hurlock wrote:As fans we have are favourite fighters who get beaten past there peak or twilight of there careers & we get annoyed that people believe they got beat at there best.
I think Scott Harrison beat a few past there best in Brodie,Robinson,Johnson & McCullough
Seeing munroe face selby has made me feel he's best days are behind him & would of quigg beat him at his best??
Hatton v tzyu
Mguigan v pedroza
Stracey v napoles
I'm going to say Naz vs Barrera, mentally, Naz was nowhere near his prime.
Really?
It all changed once naz went stateside,but it was the most exciting time of his career v kevin Kelly & augie Sanchez getting hurt each time.
The heavier naz got the heavier he hit but then I found his waist movement came down to 60% of what it was & he was getting caught alot!! People would put it down to levels.
As his career went on, he abandoned the virtually impossible to hit style and got more and more gung ho.
Mentally he was getting weaker also. Naz was nowhere near his best when he fought MAB. That said, he still might not have won at his absolute peak.
hurlock wrote:Colin Dunne v kevin Bennett also !!!
Dunne was leagues above !!!
That was a shocking one, Colin was the most shot boxer i've seen. You could see he just couldn't hold any shot, he was embarressed when trying to get up, glad he retired after that.
Its never good to do this form line analysis Hurlock.
I would argue with you all day about Rhodes fighting a "shell" in Moore.
Actually the only reason Little Frank gave Rhodes the fight is because he thought Rhodes was a "shell".
How wrong can you be ?
To say what you have denigrates an amazing fight - fight of the year - between two top guys who gave it their all.
Rhodes demolished Tsarenko giving him half a stone advantage - the same Tsarenko who hammered Lockett into a stand in for elephant man - subsequently reversed by Gary.
Gary beat Rhodes fair and square.
Disagree on Eubank vs Thomspon for a couple of reason 1) Eubank might have been a tad unlucky with the decision in fight 1 and he was well ahead on the cards in fight 2. Eubank was too small not shot.
On Tyson vs Lewis - yes shot to pieces, but still probably the most dangerous fight for Lennox at the time. You can tell that by how focused Manny was in between rounds.
stujones wrote:Disagree on Eubank vs Thomspon for a couple of reason 1) Eubank might have been a tad unlucky with the decision in fight 1 and he was well ahead on the cards in fight 2. Eubank was too small not shot.
On Tyson vs Lewis - yes shot to pieces, but still probably the most dangerous fight for Lennox at the time. You can tell that by how focused Manny was in between rounds.
any tyson would be dangerous but he was completely shot ,it was only that lewis had a habbit of getting KO'd himself that made manny focused
hurlock wrote:As fans we have are favourite fighters who get beaten past there peak or twilight of there careers & we get annoyed that people believe they got beat at there best.
I think Scott Harrison beat a few past there best in Brodie,Robinson,Johnson & McCullough
Seeing munroe face selby has made me feel he's best days are behind him & would of quigg beat him at his best??
Hatton v tzyu
Mguigan v pedroza
Stracey v napoles
Tszyu, while he wasn't at his peak against Hatton, was definitely not that far his best in 2005. He'd smashed Sharmba Mitchell to pieces less than a year before, who was the consensus #2 in the division; no one at the time saw anyone else in the division as being close to him.
I concur squire!
Your right, I believe in the first dharma fight tzyu was losing till sharmbay pulled out injured in around 8 rds with a shoulder injury & he betters that performance crushing Mitchell in 3 rds . So he was inform entering the hatton fight.
Exactly. I think people forget how good Hatton was, myself included sometimes. Seems crazy now but the Mayweather fight was billed as a genuine 50/50 and all credit to Hatton for moving himself into that position to fight for the P4P title.
As good as Hatton was, I don't really believe Mayweather vs Hatton should ever been considered a genuine 50:50 fight. Still amongst Mayweather's better opponents and hardest fights on paper - but its a sign of how good Mayweather is that people should not really have been giving Ricky much of a chance.
A lot of people around Eubank say he was never the same after Watson 2 which is understandable (what an incredible punch by the way, such a shame about the consequences). I just think a prime Eubank beats the best Steve Collins.
Also on a side-note. I find it incredibly co-incidental that 2 of our most famous boxing rivals (Benn and Eubank) Both had fights where they had so show indescribable courage and heart. And both had the misfortune of inflicting lasting damage to their opponents.
stujones wrote:As good as Hatton was, I don't really believe Mayweather vs Hatton should ever been considered a genuine 50:50 fight. Still amongst Mayweather's better opponents and hardest fights on paper - but its a sign of how good Mayweather is that people should not really have been giving Ricky much of a chance.
I agree in hindsight but I remember at the time strongly believing it was 50/50. I was only 17 though and may well have got caught up in the media hype.
stujones wrote:As good as Hatton was, I don't really believe Mayweather vs Hatton should ever been considered a genuine 50:50 fight. Still amongst Mayweather's better opponents and hardest fights on paper - but its a sign of how good Mayweather is that people should not really have been giving Ricky much of a chance.
I agree in hindsight but I remember at the time strongly believing it was 50/50. I was only 17 though and may well have got caught up in the media hype.
i thought hatton was taylor made for floyd at the time .
A lot of people around Eubank say he was never the same after Watson 2 which is understandable (what an incredible punch by the way, such a shame about the consequences). I just think a prime Eubank beats the best Steve Collins.
Also on a side-note. I find it incredibly co-incidental that 2 of our most famous boxing rivals (Benn and Eubank) Both had fights where they had so show indescribable courage and heart. And both had the misfortune of inflicting lasting damage to their opponents.
The only thing missing from Eubank was the killer instinct that he lost after the Watson fight. Collins is underrated for me, one hard bastard and he could box too and he did beat Eubank and Benn twice each, although Benn was past it by then. More than anything, he got into Eubanks head with all the talk about the hypnotist and it messed with him, but he won the second fight as well without any of that.
stujones wrote:As good as Hatton was, I don't really believe Mayweather vs Hatton should ever been considered a genuine 50:50 fight. Still amongst Mayweather's better opponents and hardest fights on paper - but its a sign of how good Mayweather is that people should not really have been giving Ricky much of a chance.
I agree in hindsight but I remember at the time strongly believing it was 50/50. I was only 17 though and may well have got caught up in the media hype.
I think Floyd was a clear betting favourite, but then that is not a lot to go by. The previous thread about how slow our prospects are got me thinking about Hatton's career. One of those ones I am torn about - should Hatton have stepped up around 2001/2002 mark to fight for a version of the world title or should have waited 3 years and then fight the man. It certainly shortened his length of time as a leading attraction - but would he have ever fought the man.
Often think about what would have happened to Hatton had he fought the likes of Mitchell, Harries, Gatti etc just after the Magee fight. Would he have been just a Ricky Burns / Joe Calzaghe esque champion -never fighting the marquee names, or would he have got the Tszyu fight quicker - then would he have beaten Tszyu in 2003/2004? Was he managed perfectly or did he miss out on a longer career fighting for more recognisable belts than the WBU bauble that he had.
stujones wrote:As good as Hatton was, I don't really believe Mayweather vs Hatton should ever been considered a genuine 50:50 fight. Still amongst Mayweather's better opponents and hardest fights on paper - but its a sign of how good Mayweather is that people should not really have been giving Ricky much of a chance.
I agree in hindsight but I remember at the time strongly believing it was 50/50. I was only 17 though and may well have got caught up in the media hype.
I thought Hatton was going to batter him, I still think he'd beat Mayweather if he fought him on the night he fought Kostya Tszyu and nothing anyone says will change my mind.
