Finest/biggest Brit performances on the world stage

[bennie]

Magri beating Laciar, Danny beating a Mike Tyson trained by Freddie Roach, Terry Downes boxing the ears off Joey Giardello...

[danamba7]

For me it's Froch Bute because I was there and it was such a special night in Nottingham.

However Benn McClellan was like nothing I've ever seen and ever will see. Such a shame about the long-lasting injuries sustained but what a fight.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Magri beating Laciar, Danny beating a Mike Tyson trained by Freddie Roach, Terry Downes boxing the ears off Joey Giardello...

Good call on Magri - I honestly believe that during a brief spell, Magri was the best in his weight out there - his title shot came a little too late for him, he was already past his best by then.

[keithmoonhangover]

I ain't rewriting anything. I've watched the fight and Laing fought the perfect fight, which by your logic, means that it was what Duran didn't do, not what Laing did do. Applying that concept to all of the fights in history, every time a strong betting favourite lost, it was because they didn't train properly and weren't focused. Bollocks.

Keith, don't embarrass yourself further by demonstrating fundamental flaws in your thinking. Let me break it down for you and I'll remove Duran and Laing from the equation given you somehow think you can extrapolate a general point in logic from what I said:

Fighter A adopting the right tactics to beat an inferior version of Fighter B (let's call him Fighter B 1.0 for the sake of this) does not mean it is judged purely on what Fighter B didn't do, it means it is also judged in the context of Fighter B 1.0 being < Fighter B 2.0 (let's call this the 'regular' version). The critical point is that the two points (tactics and version of opponent) are not mutually exclusive and both can be factored into the decision-making criteria.
In fact, the only logic to be taken from this is not your bizarre claim, but rather than simply because Fighter A has adopted the right tactics to beat Fighter B 1.0 does not change the fact that they beat an inferior version and it is impossible to assume that the same tactics would beat Fighter B 2.0.
If you can't accept this premise, it means one of two things:
1) You believe that there is only one version of every fighter e.g. that the version of Mike Tyson that lost to Kevin Mcbride is the same version of Tyson that beat Larry Holmes.
Or
2) That a fighter adopting the right tactics to beat their opponent means the version of their opponent is irrelevant when assessing the magnitude of the victory e.g. the fact Mcbride adopted the right tactics against Tyson means it should be hailed as an outstanding victory irrespective of the fact it was against a shot, aged version of Tyson.

In conclusion, there's a reason why Laing's defeat of Duran is rarely recognised alongside other achievements such as Honeyghan vs Curry, and that's precisely because he faced an inferior version of Duran. In contrast to your claim, it doesn't mean that Laing didn't produce a good performance, he did, it's just that everyone except you also judges it in the context of the fact he was facing on out-of-condition, unmotivated version of Duran.

Embarrassing myself? No. Just no.

I'm not saying Laing beat Duran in his prime. Absolutely not. But he did beat the Duran of that night. To say that Duran was out of shape and unfocused is complete speculation. At his best, Laing was a highly skilled. Inconsistent, but highly skilled. Duran wasn't at his best, but Laing beat him fair and square.

To say that fighter A only beat fighter B because B didn't train and couldn't be arsed on the night, could be applied to any fight in history.

For some reason, according to some fans, Duran only lost when he couldn't be arsed. Nonsense.

For the record, I don't think there is only one version of every boxer and I didn't suggest that anywhere. So again, bollocks.

[keithmoonhangover]

Ted Kid Lewis beating Jack Britton over the pond was a great performance.

Benn-Barkley was an amazing performance.

In a perverse way, Dennis Andries' performance against Tommy Hearns was a great performance.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Ted Kid Lewis beating Jack Britton over the pond was a great performance.

Benn-Barkley was an amazing performance.

In a perverse way, Dennis Andries' performance against Tommy Hearns was a great performance.

My god did Andries take a shelling that night. Few people would have kept getting up like that.

Hearns' power really was freakish, to carry it all the way to 175 from 147 is surreal - I think it was that huge frame of his, he had a heavyweight's torso on a welterweights legs.

[keithmoonhangover]

Ted Kid Lewis beating Jack Britton over the pond was a great performance.

Benn-Barkley was an amazing performance.

In a perverse way, Dennis Andries' performance against Tommy Hearns was a great performance.

My god did Andries take a shelling that night. Few people would have kept getting up like that.

