If you could travel back in time to see ONE fight

bjermaine · Post by **bjermaine** » 28 Apr 2008, 19:06

Expug wrote:Mickey Walker-Harry Greb would have been entertaining.

this fight would be near or at the top of my list just based on the fact there's no footage of this or any greb fight. ali-frazier 1 or leonard-hearns 1 would also have to be up there for me.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » 29 Apr 2008, 02:59

Roberto Duran Vs Hector Thompson.......Was pretty cool for a while. And to be in Durans home town would have been great. To see the great man at his best

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 29 Apr 2008, 04:40

mugabi wrote:The ones I would have liked to have seen (im sorry i cant stick to one and have named 5).

Lloyd Honeyghan V Marlon Starling 1986 (When Honey was at his peak)
Nigel Benn V Roy Jones 1995
Mohammed Ali V Larry Holmes 1977 (Ali wasnt totally faded yet)
Lloyd Honeyghan V Sugar Ray Leonard 1987 (at LM)
Razor Ruddock V Larry Holmes 1991.

Hey, Mugabi, I was a massive Honeyghan fan... He fought totally the wrong fight against Starling... A real shame...

Bricks · Post by **Bricks** » 29 Apr 2008, 10:04

Your right ezzard. Honeyghan-Starling 86 would have been a different result.

Bobbin & Weavin · Post by **Bobbin & Weavin** » 29 Apr 2008, 10:11

For me, because it's before my time and I have heard and read so much about them and seen the film I would have to say number one would be Louis Vs. Schemeling II and then one of the Robinson Vs. Lamotta fights, but I could go on all day; maybe one that wasn't filmed.

enrique · Post by **enrique** » 29 Apr 2008, 16:46

I could flip a coin for Greb-Walker or Sullivan-Corbett because either one would be worth it.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 29 Apr 2008, 21:50

[quote="delisa"]

"I's want to get my money's worth and not waste it on a short fight like Sullivan-Corbett which went a mere 23 rounds!"

Where did those last two rounds come from, Mike?

LOL

"But I'd avoid the 61-round stinker between Corbett and Jackson."

STRANGE comment.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:04

granberry wrote:
delisa wrote:
"I's want to get my money's worth and not waste it on a short fight like Sullivan-Corbett which went a mere 23 rounds!"

Where did those last two rounds come from, Mike?

LOL

"But I'd avoid the 61-round stinker between Corbett and Jackson."

STRANGE comment.

Probably the same place those, "last two knockdowns" Dempsey suffered at the hands of Flynn came from, would be my guess.

LOL

.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:07

What was the 61 round bout between Corbett and Jackson like ?

An epic struggle ? Action packed ?

Or was it like a 90 minute Gracie-Sakuraba best seen in photos and clips ?

Kym

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:16

Robinson wrote:What was the 61 round bout between Corbett and Jackson like ?

An epic struggle ? Action packed ?

Or was it like a 90 minute Gracie-Sakuraba best seen in photos and clips ?

Kym

Many accounts say it was boring. Some of the later ronds were fought without a punch being thrown. At least one account says several of the spectators lay down on the benches and went to sleep during the "action!"

I am going by memory, but I think I have some clippings somewhere. If I can find some accounts, I'll post them for you.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:26

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
granberry wrote:
delisa wrote:
"I's want to get my money's worth and not waste it on a short fight like Sullivan-Corbett which went a mere 23 rounds!"

Where did those last two rounds come from, Mike?

LOL

"But I'd avoid the 61-round stinker between Corbett and Jackson."

STRANGE comment.
Probably the same place those, "last two knockdowns" Dempsey suffered at the hands of Flynn came from, would be my guess.

LOL

.

`
irene is collins' alias.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:28

^^^Granberry would very dearly like to forget the point I have made, so he dares not address it.

LOL

.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:35

that is his way i have asked him questions and he as not answered them

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:37

Ray

all that means is that it was a strategic fight fought between two ultra talented men.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:42

p4p1 wrote:that is his way i have asked him questions and he as not answered them

Ask a question worth answering (good luck).

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:44

granberry wrote:
p4p1 wrote:that is his way i have asked him questions and he as not answered them
Ask a question worth answering (good luck).

i did i asked u if u were around fighting in the 50's 60's or 70's and i got no answer i also asked u where ur hatred of ali stems from and i got no answer i do agree with somethings u say and some i dont like any other poster

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:45

Finding a fight between Jim Corbett and Peter Jackson 'boring' would demonstrate an appalling ignorance of and lack of interest in boxing.

Such people need to stick to watching 6 year olds slapping at each other in local amateur tournaments.

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 29 Apr 2008, 22:51

Robinson wrote:Ray

all that means is that it was a strategic fight fought between two ultra talented men.

I didn't say it was boring; I wasn't there. That's how it was described in some of the accounts by reporters who were there. As I wrote, I'll see if I can find some clippings, and you can decide for yourself if the lack of activity in the later rounds was strategy or exhaustion.

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 29 Apr 2008, 23:03

i still wait for granberry's answer

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 29 Apr 2008, 23:05

p4p1 wrote:i still wait for granberry's answer

Well granberry was in this thread..

Granberry, you there mate??

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 30 Apr 2008, 13:11

raylawpc wrote:
Robinson wrote:Ray

all that means is that it was a strategic fight fought between two ultra talented men.
I didn't say it was boring; I wasn't there. That's how it was described in some of the accounts by reporters who were there. As I wrote, I'll see if I can find some clippings, and you can decide for yourself if the lack of activity in the later rounds was strategy or exhaustion.

Robinson, I don't have any clipping in my files.

Sorry. I was pretty sure I had a copy of the Examiner account by W. W. Naughton, but I don't.

I do, however, have a rather lengthy account of the fight from Naughton's Kings of the Queenberry Realm. It is too long to scan and post.

To sum up what he wrote: the fight, as you suggest, was a strategic contest from the start, with Corbett sticking and moving, and Jackson looking to counter. Jackson had injured his ankle sometime prior to the fight, and it began bothering him as the fight progressed. In the course of the fight, Corbett suffered an injury to his left forearm. There was less and less action as the fight progressed, and as weariness and the injuries began to take a toll. By the end, Jackson was simply standing in the middle of the ring as Corbett circled around him, neither throwing a punch. It sounds as if, from round 51, there was little or no action at all.

The fact those guys fought for over three hours is just amazing.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 30 Apr 2008, 19:28

So essentially if it happened today and was televised it would be an example of how modern HW lack fire and are not as good as days past.

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 30 Apr 2008, 22:30

Robinson wrote:So essentially if it happened today and was televised it would be an example of how modern HW lack fire and are not as good as days past.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 01 May 2008, 05:17

Robinson-Gavilan II
or
Charles-Moore III

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 01 May 2008, 19:37

Granberry

How do you know that it wasnt boring to watch...

You that old ? That you were there?