Moseley vs DLH Worse Decision in a Superfight?
MW, you see an X on Bennie's post - I don't see that.bennie wrote:It's your good advice!! Where's Goz when I need him...MightyWarrior wrote:bennie wrote:Can someone confirm for me that they can see my avatar of Julio Cesar Chavez cracking Jose Luis Ramirez please.
I was just about to ask you, what the fukcs up with your avatar??! All we can see is - x - can you sort it out please bennie? Are you on the Stafford Ale again tonight?
His post are as plain as mine.
-
Guest
- Heavyweight
Some of you may have read my comments, but I'll state my case again here:
I thought Mosley won the fight and, like the judges, had it 115-113. I was surprised, just like Mosley, when he was actually awarded the decision, but that doesn't mean he lost the fight. Mosley's post-fight reaction has nothing to do with the previous 36 minutes of action that had just transpired.
I thought De La Hoya made the early running and looked quite good doing so. He certainly built an initial lead. However, I had them level at the halfway stage. De La Hoya looked flashy and was busy with the jab, but I thought Mosley did the more effective work and landed the more meatier shots to be justifably given some very close rounds. Mosley also worked well to the body, something which the shameless Darke and McCrory seemed oblivious too.
Mosley was the one who was forcing the fight down the stretch, and he was the one who endured the only two periods of dominance in the fight. Whilst this only entitles Shane to a couple of rounds, it highlights, if nothing else, that this was a very even contest on the scorecards. I'd argue that this fight could have gone either way but it was no robbery. De La Hoya simply didnt do enough work of any substance for me. I preferred the quality of Mosley's work.
The compubox statistics favour De La Hoya. More jabs landed, more power shots, more punches landed etc. These are only a guide, not a gospel for people to use to determine who won a fight. So what if De La Hoya threw more punches? He missed a lot, and was largely ineffective for me in the second half of the fight. He didn't impress me by trying to knick the fight. I'd also argue the the compubox statistics contain inaccuracies, they are, afterall, prone to human error and may have missed some of Mosley's successors. Compubox's power shots are also misleading. They rule anything other than a jab as a power shot. The only fighter who was landing the real power shots in there was Mosley.
Overall this was a very poor spectacle. I'm not saying to anyone that Mosley fought well, he was at odds with himself all night. However, he continued to press and gritted his teeth, and pulled it out for me in the championship rounds by showing some much needed urgency. Mosley clearly isnt the fighter he was, nor is he the fighter he claimed. But, based purely on the 12 rounds on Saturday night, I made him the winner in a close fight.
In spite of this I still think that De La Hoya is the better fighter of the two. his ring achievements are far better, and I do feel he can consider himself unlucky to have lost. But, for a supposed fighter boxing on the top of his game, he delivered anything like a championship performance. De La Hoya paid a heavy price for trying to edge the fight instead of winning it.
Physchologically I think people subconsciously had already made their minds up that Mosley was an inferior fighter to De La Hoya considering what has happened in the last 2 years. They figured that if Mosley wasn't dazzling De La Hoya with his speed, or nailing him with flashy combinations that he couldnt possibly be winning the fight. But Mosley, for me, simply ground it out when he wasnt boxing well. You can still win a fight like that.
Sheffield Steel and The Goat also had Mosley winning 115-113. Mighty Warrior had it a draw, and more than just 1 or 2 people in the boxing media also thought Mosley had won. So, I certainly dont feel people are justified in calling this a robbery.
No one has yet to offer a sound reason for all 3 judges to make Mosley the winner in a close fight, in which De La Hoya is in the opposite corner in Vegas. They could argue that the whole thing is bent but I think that's just clutching at thin air.
Here's how I scored some other fights: Barrera beat Morales 1 & 2 in my opinion, by 2 points first time round, by 1 point the second time.
I made Floyd Mayweather a comfortable 4 point winner of Jose Luis Castillo in their first fight.
I thought Sugar Ray Leonard deservedly beat Marvin Hagler.
I thought Vernon Forrest edged Mayorga by a round in the rematch.