Hearns' power really was freakish, to carry it all the way to 175 from 147 is surreal - I think it was that huge frame of his, he had a heavyweight's torso on a welterweights legs.

I agree. He wanted to fight Tyson at one point, which would have been madness, but I wonder what Hearns would have done at Heavy.

[dr_devious]

Going way back Freddie Welsh beating Benny Leonard take some beating

[jamesmcdonnell]

Ted Kid Lewis beating Jack Britton over the pond was a great performance.

Benn-Barkley was an amazing performance.

In a perverse way, Dennis Andries' performance against Tommy Hearns was a great performance.

My god did Andries take a shelling that night. Few people would have kept getting up like that.

Hearns' power really was freakish, to carry it all the way to 175 from 147 is surreal - I think it was that huge frame of his, he had a heavyweight's torso on a welterweights legs.

I agree. He wanted to fight Tyson at one point, which would have been madness, but I wonder what Hearns would have done at Heavy.

That would have been a very short fight. Tyson would have gotten inside that long lead hand and knocked him senseless with the first shot he landed.

Hearns could probably have won a few fights at heavy if he landed big first, but he'd have been larruped the minute anyone connected, he has a long skinny Neck Tommy, he wasn't built to take bit punches, certainly not from genuine heavyweights.

[Deserter]

I ain't rewriting anything. I've watched the fight and Laing fought the perfect fight, which by your logic, means that it was what Duran didn't do, not what Laing did do. Applying that concept to all of the fights in history, every time a strong betting favourite lost, it was because they didn't train properly and weren't focused. Bollocks.

Keith, don't embarrass yourself further by demonstrating fundamental flaws in your thinking. Let me break it down for you and I'll remove Duran and Laing from the equation given you somehow think you can extrapolate a general point in logic from what I said:

Fighter A adopting the right tactics to beat an inferior version of Fighter B (let's call him Fighter B 1.0 for the sake of this) does not mean it is judged purely on what Fighter B didn't do, it means it is also judged in the context of Fighter B 1.0 being < Fighter B 2.0 (let's call this the 'regular' version). The critical point is that the two points (tactics and version of opponent) are not mutually exclusive and both can be factored into the decision-making criteria.
In fact, the only logic to be taken from this is not your bizarre claim, but rather than simply because Fighter A has adopted the right tactics to beat Fighter B 1.0 does not change the fact that they beat an inferior version and it is impossible to assume that the same tactics would beat Fighter B 2.0.
If you can't accept this premise, it means one of two things:
1) You believe that there is only one version of every fighter e.g. that the version of Mike Tyson that lost to Kevin Mcbride is the same version of Tyson that beat Larry Holmes.
Or
2) That a fighter adopting the right tactics to beat their opponent means the version of their opponent is irrelevant when assessing the magnitude of the victory e.g. the fact Mcbride adopted the right tactics against Tyson means it should be hailed as an outstanding victory irrespective of the fact it was against a shot, aged version of Tyson.

In conclusion, there's a reason why Laing's defeat of Duran is rarely recognised alongside other achievements such as Honeyghan vs Curry, and that's precisely because he faced an inferior version of Duran. In contrast to your claim, it doesn't mean that Laing didn't produce a good performance, he did, it's just that everyone except you also judges it in the context of the fact he was facing on out-of-condition, unmotivated version of Duran.

Embarrassing myself? No. Just no.

I'm not saying Laing beat Duran in his prime. Absolutely not. But he did beat the Duran of that night. To say that Duran was out of shape and unfocused is complete speculation. At his best, Laing was a highly skilled. Inconsistent, but highly skilled. Duran wasn't at his best, but Laing beat him fair and square.

To say that fighter A only beat fighter B because B didn't train and couldn't be arsed on the night, could be applied to any fight in history.

For some reason, according to some fans, Duran only lost when he couldn't be arsed. Nonsense.

For the record, I don't think there is only one version of every boxer and I didn't suggest that anywhere. So again, bollocks.

Keith, once again your argument has logical flaws I could drive a truck through, but for the sake of keeping this brief, I'll just point out that you've admitted that Duran wasn't at his best, which is a large part of why Laing's victory doesn't rank up there with the likes of Honeyghan. That is all

On a more positive note, couldn't agree more re. Andries - now there's a fighter who's never fully had his dues.

[Ezzard]

That would have been a very short fight. Tyson would have gotten inside that long lead hand and knocked him senseless with the first shot he landed.

