BoxRec

SFW wrote:Whew. It's getting Brutal in here. Please be advised both overrated divas are retired, and boxing will be forever better without them.

Does that make Manny Pacquiao overrated as well?? Or how about GGG, is he overrated? Kovalev??

sucracristo wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Yes, there was Floyd's short lived retirement

the retirement was because the contract had a rematch clause that floyd couldn't
avoid without retiring.

wow. you have sources for the re-match clause?
why didn't oscar make big public fuss about this?

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

SFW wrote:Whew. It's getting Brutal in here. Please be advised both overrated divas are retired, and boxing will be forever better without them.

Does that make Manny Pacquiao overrated as well?? Or how about GGG, is he overrated? Kovalev??

Brut, what the fornicate are doing? Naming active fighters for some idiotic reason? Quite simply, I don't really like talking to creepers or their dozen different accounts made to supplement constantly getting kicked out.

Ok cue the next lie, back to pretend time.

man wrote:

sucracristo wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Yes, there was Floyd's short lived retirement

the retirement was because the contract had a rematch clause that floyd couldn't
avoid without retiring.

wow. you have sources for the re-match clause?
why didn't oscar make big public fuss about this?

If I showed you evidence of the rematch clause, would you apologise?

keithmoonhangover wrote:
If I showed you evidence of the rematch clause, would you apologise?

How would a fake retirement nullify the clause? You're either retired or you weren't. And if that is the case, that Floyd feigned retirement to avoid a rematch, that's up there with ducking Pacquiao over false PED accusations he couldn't prove in the cowardly stakes.

Personally for me, know we know Floyd was dirty, retiring to juice-up makes the most sense.

Badhusker wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:Here we go...KC and KBB once again, rifling through their Floyd's Greatest Hits. Rehashing the same old BS.

FLOYD IS RETIRED BOYS....can't you two go and do this over in the BOXERS OF THE PAST section of this website? They created that section as an outlet for obsessed fans not handling their hero's retirement very well.

At first I was going to say I am 100% with you Caldo, but then I see you started a different thread about Floyd/Oscar? (The one about Oscar's letter to Playboy "destroying" Floyd. Maybe you need to take some of your own advice?

Well, it's an excellent point and i'm glad you brought it up. THe DLH letter was less than a day old so it was current news. Do you know what't not current news? Discussing how you scored Floyd/Castillo I for the trillionth time.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

man wrote:

sucracristo wrote: the retirement was because the contract had a rematch clause that floyd couldn't
avoid without retiring.

wow. you have sources for the re-match clause?
why didn't oscar make big public fuss about this?

If I showed you evidence of the rematch clause, would you apologise?

sure. for what?

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

SFW wrote:Whew. It's getting Brutal in here. Please be advised both overrated divas are retired, and boxing will be forever better without them.

Does that make Manny Pacquiao overrated as well?? Or how about GGG, is he overrated? Kovalev??

SFW is evading answering this question like Manny ducking Floyd for 5 years, or Roy ducking BHop for 10.

Forty-eight and one
knuckles are white from tension
Do I give a fornicate



Talk amongst yourselves Brut, you'll find you guys have a lot in common.

SFW wrote:Forty-eight and one
knuckles are white from tension
Do I give a eff



Talk amongst yourselves Brut, you'll find you guys have a lot in common.

Like I said, you're ducking the question worse than Manny ducking Floyd and Roy ducking BHop.

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:He proved his point.

He proved his point against Marcos Rene Maidana and Jose Luis Castillo, but he rematched them.

He proved his point against Pacquiao but he didn't rematch him, so what? None of that doesn't mean anything, SRL never rematched MH, Duran never rematch Tommy Hearns.

Those aren't great examples. Leonard didn't rematch Hagler, because Hagler refused to admit that Leonard won, he also didn't fancy he could pull off the trick again, as Hagler would have come out much quicker in the rematch. Hence he inserted the caveat that marvin had to admit Leonard won.

Why would Duran rematch Hearns, for one thing for some reason he was very intimidated by Hearns, he felt that Hearns had some power over him (It's in his official biography) and second Hearns absolutely beat the living hell out of him - why would he come back for more?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Those aren't great examples. Leonard didn't rematch Hagler, because Hagler refused to admit that Leonard won, he also didn't fancy he could pull off the trick again, as Hagler would have come out much quicker in the rematch. Hence he inserted the caveat that marvin had to admit Leonard won.

Why would Duran rematch Hearns, for one thing for some reason he was very intimidated by Hearns, he felt that Hearns had some power over him (It's in his official biography) and second Hearns absolutely beat the living hell out of him - why would he come back for more?

Which is why Hagler should've rematched SRL and didn't but instead he quit boxing altogether and no one criticizes him for it,,and Duran should've rematched him to prove that he could do better than getting put to sleep or prove it was a fluke (though it wasn't) but no one criticizes him but the standards for Mayweather you all make out to be different because you hate him so he has to prove that he beat Oscar in an more obvious fashion than he did the first time out (the same as Maidana and Castillo) just so you guys can stop talking nonsense.

The same standards that apply to Duran and Hagler applies to Mayweather in my book.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Leonard didn't rematch Hagler, because Hagler refused to admit that Leonard won ...

really? that is actually the starting point
for half of all rematches in boxing history.

I thought the acceptable scores were between 10-2 to 8-4 Floyd.

Easy win. The first JLC fight was closer.
The first Maidana fight had the same scoring, but was more "exciting".

A rematch would have been a bad beat down anyway.
DLH went down to 147 and was completely gun shy.
Floyd would have made it look like the Corrales fight.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:I thought the acceptable scores were between 10-2 to 8-4 Floyd.

Easy win. The first JLC fight was closer.
The first Maidana fight had the same scoring, but was more "exciting".