I'm just trying to illustrate that I dont just favour come forward aggression, but boxers as well. On this occasion I had Mosley winning though. Apologies for the long windedness of this post. Boy, did I laugh when Mosley got his hands raised
I thought Mosley won the fight and, like the judges, had it 115-113. I was surprised, just like Mosley, when he was actually awarded the decision, but that doesn't mean he lost the fight. Mosley's post-fight reaction has nothing to do with the previous 36 minutes of action that had just transpired.
I thought De La Hoya made the early running and looked quite good doing so. He certainly built an initial lead. However, I had them level at the halfway stage. De La Hoya looked flashy and was busy with the jab, but I thought Mosley did the more effective work and landed the more meatier shots to be justifably given some very close rounds. Mosley also worked well to the body, something which the shameless Darke and McCrory seemed oblivious too.
Mosley was the one who was forcing the fight down the stretch, and he was the one who endured the only two periods of dominance in the fight. Whilst this only entitles Shane to a couple of rounds, it highlights, if nothing else, that this was a very even contest on the scorecards. I'd argue that this fight could have gone either way but it was no robbery. De La Hoya simply didnt do enough work of any substance for me. I preferred the quality of Mosley's work.
The compubox statistics favour De La Hoya. More jabs landed, more power shots, more punches landed etc. These are only a guide, not a gospel for people to use to determine who won a fight. So what if De La Hoya threw more punches? He missed a lot, and was largely ineffective for me in the second half of the fight. He didn't impress me by trying to knick the fight. I'd also argue the the compubox statistics contain inaccuracies, they are, afterall, prone to human error and may have missed some of Mosley's successors. Compubox's power shots are also misleading. They rule anything other than a jab as a power shot. The only fighter who was landing the real power shots in there was Mosley.
Overall this was a very poor spectacle. I'm not saying to anyone that Mosley fought well, he was at odds with himself all night. However, he continued to press and gritted his teeth, and pulled it out for me in the championship rounds by showing some much needed urgency. Mosley clearly isnt the fighter he was, nor is he the fighter he claimed. But, based purely on the 12 rounds on Saturday night, I made him the winner in a close fight.
In spite of this I still think that De La Hoya is the better fighter of the two. his ring achievements are far better, and I do feel he can consider himself unlucky to have lost. But, for a supposed fighter boxing on the top of his game, he delivered anything like a championship performance. De La Hoya paid a heavy price for trying to edge the fight instead of winning it.
Physchologically I think people subconsciously had already made their minds up that Mosley was an inferior fighter to De La Hoya considering what has happened in the last 2 years. They figured that if Mosley wasn't dazzling De La Hoya with his speed, or nailing him with flashy combinations that he couldnt possibly be winning the fight. But Mosley, for me, simply ground it out when he wasnt boxing well. You can still win a fight like that.
Sheffield Steel and The Goat also had Mosley winning 115-113. Mighty Warrior had it a draw, and more than just 1 or 2 people in the boxing media also thought Mosley had won. So, I certainly dont feel people are justified in calling this a robbery.
No one has yet to offer a sound reason for all 3 judges to make Mosley the winner in a close fight, in which De La Hoya is in the opposite corner in Vegas. They could argue that the whole thing is bent but I think that's just clutching at thin air.
Here's how I scored some other fights: Barrera beat Morales 1 & 2 in my opinion, by 2 points first time round, by 1 point the second time.
I made Floyd Mayweather a comfortable 4 point winner of Jose Luis Castillo in their first fight.
I thought Sugar Ray Leonard deservedly beat Marvin Hagler.
I thought Vernon Forrest edged Mayorga by a round in the rematch.
I'm just trying to illustrate that I dont just favour come forward aggression, but boxers as well. On this occasion I had Mosley winning though. Apologies for the long windedness of this post. Boy, did I laugh when Mosley got his hands raised
Lightsoot I did agree with all your other scorecards - except this one and of course Burke vs Zoff.
Out of interest, what did you score Harrison vs Medina. I thought DLH won this fight in a similar method (and a similar scoreline) as I thought Medina won that. For me, Harrison did about as much (no less) than Moseley.
On Power shots, while Moseley punches had a greater effect, DLH's were scoring shots, unlike Medina vs Tapia and alot of Lewis's vs Holyfields.
