The Eamonn Magee Book is Incredible....but how good was he in your opinion?

[thepocketrocket]

I have to say, that has taken over from the Harald Scumacher autobiography as my fave bio/autobio book.

Obviously not wanting to re-litigate Hatton v Magee as we did that last week, but in your opinion was Magee a super fighter held back by the ale and the damage it did to his stamina, or was he just another counterpuncher who didn't do enough work?

[Stuarty]

Naturally talented guy but a frustrating watch at times because of lack of activity. It's difficult to say if he'd have had a different style if he was living the life. Look at Junior Witter. Fit as a flea but a lazy style counter puncher. Awful to watch at times.

[thepocketrocket]

Naturally talented guy but a frustrating watch at times because of lack of activity. It's difficult to say if he'd have had a different style if he was living the life. Look at Junior Witter. Fit as a flea but a lazy style counter puncher. Awful to watch at times.

That is exactly the guy I was thinking of as it was something of a triumvirate back in the day.

I don't remember Witter ever having a style that was high intensity......the counter-puncher will always have to accept the fact he will do less than a pressure fighter, because if he did, he wouldn't be setting traps and counter-punching!

[Crease]

Magee had the power... But the problem is that he's a bully. And when his opponent stands up to him and isn't intimidated by him, then he's often out of ideas...

Look at the Hatton fight. He puts Ricky down and instead of pressing forward, he stands off him and gives him the chance to re-gather his composure and get back in the fight. It was a classic bottle-job.

Truth is Magee just wasn't ready to be in the big time. He held himself back.

[mickey1975]

If everything in the book is true, it’s remarkable he could even do 6 rounds. He must have only operated at 10-20%.

[Noxy]

He was a great fighter but he lacked edge at the top level. He was unlucky as well though, he had his legs smashed just when he was in a position for a big fight. There was talk of Sharmba Mitchell coming to Belfast. He also ran Otkay Urkal close for the European title - what if that fight had been in the UK. Although, given his lifestyle it is amazing that he managed even half of what he actually accomplished.

[jameswilson]

I watched the Hatton fight the other day for the first time in what must be 10 years. He had Hatton well buzzed in the second having put him down in the first but Vann seemed to hold him back despite them not being tied up. Magee gestured as much as to say get the fu ck out the way but couldn’t get anything clean off after that.

[punchers chance]

He is a hard man in the truest sense of the word.
As a boxer, British title level was his high water mark, but I suppose the question is how good could he have been?
He was blessed with a lot of qualities but one missing ingredient was 'hard work and dedication' to quote another champion.

If he'd had that he could have gone to the top.

[Deserter]

The problem with this type of speculation is that you're trying to separate the inseparable.
Bizarrely it seems to only happen with mental situations rather than physical ones e.g. you never see a thread saying 'how far do you think Billy Joe Saunders could go if he could punch like Nigel Benn?' That's because people know he can't and so view it as a pointless debate. But this is almost always true in those cases that are more mental rather than physical as well.
The bottom line is that Magee's lifestyle and its consequent impact on his performances was a direct reflection of who he was - as much a part of his DNA as his southpaw stance.

[Noxy]

The problem with this type of speculation is that you're trying to separate the inseparable.
Bizarrely it seems to only happen with mental situations rather than physical ones e.g. you never see a thread saying 'how far do you think Billy Joe Saunders could go if he could punch like Nigel Benn?' That's because people know he can't and so view it as a pointless debate. But this is almost always true in those cases that are more mental rather than physical as well.
The bottom line is that Magee's lifestyle and its consequent impact on his performances was a direct reflection of who he was - as much a part of his DNA as his southpaw stance.

You say that but I’m not so sure. People say, for example, what about (whoever) imagine if he carried a dig. I‘ve heard that said about Warrington and Ray Close

[Deserter]

The problem with this type of speculation is that you're trying to separate the inseparable.
Bizarrely it seems to only happen with mental situations rather than physical ones e.g. you never see a thread saying 'how far do you think Billy Joe Saunders could go if he could punch like Nigel Benn?' That's because people know he can't and so view it as a pointless debate. But this is almost always true in those cases that are more mental rather than physical as well.
The bottom line is that Magee's lifestyle and its consequent impact on his performances was a direct reflection of who he was - as much a part of his DNA as his southpaw stance.

