Things that can go wrong for Clinton

[DavidPayne]

I know nothing and thought that. I also couldn't believe nobody instructed him to avoid the u/c as the 4th punch of a predictable combo.

I felt for him because he didn't know what to do even when he got Tarver close.

[Scrap]

David ,He got to close

[DavidPayne]

Yep, yep. I thought that too. He's a distance fighter who didn't employ his jab, he really betrayed any form he'd previously shown with poor tactics and there were no technical advice between rounds.

Although I've always questionned a fighter's ability to listen to too much.

Clinton isn't very good with mobile targets though, or so his record suggests - which is why DeLisle, Gonzales, Hoye (green) and Johnson have made him look better.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Glen Johnson is a better fighter than Tarver.

Thats why he lost to him twice (first fight was a gift), plus Clinton never beat Johnson

The first fight wasn't a gift. It was very close and provoked different interpretations. i had Johnson winning by 1. In the rematch, did Tarver really prove his superiority? Johnson was not at his best, had taken the fight without much notice. Tarver was so fvcked from slapping and running that he was falling over by the end. In the rematch, Tarver fought a terrible Johnson. What if he'd fought the Johnson of the Dawson fight, who used good footwork, moved the southpaw foe into a clockwise direction, and landed crafty, James Toney-like right hands?

I think Johnson's the better preserved. The longer they drag out their rivalry the better Johnson's chances are.

With Woods and Johnson, I had Johnson winning two. Fight 1, Johnson ahead by 3, then has a catastrophic 12th round where he is battered and dropped. Ref doesn't call it a KD however, so in that case Glen should've got the verdict.

Fight two, Johnson dominant.

Fight 3, narrow fight. You can't call it a robbery when it was competitive. Johnson definitely ahead after a massive 9th round. But Glen had nothing left after that and I had Woods sweeping the last 3 to win by 1 pt.

I won't argue with different interpretations to my view. But a lot of these fights are close and decided often on a knife edge.

Its clear your not a Tarver a fan but you can't ignore him outlanding Johnson by 2-1 in both their fights. The first and second fights he won wide on my cards. Lets look how much better Tarver did against Woods than Johnson.

I didnt see Dawson-Johnson so can't really comment, maybe Dawson isnt as good as we thought

Johnson won't get any big fights now anyway because Dawson and Tarver will probably square off next. He has nothing to bring to the table, no belt, fans, anything

[Goz]

One would have thought Clinton would have got that 'just happy to be here' mental thing out of his system when he fought RJJ in the US a few years back.

Now he was back again, surely this time it was on merit?

[Scrap]

In a Tarver v Dawson match Id fancy Dawson

[Autobarn]

Thats why he lost to him twice (first fight was a gift), plus Clinton never beat Johnson

The first fight wasn't a gift. It was very close and provoked different interpretations. i had Johnson winning by 1. In the rematch, did Tarver really prove his superiority? Johnson was not at his best, had taken the fight without much notice. Tarver was so fvcked from slapping and running that he was falling over by the end. In the rematch, Tarver fought a terrible Johnson. What if he'd fought the Johnson of the Dawson fight, who used good footwork, moved the southpaw foe into a clockwise direction, and landed crafty, James Toney-like right hands?

I think Johnson's the better preserved. The longer they drag out their rivalry the better Johnson's chances are.

With Woods and Johnson, I had Johnson winning two. Fight 1, Johnson ahead by 3, then has a catastrophic 12th round where he is battered and dropped. Ref doesn't call it a KD however, so in that case Glen should've got the verdict.

Fight two, Johnson dominant.

Fight 3, narrow fight. You can't call it a robbery when it was competitive. Johnson definitely ahead after a massive 9th round. But Glen had nothing left after that and I had Woods sweeping the last 3 to win by 1 pt.

I won't argue with different interpretations to my view. But a lot of these fights are close and decided often on a knife edge.

Its clear your not a Tarver a fan but you can't ignore him outlanding Johnson by 2-1 in both their fights. The first and second fights he won wide on my cards. Lets look how much better Tarver did against Woods than Johnson.

I didnt see Dawson-Johnson so can't really comment, maybe Dawson isnt as good as we thought

Johnson won't get any big fights now anyway because Dawson and Tarver will probably square off next. He has nothing to bring to the table, no belt, fans, anything

I felt Johnson wore him down in the 1st fight. Tarver's shots were veyr amateurish as well, and I just preferred Johnson's work.

