Where did it all go wrong, Naz?

[bennie]

Boxing wasn't good to Naseem Hamed after it all started to go wrong before and after his points win over Wayne McCullough in 1998. It was the worst showing of his career up to then, but he looked even poorer in contests with Cesar Soto, Paul Ingle, Manuel Calvo and Marco Antonio Barrera afterwards. Even a spectacular finish against Augie Sanchez couldn't wipe out the fragility he displayed leading up to the finish.
Now of course it looks like he will never fight again.
But McCullough was the turning point. A disintergrating relationship with mentor Brendan Ingle finally collapsed in the wake of the fight. Worse, Naz assembled the British press before the fight and took turns to verbally abuse them one by one, reducing some to tears.
Amidst the nightmare, there was a fight.

In all honesty, there wasn't much of a fight to report from Atlantic City on 31 October, 1998. After surprising challenger Wayne McCullough with a sneak attack in the opening moments of round one, Prince Naseem Hamed, World Boxing Organisation featherweight champion, slipped into auto-pilot.
The first six minutes of his unanimous decision victory were spent mainly posing, in the third round he made his strongest effort to remove the challenger, and when that didn't happen for him Hamed danced and toyed with McCullough for the remainder of the fight. 'Amateurish' was the word I heard most often from other press-row occupants who clearly were not pleased with the southpaw superstar's contribution - but then they hadn't been all week.
At the cavernous old Boardwalk Convention Center on Halloween Eve, the devastating puncher resembled a non-hitter. If there was a moral victor, it was McCullough. Only Michael Katz of the New York Daily News had predicted that the challenger would last the distance; most had no real argument with Hamed when he predicted that the Irishman would be stopped in round three - that seemed entirely feasible. And many had also agreed with Hamed's trainer Brendan Ingle, who believed that McCullough's style was made for Hamed and that it could all be over inside the opening three minutes.
McCullough's wife and manager, Cheryl, appeared to be expecting the worst. Standing behind her husband's corner, she looked as white as a ghost, even whiter than Manchester light-welter Ricky Hatton, whose impressive body punching brought him another first-round win on the undercard.
People were genuinely concerned for Mrs McCullough, who looked as though she might faint through anticipation of the fate that was about to befall the father of her baby daughter, Wynona.
"I'm okay," mouthed Cheryl to me. Plainly she was not.
Even when Wayne returned to his corner at the end of round three, his arms raised in triumph at having survived Hamed's prediction, his wife's applause seemed only half-hearted. But by the halfway stage she was pumping her fists in the air and cheering as much as any of the thousands of Irish people in the arena. At no point did McCullough look as though he might win the fight, but neither did it seem likely he would be seriously hurt. Clearly Hamed's mind was not on the job. If he couldn't take McCullough out with one of his big, slashing uppercuts, then he couldn't be bothered to take him out at all, it seemed. He had no interest in working for openings, nor was he inclined to punch to the body - a terrible oversight when one recalls how McCullough virtually doubled over in pain when Daniel Zaragoza dug a right-hander into his ribs during the Ulsterman's January 1997 losing challenge to the then WBC super-bantam champ.
And there was nothing that Brendan Ingle could do to try and instil some focus into the champion. The one-minute breaks between rounds were utterly demeaning to the veteran trainer. Not only had he been demoted, with his sons John and Dominic having been handed the official reigns, but Ingle soon came to realise how meaningless was his new role as 'corner adviser'; Hamed made an unnecessarily cruel show of how little Ingle's reading of the fight meant to him, staring into space as the Sheffield boxing guru made his points and even pushing Brendan back, telling him to "back off and give me some space!"
It was as ugly as the fight to watch.
To my mind, it was Hamed's treatment of the man who developed him that most exemplified his appalling attitude for which he has been roundly criticised - not a few spats with journalists. Ingle did not deserve to be shown such disrespect, disdain even, and I'd be surprised if he were willing to work with Hamed again. Ingle's pride has been battered enough and for this, if not for anything else, Hamed should be ashamed of himself.
McCullough, though, had reason to be proud when the final bell rang. Lasting the distance with Hamed is something that only Peter Buckley, in a November 1992 six-rounder and Vincenzo Belcastro had achieved previously. However, his pleas for a rematch should be ignored. Sure, he broke Hamed's long knockout streak, dating back 18 fights to the commanding unanimous decision over Belcastro for the European bantamweight title in May 1995. And yes, by virtue of the fact that he kept coming forward, whilst Hamed kept backing off, McCullough did make the fight.
