BoxRec

Hearns v Leonard II

DIRT SUGAR wrote:Hearns v Leonard II

Grrrr.....for god's sake, Hearns went on to beat Virgil Hill two years later.

Can people not make the distinction between 'past their prime' and 'shot.'

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

DIRT SUGAR wrote:Hearns v Leonard II

Grrrr.....for god's sake, Hearns went on to beat Virgil Hill two years later.

Can people not make the distinction between 'past their prime' and 'shot.'

But if we are really strict about the meaning of shot then is a shot fighter really capable of a good performance?

Lenny wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

DIRT SUGAR wrote:Hearns v Leonard II

Grrrr.....for god's sake, Hearns went on to beat Virgil Hill two years later.

Can people not make the distinction between 'past their prime' and 'shot.'

But if we are really strict about the meaning of shot then is a shot fighter really capable of a good performance?

Shot means either their chin is completely gone, or their reflexes, or their power, or all three - it's very rare someone is that far gone and manages to win.

Older fighters are often able to turn back the clock for one last great performance. Shot fighters, it hardly ever happens.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

G0mez wrote:Two good shouts there mate.

Carl Thompson vs David Haye is another.

Thompson was not 'shot,' neither was Morales. Thompson was coming off an excellent win over Sebastien Rothmann. who was top 10 ranked by two organisations coming into the fight.

The public perception before the fight was certainly that Thompson was shot. His balance was all over the place by that point in his career and if you watch the Rothman fight in the lead up to the stoppage the commentators repeatedly say Thompson needs to retire. He was the betting underdog going in and I remember Sports Network putting out a press release before the fight saying that Haye should be reported to Age Concern for cruelty to the elderly.

You could argue the fact he won proved he wasn't shot but that makes it almost impossible to come up with valid answers for this thread.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Shot means either their chin is completely gone, or their reflexes, or their power, or all three - it's very rare someone is that far gone and manages to win.

Older fighters are often able to turn back the clock for one last great performance. Shot fighters, it hardly ever happens.

Just seen this following my previous post. By that definition of 'shot' then I agree that it would be very rare for them to pull out a win.

I wouldn't say he was 'shot' but a well past his prime Herol Graham produced a great performance against Charles Brewer.

Shot fighters = curently RJJ , Graham Earl, Ricky Hatton, Gatti was shot when that contender pasted him . maybe past their prime is a better definition

mrbassie wrote:Holmes v Mercer + Holyfield.

What about the MD loss to McCall some years later?

stujones wrote:

mrbassie wrote:Holmes v Mercer + Holyfield.

What about the MD loss to McCall some years later?

haven't seen it.

At the time Barrera was considered shot before both the Morales 1st fight and the Naz fight.

Also Holyfield v Tyson has been mentioned but not Holyfield v Valuev. Evander did a better job in that fight than Haye did later. Evander essentially created the blueprint for Haye.

Chavez v DLH 1

I think Duran and Holyfield had a number of fights where they seemed to do the impossible.

Holmes-Mercer
Dempsey-Sharkey

Ketchel wrote:At the time Barrera was considered shot before both the Morales 1st fight and the Naz fight.

Also Holyfield v Tyson has been mentioned but not Holyfield v Valuev. Evander did a better job in that fight than Haye did later. Evander essentially created the blueprint for Haye.

Great call on Holyfield vs Valuev - could be the winner.

Disagree on MAB.... He started a slight underdog in both, there was a school of thought that he might not be the fighter he was vs Morales.... although hardly shot - he had dispatched of the likes of Wenton and Lloyd in a few rounds and looked domininant and classy in doing so. However, against Hamed it was just the general overating (conversial statement I know) of Hamed that meant he was the underdog.

Barrera in most people's eyes beat Morales in fight one, and then looked might impressive against Jesus Salud.... Emmanuel Stewards' commentary said enough - he was one concerned Coach.

Ben Carey wrote:I wouldn't say he was 'shot' but a well past his prime Herol Graham produced a great performance against Charles Brewer.

Yeah, I was going to mention Herol's entire comeback run in the late-'90s.

I think my favourite is Foreman's performance against Holyfield. Not exactly a thrilling fight, but I was fascinated by the immovable, placid and courageous Foreman. Plodding on, soaking up big shots, stubborn to reach the final bell. Some people underrate his chin because of the Ali match, and I think this fight shows how much of a factor that heat was.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

manno wrote:

Deserter wrote:Duran against Barkley

D uran vs any1 after 1983, just prior to the Davey Moore pasting!!

Christ, how on earth was Duran shot?!!!!

JM, original post did not say shot merely on the slide and seemingly not given much chance vs a perhaps younger fighter expected to win. I think with Duran he had a series of fights that match this description = Moore, Hagler and the blade spring to mind. And yes i do think the Duran of 1972 and for ten years after was better P4P than the 147+ version(although still v.good). Just as a personal point of view old Roberto's still probably not 'shot' now!!!!!!!!!!lol!!!

stujones wrote:

Ketchel wrote:At the time Barrera was considered shot before both the Morales 1st fight and the Naz fight.

Also Holyfield v Tyson has been mentioned but not Holyfield v Valuev. Evander did a better job in that fight than Haye did later. Evander essentially created the blueprint for Haye.

Great call on Holyfield vs Valuev - could be the winner.

