If boxing was banned and....

Hypothetical question. Boxings been banned. There are no future fights and all records of past fights including film, books, newspapers etc have been destroyed. You manage to save one fighter's entire career on dvd, which will be your only record of the sweet science and the only boxer you will ever see fight again. Tough question but who do you pick?

Theres a few things to take into account. Do you pick your favourite boxer? Someone who's been in a lot of epic fights to keep you entertained. Someone who fought great quality opposition so that you see a number of greats by default. Do you pick an old timer or a modern great? With a good old timer you get a lot more fights and a record of times when the best fought the best more frequently. While with the modern fighters you get much better quality footage as well as some great fights.

With the likes of Ali, you get to see perhaps the greatest against a golden generation of heavys. A clinic against Williams, the Frasier triology, the rumble and much more. With Duran you get extensive footage of perhaps the greatest LW ever an exciting style and also get footage of Hagler, Hearns and Leonard as well as great later wins against the likes of Moore and Barkley. Or do you go with someone like Gatti? 4 ring fights of the year, the ward trilogy and footage of modern greats such as PBF and Oscar.

Just some options but who do you pick and why?

Cheers!

I love articles like these.

Controversial one, but Prince Naseem. Even watching the old dvd's I have of his fights now gets me excited, from the pre-fight trash talking, to the outrageous ring entrances, to the truly unorthodox fighting style, matched with frightening power. I believe he had it all with regard to entertainment.

Robinson. 200 fights. Quantity and quality. What can I say? I'm a tight git who likes to get value for money.

Donald Curry
-----------------

Best boxer I ever saw in his prime....Just stood in front of guys daring them to lead and countering them with swift deadly combinations...Beautiful balance and style....

The fight with Bruce Finch was the first time I really appreciated him as something special although I'd seen him before and thought he was promising. The Starling fights, Baez, Stafford, Jones, the dismantling of mccrory and the first 4 rounds of mccallum...are highlights..

Rodrigues was the first time he started to really look anything but the star he was...the always constant weight troubkles were becoming a major problem and he looked sluggish.

Wish he'd moved up then...but alas took Honey lightly when he should have gone to 154...

Will always be my favorite fighter and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

My word, you don't like making things easy do you, paperbag ?

I suppose that, gun to my head, it would be Ali, for me. It's the nostalgia as much as anything. Watching Ali v Liston, Patterson, etc., etc., takes me back to a special time when things were simpler and the world spun a little slower.

Or maybe it just seems like that, now.

From a strictly boxing perspective, I'd probably go with Robinson. Apart from the fact that I believe him to have been the best of all time, there is the sheer volume of material and such a wide diversity of styles exhibited by both Robinson and his opponents. Elegant boxing, murderous punching, gutsy reslience, and the two Basilio fights which are among my favourites of all time.

To relive my youth, then, and to enjoy again the sheer thrill and excitement of my early days as a fight fan, it's Ali. For a comprehensive reminder of all that makes boxing so special it's Robinson.

My word, you don't like making things easy do you, paperbag ?
__________________________________________________

Nothing thats worth doing is easy Windy....

Liking the responses so far. I suppose from a pure boxing perspective its hard not to pick SRR or Ali for the reasons mentioned above. But thats ignoring personal favourites, emotions and sentimentality which is why I also like Truss and Fist's answers.

I'm really not sure who i'd pick. Love watching Holyfield back in the day and would have great fights like Qawai 1 the Bowe trilogy and the Tyson fights.. On the flip side i'd have to endure him never retiring and being beat by guys not fit to lace his gloves back in the day which prob outdoes the plus points.. i'll have to keep thinking.

Why would you have to endure him...switch the DVD off!!! when you get to the bad stuff.

It probably should be Ali or Robinson as it wouldn't be fair to deprive future generations the chance to see two of boxings best. But i'm not thinking about them i'm thinking about me, Roberto Duran would probably get my vote, nearly a hundred fights, making his way up through the weights fighting the very best, not my favourite fighter but one who had a tremendous career, i think that's why he comes out on top of the fab four in terms of all time P4P, as he lost to all them.

top of the fab 4....

lost to everybody apart from a brawling Leonard...

Leonard's no 1..

Smallest of the four...

Size played a big part...

Beat the best of the four closely but fairly...

Went twelve rounds more with Hagler than Hearns managed...

8)

Leonard went 12 rounds more with Hearns than Duran managed..

Although not landing a punch whilst being decked three times in 4 minutes is an achievement to feel proud of no doubt..

Six inch height, twelve inch reach disadvantage, fighting 20lbs above his natural weight... 'nuff said.

Okay but don't use Barkley and Moore as ways to big him up then..

Take them wins off his legacy..

Not at all. Smaller guy beating bigger guys is always impressive. Losing to them is not such a devastating thing. Simple logic.

Funny thing about 606..people use Mosley and others 147 upwards etc as a way of saying DelaHoya was overrated....

Yet Duran was 20 pounds over his fighting weight when he lost..etc etc yawn

errm!!!! Oscar won his 1st title at 130..