But the challenger was so concerned with not being caught by one of Hamed's bombs, preoccupied with keeping his gloves glued to the sides of his face to form a watertight guard, that McCullough simply was not relaxed enough to punch with any accuracy; and when a fighter lacks one-punch KO capability, as does McCullough (14 stoppage wins from 22 fights, none above bantamweight, against the one loss to Zaragoza), that is a major minus point.
The so-called computer punch-counters had him throwing 740 punches to Hamed's 742, but Hamed landed 340 while the Irishman connected with exactly half that amount. Those sort of figures do not dethrone champions. However, rather than Hamed finishing McCullough's career as he had promised he would do, he has in fact breathed fresh life into it. The Las Vegas-based, Belfast-born former Olympian is now a marketable commodity once more and announced that his future would be in the super-bantam division.
Hamed, though, has done his reputation no good whatsoever. The third fight of his deal with American subscription giants Home Box Office, his second on American soil, was a huge disappointment. Hamed's viewing figures for the Kevin Kelley and Wilfredo Vazquez fights had impressed the network, and this fight brought HBO's best ratings of the year for a non-heavyweight, non-pay-per-view fight, knocking Oscar De La Hoya vs Patrick Charpentier into second place. But network chief Seth Abraham was cautious afterwards, stating that the impact of this performance would not be felt until the viewing figures for Hamed's next fight became known. Those figures will be revealing indeed.
HBO once more spent large amounts on publicising Hamed, who they believe has the potential to be absolutely massive in America. The network took out full-page colour adverts in the New York Times and Rolling Stone magazine, with smaller ads elsewhere and constant TV trailers. Their efforts cannot be faulted and were deserving of a little more co-operation from the subject of their publicity campaign. But still there was a worryingly small crowd in the arena. Of the 8,138 in attendance, it appeared that around a third of that number were McCullough supporters, 1,000 of whom had made the trip from Ireland. Had Hamed been fighting someone without McCullough's fan base, say a Puerto Rican such as his mandatory contender Angel Vasquez, who maintained his unbeaten run on the undercard, the huge old venue might have been embarrassingly empty.
It seems to me that America is unsure what to make of Hamed. I get the impression that HBO would like nothing better than to wheel him out on nights such as this, Halloween, and turn his fights into theme evenings.
There was a furore over the initial plan to have Hamed enter the arena through a graveyard resplendent with tombstones marked with the names of his championship opponents. And the outrage expressed by the British press contingent was totally justified. The idea really was in the worst possible taste. This is boxing, not wrestling, where the likes of the undertaker can revel in death-like imagery. In boxing, people do die. Initially, HBO's Lou DiBella and Larry Merchant tried to defend the plan. "It's Halloween," they offered, as though this ostensibly American tradition erased the deaths of too many fighters over the years. "Humour obviously does not cross the Atlantic," sneered Merchant who appeared to be feeling rather dismissive about it all when initially he was questioned on the subject, as though he were replying to criticism about his choice of tie for a broadcast. The Yanks and the Brits really were speaking different languages. But death bridges all chasms and thankfully, particularly for the surviving families of fighters who have given their lives to this brutal sport, HBO quickly relented after being challenged over their plans.
To give the American TV men the benefit of the doubt, British boxing has in recent years had an abnormally high percentage of serious brain injuries compared with the rest of the world. Consequently, the British boxing fraternity may be more sensitive to the issue than our colleagues overseas. But none of us who make our livings from the sport should ever forget that boxing is a life-or-death business.
Hopefully this lesson has been learned and such tasteless hype tactics will not be considered in future.
Further evidence of the differences between British and American perspectives came when I spoke to HBO commentator Jim Lampley after the fight. When I asked him whether he felt HBO had got value for money, he assumed I was talking about the firework display that heralded Hamed's entrance. I cut the conversation short rather sharply. There didn't seem much point in continuing after that.


BRITISH PRESS ANTI-REACTION


IAN CHADBAND, Evening Standard: "If Hamed is going to scream the odds about what mayhem he will wreak while conquering America, then he has to accept the barbs when he fails to deliver as miserably as he did in this, the 11th and least satisfying defence of his WBO featherweight crown."