You say that but I’m not so sure. People say, for example, what about (whoever) imagine if he carried a dig. I‘ve heard that said about Warrington and Ray Close

Mate, it's only anecdotal, but I'd say in all my years on the board it's at least 90/10 as a percentage in terms of people questioning a boxer's hypothetical trajectory based on mental circumstances rather than physical. I've also seen numerous threads started around what boxer x could/should have achieved if their lifestyle and/or mentality had been different, and I'm honestly struggling to think of one example where a thread has actually been started around physical attributes - I've read passing references to Warrington's lack of a dig holding him back at world level, for example, but never as a thread in its own right to the best of my memory, more as speculation within a thread about how far he would go. And worth mentioning that's still fundamentally different to looking back on a career and reappraising it in light of what could have been.
Anyway, my main point still stands, which is that these 'what if' scenarios are pointless because these boxers were what they were, not just in terms of their physical attributes, but also in terms of being products of their environment. I've been as guilty of it as the next man of falling into this trap on occasion as Howard Eastman used to drive me crazy as I was sure he had an 'extra gear' that if he could only tap into would take him to the level I thought he was capable was - when of course the reality was that he didn't have the mentality to find that 'extra gear' and it was just an illusion... just took me a long time to come to terms with that

[dookus]

The problem with this type of speculation is that you're trying to separate the inseparable.
Bizarrely it seems to only happen with mental situations rather than physical ones e.g. you never see a thread saying 'how far do you think Billy Joe Saunders could go if he could punch like Nigel Benn?' That's because people know he can't and so view it as a pointless debate. But this is almost always true in those cases that are more mental rather than physical as well.
The bottom line is that Magee's lifestyle and its consequent impact on his performances was a direct reflection of who he was - as much a part of his DNA as his southpaw stance.

You say that but I’m not so sure. People say, for example, what about (whoever) imagine if he carried a dig. I‘ve heard that said about Warrington and Ray Close

Mate, it's only anecdotal, but I'd say in all my years on the board it's at least 90/10 as a percentage in terms of people questioning a boxer's hypothetical trajectory based on mental circumstances rather than physical. I've also seen numerous threads started around what boxer x could/should have achieved if their lifestyle and/or mentality had been different, and I'm honestly struggling to think of one example where a thread has actually been started around physical attributes - I've read passing references to Warrington's lack of a dig holding him back at world level, for example, but never as a thread in its own right to the best of my memory, more as speculation within a thread about how far he would go. And worth mentioning that's still fundamentally different to looking back on a career and reappraising it in light of what could have been.
Anyway, my main point still stands, which is that these 'what if' scenarios are pointless because these boxers were what they were, not just in terms of their physical attributes, but also in terms of being products of their environment. I've been as guilty of it as the next man of falling into this trap on occasion as Howard Eastman used to drive me crazy as I was sure he had an 'extra gear' that if he could only tap into would take him to the level I thought he was capable was - when of course the reality was that he didn't have the mentality to find that 'extra gear' and it was just an illusion... just took me a long time to come to terms with that

Self-discipline and love of the game are the most underrated talents of all

[Counter-puncher]

Really good discussion.

All I will add is, deserter, when I think of people assessing fighters with the intangibles and the mental side of it as the variable element in the equation and source of all the 'what if?' threads, it seems natural in a way to me.

Because John Murray with light dancing feet or Jamie McDonnell with hammering power, absolutely never happens.

Whereas every now and then a career-underperformer just happens to get it together (finally) and show us that 'what if' questions are at least possible to be answered by fighters with dodgy mindsets/habits/lifestyles etc, Kevin Mitchell for example most of his career was one big 'what if' and then he fought Murray and people rightly said 'what if' he'd actually acted like an adult his whole boxing career. I'm struggling to put it right, it's late, but I think I get why the one type of 'what it' is so prevalent.

