BoxRec

Yeah. That's pretty much it. If a boxer throws a jab or ducks a shot, Ringsider hates him.

Ringsider doesn't hate anyone, at least around here. He disagees with many, but I don't hate those who disagree. I just try to show them the light, as so many who like boxing are so blind to what is really going on in a ring..... Heck this about boxing.......not hate.

Do you talk about yourself in the first person around the house, or just on the internet?

I think you mean in the third person.

ringsider wrote:

Yeah. That's pretty much it. If a boxer throws a jab or ducks a shot, Ringsider hates him.

Ringsider doesn't hate anyone, at least around here. He disagees with many, but I don't hate those who disagree. I just try to show them the light, as so many who like boxing are so blind to what is really going on in a ring..... Heck this about boxing.......not hate.

You were the guy who 'showed us' that Marvin Hagler's footwork resembled a man with one foot stuck in a bucket, right?

Can you confirm my suspicion that you are legally blind?

You were the guy who 'showed us' that Marvin Hagler's footwork resembled a man with one foot stuck in a bucket, right?

Can you confirm my suspicion that you are legally blind?

I think by disputing that, you have just confirmed you are legally blind. Good show mate!!

ringsider wrote:

You were the guy who 'showed us' that Marvin Hagler's footwork resembled a man with one foot stuck in a bucket, right?

Can you confirm my suspicion that you are legally blind?

I think by disputing that, you have just confirmed you are legally blind. Good show mate!!

Did anyone say anything along the lines of "You're right. I hadn't noticed that before. That's a great description of Hagler's footwork."?

Or did they say something like "You funny little man. You have all the perception and boxing insight of a dead ant."?

You wanna see Hagler's footwork....watch him against SRL. Footwork cost Hagler his title!!! He was a plodder.

..decagon, with the ali reference for once uses the rapier instead of the bludgeon and scores with a flourish....

You are legally blind aren't you? To even compare an old ailing Ali to the Marvin Hagler that fought SRL. Too funny. Watch any of Hagler's fights, his foot work sucked. He was a banger, and in shape for his fights, but he was tripping over his own feet most of the time.

ringsider wrote:You are legally blind aren't you? To even compare an old ailing Ali to the Marvin Hagler that fought SRL. Too funny. Watch any of Hagler's fights, his foot work sucked. He was a banger, and in shape for his fights, but he was tripping over his own feet most of the time.

Tripped his way past Hearns, Mugabi, and that plodder Willie Monroe on one out of two occasions. I think I know what your sayin ringsider, but you may be overstating by a few degrees, maybe even enough to light a fire. I do have a hard time thinking Hagler was washed up but his prime had come and gone I would say. And I'd agree that footwork may not have been his forte. But he was no Mummy.

Anyway after much reflection I'm going with Duran in a fight really either man could win or lose. I would also guess Benny would be the betting favorite if their careers were playing out in real time together. At that weight Duran was super human...problem for me is that in this equation...so was Benny.

another good possible thread ruined by ringsider's hatred of southpaws.

I think Benny Leonard get's unfairly dismissed because of the period he fought in, while Duran has been one of the most recognizable faces in boxing of the last 30 years. Realistically however, and regardless of the majority opinion here, I don't see Duran on his best night at LW, beating the Benny Leonard who went a mindboggling 27-1 in 1917 with wins over 3 Hall of Famers (Freddie Welsh and Johnny Kilbane by KO, and the larger Jack Britton by decision) with his only loss that year coming in a close 10 rd decision, after just one day's rest.

seems appropriate...this starts out with a common denominator of course...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJH80K0oYtA

Decagon wrote:

Seamus wrote:I think Benny Leonard get's unfairly dismissed because of the period he fought in, while Duran has been one of the most recognizable faces in boxing of the last 30 years.

Leonard fought in a much better era of lightweights than Duran did. He beat a good five or ten people who were better than DeJesus.

If that is the case, then Ike Williams or Carlos Ortiz should beat Duran and Leonard or be the best lightweights of all time. Ortiz and Williams at lightweight in my opinion, had better quality of opposition than Duran and Benny Leonard.

Benny Leonard fought much more frequently than Duran (or Williams and Ortiz), against higher caliber opposition, and still managed an incredible high success rate.

1915 14-1-2
1916 21-1-2
1917 27-1
1918 11-0-1
1919 23-1-1
1920 10-0

If someone believes a peak Duran would defeat a peak Benny Leonard, I can except a good argument, but this, Roberto Duran is the greatest Lightweight of all time, period, case closed end of argument, is nonsense. I see a bout like this being pretty close with Leonard winning by probably 9 rounds to 6. Sure Duran was 69-1 at one time, and by today's standards, fought pretty often, but I very firmly that had even a peak Duran stepped into the ring against solid opposition 15-20-25 times in a single year the way Leonard did, you'd see a few more L's on his early record.