Strange how arguments only apply to certain fighters on here..

OH WELL..

We'll keep Hagler, Barkley at 160 and Moore at 154...

But we'll forget Hearns ever existed..

Okay I understand.

If boxing were banned.... I still wouldn't watch UFC!

Not what I said Truss, and you know that. You simply can't discount the fact that Hearns had huge physical advantages. Duran did well to overcome the physical advantages held by other opponents, but Hearns' advantages, coupled with his skill, just proved too much. No shame in losing to a guy with those type of advantages, who was also a devastating puncher, at a weight 20lbs above Duran's peak weight.

Simply can not discount Hearns' height, reach and relative comfort at the weight. Simple, simple logic. The height and reach differences are greater than those between Haye and Wlad, for goodness' sake. Perspective.

sparkymarky wrote:If boxing were banned.... I still wouldn't watch UFC!

I believe the phrase I'm looking for is that this made me "laugh out loud out loud out loud out loud out loud" .

Look the fact is hearns was vastly bigger than Duran, and still at his peak. Don't get me wrong it was a bad nights work for Duran, but you can't just discount the enormous height and reach advantages he had, as well as the fact Duran was a veteran of 80 odd fights and in his mid '30's at that stage.

Durans win over Leonard was better than either of rays over Duran IMO. The 3rd fight they were both shadows of themselves, the second leonard spent as much time running and clowning as anything else and won as much because of durans lack of temperament as much as his own skill.

The hagler fight wasnt margins finest hour, he shouldve easily handled a career lightweight at 160. The Barkley fight was Duran pulling out a last great performance late in his career, something many fighters do (say Mosley v marg) but it wasn't really a measure of where he was at that time as a fighter, he was over the hill by then.

I rate Duran p4p highest of the fab four. Dominated lightweight for nearly a decade, moved up and beat SRL, still managed good wins in the twilight of his career. Bad night with hearns and no mas and Benitez count against him of course, no excuses there but the positives from his career far outweigh the negatives. SRL 2nd for me, hagler 3rd and hearns - who lost his 2 defining fights - 4th.

Gatti for me. I already own it and it's just incredible. Just about every fight is great to watch and you get to see a few other top fighters as well like Floyd and Oscar. As a fan of Gatti the fight with Floyd is not easy viewing but you just have to appreciate how good Mayweather is in that fight.

Hearns ws taller than most guys he faced.....Only they had an answer to the jab and weren't to intimidated to get inside....

Should never happen to a top 10 fighter what happened to Roberto...

"Bad night" - Kind of like saying Bernie Madoff had a bad day when he got arrested...

It's ok though I mean Benitez, Laing didn't happen either..

OK then Truss, how about if maybe Marquez were to fight Paul Williams? Similar scenario. The size did make a difference, and I'm surprised at your insistence it didn't.

Marquez is too canny to be destroyed like that....as is Manny, Mayweather.....etc....

I'll be honest it turns my stomach to see a supposed top 10 p4per be so totally OUTCLASSED like that and humiliated..

None of the other top 10 were humiliated like that and went on to win world titles...

But we'll agree to disagree.....

Truss, why do you think so many smaller guys have had trouble with Wlad, Vitali, Valuev..?

Because they are garbage???

An excellent question. If I'm only allowed one, then I want the comfort of referring to the first boxing hero I ever had. I want to be reminded of the great excitement that I felt as a four year-old about to turn five, when I first saw this pale-skinned, beak-nosed, tartan-clad maestro overcome a cut eye, put away his brilliant boxing because he had to and summon up the guts to brawl his way to victory in a far-away place against a guy with an improbable name.

I'll keep the complete works of Ken Buchanan, please.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Because they are garbage???

You got that right!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why would you have to endure him...switch the DVD off!!! when you get to the bad stuff.

True true but if its the only boxing i'll ever get to see again i'm sure i'd get curious and watch some of the trash.

Heard a lot about buchanan...must be good.. for you to have him in such high esteem.......

However why should a Dejesus, Benitez, boxing leonard etc have what it took to outbox stone hands....

When Buchanan was beaten up badly..

Not a pop!!! he was obviously very good..seen him against Laguna....

Why should a rough house like Duran was in that fight ..trouble such a ring wise boxer...

When others like Benitez who was a 140 pound man outbox him??

Do you think a rematch would've been any different???

captain carrantuohil wrote:

I'll keep the complete works of Ken Buchanan, please.

But do you really want to relive your hero being beat up by a guy who was rolled like a drunk? Thats the question you have to ask yourself Captain...

TRUSSMAN66: Why should a rough house like Duran was in that fight ..trouble such a ring wise boxer...
-----------
Think you do Duran a disservice by disregarding him as a roughhouse brawler Truss. His boxing skills are underrated and often overlooked due to his sometimes savage nature. He was an accurate puncher with sound handspeed and quality power. His footwork was good - was always able to manoeuvre himself into punching range even when defending. He had good head movement and if you watch his career - especially at lightweight - he was rarely tagged with clean heavy shots, he was far cuter defensively than he gets credit for and this can perhaps be seen in that he boxed until he was 50 with no long term facial damage or apparent brain damage. He fought like an animal against Buchanan but there was more to his game than that.