No disputing that Tarver won the 2nd, but Johnson was definitely not in the best of shape.

OK, you're not the only one who believes Tarver won both. However, if they fight again, Johnson is much more well preserved at this age.

I think Johnson can get another big fight. I hope - but don't believe - that the Germans will bring him over as a big name for Erdei. Remember Erdei was in negotiations to face then-WBA-holder, since retired Danny Green. The Krauts would probably want options on his next 3 fights in case of victory, but 3 fights in Germany = 3 German paydays.

Glen doesn't bring big money but Showtime like him, IMO. He will be well up in the WBC ratings after the Dawson fight, and he always seems to be IBF mandatory. Give him one easy money, stay busy fight and I'll bet he becomes a mandatory for at least one belt.

I think Glen will incredibly get one more big fight. I hope he wins it. Terrific pro.

I rate Dawson, but we saw the mistakes he makes, mistakes that an old pro like Johnson can punish a man for.

[DavidPayne]

I'd fully expect Johnson v Johnson, if Reggie isn't locked up over financial irregularities.

It has been heavily discussed and nearly came to pass last October.

That would be a good profile return for Glen.

Of course, knowing Glen - well I dont actually - but fighting in Germany or Timbucktoo for an alternative bauble is also a strong possibility.

[Autobarn]

I'd fully expect Johnson v Johnson, if Reggie isn't locked up over financial irregularities.

It has been heavily discussed and nearly came to pass last October.

That would be a good profile return for Glen.

Of course, knowing Glen - well I dont actually - but fighting in Germany or Timbucktoo for an alternative bauble is also a strong possibility.

that would easily make him IBF mandatory again (beating a decent pro & former IBF title holder) and ensure him a fight at the unified, Dawson-Tarver winner.

[Autobarn]

PN, I think Johnson had a better career overall than Tarver. He should definitely have had more decisions go his way. He's fought hard fights in Germany (the touted Ulrich, Ottke), Britain (Woods 3x, Owoh), Italy (Branco) and many good/decent Americans, often in their home turf (Dawson, Griffin, Tarver 2x, Roy Jones, George Jones, Daniel Judah, Richard Hall, Harding, Gonzalez, Harmon, Sheika, Vanderpool [ok he's Canadian]).

He should probably have about 1/2 as many losses as he has and often fought late notice, vs guys in their primes.

Also, Tarver won't do as well as Johnson, when he faces Dawson.

[Floyd]

[quote="Ant Evans"]Also, maybe you are all going too hard on poor Pat Sheehan. Maybe he didn't have Woods ahead after 10 at all... a good percentage of the stuff which appears under his byline hasn't been written by him.

He did have Clinton up when they showed the ringside reporter score cards on Showtime. Don't know exactly what fight he was watching.

[Spud]

Glen Johnson is a better fighter than Tarver.

Thats why he lost to him twice (first fight was a gift), plus Clinton never beat Johnson

Woods won the 3rd fight and if the knockdown in the 1st fight was given by the ref it would have been a "real" draw.

Going neck and neck with Johnson over 36 rounds is worth more than all of Enzo M, Alex Arthur, Rees, and Witters careers put together in my book.

Absolutely.

[Scrap]

Ant youre not wrong

[salaco]

Glen Johnson is a better fighter than Tarver.

Thats why he lost to him twice (first fight was a gift), plus Clinton never beat Johnson

Woods won the 3rd fight and if the knockdown in the 1st fight was given by the ref it would have been a "real" draw.

Going neck and neck with Johnson over 36 rounds is worth more than all of Enzo M, Alex Arthur, Rees, and Witters careers put together in my book.

C'mon now. Johnson is an admrable guy who was a decent contender at middle and super middle, and a higher level contender at LHW, which has been relatively weak for years [outside of Jones]. Woods arguably went 1-2 (being generous) with same contender and really has done little else of note. Compare this with Witter who has wins over a present beltholder and several previous titlists. Your sentiment is getting the better of you.

[Scrap]

Selaco tell me that again :P

[salaco]

I was delighted when Woods got past Hoye and got his hands on a title and he has hung onto it longer than I thought he would, although its hardly a murderer's row of opponents. However, leaving aside Enzo et al., Junior Witter has consistently competed at a higher level and produced more definitive performances at a championship level. Johnson has numerous defeats to his name already which were well-deserved (even at LHW), not spurious, he's a tough guy but no need to overrate him.