KEN JONES, The Independent: "The truth about Hamed is that he has learned very little about the fundamentals of boxing and lacks the humility to seek improvement."

KEVIN FRANCIS, The Star: "Hamed completely failed to convince an increasingly-sceptical American audience that he IS as great as he makes himself out to be. He did not do himself any justice in a fight where a convincing victory for his American TV paymasters was the order of the day."

BOB MEE, Independent On Sunday: "This week showed how bad feeling within a fighter's camp can spill over. I would not want Hamed to bite his tongue and hide his feelings every moment of the day, but the lack of professionalism he showed in Atlantic City portrayed him as a man with little or no compassion for those outside his immediate family and sycophantic entourage. And that's a shame because it's probably not the case."

SRIKUMAR SEN, The Times: "It seemed that no one in the Hamed camp had told him that he had not exactly been a big hit, but when he reads the papers he will not find their remarks complimentary. There were many ringsiders who thought the scoring of the judges was far too generous. Some even thought McCullough had done enough to win."

PAUL HAYWARD, The Telegraph: "They spent $70,000 on a mock graveyard for Naseem Hamed to dance through on his way to the ring. On this evidence they could use it to bury the idea that he is on an inexorable fox-trot to greatness. From the outset, it was the most wretchedly fraught and chaotic boxing event many of us present have ever attended."

COLIN HART, The Sun: "Down the years it has been my privilege and pleasure to travel with men like Ken Buchanan, John Conteh, Joe Bugner, Frank Bruno, Lloyd Honeyghan, Alan Minter, Billy Schwer and the late Johnny Owen, who all fought for world titles in America. You could not get a more diverse bunch. Most of them lost, but all were magnificent ambassadors for Britain. Now I know exactly what trainer Brendan Ingle meant when he described Naz as obnoxious and abusive in his recently published book."

JOHN RAWLING, The Guardian: "It was hard to imagine anyone outside the Sheffield narcissist's immediate family and friends thinking he had done anything to enhance his reputation on either side of the Atlantic. Alienating newspaper reporters is one thing, but provoking the displeasure of the companies who televise his contests is another example of an out-of-control ego which now seems to run unchecked."

JAMES LAWTON, The Express: "The truth is Naseem's 'style' has become not so much an adornment as a smoke screen - one that is frankly no longer working.

[stujones]

Personally Bennie, I don't really care.

He's living in his posh mantion and for me the guys the hypocrit and a fraud.

There are much fighters who deserve to be in the position (financially) than he does. Guys like Gatti and Ward, these are real warriors and I actually think Gatti had as much ability as him.

Whilst compared to most fighter he faught excellent names, for a guy who proclaimed himself to be the greatest fight ever there was always some angle that gave him the edge to hold on to the title.

I think an all time great (or someone who wants to be) must occasionally face some challenges in which he may be the outsider. All the greats have done it, Roy Jones the most recent.

Just look at his opponents they were (or were to be) excellent fighters but at the time there was a lot of reasons why they faced Hamed. They were either too old (Kelley, Johnson, Vasquez), not well enough prepared (Robinson, Bungu), fighting in the wrong weight devision (McCoullough, Bungu), not experienced enough (Ingle, Sanchez, Alicia) or not up to scratch (Hardy, Baddilo and I think Soto).

The only great fighter he faced who has since proved he had alot to offer and had good preperation was Medina. However, Medina was never considered in a P4P stakes.

The first time he stepped up to fight an A grade legendary fighter in his prime he got exposed, big style.

So to answer your question, it was when he faced Barrera, cause thats when he got found out.

[scurlaruntings]

Personally Bennie, I don't really care.

He's living in his posh mantion and for me the guys the hypocrit and a fraud.

There are much fighters who deserve to be in the position (financially) than he does. Guys like Gatti and Ward, these are real warriors and I actually think Gatti had as much ability as him.

Whilst compared to most fighter he faught excellent names, for a guy who proclaimed himself to be the greatest fight ever there was always some angle that gave him the edge to hold on to the title.

I think an all time great (or someone who wants to be) must occasionally face some challenges in which he may be the outsider. All the greats have done it, Roy Jones the most recent.

Just look at his opponents they were (or were to be) excellent fighters but at the time there was a lot of reasons why they faced Hamed. They were either too old (Kelley, Johnson, Vasquez), not well enough prepared (Robinson, Bungu), fighting in the wrong weight devision (McCoullough, Bungu), not experienced enough (Ingle, Sanchez, Alicia) or not up to scratch (Hardy, Baddilo and I think Soto).