Only the rounds were Moseley outworked him, or equal to him could I score for Moseley, only the 9th he won beyond all doubt - there can be a case for up to FIVE rounds, NEVER seven.
In say a 10 second cameo when DLH landed 3 punches, to Moseley's 1 that cameo has got be scored for DLH cause his punches all count, all scored.
DLH nicking the decision was what he did against Trinidad alot of his punches were pitta patter. I don't like it when people say he tried to nick a decision when he OUTWORKED Moseley with solid shots. It was a masterful tactical display and in my opinion one of his best performance, although doesn't match with his display vs Vargas.
Out of interest, what did you score Harrison vs Medina. I thought DLH won this fight in a similar method (and a similar scoreline) as I thought Medina won that. For me, Harrison did about as much (no less) than Moseley.
On Power shots, while Moseley punches had a greater effect, DLH's were scoring shots, unlike Medina vs Tapia and alot of Lewis's vs Holyfields.
Only the rounds were Moseley outworked him, or equal to him could I score for Moseley, only the 9th he won beyond all doubt - there can be a case for up to FIVE rounds, NEVER seven.
In say a 10 second cameo when DLH landed 3 punches, to Moseley's 1 that cameo has got be scored for DLH cause his punches all count, all scored.
DLH nicking the decision was what he did against Trinidad alot of his punches were pitta patter. I don't like it when people say he tried to nick a decision when he OUTWORKED Moseley with solid shots. It was a masterful tactical display and in my opinion one of his best performance, although doesn't match with his display vs Vargas.
Can I just say BOLLEX to all this "I've seen more outrageous decisions than that" nonsense. So effing what?? Does that mean we shouldn't make a fuss about De La Hoya v Mosley II (which Oscar CLEARLY won) just because the likes of Foreman v Schultz were even worse?
C'mon. Those other fights have nothing to do with this. It was terrible scoring by all 3 judges on saturday night, end of story.
C'mon. Those other fights have nothing to do with this. It was terrible scoring by all 3 judges on saturday night, end of story.
-
MightyWarrior
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 13262
- Joined: 23 Jan 2003, 14:01
I thought Leonard won it, Hagler fought the wrong fight by trying to outbox Sugar Ray. Should've steam rolled him like he did Hearns.bennie wrote:Incidentally, how did you score that Leonard-Hagler fight, MW?
Lightsoot, Mosley landed some great body shots, but I'd be interested to know how many approx.
I've heard some writers saying HBO / Sky etc failed to notice his body work - but I'm not sure there was all that much going on was there??
Damn right. It's people's de-sensitization to the problem which contributes to it's general acceptance in boxing.Kilburn wrote:Can I just say BOLLEX to all this "I've seen more outrageous decisions than that" nonsense. So effing what?? Does that mean we shouldn't make a fuss about De La Hoya v Mosley II (which Oscar CLEARLY won) just because the likes of Foreman v Schultz were even worse?
C'mon. Those other fights have nothing to do with this. It was terrible scoring by all 3 judges on saturday night, end of story.
Why not make a fuss EVERY time this happens?
Althoug I must say, my sympathy for the Multi-milionaire, good-looking, married to a gorgeous wife, DLH is decreasing over time.
Whereas my sympathy for Vincent (when robbed against Barnes) is still there. I think he lost more than DLH.
-
MightyWarrior
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 13262
- Joined: 23 Jan 2003, 14:01
I'm just stating a fact, there's been a lot worse than that, and there's little point in making a "fuss" cause it amounts sweet FA in the end.Kilburn wrote:Can I just say BOLLEX to all this "I've seen more outrageous decisions than that" nonsense. So effing what?? Does that mean we shouldn't make a fuss about De La Hoya v Mosley II (which Oscar CLEARLY won) just because the likes of Foreman v Schultz were even worse?
C'mon. Those other fights have nothing to do with this. It was terrible scoring by all 3 judges on saturday night, end of story.
Oscar and his "investigations" will also amount to zilch, life goes on and Oscar goes home 20 mill richer.
No doubt there'll be worse to come.
How can you avoid it in such a subjective art as scoring a fight?