[Scrap]

Theres a five letter name there Jones that stpped any progression in the division for matches . He killed the weightclass, Super Stars have a habit of doing it. Weightclasses vary very little its pretty constant,In any Devision there are good Fighters likewise the Lightheavys.There isnt a Jones in the Lt Welters otherwise.

[salaco]

Theres a five letter name there Jones that stpped any progression in the division for matches . He killed the weightclass, Super Stars have a habit of doing it. Weightclasses vary very little its pretty constant,In any Devision there are good Fighters likewise the Lightheavys.There isnt a Jones in the Lt Welters otherwise.

So you are saying cruiserweight right now holds about as much talent as the welterweights? Or that super featherweight holds as much talent as junior bantam?

or say, over time, how would you say the supermiddleweight contenders/prospects in the early 2000s (tate, brewer, woodhall, ottke, veit et al) would do against those now (kessler, bute, andrade, brahmer,mundine) ? Of course talent levels vary, both across weightclasses and within weightclasses over time...

BTW, its wasnt Jones who made gonzalez, woods, del valle, telesco etal. look like shit, its because they just weren't that good

[salaco]

Woods won the 3rd fight and if the knockdown in the 1st fight was given by the ref it would have been a "real" draw.

Going neck and neck with Johnson over 36 rounds is worth more than all of Enzo M, Alex Arthur, Rees, and Witters careers put together in my book.

C'mon now. Johnson is an admrable guy who was a decent contender at middle and super middle, and a higher level contender at LHW, which has been relatively weak for years [outside of Jones]. Woods arguably went 1-2 (being generous) with same contender and really has done little else of note. Compare this with Witter who has wins over a present beltholder and several previous titlists. Your sentiment is getting the better of you.

Woods and Johnson were best in their division for a period, no matter how breifly. Woods has better names on his record by miles than Witter, and Johnson even more so as he beat - and beat-up - both Jones and Tarver.

Witter's record is phoney. ALL of his "world class" wins are over opponents who had been KTFO in their last three fights.

And if it is generous to give Woods the 3rd Johnson fight, where he landed more punches and swept the last 3 rounds, it must be generous of Children In Need proportions of you to give Witter the Kotelnik win. And the Colin Lynes verdict was a bit dodgy, too.

Witter isn't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Johnson.

No, they weren't the best in their division. Woods never was, he faced the best (Jones) on one occasion and got beaten soundly. Johnson beat the best (Tarver) in a disputed decision and quickly lost it again. Make as much of that as you will.

As for records, of course you're right, Rico Hoye was far more dangerous opponent than Vivian Harris, he was unbeaten!
Similarly, N'dou had seven losses on his record (count them) whereas jason de lisle had only a handful - no question about who is the better fighter there then 8) . Vivian Harris is at very least equal to Johnson at a championship level, and the rest of Witter's resume takes a dump on Woods'. And I don't even care for the former.

Th Lynes verdict was not dodgy, the kotelnik could have gone either way.

[Scrap]

As Jones said We Forget, Standards dont change to much short term, long term and catchment Ill agree. Get good matchmaking any Division can be made to look good, even average fighters can be made to look Brilliant enougth to think that the present Featherweights would beat Willie

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

Woods won the 3rd fight and if the knockdown in the 1st fight was given by the ref it would have been a "real" draw.

Going neck and neck with Johnson over 36 rounds is worth more than all of Enzo M, Alex Arthur, Rees, and Witters careers put together in my book.

C'mon now. Johnson is an admrable guy who was a decent contender at middle and super middle, and a higher level contender at LHW, which has been relatively weak for years [outside of Jones]. Woods arguably went 1-2 (being generous) with same contender and really has done little else of note. Compare this with Witter who has wins over a present beltholder and several previous titlists. Your sentiment is getting the better of you.

Woods and Johnson were best in their division for a period, no matter how breifly. Woods has better names on his record by miles than Witter, and Johnson even more so as he beat - and beat-up - both Jones and Tarver.

Witter's record is phoney. ALL of his "world class" wins are over opponents who had been KTFO in their last three fights.