The only great fighter he faced who has since proved he had alot to offer and had good preperation was Medina. However, Medina was never considered in a P4P stakes.

The first time he stepped up to fight an A grade legendary fighter in his prime he got exposed, big style.

So to answer your question, it was when he faced Barrera, cause thats when he got found out.

naz`s problem was EGO.those around him catered to his big EGO n he made millions from it..when he went to the big time in his 1st real test he was beaten by a blown up bantam n his EGO deflated.leave him to lavish his millions.at least he faced some decent comp n was a real world champ n P4P at some stage of his career.the same cnt be said for todays frauds like hatton n calzaghe

[stujones]

Yeah I agree with your post.

He was certainly at one stage a P4P condentor. The highest he was ever ranked for me P4P was 9. People thought I was harsh, but I feel vindicated by his 1st performance against a fellow Pound for Pounder.

But as you said compared to Calzaghe, and Nelson he was a fighting champion. I don't class Hatton there yet cause he's the first one to admit he's not a true champion.

If he captures on of the 4 belts lets see who he defends it against, I know he's labelled as a World Champion, but Hatton has NEVER said he's a World champion.

Back to Bennie's post - those quotes you've got a fascinating its maybe because he did went bersurk on them before the McCoullough fight (and challenged McGuigan to a match!).

McGuigan in his prime would have beaten him.

My favourite quote about Hamed came from the Great train robber (when still relatively healthy), sorry his name escapes me now. When discussing Hamed he said "I'll pay to come to England to watch Freitas destroy him". Knowing full well the consequences of coming to England.

[bennie]

I think an all time great (or someone who wants to be) must occasionally face some challenges in which he may be the outsider. All the greats have done it, Roy Jones the most recent.

Great point.

[EddieShredder]

My favourite quote about Hamed came from the Great train robber (when still relatively healthy), sorry his name escapes me now. When discussing Hamed he said "I'll pay to come to England to watch Freitas destroy him". Knowing full well the consequences of coming to England.

Never heard that quote before, I take it it was Ronnie Biggs ( before he came back ). Quality quote!!

[Goz]

I think an all time great (or someone who wants to be) must occasionally face some challenges in which he may be the outsider. All the greats have done it, Roy Jones the most recent.

Great point.

Of course it is. You can't go through an entire career being odds-on favourite for every contest you are in (unless you are Ricky Hatton), sometimes, maybe even only once or twice you have to take a 50/50 fight or even worse. For Hamed I would say only his first challenge for a 'world' title against Steve Robinson and the MAB fight possibly fall into that category. Although Hamed was favourite to beat Robbo there was still a fairly large contingent who thought Robinson's experience, the big occasion e.t.c might even things up. The Hamed that fought that night could have gone on to become an all-time Featherweight great. Patient, clever, powerful, quick, but as Bennie points out that reliance on power was certainly his undoing as his career evolved (or didn't). Once he realised he couldn't flatten his opponent with a single shot he did seem to lose interest.

I thought his fight with Soto wasn't actually as bad as many thought, that was a really difficult night with Soto ahead on points around the halfway stage and fighting incredibly dirty, Hamed really had to dig in and fight rough back. It certainly wasn't pretty but coming away with a clear unanimous decision wasn't such a bad result in those particular circumstances.

As for the 'where did it all go wrong' question, maybe it didn't ALL go wrong? A 5 year reign as world champ, millions accumulated and thus financial security for him and his family and only one points defeat to a modern great is not my definition of all going wrong.

Reminds me a bit of the famous George Best anecdote....

However I think we all judge Hamed by the potential he showed in the early years when he had that 'eye of the tiger' where he positively seemed to rejoice in flattening his opposition, I mean really get off on leaving his man in a crumpled heap.

Many of us are now so harsh on Hamed and the decline he showed post 1997 because we feel that the young man who dominated and thrashed Steve Robinson more than had the tools to defeat Barerra, certainly 6 years on where he could have improved even further instead of stagnating and then going backwards.

Tis a shame but I am also pretty much past caring about Hamed other than wanting to see him come back so one of our Featherweights like Brodie can get the prestige of kncoking him out on a big fight night.

