Your most disappointing top shelf fighter

[TigerMoth]

For me it was Marvin Hagler. Take away 2 fights and he would be one of my all-time favorites. However, in 2 of his most high profile fights he under-performed. One was his fight against Duran. Keeping in mind that Duran is my favorite fighter, when he fought Hagler it was an old way overweight lightweight (Duran) against an all-time great middle weight (Hagler) - that is all-time great if you could take away these 2 fights - which you can not do. Hagler should have knocked Duran out within 5 rounds instead of winning a close decision. A disgrace. The 2nd fight was of course the one with Leonard. To me, Hagler suffered from stage/Leonard fright. He should have gone after Leonard the way he went after Hearns. I will never understand it. Hearns was a feared knockout puncher and Hagler went right after him, showing Hearns no respect. But, against Leonard, who had not fought in years and had never fought at middle weight, Hagler came out cautiously in the conventional style and basically handed the fight to Leonard. I should add, although I dislike Leonard, all things considered, his performance against Hagler was magnificent.

When D'Amato was still alive, Mike Tyson was my all-time favorite. However, after Cus died and once Don King got his hands on him, he was never the same. In my opinion, those who buy the Teddy Atlas line that Tyson was a bully who would fold against anyone who stood up to him are making a mistake. Teddy is very predjudiced against Tyson (not saying he isn't justified). The Mike Tyson that Buster Douglas beat was simply not the same fighter. So, as far as I am concerned, the real Mike Tyson (the fighter) died along with Cus D'Amato. Had D'Amato lived a few more years and had Tyson deteriorated the way he did, he would have been my most disappointing fighter. But, I look at Mike, in the same way I look at George Foreman. 2 careers as a fighter. The difference being that George did a great job in his 2nd career and Mike was a disaster.

[funso banjo baby]

For me it was Marvin Hagler. Take away 2 fights and he would be one of my all-time favorites. However, in 2 of his most high profile fights he under-performed. One was his fight against Duran. Keeping in mind that Duran is my favorite fighter, when he fought Hagler it was an old way overweight lightweight (Duran) against an all-time great middle weight (Hagler) - that is all-time great if you could take away these 2 fights - which you can not do. Hagler should have knocked Duran out within 5 rounds instead of winning a close decision. A disgrace. The 2nd fight was of course the one with Leonard. To me, Hagler suffered from stage/Leonard fright. He should have gone after Leonard the way he went after Hearns. I will never understand it. Hearns was a feared knockout puncher and Hagler went right after him, showing Hearns no respect. But, against Leonard, who had not fought in years and had never fought at middle weight, Hagler came out cautiously in the conventional style and basically handed the fight to Leonard. I should add, although I dislike Leonard, all things considered, his performance against Hagler was magnificent.

When D'Amato was still alive, Mike Tyson was my all-time favorite. However, after Cus died and once Don King got his hands on him, he was never the same. In my opinion, those who buy the Teddy Atlas line that Tyson was a bully who would fold against anyone who stood up to him are making a mistake. Teddy is very predjudiced against Tyson (not saying he isn't justified). The Mike Tyson that Buster Douglas beat was simply not the same fighter. So, as far as I am concerned, the real Mike Tyson (the fighter) died along with Cus D'Amato. Had D'Amato lived a few more years and had Tyson deteriorated the way he did, he would have been my most disappointing fighter. But, I look at Mike, in the same way I look at George Foreman. 2 careers as a fighter. The difference being that George did a great job in his 2nd career and Mike was a disaster.

dont


be


silly

[TigerMoth]

Your reply contributes absolutely nothing. It always amazes and disappoints me on discussion forums such as this that participants such as yourself take the time to make condescending, meaningless replies. Why do you even bother to do so? Does it make you feel superior?

If you strongly disagree with what I have posted and you wanted to reply, you could at least state your position and the reasons for your position. Instead your offer nothing other than being offensive.

[funso banjo baby]

Your reply contributes absolutely nothing. It always amazes and disappoints me on discussion forums such as this that participants such as yourself take the time to make condescending, meaningless replies. Why do you even bother to do so? Does it make you feel superior?