And if it is generous to give Woods the 3rd Johnson fight, where he landed more punches and swept the last 3 rounds, it must be generous of Children In Need proportions of you to give Witter the Kotelnik win. And the Colin Lynes verdict was a bit dodgy, too.

Witter isn't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Johnson.

What are you talking about Witter beat Kotelnik and you'd have to be a 'hater' to say otherwise when kotelnik gave the first 6 rounds away and Witter won the final round. Johnson got his 1 career gift against Tarver and beat a very old compacent RJJ

If you shrunk down Johnson to 140lbs Witter would beat him anyway and without that much trouble either. Witters resume isnt super deep because hes been avoided by all and sundray but hes beaten everyone who has got in the ring with him. Harris for my money is at least on par with Johnson anyway. Then theres Kotelnik, Corley, Ndou all belt holders and all good wins.

If you can't see Witter is better than johnson then you need some boxing spectacles

[Scrap]

One thing that makes it a level playing field is Psychodinamics of this game it alters with your weight

[salaco]

Woods and Johnson were best in their division for a period, no matter how breifly. Woods has better names on his record by miles than Witter, and Johnson even more so as he beat - and beat-up - both Jones and Tarver.

Witter's record is phoney. ALL of his "world class" wins are over opponents who had been KTFO in their last three fights.

And if it is generous to give Woods the 3rd Johnson fight, where he landed more punches and swept the last 3 rounds, it must be generous of Children In Need proportions of you to give Witter the Kotelnik win. And the Colin Lynes verdict was a bit dodgy, too.

Witter isn't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Johnson.

No, they weren't the best in their division. Woods never was, he faced the best (Jones) on one occasion and got beaten soundly. Johnson beat the best (Tarver) in a disputed decision and quickly lost it again. Make as much of that as you will.

As for records, of course you're right, Rico Hoye was far more dangerous opponent than Vivian Harris, he was unbeaten!
Similarly, N'dou had seven losses on his record (count them) whereas jason de lisle had only a handful - no question about who is the better fighter there then 8) . Vivian Harris is at very least equal to Johnson at a championship level, and the rest of Witter's resume takes a dump on Woods'. And I don't even care for the former.

Th Lynes verdict was not dodgy, the kotelnik could have gone either way.

In 2004 Johnson beat Woods in his own backyard, Jones on a promotion which didn't even mention Johnson was the champ and a Tarver fight thrown together by HBO to crown a new star in Tarver. Right there, that puts Glen light years ahead of anything tranny lookalike Witter has ever done. Unless getting Jason Frost to invent Ricky Hatton jibes in War and Peace press releases counts towards in-ring achievements, Witter isn't in Johnson's league.

While Witter was wasting years of his career embarrassing himself in "please give me money, Ricky" fights on MEN Arena undercard, Johnson was fighting and beats prospects like Toks Owoh and contenders like Thomas Ulrich and Eric Harding.

It is shameful of you to compare a real fighter like Johnson to a man whose entire existence is based on riding another fighter's coattails.

"Vivian Harris is at very least equal to Johnson"

How can you be for real? Points wins over the likes of Souleymane M'baye - who lost to Gavin Rees!!!!!!! - are now worth as much as wins over Tarver and RRJ?

All Witter has ever done well is bad mouth Hatton; and even that to no avail.

He is a one-trick phoney.

A real fighter like Johnson? is this the same guy who was dominated by harmon at 175, just about deserved to eke out the limited Julio Gonzalez at 175, who lost a dullish decision to Ottke at 168, who was beaten handily by Hopkins at 160 etc etc. yes, he fought plenty of them, but his losses aren't all robeeries you know. Johnson is an overachiever, a guy who should be beaten by the elite, he's a truth serum. In truth, Clinton possibly deserving the third fight is woods' finest hour. But neither of them will be heading to the hall of fame unless they buy a ticket like the rest of us.

Harris beat a respected if chinny titleist Hurtado, defended it against tough mandatory Urkal twice, future WBA titleist m'Baye once, and was considered a real candidate in the mayweather sweepstakes prior to taking maussa less than seriously and being upset. He then bounced back against former lightweight champ stevie johnston and future hatton opponent, juan lazcano. He won championship bouts, he defended titles, beat former champions...thats what puts him on at least a par with the more likeable Johnson.