Hearns could probably have won a few fights at heavy if he landed big first, but he'd have been larruped the minute anyone connected, he has a long skinny Neck Tommy, he wasn't built to take bit punches, certainly not from genuine heavyweights.

Andries actually dropped Hearns in that fight but it didn't count and was ruled a slip. Tommy, always a genuine guy, admitted after the fight that it was a legit KD. Not bad for Dennis after being dropped 7 or 8 times.

Hearns' durability was a little like Bruno's. It gets underrated. They had good chins but when they got fatigued they would unravel. They both also had poor survival instincts. Hagler said to Hearns in an interview straight after Tommy's rematch with Ray Leonard, "You finally learned to clinch." (or something like that)

Compare Round 2 of Duran-Leonard with Leonard-Hearns.

Duran has Leonard on rubber legs. Ray puts a lock on him like you've never seen. Probably, if not definitely, he should have been deducted a point. But it got him through. When Ray has Tommy hurt. Tommy doesn't know what to do. He can't close down Ray. He just tucks in and takes a hammering.

[jamesmcdonnell]

That would have been a very short fight. Tyson would have gotten inside that long lead hand and knocked him senseless with the first shot he landed.

Hearns could probably have won a few fights at heavy if he landed big first, but he'd have been larruped the minute anyone connected, he has a long skinny Neck Tommy, he wasn't built to take bit punches, certainly not from genuine heavyweights.

Andries actually dropped Hearns in that fight but it didn't count and was ruled a slip. Tommy, always a genuine guy, admitted after the fight that it was a legit KD. Not bad for Dennis after being dropped 7 or 8 times.

Hearns' durability was a little like Bruno's. It gets underrated. They had good chins but when they got fatigued they would unravel. They both also had poor survival instincts. Hagler said to Hearns in an interview straight after Tommy's rematch with Ray Leonard, "You finally learned to clinch." (or something like that)

Compare Round 2 of Duran-Leonard with Leonard-Hearns.

Duran has Leonard on rubber legs. Ray puts a lock on him like you've never seen. Probably, if not definitely, he should have been deducted a point. But it got him through. When Ray has Tommy hurt. Tommy doesn't know what to do. He can't close down Ray. He just tucks in and takes a hammering.

Totally agree, as I said in a previous post regarding Hearns, he was very disorganised when hurt, and therefore tended to get shelled until he was stopped. Not a bad chin per se, but poor survival instincts, although I'd suggest part of a fighters durability is being able to think when under fire and discombobulated.

[deadpan]

An honorable mention to Pat Cowdell for pushing Sanchez all the way. The Nelson and Daho blow outs did him a disservice.

[palooka]

Cowdell v Sanchez
McCauley v Bassa
Though he lost every second Andy Hollighan gave it a fight go with a prime Chavez in front of a massive crowd.
Johnny Nelson gave Adilson Rodriguez 2 very hard fights in Brazil at heavyweight.

Got Cowdell earlier, deadpan

Bomber Graham was within a whisker of beating Mike McCallum and the Body Snatcher had nothing but admiration and praise for Herol thereafter.

[stujones]

SRR vs Turpin - end of thread surely.

[jamesmcdonnell]

SRR vs Turpin - end of thread surely.

In some ways I'd argue that Honeyghan's win was more startling.

At MW, SRR was a great fighter still, but definitely beatable, Curry at that point was on a scintillating streak, having destroyed pretty much everyone put in front of him.

[keithmoonhangover]

Keith, once again your argument has logical flaws I could drive a truck through, but for the sake of keeping this brief, I'll just point out that you've admitted that Duran wasn't at his best, which is a large part of why Laing's victory doesn't rank up there with the likes of Honeyghan. That is all

On a more positive note, couldn't agree more re. Andries - now there's a fighter who's never fully had his dues.

I said Duran was past his prime, but he did the best he could on the night, which wasn't good enough, Laing beat him fair and square. It isn't as big an achievement as Honeyghan, but it is still a massive achievement and Laing should get more credit for it. To merely say Duran lost because he didn't train properly and wasn't focused is naïve.

[Deserter]

Keith, once again your argument has logical flaws I could drive a truck through, but for the sake of keeping this brief, I'll just point out that you've admitted that Duran wasn't at his best, which is a large part of why Laing's victory doesn't rank up there with the likes of Honeyghan. That is all

On a more positive note, couldn't agree more re. Andries - now there's a fighter who's never fully had his dues.