[bennie]

I think an all time great (or someone who wants to be) must occasionally face some challenges in which he may be the outsider. All the greats have done it, Roy Jones the most recent.

Great point.

Of course it is. You can't go through an entire career being odds-on favourite for every contest you are in (unless you are Ricky Hatton), sometimes, maybe even only once or twice you have to take a 50/50 fight or even worse.

Just on that theme, I believe Marvin Hagler entered every fight he ever had as favourite, along with Joe Louis.

[get in the ring]

Which raises the question...

Are there two types of 'great' fighters?

The one's who fight all comers, and have a great resume, been involved in classic fights and are great champs...

and the ones who are incredibily talented and superior to all those beneath them, such as the Joe Louis', Marvin Hagler's and more recently Roy Jones. These guys are favourite's for most of their fights if not all of them...but that shouldn't take anything away from the comp they are facing...it just highlights the fact that they are that bloody talented fighters!!!

[Goz]

Great point.

Of course it is. You can't go through an entire career being odds-on favourite for every contest you are in (unless you are Ricky Hatton), sometimes, maybe even only once or twice you have to take a 50/50 fight or even worse.

Just on that theme, I believe Marvin Hagler entered every fight he ever had as favourite, along with Joe Louis.

Ok, fair enough but Hagler still had 'challenging' fights. I've no idea what the betting odds were leading up to the Hearns fight but I think it was seen as a good matchup as Hearns had impressed at Junior-Middle.

Equally I would have thought his earlier challenges against Minter and Antfurmeo (spelling) were not overwhelming is his favour?

[Goz]

Which raises the question...

Are there two types of 'great' fighters?

The one's who fight all comers, and have a great resume, been involved in classic fights and are great champs...

and the ones who are incredibily talented and superior to all those beneath them, such as the Joe Louis', Marvin Hagler's and more recently Roy Jones. These guys are favourite's for most of their fights if not all of them...but that shouldn't take anything away from the comp they are facing...it just highlights the fact that they are that bloody talented fighters!!!

This is also a good point and I say the answer is a resounding yes! I used to use an argument along those lines when defending Lennox's accomplishments, when people would say he's never had a hard fight, I would answer 'so what?'.

Equally Gatti is not an all-time great just because he's been involved in more wars than the UN.

[REAL_DEAL]

i think america runied naz, to much hype and his results/ display over there wasnt great,

his first fight was kevin kelly, HBO hyped naz to the extreme, he took 10 minutes to get to the ring, this fight was great but naz had to take three 8 counts,

soto fight was a dirty fight which featured naz body slammin soto,

sanchez fight naz should of knocked this guy out in 1, but naz didnt box to his best and it showed as sanchez decked naz but naz's power proved later on,

bungu is a better fighter than soto and sanchez and naz proformed well maybe if this fight was in america could of been a different story,

thrn barrera fought a different fight than naz expected and didnt train for that type of style and it proved as barrera beat naz to the punch all night,

then naz didnt take the right sort of come back fight against calvo and calvo made naz look allfull,

naz has retired imo,

[bennie]

Of course it is. You can't go through an entire career being odds-on favourite for every contest you are in (unless you are Ricky Hatton), sometimes, maybe even only once or twice you have to take a 50/50 fight or even worse.

Just on that theme, I believe Marvin Hagler entered every fight he ever had as favourite, along with Joe Louis.

Ok, fair enough but Hagler still had 'challenging' fights. I've no idea what the betting odds were leading up to the Hearns fight but I think it was seen as a good matchup as Hearns had impressed at Junior-Middle.

Equally I would have thought his earlier challenges against Minter and Antfurmeo (spelling) were not overwhelming is his favour?

No doubt about that. Hagler was favourite to beat Vito in his first stab at the middleweight title, but the odds would have been tight for Minter in London. A lot of the press tipped Minter over here. I know the Boxing News did. That meant many British fans would have put their money on the champion. Remember Minter had just destroyed Vito and beaten Kevin Finnegan three times. Finnegan of course had given Hagler two hard fights.
I know for a fact Hagler was favoured over Tommy. Many people fancied Hearns to win beforehand but certainly didn't put their money where their mouth is.

[MightyWarrior]

Hagler was probably a slight favorite in the Hearns fight, being the bigger man and long standing champion.