Those judges were picked and ok'd by all parties involved as they were generaly thought of as being some of the best in the world.
I think they gave honest opinions on the night, this is not a case of the house fighter being favoured - like the Vincent fight priff mentions - that was a decision that really stunk.
Mighty Warrior I was talking purely from a fans perspective, nothing that any of us decide to complain about on these message boards amounts to "sweet FA in the end". It's just discussion.
I agree though there doesn't seem any point in De La Hoya trying to have the result reversed or even made into a no contest. The judges made their decisions on the fight and everyone has to accept it.
I agree though there doesn't seem any point in De La Hoya trying to have the result reversed or even made into a no contest. The judges made their decisions on the fight and everyone has to accept it.
-
Guest
- Heavyweight
How you doing mate??Kilburn wrote:Mighty Warrior I was talking purely from a fans perspective, nothing that any of us decide to complain about on these message boards amounts to "sweet FA in the end". It's just discussion.
I agree though there doesn't seem any point in De La Hoya trying to have the result reversed or even made into a no contest. The judges made their decisions on the fight and everyone has to accept it.
Makes a change for you to be rucking about scoring. That's usually my domain!!Yes, Hagler fought a stupid fight. I could never fathom why until I read an article on Rich Rose, former Nevada State Athletic Commissioner. Rose said that Hagler's immense pride was jarred by someone coming out of three years retirement to take him on, even if that someone was Sugar Ray Leonard. Hagler wanted to humiliate Leonard as a result and actually tried to outbox the master boxer in an attempt to do so. The more I watch the tape, the more I agree with Rose. Hagler blew it.MightyWarrior wrote:I thought Leonard won it, Hagler fought the wrong fight by trying to outbox Sugar Ray. Should've steam rolled him like he did Hearns.bennie wrote:Incidentally, how did you score that Leonard-Hagler fight, MW?
It took him years to get over that decision of course. It's a shame Leonard didn't give him a rematch. Sugar Ray took on Lalonde, Hearns and Duran in the two-and-a-half years that followed his shock win - and still looked good. So the fact he refused to take on Hagler during that same period speaks for itself. Leonard was no fool. he knew he'd kidded Hagler out of it.
The scorecard of the fight can be found here:
http://www.sommet.net/wbc1/home/latest/ ... gi?ID=3557
After reading forums for a few days and assessing the views of many who know more about the sport than myself I feel boxing now needs to focus not on Saturday's decision but on what can be done to prevent future occurences.
It is my opinion that this situation will happen more frequently in the future. Elite boxers are now getting so fit and so skilled that 12 nip and tuck rounds can pass in the blink of an eye and that is the problem.
The fight reminded me of Morales-Barerra 2 last year, I honestly thought Morales had CLEARLY won that fight and was shocked at the decision. I logged on the following day to some of the forums and found everybody was split and it began to dawn on me then.
The 15 round distance used to sort the men from the boys a little more, I reckon Saturday might have been an example as Mosely looked like he might have battered Oscar from pillar to post if there had been a further 3 rounds.
De La Hoya's career is blighted by no less than 4 (5 if you count the first Mosely fight) very tight decisions that could have gone either way! Fact is if the 15 round round distance had been in effect I reckon he would been stopped by Trinidad and Mosely.
Anyway I'm digressing, Boxing needs to think of something because this is beginning to nark fans off. I can watch a game of football an get a conclusive result, yeah sure I know there is still controversy in football but every year the best team generally rises to the top. It's a more gratifying sport to follow as a whole.
It is my opinion that this situation will happen more frequently in the future. Elite boxers are now getting so fit and so skilled that 12 nip and tuck rounds can pass in the blink of an eye and that is the problem.
The fight reminded me of Morales-Barerra 2 last year, I honestly thought Morales had CLEARLY won that fight and was shocked at the decision. I logged on the following day to some of the forums and found everybody was split and it began to dawn on me then.
The 15 round distance used to sort the men from the boys a little more, I reckon Saturday might have been an example as Mosely looked like he might have battered Oscar from pillar to post if there had been a further 3 rounds.