Dear God, are you a boxing journalist? 8)

[Glyn Leach]

I'm already in there. I've been dead for five years but don't tell anyone

[Autobarn]

No, they weren't the best in their division. Woods never was, he faced the best (Jones) on one occasion and got beaten soundly. Johnson beat the best (Tarver) in a disputed decision and quickly lost it again. Make as much of that as you will.

As for records, of course you're right, Rico Hoye was far more dangerous opponent than Vivian Harris, he was unbeaten!
Similarly, N'dou had seven losses on his record (count them) whereas jason de lisle had only a handful - no question about who is the better fighter there then 8) . Vivian Harris is at very least equal to Johnson at a championship level, and the rest of Witter's resume takes a dump on Woods'. And I don't even care for the former.

Th Lynes verdict was not dodgy, the kotelnik could have gone either way.

In 2004 Johnson beat Woods in his own backyard, Jones on a promotion which didn't even mention Johnson was the champ and a Tarver fight thrown together by HBO to crown a new star in Tarver. Right there, that puts Glen light years ahead of anything tranny lookalike Witter has ever done. Unless getting Jason Frost to invent Ricky Hatton jibes in War and Peace press releases counts towards in-ring achievements, Witter isn't in Johnson's league.

While Witter was wasting years of his career embarrassing himself in "please give me money, Ricky" fights on MEN Arena undercard, Johnson was fighting and beats prospects like Toks Owoh and contenders like Thomas Ulrich and Eric Harding.

It is shameful of you to compare a real fighter like Johnson to a man whose entire existence is based on riding another fighter's coattails.

"Vivian Harris is at very least equal to Johnson"

How can you be for real? Points wins over the likes of Souleymane M'baye - who lost to Gavin Rees!!!!!!! - are now worth as much as wins over Tarver and RRJ?

All Witter has ever done well is bad mouth Hatton; and even that to no avail.

He is a one-trick phoney.

A real fighter like Johnson? is this the same guy who was dominated by harmon at 175, just about deserved to eke out the limited Julio Gonzalez at 175, who lost a dullish decision to Ottke at 168, who was beaten handily by Hopkins at 160 etc etc. yes, he fought plenty of them, but his losses aren't all robeeries you know. Johnson is an overachiever, a guy who should be beaten by the elite, he's a truth serum. In truth, Clinton possibly deserving the third fight is woods' finest hour. But neither of them will be heading to the hall of fame unless they buy a ticket like the rest of us.

Harris beat a respected if chinny titleist Hurtado, defended it against tough mandatory Urkal twice, future WBA titleist m'Baye once, and was considered a real candidate in the mayweather sweepstakes prior to taking maussa less than seriously and being upset. He then bounced back against former lightweight champ stevie johnston and future hatton opponent, juan lazcano. He won championship bouts, he defended titles, beat former champions...thats what puts him on at least a par with the more likeable Johnson.

Dear God, are you a boxing journalist? 8)

The Hall of Fame is a joke, or didn't you know that? Barry McGuigan is in there for Christ's sake, so Glyn Leach will probobly get in one day too.

Who respected Hurtado, and how much? First Urkal fight was very close, and neither win was any better than a win over a Eric Harding type.

Mayweather has fought some "decent but nothing special" opponents in his time and Harris would have been another one. Harris was totally exposed by Maussa and should never, ever be taken seriously because of that fight. Johnson was decent win but just because Lazcano has been selected for slaughter by Hatton (and it remains to be seen just how much Ricky has left) is hardly a bragging right.

Sorry, just don't see this at all. Johnson was one and only selection Fighter of the Year on 2004 as voted by readers and experts... I guess all the votes for Harris got lost in the post?[/quote]Ant, I agree with your enthusiasm over Johnson, & your scoring of the 3 Woods bouts.

I do think you're being a bit harsh on Witter. Witter's not been allowed to develop like most world class talents because he's had so many ppl avoid him. Commonwealth title bouts, EBU title opportunities, WBC elims...Even Mayweather wouldn't fight Witter when Floyd was WBC champ, but overall this one if good for Witter. By the time he was facing N'dou and Kotelnik - I had Kotelnik winning - Junior was already playing catchup. I think it showed in his peroformances. I can't criticise the Harris win, as Harris was his mandatory.

Anyway, one man could have got Fighter of the Year in 2004, over Johnson. Venezuela's then-WBA flyweight champion Lorenzo Parra was a marvel of boxing ability. He proved this winning 3 world title fights away from home in very tough company.