Without wanting to go too deeply into a done-to-death subject, I think that Duran was an absolutely magnificent lightweight, who would have beaten Ken in a re-match as well. Not easily, mind. At 135, DeJesus paid heavily for his temerity in taking a win in two subsequent re-matches. Great boxers as cute as Marcel and Buchanan were shaken out of their stride in what was Duran's natural division. I'd love to have seen him at 140, mind - not so sure that Benitez beats him there as he did at 154.

I've mentioned on the H of F thread that for me, Ken's career mirrors Curry's in some ways. Regarded as the undisputed best in a proper division for a couple of years, gets the gongs to back it up (Ken was the American Boxing Writers' Fighter of the Year for 1970, Curry got Fighter of the year jointly with Hagler in 85), loses his crown, apparently out of nowhere (Buchanan was a heavy pre-fight favourite to beat Duran), and the downward spiral begins. Some good results afterwards, but a lot of disappointment, and at the end, a feeling, somehow, of greatness unfulfilled. I'll still take Ken's DVD over anyone else's, though, thanks very much.

Has to be one of three for me Ezzard Charles' up to the Marciano losses, Archie Moore or Gene Tunney

Dejesus was also winning in 130 degree heat in their rematch after decking Duran.....has to be said.

all by the by though...Just as long as you don't say Duran ever beats Hearns at any weight..

I'll forgive you anything..

I think I'd edge toward Sugar Ray Leonard, at his best he was just poetry in motion, truly had it all. And in turn this would allow me to watch Hearns, Duran, Benitez and Hagler amongst others too.

got to be frank bruno

pauline1981 wrote:got to be frank bruno

Only if you get the Panto as well

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Has to be one of three for me Ezzard Charles' up to the Marciano losses, Archie Moore or Gene Tunney

Great shouts Ghosty.

Would be Louis for me though. Just love watching him fight. Not interested in his record or perceived lack of, just a stunningly efficent and beautiful craftsman. Never wasted an ounce of effort, skills to burn and seemingly a great guy to boot.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Dejesus was also winning in 130 degree heat in their rematch after decking Duran.....has to be said.

De Jesus was a good fighter though. And he lost in the end. Dont see what the heat has to do with it, both guys had the same disadvantage - cant say duran was more acclimatised to heat when de jesus was peurto rican.

I think I would go for Audley Harrison.

This way, by about the third watch I would start to forget how much I love boxing and no longer miss it.

Probably Archie Moore for me, so many fights and so many great opponents faced including pretty much all the BMR, the Rock and Ezzard Charles, best KO record ever and get to see Burley take him to the cleaners, what more could you ask for.

rowley wrote:Probably Archie Moore for me, so many fights and so many great opponents faced including pretty much all the BMR, the Rock and Ezzard Charles, best KO record ever and get to see Burley take him to the cleaners, what more could you ask for.

Good call, this. My dad always says that the Old Mongoose was the best he ever saw, plus volume alone would keep you happy if you can find enough of them

Like your thinking Jeff although seeing him beaten by Charles and Burley so comprehensively will be difficult to watch

As a Burley fan would be less of a chore for me Ghosty, do think though with the level of opposition he faced including even Ali and the Durelle fight which is a stone cold classic with Archie's career there is something to keep even the most fussy of fans happy, well apart from Azania who probably thinks Jean Pascal beats him.

I would have to go with Roberto Duran for style,ability & pure exitment you get with watching his career. Also i have Gatti as a close 2nd never in a dull fight and always giving exitment to the fans.

rowley wrote:As a Burley fan would be less of a chore for me Ghosty, do think though with the level of opposition he faced including even Ali and the Durelle fight which is a stone cold classic with Archie's career there is something to keep even the most fussy of fans happy, well apart from Azania who probably thinks Jean Pascal beats him.

Where is Azania, I haven't seen him on here for ages?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:As a Burley fan would be less of a chore for me Ghosty, do think though with the level of opposition he faced including even Ali and the Durelle fight which is a stone cold classic with Archie's career there is something to keep even the most fussy of fans happy, well apart from Azania who probably thinks Jean Pascal beats him.

Where is Azania, I haven't seen him on here for ages?

Putting the finishing touches to his Rocky Marciano fan site I believe.

Haha that is very true Jeff, the Durelle fight alone would make it worthwhile watching the rest of his career and the 4th Charles fight is meant to be a classic as well

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:As a Burley fan would be less of a chore for me Ghosty, do think though with the level of opposition he faced including even Ali and the Durelle fight which is a stone cold classic with Archie's career there is something to keep even the most fussy of fans happy, well apart from Azania who probably thinks Jean Pascal beats him.

Where is Azania, I haven't seen him on here for ages?

Putting the finishing touches to his Rocky Marciano fan site I believe.

I think he is making one of thoese computer simulations that has Herbie Hide handing Jeffries his backside.