De La Hoya's career is blighted by no less than 4 (5 if you count the first Mosely fight) very tight decisions that could have gone either way! Fact is if the 15 round round distance had been in effect I reckon he would been stopped by Trinidad and Mosely.
Anyway I'm digressing, Boxing needs to think of something because this is beginning to nark fans off. I can watch a game of football an get a conclusive result, yeah sure I know there is still controversy in football but every year the best team generally rises to the top. It's a more gratifying sport to follow as a whole.
Mr lightsoot I know you think Mosley won, better not even go there BUT don't you think some of these refs and judges are just a bit too old anyway? I mean who says you have to have been scoring fights for 80 years to be any good at it?lightsoot wrote:
How you doing mate??
Bennie - My memory of events is that Hagler went away almost immediately after the fight and never really came back other than to pack his bags for Milan. I thought the rematch was mooted for a while after but Hagler seemed intent on walking away from the sport for good?bennie wrote:Yes, Hagler fought a stupid fight. I could never fathom why until I read an article on Rich Rose, former Nevada State Athletic Commissioner. Rose said that Hagler's immense pride was jarred by someone coming out of three years retirement to take him on, even if that someone was Sugar Ray Leonard. Hagler wanted to humiliate Leonard as a result and actually tried to outbox the master boxer in an attempt to do so. The more I watch the tape, the more I agree with Rose. Hagler blew it.MightyWarrior wrote:I thought Leonard won it, Hagler fought the wrong fight by trying to outbox Sugar Ray. Should've steam rolled him like he did Hearns.bennie wrote:Incidentally, how did you score that Leonard-Hagler fight, MW?
It took him years to get over that decision of course. It's a shame Leonard didn't give him a rematch. Sugar Ray took on Lalonde, Hearns and Duran in the two-and-a-half years that followed his shock win - and still looked good. So the fact he refused to take on Hagler during that same period speaks for itself. Leonard was no fool. he knew he'd kidded Hagler out of it.
The scorecard of the fight can be found here:
http://www.sommet.net/wbc1/home/latest/ ... gi?ID=3557
I had Leonard winning a tight one by the way.
I still have my prediction written out in a little book I used to write such things in as a 14 year old (how sweet). Hagler KO7 Leonard was my call!
-
MightyWarrior
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 13262
- Joined: 23 Jan 2003, 14:01
Couldn't access that page bennie, comes up unavailable - Come to think of it, it might've been a Mexican judge who came up with all those even rounds - Jo Jo something??bennie wrote:Yes, Hagler fought a stupid fight. I could never fathom why until I read an article on Rich Rose, former Nevada State Athletic Commissioner. Rose said that Hagler's immense pride was jarred by someone coming out of three years retirement to take him on, even if that someone was Sugar Ray Leonard. Hagler wanted to humiliate Leonard as a result and actually tried to outbox the master boxer in an attempt to do so. The more I watch the tape, the more I agree with Rose. Hagler blew it.MightyWarrior wrote:I thought Leonard won it, Hagler fought the wrong fight by trying to outbox Sugar Ray. Should've steam rolled him like he did Hearns.bennie wrote:Incidentally, how did you score that Leonard-Hagler fight, MW?
It took him years to get over that decision of course. It's a shame Leonard didn't give him a rematch. Sugar Ray took on Lalonde, Hearns and Duran in the two-and-a-half years that followed his shock win - and still looked good. So the fact he refused to take on Hagler during that same period speaks for itself. Leonard was no fool. he knew he'd kidded Hagler out of it.
The scorecard of the fight can be found here:
http://www.sommet.net/wbc1/home/latest/ ... gi?ID=3557
Yes Leonard really conned Hagler that night - Marvin's managers came in for some stick too - for agreeing to every demand Ray made before the fight, all to their man's disadvantage - ie the large ring for one.
Then Marv made things worse by coming out orthodox(??) and getting outboxed in the early rounds.
At one point, he responded to Leonard's showmanship by raising his arms in the air during a round - something Hagler never did. Just added to the impression he was gettting sucked into Ray's type of fight..
Leonard was a master of psychological warfare ( though Duran was more than a match in those stakes for a younger Leonard ).
I don't think De La Hoya could've beaten him for instance.