If you strongly disagree with what I have posted and you wanted to reply, you could at least state your position and the reasons for your position. Instead your offer nothing other than being offensive.

that was a genuinely serious contribution.

let me make it a bit more helpful




TRy




not





to


be




silly :roll

[observer1]

Hmm some intresting points. I agree with the Tyson bit though. Indeed it was a Foreman-esque style duo-career. I think even the Tyson fans admit Tyson died when Cus died or possibly when Rooney left.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I have a lot of respect for Cus...I even quote him approvingly on this board all the time...He's like the wise man of boxing...That being said he's not without flaws...By having Patterson duck Liston until he could no longer be ducked, he convinced Patterson that Liston was "ten feet tall" and Patterson performed accordingly...

And Tyson's flaws were already evident as an amateur...He was great when things were going well and not so great when they weren't:

"Prosperity conceals character.Adversity reveals it"

Like Cus said " a boxer with skill and character will often beat a boxer with more skill and less character."

Or as Joe Frazier told Howard Stern how he would beat a then undefeated Tyson "by hitting him back."

[funso banjo baby]

hagler was the total boxer who cant be faulted for anything in his career ..he did it all...he dominated for years

when he lost the crown he retired..end of

any hagler knockers either werent born when he was ruling the middleweights

or are just fcking idiots


discuss:

[IKSRTFO]

Hagler cannot be faulted because at worst he did try to fight everyone no matter how the fight would turn out.

[My2Sense]

I have a lot of respect for Cus...I even quote him approvingly on this board all the time...He's like the wise man of boxing...That being said he's not without flaws...By having Patterson duck Liston until he could no longer be ducked, he convinced Patterson that Liston was "ten feet tall" and Patterson performed accordingly...

And Tyson's flaws were already evident as an amateur...He was great when things were going well and not so great when they weren't:

"Prosperity conceals character.Adversity reveals it"

I agree. Cus' real talent was protecting his fighters. He did the same with Jose Torres too, until Torres got rid of him. People assume that the reason Cus' fighters were beaten after leaving him was because they weren't the same without him. Not true, the reason simply was that Cus was not there to steer them away from what fighters would've exposed them.

[My2Sense]

For me it was Marvin Hagler. Take away 2 fights and he would be one of my all-time favorites. However, in 2 of his most high profile fights he under-performed. One was his fight against Duran. Keeping in mind that Duran is my favorite fighter, when he fought Hagler it was an old way overweight lightweight (Duran) against an all-time great middle weight (Hagler) - that is all-time great if you could take away these 2 fights - which you can not do. Hagler should have knocked Duran out within 5 rounds instead of winning a close decision. A disgrace. The 2nd fight was of course the one with Leonard. To me, Hagler suffered from stage/Leonard fright. He should have gone after Leonard the way he went after Hearns. I will never understand it. Hearns was a feared knockout puncher and Hagler went right after him, showing Hearns no respect. But, against Leonard, who had not fought in years and had never fought at middle weight, Hagler came out cautiously in the conventional style and basically handed the fight to Leonard. I should add, although I dislike Leonard, all things considered, his performance against Hagler was magnificent.

I raised some similar points about Hagler too in another thread. Unlike a lot of fighters who step up their game when the spotlight was on him, Hagler seemed to do almost the opposite. In several of his most high profile matches, he seemed to semi-choke. He did that not only in the two fights you mentioned, but also in the first Antuofermo fight, which was supposed to be the fight Hagler had spent years and years waiting and preparing for. You can argue that he really should've won the Leonard and Antuofermo fights, but he was a sizeable favorite (at least 3-1 or 4-1) to win both fights, and he definitely performed well below most expectations of him.

[dr_devious]

Marvin Hagler certainly "stepped up his game" when he fought Tommy Hearns

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I have a lot of respect for Cus...I even quote him approvingly on this board all the time...He's like the wise man of boxing...That being said he's not without flaws...By having Patterson duck Liston until he could no longer be ducked, he convinced Patterson that Liston was "ten feet tall" and Patterson performed accordingly...

And Tyson's flaws were already evident as an amateur...He was great when things were going well and not so great when they weren't:

"Prosperity conceals character.Adversity reveals it"

I agree. Cus' real talent was protecting his fighters. He did the same with Jose Torres too, until Torres got rid of him. People assume that the reason Cus' fighters were beaten after leaving him was because they weren't the same without him. Not true, the reason simply was that Cus was not there to steer them away from what fighters would've exposed them.

That's interesting...

When did Torres get rid of Cus? And he was prophetic in predicting Ali would be vulnerable to Frazier's left hook...