[Counter-puncher]

I'm saying we may all pray (say) Amir Khan fights sensibly and cleverly and avoid risk, but we know there's no point praying he takes thunderous shots clean on the chin without so much as blinking.

[Counter-puncher]

I'm not sure that helped.

[Counter-puncher]

I'm saying we may all pray (say) Amir Khan fights sensibly and cleverly and avoid risk, but we know there's no point praying he takes thunderous shots clean on the chin without so much as blinking.

Or better yet Kevin Mitchell or BJS actually train for a fight.

[Wee Tommy]

Deserters post is spot on. I know boxers with all the physical gifts but the stuff in the heads as if not more important. I had a lot of physical talent myself but I didnt do anything with it really and that’s that. There’s no what if. It is what it was. Same with Magee. Loads of guys have had it as hard but some come through it mentally.

Crease nailed it on Magee in this case.

[Deserter]

Really good discussion.

All I will add is, deserter, when I think of people assessing fighters with the intangibles and the mental side of it as the variable element in the equation and source of all the 'what if?' threads, it seems natural in a way to me.

Because John Murray with light dancing feet or Jamie McDonnell with hammering power, absolutely never happens.

Whereas every now and then a career-underperformer just happens to get it together (finally) and show us that 'what if' questions are at least possible to be answered by fighters with dodgy mindsets/habits/lifestyles etc, Kevin Mitchell for example most of his career was one big 'what if' and then he fought Murray and people rightly said 'what if' he'd actually acted like an adult his whole boxing career. I'm struggling to put it right, it's late, but I think I get why the one type of 'what it' is so prevalent.

Yep, it's a fair call mate and I get where you're coming from completely, which is why I caveated it by saying "almost always" as I agree there are exceptions to the rule. Though again, it could be argued that some fighters have managed to change physically as well - Hearns was never a KO artist in the amateur ranks, Honeyghan definitely became more of a banger post-Curry (though ironically you could argue this was down to his state-of-mind), Barrera adapted his style to become more of a boxer as he got older etc, etc, etc. Even Benn during his Super Middle days was a long way from the out-and-out raw slugger of his early days at Middleweight.

[thepocketrocket]

The problem with this type of speculation is that you're trying to separate the inseparable.
Bizarrely it seems to only happen with mental situations rather than physical ones e.g. you never see a thread saying 'how far do you think Billy Joe Saunders could go if he could punch like Nigel Benn?' That's because people know he can't and so view it as a pointless debate. But this is almost always true in those cases that are more mental rather than physical as well.
The bottom line is that Magee's lifestyle and its consequent impact on his performances was a direct reflection of who he was - as much a part of his DNA as his southpaw stance.

You say that but I’m not so sure. People say, for example, what about (whoever) imagine if he carried a dig. I‘ve heard that said about Warrington and Ray Close

Mate, it's only anecdotal, but I'd say in all my years on the board it's at least 90/10 as a percentage in terms of people questioning a boxer's hypothetical trajectory based on mental circumstances rather than physical. I've also seen numerous threads started around what boxer x could/should have achieved if their lifestyle and/or mentality had been different, and I'm honestly struggling to think of one example where a thread has actually been started around physical attributes - I've read passing references to Warrington's lack of a dig holding him back at world level, for example, but never as a thread in its own right to the best of my memory, more as speculation within a thread about how far he would go. And worth mentioning that's still fundamentally different to looking back on a career and reappraising it in light of what could have been.
Anyway, my main point still stands, which is that these 'what if' scenarios are pointless because these boxers were what they were, not just in terms of their physical attributes, but also in terms of being products of their environment. I've been as guilty of it as the next man of falling into this trap on occasion as Howard Eastman used to drive me crazy as I was sure he had an 'extra gear' that if he could only tap into would take him to the level I thought he was capable was - when of course the reality was that he didn't have the mentality to find that 'extra gear' and it was just an illusion... just took me a long time to come to terms with that

To be clear, this is not necessarily a 'what if' question. I genuinely wondered whether people were expecting more work rate from a guy who was naturally a cagey counter puncher who was always going to get outworked like many other fighters of the same ilk. The ale may not have been as damaging to him as mentioned in the book, which seems to work off the basis that if he worked more he could have won more.