Disagree on MAB.... He started a slight underdog in both, there was a school of thought that he might not be the fighter he was vs Morales.... although hardly shot - he had dispatched of the likes of Wenton and Lloyd in a few rounds and looked domininant and classy in doing so. However, against Hamed it was just the general overating (conversial statement I know) of Hamed that meant he was the underdog.

Barrera in most people's eyes beat Morales in fight one, and then looked might impressive against Jesus Salud.... Emmanuel Stewards' commentary said enough - he was one concerned Coach.

I was and am a big Barrera fan and I had him beating Morales in the first fight but this fight was a looked upon as the changing of the guard. Morales was supposed to be the new Chavez and Barrera just a small obstacle who had had his day. He obviously proved otherwise.

Before the Hamed fight he was being written off as being too small with too many miles on the clock. Not many were giving him a chance in his first fight at Featherweight. I watched the Salud fight at this time and Barrera was punch perfect, showing signs of the style adjustments he was in the process of making to prolong his carreer. Not many other people watched that fight, Naz included.

In both cases the hype around Morales and Hamed shortsighted people into thinking that Barrera was less than he was.

I think Hearns vs Hill is an excellent shout. Alright, Hill wasn't a huge puncher and was more of a boxer than anything else, which suited Tommy, to beat a young champion in their prime whilst in your mid-30's after a lot of hard fights is some achievement.

It's worth noting that Hill had something like ten defences at this point, and then went unbeaten for a further six years afterwards before losing to Michalcszewski and Jones back to back.

Mosley vs Margarito is another. Shane looked awful against Mayorga and in the eyes of most observers was losing the fight until the late KO.... the 12th round KD's would have grabbed him a draw on my card. Fast forward a few months and he looks a completely different fighter, absolutely battering Margarito en route to a 9th round stoppage. I was going to say submission but it hardly was.... being able to sulk about the stoppage just shows how tough Margarito is.

LeedsLad wrote:I think Hearns vs Hill is an excellent shout. Alright, Hill wasn't a huge puncher and was more of a boxer than anything else, which suited Tommy, to beat a young champion in their prime whilst in your mid-30's after a lot of hard fights is some achievement.

It's worth noting that Hill had something like ten defences at this point, and then went unbeaten for a further six years afterwards before losing to Michalcszewski and Jones back to back.

Mosley vs Margarito is another. Shane looked awful against Mayorga and in the eyes of most observers was losing the fight until the late KO.... the 12th round KD's would have grabbed him a draw on my card. Fast forward a few months and he looks a completely different fighter, absolutely battering Margarito en route to a 9th round stoppage. I was going to say submission but it hardly was.... being able to sulk about the stoppage just shows how tough Margarito is.

Leonard vs Hagler

Holyfield vs Lewis 2

can't believe no-ones mentioned Foreman-Moorer.

yid14 wrote:can't believe no-ones mentioned Foreman-Moorer.

I thought about it, but the reality is that Foreman clearly still had a punch and Moorer was known to be fragile and hadn't convinced at heavy. Nonetheless, he was still winning at a canter and was well on his way to a UD until he got caught by one booming shot from Big George.
One shot doth not a performance make

quote="Deserter"]

mugabi wrote:Herol Graham v Pazienze- Graham was shot no matter what people thought and pazienza was still fast and strong.

Know what you're saying, but I would have thought Graham beating Chris Johnson was a better candidate given Johnson was a natural super-middle, undefeated and being tipped for the top at that time.
Edit: Just checked Graham's record and it was only his second fight back after four years out as well.[/quote]

My gut instinct is to agree with you. It was actually herols 3rd fight back and he had looked awful horrible against joseph. he looked like a guy way way way below domestic level. It was a huge deal thus his beating Chris Johnson who in hindsight was waay overrated and a disapointment as a pro......im really inclined to agree with you. at the time the johnson win looked a really big deal for herol. But the question still was a mad raging bull like guy like pazienza who even tho he was 34 still seemed the kind of guy who could brutalise and rush and destroy herol with his fast hands and underrated skills. Even though no one had done that to herol before. Pazienza had destroyed a former smooth boxer in honeyghan but llloyd was a smaller man and herol a middleweight/super middle....................ive thought it through and i think hindsight is all well and good so youre right the chris johnson win was the more suprising.

Hopkins in any fight since he turned 40, even in defeat.

mugabi wrote:quote="Deserter"]

mugabi wrote:Herol Graham v Pazienze- Graham was shot no matter what people thought and pazienza was still fast and strong.

Know what you're saying, but I would have thought Graham beating Chris Johnson was a better candidate given Johnson was a natural super-middle, undefeated and being tipped for the top at that time.
Edit: Just checked Graham's record and it was only his second fight back after four years out as well.

My gut instinct is to agree with you. It was actually herols 3rd fight back and he had looked awful horrible against joseph. he looked like a guy way way way below domestic level. It was a huge deal thus his beating Chris Johnson who in hindsight was waay overrated and a disapointment as a pro......im really inclined to agree with you. at the time the johnson win looked a really big deal for herol. But the question still was a mad raging bull like guy like pazienza who even tho he was 34 still seemed the kind of guy who could brutalise and rush and destroy herol with his fast hands and underrated skills. Even though no one had done that to herol before. Pazienza had destroyed a former smooth boxer in honeyghan but llloyd was a smaller man and herol a middleweight/super middle....................ive thought it through and i think hindsight is all well and good so youre right the chris johnson win was the more suprising. [/quote]
Hah! The funny thing is you make such good points in this post regarding Paz's strengths and Johnson being over-rated that you've almost persuaded me to go with your original line of thinking