[My2Sense]

When did Torres get rid of Cus?

Sometime around the time he fought Bobo Olson, which was an eliminator for a light-heavyweight title shot. I think he left him specifically to make that fight (and the resulting title shot) happen.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="dr_devious"]Marvin Hagler certainly "stepped up his game" when he fought Tommy Hearns[/quote]

Yes he did! In fact, that is why I will always be confused about his fight with Leonard. Hearns was a devastating knockout artist. And, Marvin, essentially took his best shots and walked right through him. Marvin was super agressive, showed his great chin and that he was the Man.

Leonard was not a devastating puncher. His knockout came from an accumulation, ususally later in the fight when his opponent was not as strong as earlier. Yet, Marvin, was cautious and blew the fight.

And, how about his fight with Duran. I love Roberto. But, Marvin should have destroyed him. Can you give any explanation as to why this fight went the distance and was a close fight?

[bollox]

The fight went the distance because............not every fight ends in a KO?

[TigerMoth]

[quote="bollox"]The fight went the distance because............not every fight ends in a KO?[/quote]
But, this one should have!

[allworld80]

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Many lists have SRL as a top ten to top fifteen ATG...There was no shame in Marvin losing to him...SRL was always going to be trouble for any boxer, living or dead, because of his tremendous speed , reflexes, and ring generalship...

[bollox]

The fight went the distance because............not every fight ends in a KO?

But, this one should have!

I don't see why should the fight have ended in a KO. Hagler despite his KO% was NOT a KO artist and Duran had been KO'd once in 70+ fights. Duran at this time had recently battered Davey Moore senseless and was in fine form

[TigerMoth]

[quote="TheOneIsHere2008"]Many lists have SRL as a top ten to top fifteen ATG...There was no shame in Marvin losing to him...SRL was always going to be trouble for any boxer, living or dead, because of his tremendous speed , reflexes, and ring generalship...[/quote] Leonard had had one fight in the prior 5 years, against journeyman Kevin Howard and did not look good in that fight, he was knocked down by Howard if I recall correctly. And, he had not fought at Middleweight before. So, in my opinion, Hagler should have gone right after SRL, been very aggressive. Instead, he started the fight in the orthodox stance. Even Leonard has said that Marvin significantly raised SRL's confidence by doing this. I agree, earlier in his career, Leonard was going to be trouble for any boxer, but, given the circumstances (1 poor effort in 5 years prior to this), Marvin should have been very aggressive and dominated SRL.

[TigerMoth]

[quote="bollox"][quote="TigerMoth"][quote="bollox"]The fight went the distance because............not every fight ends in a KO?[/quote]
But, this one should have![/quote]

I don't see why should the fight have ended in a KO. Hagler despite his KO% was NOT a KO artist and Duran had been KO'd once in 70+ fights. Duran at this time had recently battered Davey Moore senseless and was in fine form[/quote]
Davey Moore had only 12 professional fights before facing Duran. And, in the fight a big factor was that Moore was thumbed in the eye and his vision got worse and worse as the fight wore on. Again, I must emphasize, Duran is my favorite fighter. But, Marvin should have dominated an old, smaller, overweight Duran.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Many lists have SRL as a top ten to top fifteen ATG...There was no shame in Marvin losing to him...SRL was always going to be trouble for any boxer, living or dead, because of his tremendous speed , reflexes, and ring generalship...

Leonard had had one fight in the prior 5 years, against journeyman Kevin Howard and did not look good in that fight, he was knocked down by Howard if I recall correctly. And, he had not fought at Middleweight before. So, in my opinion, Hagler should have gone right after SRL, been very aggressive. Instead, he started the fight in the orthodox stance. Even Leonard has said that Marvin significantly raised SRL's confidence by doing this. I agree, earlier in his career, Leonard was going to be trouble for any boxer, but, given the circumstances (1 poor effort in 5 years prior to this), Marvin should have been very aggressive and dominated SRL.

IMHO Leonard's Hagler fight was his Rumble In The Jungle though he didn't win nearly as convinicingly...He was just so focused and like Ali had the perfect game plan...He won most of the early six rounds putting Hagler in a big hole then he ran out of gas...That's when Hagler came back to make it close...

Sugar Ray Leonard is a great fighter...He was only thirty and trained , I forgot, six months for that fight...There was no shame in losing to him...

