BoxRec

Dead Mouse wrote:

coghaugen11 wrote: Nonsense scoring. He put a true masterclass on Mike. Same with Herol, beat him by a mile!

Kalambay was never the same after the Nunn fluke and far faded in '91. Graham also beat him in their rematch, clearly. Collins did him too (outhussled him), despite the hideous gulf in ability.

It wasn’t a fluke. In fact, Nunn was in great form and a few fights prior to it had taken out Curtis Parker with a peach of an uppercut, which got people talking about his underrated power. Nunn floored Tate and Roldan during this period and there was a reason he was 5-1 going into the fight, he was a better boxer, for this type of match-up, and puncher. You’re saying that single shot completely took everything away from him, well Ayub Kalule had come off some bad stoppages when drained down at 154 — SRL, Davey Moore and Mike McCallum — plus a brief retirement and, although the fight was close, he had enough to produce a tight fight with Kalambay at 160 when past his best. It’s about longevity as well, if you’re talking the best ever, and being ‘never the same’ after one KO loss doesn’t bode well.

Oh, and you talk as if Kalambay lost, or deserved to lose, to Steve Collins. This wasn’t the case, it was a deserved win.

As for Nunn-Toney, standing right in front of Toney was what did for Nunn. He lost his composure, especially when Toney almost bundled him over the ropes, burned too much energy and fell into Toney’s trap. Jones, by fighting in the way you deride, avoid this and, more importantly, used his lateral movement to move away from Toney’s right hand counter and also threw a lead left hook, as opposed to a jab, to stop Toney from rolling the jab and using it to build his own attacks.

I’m a big fan of Toney, but Jones built on McCallum’s strategy to great effect. If you were advising him he’d have probably lost.

Dead Mouse wrote:
How can it be a fluke when Nunn tapped away with his lead hand then actually stepped in when he threw the hook that ended it? Once again, look at the Parker KO. That wasn’t a flash knockdown, he landed the uppercut to the point of the chin during a period of sustained pressure. He wasn’t the biggest puncher ever, but if you pick your spot well you can take people out, and Sambu went down often enough in his career for this to be perceived as a weakness. Actually watch the KO punch, look at the half-step inside and the way he delivered it — that wasn’t a fluke.

Kalule was on the wrong side of his best form when he fought Sambu, which helps negate Sambu’s relative inexperience at that level.

I know I’m right about Toney, I’m right about all of the above as well, but you fail to understand what I was saying about Nunn-Toney. Nunn performance in close like that handed Toney the initiative. Jones worked out that you can off-set Toney by stepping to your own right and whipping in a left hook, which meant that Toney couldn’t counter, but moving like this is draining for an orthodox fighter and, in McCallum’s case he couldn’t keep the steps going and kept resorting to the use of his jab, allowing Toney to carry some big rounds. You’re trying to say that Nunn, for all his gifts, should be lauded for fighting the wrong fight and Jones should be punished for fighting the right fight. That’s daft.

The bottom-line is that Sambu wasn’t the best boxer of all time, and that Eubank was an also ran in both the middle and Super middleweight division. Entertaining for us Brits, but never the top man in either division.

coghaugen11 wrote:Sumbu was the best boxer ever in terms of slipping and countering.

Deserter wrote:

coghaugen11 wrote:Sumbu was the best boxer ever in terms of slipping and countering.

Coming next... how Herbie Hide was the biggest puncher of all time....

JimJim2009 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

coghaugen11 wrote:Sumbu was the best boxer ever in terms of slipping and countering.

Coming next... how Herbie Hide was the biggest puncher of all time....

Rubbish. Herol Graham fought the worst fight of his prime and came within a whisker of beating him. His people had split him from Brendan Ingle and tried to get him to fight more aggressively. They got the tactics and style totally wrong. Had that monumental cock up not happened, Herol would have beat him 12 rounds to nil.

JimJim2009 wrote:I'm still mad about how the big opportunities didn't go Herol's way when he was in his prime. I'll get laughed off the forum for claiming he'd have outpointed Hagler in 86/87 but I'd have put money on it. I need to get over it I think, it was over 25 years ago....

JimJim2009 wrote:I'm still mad about how the big opportunities didn't go Herol's way when he was in his prime. I'll get laughed off the forum for claiming he'd have outpointed Hagler in 86/87 but I'd have put money on it. I need to get over it I think, it was over 25 years ago....

JimJim2009 wrote:Don't think you meant to include me in your comments?

JimJim2009 wrote:I'm still mad about how the big opportunities didn't go Herol's way when he was in his prime. I'll get laughed off the forum for claiming he'd have outpointed Hagler in 86/87 but I'd have put money on it. I need to get over it I think, it was over 25 years ago....

Dead Mouse wrote:This could go to 5-6 pages, easily, and by that point someone will be shitting all over Hagler's wins while talking about how failing to beat one-eyed Jack and McCallum is definitive proof that Hagler ducked Herol, was absolute shite and wouldn't have won a round or landed a punch even if he threw a handful of rice over Graham down the local pub in Sheffield while he was rooted to a spot and could only move from the waist up.

Then some arsehole, most probably me, will pop on and say: "I think Colin Jones was the best British fighter not to win a world title", and all hell will break loose.

Dead Mouse wrote:

Deserter wrote:

JimJim2009 wrote:I'm still mad about how the big opportunities didn't go Herol's way when he was in his prime. I'll get laughed off the forum for claiming he'd have outpointed Hagler in 86/87 but I'd have put money on it. I need to get over it I think, it was over 25 years ago....

Funnily enough I'm kind of with you on how you can make a case for it.

Nah, Hagler was slowing, but you can't take a guy from Kaylor through to Hagler. It wasn't his time, and when it was his time he annoyingly got himself a -1 in the third column for a daft foul on McCallum.

Ironically, McCallum did something similar VS Toney in fight two, but the only effect it had on the outcome was turning what should have been a SD loss into a MD loss. The best thing about that little foul was the fact Toney looked completely nonplussed by the whole thing.

JimJim2009 wrote:I loved the Eubank era, and I love him in retirement, he talks bollocks sometimes but he's pure entertainment and its fair to say he has earned the right to talk up his achievements.

Reading that interview, I figure that if you were in a pub with him, being enthralled at his glory day stories, it would go something like this...

7pm (Chris has his first pint) - "I lost 10lbs the week before a fight when I was at middleweight"
9pm (Chris is on his 5th pint) - "I lost two stones the week before a fight when I was a middleweight"
midnight (Chris is into double figures and chasers) - "I came down from 25 stones to make the middleweight limit inside the week leading up to the fight"

JimJim2009 wrote:I'm still mad about how the big opportunities didn't go Herol's way when he was in his prime. I'll get laughed off the forum for claiming he'd have outpointed Hagler in 86/87 but I'd have put money on it. I need to get over it I think, it was over 25 years ago....

palooka wrote:Jones was easily the best during this time period, there can be no serious discussion about it, Jones has many detractors of his behaviour, drug use and selecting his opponents but he was head and shoulders above the competition; he'd have destroyed Eubank, Benn and Collins - absolutely made them look stupid, like novices.