Torn on it myself

[Deserter]

You say that but I’m not so sure. People say, for example, what about (whoever) imagine if he carried a dig. I‘ve heard that said about Warrington and Ray Close

Mate, it's only anecdotal, but I'd say in all my years on the board it's at least 90/10 as a percentage in terms of people questioning a boxer's hypothetical trajectory based on mental circumstances rather than physical. I've also seen numerous threads started around what boxer x could/should have achieved if their lifestyle and/or mentality had been different, and I'm honestly struggling to think of one example where a thread has actually been started around physical attributes - I've read passing references to Warrington's lack of a dig holding him back at world level, for example, but never as a thread in its own right to the best of my memory, more as speculation within a thread about how far he would go. And worth mentioning that's still fundamentally different to looking back on a career and reappraising it in light of what could have been.
Anyway, my main point still stands, which is that these 'what if' scenarios are pointless because these boxers were what they were, not just in terms of their physical attributes, but also in terms of being products of their environment. I've been as guilty of it as the next man of falling into this trap on occasion as Howard Eastman used to drive me crazy as I was sure he had an 'extra gear' that if he could only tap into would take him to the level I thought he was capable was - when of course the reality was that he didn't have the mentality to find that 'extra gear' and it was just an illusion... just took me a long time to come to terms with that

To be clear, this is not necessarily a 'what if' question. I genuinely wondered whether people were expecting more work rate from a guy who was naturally a cagey counter puncher who was always going to get outworked like many other fighters of the same ilk. The ale may not have been as damaging to him as mentioned in the book, which seems to work off the basis that if he worked more he could have won more.

Torn on it myself

Gotcha mate. My gut instinct is that it's probably not a clear-cut case of one or the other but a combination of the two.

[thepocketrocket]

Mate, it's only anecdotal, but I'd say in all my years on the board it's at least 90/10 as a percentage in terms of people questioning a boxer's hypothetical trajectory based on mental circumstances rather than physical. I've also seen numerous threads started around what boxer x could/should have achieved if their lifestyle and/or mentality had been different, and I'm honestly struggling to think of one example where a thread has actually been started around physical attributes - I've read passing references to Warrington's lack of a dig holding him back at world level, for example, but never as a thread in its own right to the best of my memory, more as speculation within a thread about how far he would go. And worth mentioning that's still fundamentally different to looking back on a career and reappraising it in light of what could have been.
Anyway, my main point still stands, which is that these 'what if' scenarios are pointless because these boxers were what they were, not just in terms of their physical attributes, but also in terms of being products of their environment. I've been as guilty of it as the next man of falling into this trap on occasion as Howard Eastman used to drive me crazy as I was sure he had an 'extra gear' that if he could only tap into would take him to the level I thought he was capable was - when of course the reality was that he didn't have the mentality to find that 'extra gear' and it was just an illusion... just took me a long time to come to terms with that

To be clear, this is not necessarily a 'what if' question. I genuinely wondered whether people were expecting more work rate from a guy who was naturally a cagey counter puncher who was always going to get outworked like many other fighters of the same ilk. The ale may not have been as damaging to him as mentioned in the book, which seems to work off the basis that if he worked more he could have won more.

Torn on it myself

Gotcha mate. My gut instinct is that it's probably not a clear-cut case of one or the other but a combination of the two.

I think that is a very good answer, and likely where the truth lies

[Flump]

My opinion is he was a solid Euro level fighter, not world class. Didn't have the variety or gears to go any higher but definitely a solid fighter.

[TheGoods]

Is the book decent? I love a heavy drinking maverick sportsman.

[mickey1975]

Is the book decent? I love a heavy drinking maverick sportsman.

Yes. He’s a wreck head.

[thepocketrocket]

Is the book decent? I love a heavy drinking maverick sportsman.

The book is incredible.....I finished it inside a few days