But based on Hearns' awesome 2nd round knockout of Duran, who'd just gone 15 with an unimpressive Hagler, there were many who saw it as a 50/50 fight.
The thinking being, if Hearns can do that to the iron chinned Duran, how's Marv going to hold up if he hits him flush?

A rare fight where it was perhaps the 2 best P4P fighters in the world facing up.
And in perhaps the greatest round 1 of all-time, Hearns did hit him flush, but Hagler took it well and by the end of the round you knew he'd won the fight.

[Lickszz]

[quote="MightyWarrior"]Hagler was probably a slight favorite in the Hearns fight, being the bigger man and long standing champion.

But based on Hearns' awesome 2nd round knockout of Duran, who'd just gone 15 with an unimpressive Hagler, there were many who saw it as a 50/50 fight.
The thinking being, if Hearns can do that to the iron chinned Duran, how's Marv going to hold up if he hits him flush?

A rare fight where it was perhaps the 2 best P4P fighters in the world facing up.
And in perhaps the greatest round 1 of all-time, Hearns did hit him flush, but Hagler took it well and by the end of the round you knew he'd won the fight.[/quote]

What about when Hagler fought Minter? was he favourite then? :wink:

[Lickszz]

I think Naz got his family too involved with his affairs and believed in his own hype too much. When you have done it the ingle way for as longas he has and then you have to find a new trainer and learn new/different tricks it's become very difficult. Fighter have routines and when they are broken it upsets the system.

[stujones]

Re - greatness, challenges and starting as outsider.

Its obviously difficult for great heavyweight champions to start as an outsider as they cannot move up in weight and face another great champion. The only thing a Heavyweight can really be asked to do is unify the title and clear up the devision (fight the best). The only other thing a Heavyweight could do is reign for more than a generation, not only beat everyone from his generation, but also the number 1 guy from the next generation. Even if you start as favourite its still the challenge.

Lewis sealed greatness the night he beat Holyfield, that was March 1999 - he lost the rematch in my opinion. His Legacy was confirmed when he beat Tyson. Not only that but he's also beaten 4 of boxing writers next big thing. Tua, Grant, Rahman and Vitali - can't really ask more of him.

It might not actually be such a bad idea if he has one final fight with Michael Moorer as he is the last active nail in the coffin of Lewis's generation fighters.

I personally would like to see a fighter move up the weight devisions, that's what I like - but in cases such as Hagler, then he had enough challenges out infront of him in his devision, Duran, Hearns, McGuabi, Rolodan all tremendous fighters. Add to the fact he won the title in the champions back yard (and the only champion - not the WBO champion) I think he overcame enough challenges to earn great status. I personally think it was a great challenge to beat Hearns at Middleweight than to beat a Dennis Andries (no disrespect to this highly underated fighter) at Light Heavy.

I Naz's is case, yes he did beat the champion in his back yard. But the champion only had 4 weeks to train, he was on honeymoon when he was told to fight Naz in 4 weeks or be stripped - Naz of course fully deserved his number 1 ranking have never faught at Feather before that fight.

While Steve Robinson was a sporting icon of mine, was he the best Featherweight in the world at the time. Boxing Monthly, a UK based publication, who had seen much of Robinson thought he only warranted 6th in the rankings at the time.

Hamed during his prime years never faught the nearest condentor to the number 1 spot throughout his career. For the most part that was Luisto Espinosa or Freddie Norwood (the guy who has beaten Marquez). Vasquez shouldn't have been WBA champion at all prior to his meeting with Naz, anyone remember the Holyfield vs Moorer II undercard will remember Vasquez getting beat up in one of the worse decision in boxing history. I think Reg Gutteridges co commentator scored it a Rios shut out. Tom "Boom Boom" Johnson was also way past his prime and had clearly lost his punch resistance. Ceasar Soto was a poor champion, Kevin Kelly was only the WBU title holder. A fight with Norwood in the US would have been a good enough challenge for me.

The only time the challenge was there, apart from against Medina - was against Barerra where he got exposed.

As I have said there was always the "angle" giving Hamed a clear advantage and edge to hold on to his title. Hagler didn't have the edge in most of his fights. McGuabi was a big punching natural middleweight in the peak of his powers.

[Lorn]

I miss him on the scene, dont know the man to be honest, of course living where I do I have heard many stories good and bad, but you cant fault his ability to excite the audience...


No lively personalities anymore, it is all getting rather quiet on the boxing front now a days...


Lorn