Not sure about Roy Jones - do you think he'd have beaten Leonard, at middleweight for instance?
Good points, MW. I believe Hagler could have also got a 15-rounder if he'd really pushed (as you know, the last 15-rounder took place a year later), but again gave way to Leonard's camp. You can understand why he wanted to humiliate the Sugar Man.MightyWarrior wrote:Couldn't access that page bennie, comes up unavailable - Come to think of it, it might've been a Mexican judge who came up with all those even rounds - Jo Jo something??bennie wrote:Yes, Hagler fought a stupid fight. I could never fathom why until I read an article on Rich Rose, former Nevada State Athletic Commissioner. Rose said that Hagler's immense pride was jarred by someone coming out of three years retirement to take him on, even if that someone was Sugar Ray Leonard. Hagler wanted to humiliate Leonard as a result and actually tried to outbox the master boxer in an attempt to do so. The more I watch the tape, the more I agree with Rose. Hagler blew it.MightyWarrior wrote: I thought Leonard won it, Hagler fought the wrong fight by trying to outbox Sugar Ray. Should've steam rolled him like he did Hearns.
It took him years to get over that decision of course. It's a shame Leonard didn't give him a rematch. Sugar Ray took on Lalonde, Hearns and Duran in the two-and-a-half years that followed his shock win - and still looked good. So the fact he refused to take on Hagler during that same period speaks for itself. Leonard was no fool. he knew he'd kidded Hagler out of it.
The scorecard of the fight can be found here:
http://www.sommet.net/wbc1/home/latest/ ... gi?ID=3557
Yes Leonard really conned Hagler that night - Marvin's managers came in for some stick too - for agreeing to every demand Ray made before the fight, all to their man's disadvantage - ie the large ring for one.
Then Marv made things worse by coming out orthodox(??) and getting outboxed in the early rounds.
At one point, he responded to Leonard's showmanship by raising his arms in the air during a round - something Hagler never did. Just added to the impression he was gettting sucked into Ray's type of fight..
Leonard was a master of psychological warfare ( though Duran was more than a match in those stakes for a younger Leonard ).
I don't think De La Hoya could've beaten him for instance.
Not sure about Roy Jones - do you think he'd have beaten Leonard, at middleweight for instance?
Came across an interview on the now mellower Marvin you might find interesting.
Regarded as one of the greatest middleweights of all time, Marvin Hagler described his passion for boxing this way: 'I played it like a man, but I loved it like a boy.' Born in Newark, but raised in Rocky Marciano's hometown of Brockton, Marvelous - a first name he legally adopted - successfully defended his middleweight crown 12 times, just two shy of Carlos Monzon's mark. All but one of those defences ended by stoppage or knockout.
Trained and managed for most of his career by Goody and Pat Petronelli, Hagler won the 1973 AAU middleweight title before turning pro with a second round win over Terry Ryan later that year. His first world title crack ended in a draw against Vito Antuofermo in Las Vegas in 1979. He made no mistake a year later against Alan Minter in London, the referee being forced to stop the fight in the third round.
Hagler's 1985 war with Tommy 'The Hitman' Hearns is often referred to as the greatest fight in history. In 1987, Marvin lost his title to Sugar Ray Leonard on split decision. Unable to secure a rematch, he retired from boxing. He was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1992.
What do you remember about the fight against Tommy Hearns, considered by many as the greatest fight of all time?
There was no love there between Tommy and myself. We respect each other now, but there was no love there and that fight was war. I trained very hard for that fight. I worked really hard on my combinations and my power and all the things that I needed to do in order to win. That Tommy Hearns fight would have to be the highlight of my career because I needed that one outstanding fight to show the world that I was a great champion.
How do you feel when you watch that fight on tape?
I get chills all through my body again because you remember so well being in the heat of the battle and what was happening. I can see how the people think that fight was one of the best fights in history. Because it was war. That fight showed my ability and what people appreciated about my fighting. I was glad I was able to show that - to gain, finally, that respect for being a great world champion. It took me a long time to gain that respect and that's what I wanted to end up with. Not to be a great champion but to know that I was the best one out there at the time. That's what I strived for. Not the greatness. I think the greatness the public puts on you when you're finished. Then they can say you're great.