A rematch would have been a bad beat down anyway.
DLH went down to 147 and was completely gun shy.
Floyd would have made it look like the Corrales fight.

Careful now, they may accuse you of being Brut or they may say that you and KoolC and Brut are all the same account.

man wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Leonard didn't rematch Hagler, because Hagler refused to admit that Leonard won ...

really? that is actually the starting point
for half of all rematches in boxing history.

Leonard said he would rematch Hagler if Hagler admitted that he lost the fight - something he frankly new would never happen, because Hagler couldn't admit defeat to himself. It was clever because it made Hagler look like the stumbling block to the rematch happening.

Now perhaps Leonard could have pulled off the trick again, but don't think he fancied his chances. Hagler threw away 4 rounds trying to outbox leonard in the early going to prove a point, and came on too late in the fight.

didn't know that, thanks.

i love leonard for his abilities, but there
are three things that annoy me. no rematch
after 'no mas'. no rematch right after the first
hearns fight, no rematch to hagler. yes, he
outsmarted all three of them, but still.

hagler lost because he fought two rounds in
orthodox stance. terrible misjudgement by
his team in my opinion.

The Revival wrote:Because he'd already taken what he wanted from Oscar. His star power

This.

man wrote:didn't know that, thanks.

i lover leonard for his abilities, but there
are three things that annoy me. no rematch
after 'no mas'. no rematch right after the first
hearns fight, no rematch to hagler. yes, he
outsmarted all three of them, but still.

hagler lost because he fought two rounds in
orthodox stance. terrible misjudgement by
his team in my opinion.

I think Hagler wanted to prove a point, not sure whether the Petronelli's came up with that idea.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

man wrote:didn't know that, thanks.

i lover leonard for his abilities, but there
are three things that annoy me. no rematch
after 'no mas'. no rematch right after the first
hearns fight, no rematch to hagler. yes, he
outsmarted all three of them, but still.

hagler lost because he fought two rounds in
orthodox stance. terrible misjudgement by
his team in my opinion.

I think Hagler wanted to prove a point, not sure whether the Petronelli's came up with that idea.

terrible idea and someone should have said
so. it is easy to be smart after the fact, but
what were they thinking? throwing leonard
of his game plan? you might surprise an
opponent by playing leftie while he has not
prepared for that, but the other way round
simple logic tells it ain't work. cause the
other guy fought righties all his life left and
right. i would not be surprised if that was
literally the only time when someone tried
to pull this off in a major fight.

at least they should have called it at the
beginning of the second, but if memory
serves right, they finally switched south
paw in the third. so an ATG southpaw
went out with one hand tied behind his
back to "make a point"? against another
ATG? this is just not terribly intelligent.

man wrote:i would not be surprised if that was
literally the only time when someone tried
to pull this off in a major fight.

hagler switched back and forth like that in every fight.
his first good combo i think late in the 5th (hooks ending with uppercut)
was from righty stance after switching back and forth from lefty to righty.
mike tyson seemed equally good from either side and didn't change his
style at all, and going back and forth throwing bombs was very effective
for him. hagler wasn't the same from each side, but he was able to set
up opponents for different combos with quick changes in stance.

I think Mayweather beat him fairly comfortably, and as others alluded to, he obtained the level of prestige he wanted from that.

man wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

man wrote:didn't know that, thanks.

i lover leonard for his abilities, but there
are three things that annoy me. no rematch
after 'no mas'. no rematch right after the first
hearns fight, no rematch to hagler. yes, he
outsmarted all three of them, but still.

hagler lost because he fought two rounds in
orthodox stance. terrible misjudgement by
his team in my opinion.

I think Hagler wanted to prove a point, not sure whether the Petronelli's came up with that idea.

terrible idea and someone should have said
so. it is easy to be smart after the fact, but
what were they thinking? throwing leonard
of his game plan? you might surprise an
opponent by playing leftie while he has not
prepared for that, but the other way round
simple logic tells it ain't work. cause the
other guy fought righties all his life left and
right. i would not be surprised if that was
literally the only time when someone tried
to pull this off in a major fight.

at least they should have called it at the
beginning of the second, but if memory
serves right, they finally switched south
paw in the third. so an ATG southpaw
went out with one hand tied behind his
back to "make a point"? against another
ATG? this is just not terribly intelligent.

Was it the petronelli's who came up with the game plan - I don't really remember the corner work - so I'd have to watch it again.

Hagler was as stubborn as they come, I can well believe him trying to prove a point that he's so much the better man that he could both fight orthodox, and try and outbox Leonard and still prevail.

sucracristo wrote:

man wrote:i would not be surprised if that was
literally the only time when someone tried
to pull this off in a major fight.

hagler switched back and forth like that in every fight.

still, i think practically fighting the first two
in orthodox was more than being flexible
with both sides. it was a decision he made
beforehand. when he switched rightie in
between with hearns, it was brief and made
sense. in my view what he did against ray
was quite different. i think he had no chance
to win a round in orthodox and it could have
cost him the fight. he was never a fast starter,
so one doesn't know what would have happened,
but it certainly did not help him.

and being stubborn is no excuse for being
cocky or outright stupid in one the biggest
fights of his career. whoever came up with
the idea should have been stopped by the
others involved in the decision. i mean, there
must have been someone who said "how about
fighting the first two orhtodox?". i for one think
almost everyone ever involved in boxing would
have said, "nah, maybe not that great a fight plan."

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hagler was as stubborn as they come, I can well believe him trying to prove a point that he's so much the better man that he could both fight orthodox, and try and outbox Leonard and still prevail.

if he believed that, then it was very fair
he didn't win. then his vanity or hurt ego
got the better of him. terrible judgement
and someone should have talked him out
of it, at least after the first, when it was
quite clear, that this thing did not really
work.