I said Duran was past his prime, but he did the best he could on the night, which wasn't good enough, Laing beat him fair and square. It isn't as big an achievement as Honeyghan, but it is still a massive achievement and Laing should get more credit for it. To merely say Duran lost because he didn't train properly and wasn't focused is naïve.

Why so? Are you saying that if Duran had trained properly and was focused Laing would have still won?

[keithmoonhangover]

Why so? Are you saying that if Duran had trained properly and was focused Laing would have still won?

What makes you think Duran didn't train properly? Because he lost?

[Deserter]

Why so? Are you saying that if Duran had trained properly and was focused Laing would have still won?

What makes you think Duran didn't train properly? Because he lost?

I've already explained why:
1) Because of how he looks in the fight compared to the Duran that fought Leonard two years earlier and even the Duran that fought Davey Moore nearly a year later - sluggish and laissez faire.

2) ) Because Duran's lifestyle at the time is well documented - I've already mentioned previously he was in equally poor shape for the Jimmy Batten fight that he subsequently won and books like Four Kings and Hands of Stone are explicit about his ballooning up in weight and party lifestyle.

3) The context: do you honestly believe that a boxing great taking part in a non-title fight against a relative non-entity who was not expected to pose a threat would focus and train as hard as he would if he was facing a more feared opponent and/or fighting for a world title? Come on, please....

Of course if you want to ignore that mountain of evidence and instead believe that he'd trained properly and was focused for the fight despite there being nothing to support that belief, you're welcome to do so

[keithmoonhangover]

Why so? Are you saying that if Duran had trained properly and was focused Laing would have still won?

What makes you think Duran didn't train properly? Because he lost?

I've already explained why:
1) Because of how he looks in the fight compared to the Duran that fought Leonard two years earlier and even the Duran that fought Davey Moore nearly a year later - sluggish and laissez faire.

2) ) Because Duran's lifestyle at the time is well documented - I've already mentioned previously he was in equally poor shape for the Jimmy Batten fight that he subsequently won and books like Four Kings and Hands of Stone are explicit about his ballooning up in weight and party lifestyle.

3) The context: do you honestly believe that a boxing great taking part in a non-title fight against a relative non-entity who was not expected to pose a threat would focus and train as hard as he would if he was facing a more feared opponent and/or fighting for a world title? Come on, please....

Of course if you want to ignore that mountain of evidence and instead believe that he'd trained properly and was focused for the fight despite there being nothing to support that belief, you're welcome to do so

'Evidence'? Something in a book? What Duran 'looked' like? Laing being a 'non-entity'?

Which of Duran's losses do you think he did train properly for?

[palooka]

Laing would have been a tough bout for Duran at any time, he was very difficult to time or walk down as Laing didn't seem to know what he was going to do next. Duran will not have been at his motivated peak for Laing and the loss did Duran more good than harm while Kirkland went AWOL for a year.

[Deserter]

'Evidence'? Something in a book? What Duran 'looked' like? Laing being a 'non-entity'?

Which of Duran's losses do you think he did train properly for?

OK Keith, brilliant rebuttal - ducking the issue and responding with rhetorical questions. So first-hand accounts of how Duran looked and was acting at the time aren't convincing enough for you? By that criteria most of history is there for you to scoff at and ignore given it's based on exactly the same kind of evidence

As for the reference to 'relative non-entity', that is exactly how Laing was viewed at the time Stateside bearing in mind that his four fights prior to Duran included a KO loss to Jones for the British title and a points loss to the 'legendary' Reggie Ford. Or do you again want to try and reinvent history to argue this wasn't the case?

So, given you're so keen to reject that version of events, then please enlighten us all with what, by contrast, supports your belief that he did train for it, as I'm genuinely fascinated to know?

As for Duran's losses that he trained properly for around the same period in his career:
Leonard 2
Hearns
Hagler

[Bodyshot3]

John H Stracey worth a mention as well.....beating Napoles in Mexico was pretty epic; Jose was a good champion and mexico has always been a tough, tough place to fight.

But if push comes to shove.....it still has to be the Leamnigton Licker beating Sugar Ray Robinson. That must have been a hell of a night.

[Bodyshot3]

Apologies to Dr. Devious...he'd name-checked John's big win earlier