[TigerMoth]

IMHO Leonard's Hagler fight was his Rumble In The Jungle though he didn't win nearly as convinicingly...He was just so focused and like Ali had the perfect game plan...He won most of the early six rounds putting Hagler in a big hole then he ran out of gas...That's when Hagler came back to make it close...

Sugar Ray Leonard is a great fighter...He was only thirty and trained , I forgot, six months for that fight...There was no shame in losing to him...[/quote]

You must be kidding! Ali had had 3 fights in the year leading up to the Rumble, SRR had one poor outing in 5 years leading up to the fight with Marvin. Foreman was a 25 year old who was undefeated and hadn't learned to do much more than get in the ring and knock his opponent out. Marvin was 33, had over 50 professional fights and 16 consecutive wins as Middleweight champ.

I can agree that SRR had a perfect game plan. But, I can also see that Foreman's game plan would simply be to go into the ring, dominate and knock Ali out - that's what he had always done. But, Marvin had vast experience. Where was his game plan? Come out in the orthodox style, give away the first few rounds, build up SRR;s confidence.

The comparison to the Rumble is absurd. There is no comparison.

There was a lot of shame for Marvin to lose this fight. Don't you consider that shame had something to do with Marvin giving up boxing and moving to Italy.

As I said earlier, even though I don't like SRR, he performed beautifully. And, Marvin blew it!!!

[bollox]

I don't see why should the fight have ended in a KO. Hagler despite his KO% was NOT a KO artist and Duran had been KO'd once in 70+ fights. Duran at this time had recently battered Davey Moore senseless and was in fine form

Davey Moore had only 12 professional fights before facing Duran. And, in the fight a big factor was that Moore was thumbed in the eye and his vision got worse and worse as the fight wore on. Again, I must emphasize, Duran is my favorite fighter. But, Marvin should have dominated an old, smaller, overweight Duran[/quote]

Davey Moore was being touted as a contender to Hagler and a future great yet Duran tore him apart. The thumb was accidental which may or may not have affetced the fight's outcome (I highly doubt it as Duran was simply on fire that night)

[TheOneIsHere2008]

You must be kidding! Ali had had 3 fights in the year leading up to the Rumble, SRR had one poor outing in 5 years leading up to the fight with Marvin. Foreman was a 25 year old who was undefeated and hadn't learned to do much more than get in the ring and knock his opponent out. Marvin was 33, had over 50 professional fights and 16 consecutive wins as Middleweight champ.

I can agree that SRR had a perfect game plan. But, I can also see that Foreman's game plan would simply be to go into the ring, dominate and knock Ali out - that's what he had always done. But, Marvin had vast experience. Where was his game plan? Come out in the orthodox style, give away the first few rounds, build up SRR;s confidence.

The comparison to the Rumble is absurd. There is no comparison.






There was a lot of shame for Marvin to lose this fight. Don't you consider that shame had something to do with Marvin giving up boxing and moving to Italy.

As I said earlier, even though I don't like SRR, he performed beautifully. And, Marvin blew it

-Tiger Moth

OK

To me Ali is the GOAT...Nothing can be as impressive as his win over the thought to be invincible and unbeatable George Foreman in Zaire...The fear was not that Ali would lose but that he would be seriously hurt...

Now that we dispensed of that...Coming into that fight Sugar Ray Leonard had a 33-1 record with victories over Wilfred Benitez, Thomas Hearns, and Roberto Duran...He was no slouch...As I said before a boxer as fast as Leonard with his reflexes , ring generalship, and above average chin is going to be trouble...

When Ali beat Foreman , Foreman was 40-0 w 37 KOs..Heck , he had two Hall Of Famers in his corner-Archie Moore and Sandy Sadler...He was well coached and a veteran at time, albeit a young one...When Ray Leonard beat Marvin Hagler he was 62-2 -2...Marvin was the more experienced fighter but Foreman wasn't green and he was still George Foreman....

Prior to fighting Ali, Foreman knocked out Frazier and Norton in four rounds , something Ali couldn't do, to that point, in a combined fifty one rounds...If you look at that way, even allowing for the old saw that styles make fights Foreman had no business losing...

Sure , Ray Leonard looked mediocre in beating Kevin Howard , but no more mediocre than Ali looked in beating Doug Jones...Sometimes a bad night is a bad night....

A prime Ray Leonard is always going to give any welterweight to middleweight trouble...There is no shame in losing to him...