Jackson who beats him handily and you lot start showing me some f*cking respect around here.

Khan agrees to face Murray and/or Thaxton and, win, lose or draw, we can stop the arguments about him ducking his domestic rivals. Same with Witter and Hatton, Bruno and Mason and a whole host of other tw*ts.

DAVE667 wrote:Peter Jackson waits two months til his ankle heals properly, beats Corbett who doesn't get a shot at Sullivan, Sully is forced to face Jackson who beats him handily and you lot start showing me some f*cking respect around here.

Khan agrees to face Murray and/or Thaxton and, win, lose or draw, we can stop the arguments about him ducking his domestic rivals. Same with Witter and Hatton, Bruno and Mason and a whole host of other tw*ts.

More chance of a martian getting a shot at John L........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Peter Jackson waits two months til his ankle heals properly, beats Corbett who doesn't get a shot at Sullivan, Sully is forced to face Jackson who beats him handily and you lot start showing me some f*cking respect around here.

Khan agrees to face Murray and/or Thaxton and, win, lose or draw, we can stop the arguments about him ducking his domestic rivals. Same with Witter and Hatton, Bruno and Mason and a whole host of other tw*ts.

More chance of a martian getting a shot at John L........

Top ten ducker for me....after Floyd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More chance of Cher moving her face..

hampo171 wrote:IBF were hugely at fault for the Hall incident, stripped McDonnell who was having promotional issues. Seen fighters keep their belts a lot longer than he did without fighting.

Dennis Hobson certainly has some sway with them - probably due to the vast amounts he pledged at the purse bid stages. Firstly, he paid well over the odds for McDonnell vs Ceja. Then, after McDonnell jumps ship, the IBF suddenly strip him and allow Hobson to again bid for the vacant title fight (between Hall and Malinga). Hall is then permitted to take a voluntary against unranked Martin Ward before losing to Butler.

Hobson then lands Hall a shot at the vacant belt when Butler relinquishes it.

The IBF must start rubbing their hands when they see Hobson preparing a purse bid.

Funny career herol. Big fan at the time, but could never work out which if the following was true:
- just plain unlucky
- a bit of a choker
- the ingle style can make good fighters look average but seems to come unstuck against the very best.

I suspect its a little bit of all of them. At the time I felt he was off form and lethargic against mccallum and kalambay... But often just a slight step up in class can just make it look that way.

Only so many times a guy can be unlucky........Before you think he's a loser...

Too cocky for his own good.......Only a complete twerp wouldn't have known that Jackson's eye was about to end the fight for him........

But there you go..............Fought like a zombie against Sumbu.......Didn't engage with Mccallum who was made for him.........Gave a sucker a break against Jackson and folded after making Brewer look ordinary.......

I think the big questiin marks are in terms of the kalambay and mccallum fights. He was prime then, and it just felt like he let himself down performance wise... though as i've said - maybe they were just good enough to make him look below par.

Jackson was concentration... but you can question the ring IQ of winging away at a known bomber and neglecting defence. Brewer I'll cut him slack for, as it was a shock to most of us that he was doing as well as he did on the comeback trail as a reflex based fighter.

Harsh words Truss, but Milky, agree that he was unlucky, and was abit of a choker- if anything Herol wasn't cocky enough and was prone to self doubt, but his talent was unquestionable- his peers held him in the very highest regard.

Agree to some extent, Truss. But going back to what Horinzontal said about a comparison with, say, Froch - did Froch 'beat' Dirrell (ok, let me re-word it, did he deal with him) that much more impressively or convincingly than Graham did with Kalambay (second fight) or McCallum, really? In all three cases there wasn't much in the fights and the Brit had a good lead going in to the home straight only to see it eaten up. There's room for debate on all three fights about who deserved the nod. Just so happens that Froch got that rub of the green against Dirrell, whereas Graham didn't against McCallum or Kalambay, but if it'd been the other way around nobody would have batted an eyelid.

Also, while both men could conceivably have been docked points, in Froch's case it only happened to his opponent, whereas Graham had one docked off him against McCallum and two against Kalambay, the second of which was pretty dubious as I said earlier. The simple argument is that it's just a case of referees applying the rules, and it has plenty of weight to it. But as we know, different referees have different limits and discretions. To that end, maybe Graham beats or at least draws with Mike and Sumbu with a different set of officials. Maybe Froch loses to Dirrell with a different set. It's largely down to each man on the night but certain other factors can rear their heads to a small extent, so I believe luck can play a part, even if it's a small one.

None of Graham's defeats at the top level were really unfair or unlucky if you examine them singularly, as a one-off fight and set of circumstances. Just as none of Froch's wins over Taylor, Dirrell or Groves (I) are blatant cases of him just lucking out on the night. But if you take each string of results across a whole career I think it's fair to say that both have defied the law of averages somewhat - Graham in an unfortunate manner, Froch in a luckier one.

Graham switches off and coasted in fights, Froch fights til the end therefore luck doesn't come into it. Graham was the one who allowed the decisions to go against him by cruising, not doing much, posing around and didn't force the pace whereas Froch even when he's losing will continue to march forward, throwing punches and forcing the pace.

In short Graham let his opponents back into fights when Froch would have made them wilt, if that's luck then it's rose tinted luck, as talented as Herol was he only has himself to blame.

True, and as I said earlier Hammersmith Froch has made his own luck, albeit the first Kessler fight was arguably a bit Grahamesque in the sense that Froch didn't press on the gas when he had Kessler in troublesome waters and showed him too much respect early on. It's more of a devil's advocate angle.

Regardless of why the fights were close or who started / finished better, I'm just pointing out the fact that in general, when it came to those close decisions Graham was probably unlucky to be 0-3 against Kalambay and McCallum. A fighter failing to stamp his absolute authority on a fight when it's within his grasp doesn't automatically entitle his opponent to extra points themselves, but it's a risk you run if that's the case. Ward coasted a little against Froch and didn't look like the superior fighter in the last couple of rounds, but that wouldn't have meant he'd have had no room for complaint if the judges conspired to give Froch an undeserved majority draw, as they came close to doing. Not a like for like example by any means but hopefully you get my drift.

To reiterate, none of Graham's losses were unlucky in isolation. But if you look at the whole body of his career, I think he's probably entitled to feel he got more bad luck overall than he did good. To make it clear, I agree that bad luck is second fiddle to a couple of his own shortcomings when it comes to the foremost reason for those failures, though.

The second Robinson v LaMotta result.

I don't rate LaMotta and feel his legacy and entry into the HOF was all off one win. Then there's Robinsons legacy. Would have been 128 unbeaten by the time he ran into Turpin. I think that would put some silence on Floyd's TBE claims.

I would actually like to have reversed the Haye-Klitschko fight result. Say what you will about Haye's excuses and constant self-praise, but he would have made the heavy division a bit more interesting for a couple of years. Bigger heavyweights would like to think they could out-muscle Haye and the smaller heavies would not have been subdued but constant leaning/holding/pushing. Plus there might have been exciting knockouts...