All athletes love the competition but not necessarily the preparation. What about you?
For me, I loved training. That was the easiest part about the fight game because I loved being in shape and I loved training. I really pushed my body to its limit inside the gym. The main thing is not trying to leave all your fight inside the gym. But I realized that what you do inside the gym you have to do in the ring. So I practiced very hard, and sometimes what you do in the gym can make the fight that much easier.
Is there a fight you remember having more butterflies for than another?
I liked to get the butterflies because then I knew I would do well. If you don't get the butterflies then it feels as though you're going into the ring too overconfident, and that is when you can find your butt on the deck. I'd rather see the other guy's butt on the deck.
It's no secret you wanted a rematch with Sugar Ray and you were upset he did not offer you one.
I thought he should have given me a rematch. I think if I was the champion, I would have given him the rematch. With the fight between me and Leonard, there was no knockdown or anything like that. So there's nothing that you can say to convince me why I still wasn't champion. That is all in the past and I'm looking for the future. But it did take me a while to get through it because to me it wasn't justice. It hurt a lot. We challenged Leonard for a rematch and waited around for a whole year. I knew the kind of games he was playing. Basically, they were waiting for me to get older so he would think my timing was gone and he could take advantage of that. For me, he just didn't have the heart of a champion. The way that I saw it, he should've given me the opportunity for a rematch. And after that, I starting seeing him playing games. So then, I just thought: 'Forget this guy. This guy really doesn't want to fight.' I felt as though I had accomplished everything in my career and the only thing left for me to do was to have a rematch with him. Things like this happen. It's the boxing game and it just wasn't there.
When did you know that you could be a great fighter?
After the fight with Bennie Briscoe, the top dog in Philadelphia, I really knew I had the ability of becoming a champion. After that fight, Briscoe gave me the best comment of all saying, 'You're going to be champion.' That inspired me because this was a world-ranked contender who had fought for the title three times. By me beating him, I realized I was on my way then.
In your mind, who was the greatest fighter of all time?
Naturally, the first thought that comes to mind would have to be Muhammad Ali. He was a tremendous athlete and he was the man for the sport. He brought the highlights, the money and everthing to the sport, especially the art, the real good art of boxing. Ali is more my time. But before my time, it would have to be Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano.
You are from the same hometown as Rocky Marciano. Did that have any impact on you?
He was a great inspiration for me. Now in Brockton, we have two world champions in a town that no one really knows about. It's a shoe city that produced two world champions. I had a great following from people in Brockton and a lot of people at that time had great hopes for me. This enabled me to push and to put that sacrifice in there and bring the things that I wanted - the big fights.
I read that you wanted to be a baseball player but that changed after you met Floyd Patterson.
Floyd Patterson was my idol when I was a young kid growing up. This guy had a lot of heart. He was a good boxer and he was the youngest heavyweight to win the title at that time. I was really impressed with him. He gave me an education about being a gentleman. Every time I had seen this guy inside the ring, he was a tough warrior. But when he was outside, he was a total gentleman. And that was the way that I really wanted to carry myself.
What has boxing given you?
I loved the boxing game. It's been good to me. It's been a great education for me, a teacher not only inside the ring but in life totally. Just looking at life and feeling good about yourself and your accomplishments. I believe I had a gift from God. It took a lot of time just mastering that art. That's the way I always took my boxing, as an art. I played it like a man but I enjoyed it like a boy.
-
MightyWarrior
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 13262
- Joined: 23 Jan 2003, 14:01
Nice article that bennie, funny he doesn't give Robinson a mention.
Wonder if anyone ever asked Briscoe who was better - Monzon or Hagler?
Those two might have even met, Hagler was up and coming in 76/77, already won a few wars in Philly, and Monzon was still champ.
BTW - your avatar is still a - x -
Think it's that yahoo problem...
Wonder if anyone ever asked Briscoe who was better - Monzon or Hagler?
Those two might have even met, Hagler was up and coming in 76/77, already won a few wars in Philly, and Monzon was still champ.
BTW - your avatar is still a - x -
Think it's that yahoo problem...