Maligned British Achievers

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 28 Feb 2007, 17:02

Taki,

Think your being a tad harsh on FM - God I loved watching RJJ taking on Calzaghe and/or Woods in the UK - Such a great occasion and yeah, DLH's fight with Kostya in Australia was such an occasion. Its not just FM who is at fault, but I do agree with what you saying. However, the vast majority of fighters the fill the top 10 are from the states (or the Americas) - plus thats where the money is - so its makes it sense. I do believe that fighters lose about 10% by being the away fighter and it would be nice to see all fighters challenge themselves that little bit more by fighting in the opponents back yard.

M1kee50.
Hagler and Monzon might have beaten Hopkins, but chewed him up and spat him out I'm not so sure. Hopkins is a hard man who I think could have held his own with anyone. He's beaten just about everybody at Middleweight of his generation - the only exception is Wright.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 28 Feb 2007, 17:16

stujones wrote:
M1kee50.
Hagler and Monzon might have beaten Hopkins, but chewed him up and spat him out I'm not so sure. Hopkins is a hard man who I think could have held his own with anyone. He's beaten just about everybody at Middleweight of his generation - the only exception is Wright.

Wright and a certain Roy Jones Junior... and the fact Hopkins never faced Toney should be noted too.

Andy Mac · Post by **Andy Mac** » 28 Feb 2007, 17:28

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:
J-C wrote: The younger more active Holyfield could have given Lewis a world of problems IMO.
Holy would've been stuck on the outside a lot, I reckon. He'd still be posing too long but firing isolated flurries (as with Foreman) rather than single hard shots (in Holy-Lewis 2).

He still loses at least 7-5 as I see it, in his peak. Also, the more active Holy wasn't as physically strong, and you never know with Evander. Seldom done 2 good performances in a row (Tyson looked ready to take over before the headbutts & biting, 2nd fight).
The young Holyfield had a pretty amazing work rate, something lewis never had really. I think that Holyfield's best work would have kept Lewis negative just potshotting with the jab, and trying to land the right. I don't think Lewis could have matched him for the pace, and would have lost it down the stretch.

I've always found that LL has a way of controlling the pace. If someone fights a bit quicker than him, he just kind of pulls them in and leans on them till they slow a bit.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 28 Feb 2007, 18:10

Taki... wrote:
stujones wrote:
M1kee50.
Hagler and Monzon might have beaten Hopkins, but chewed him up and spat him out I'm not so sure. Hopkins is a hard man who I think could have held his own with anyone. He's beaten just about everybody at Middleweight of his generation - the only exception is Wright.
Wright and a certain Roy Jones Junior... and the fact Hopkins never faced Toney should be noted too.

Fair cop, but I think the manner of the RJJ loss doesn't harm his legacy as an all time great - obviously, will never make him the Greatest of all time. Not many fighters won rounds vs a pomp RJJ and he certainly did a better job than Toney. But yeah, should have fought Toney for sure and Winky. Of course he is fighting Winky now and would have fought him as a Middleweight champion had it not been that Jermain Taylor got there first (vs Hopkins I mean).

Monzon and Hagler never fought each other, which certainly would have helped the winners legacy and awful lot.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 28 Feb 2007, 18:19

stujones wrote:
Taki... wrote:
stujones wrote:
M1kee50.
Hagler and Monzon might have beaten Hopkins, but chewed him up and spat him out I'm not so sure. Hopkins is a hard man who I think could have held his own with anyone. He's beaten just about everybody at Middleweight of his generation - the only exception is Wright.
Wright and a certain Roy Jones Junior... and the fact Hopkins never faced Toney should be noted too.
Fair cop, but I think the manner of the RJJ loss doesn't harm his legacy as an all time great - obviously, will never make him the Greatest of all time. Not many fighters won rounds vs a pomp RJJ and he certainly did a better job than Toney. But yeah, should have fought Toney for sure and Winky. Of course he is fighting Winky now and would have fought him as a Middleweight champion had it not been that Jermain Taylor got there first (vs Hopkins I mean).

Monzon and Hagler never fought each other, which certainly would have helped the winners legacy and awful lot.

Hopkins does get rated down because his two superfights outside of RJJ were against much (naturally) smaller men. There really was no definitive victory for Hopkins as a middleweight.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 28 Feb 2007, 18:25

Taki... wrote:
stujones wrote:
Taki... wrote: Wright and a certain Roy Jones Junior... and the fact Hopkins never faced Toney should be noted too.
Fair cop, but I think the manner of the RJJ loss doesn't harm his legacy as an all time great - obviously, will never make him the Greatest of all time. Not many fighters won rounds vs a pomp RJJ and he certainly did a better job than Toney. But yeah, should have fought Toney for sure and Winky. Of course he is fighting Winky now and would have fought him as a Middleweight champion had it not been that Jermain Taylor got there first (vs Hopkins I mean).

Monzon and Hagler never fought each other, which certainly would have helped the winners legacy and awful lot.
Hopkins does get rated down because his two superfights outside of RJJ were against much (naturally) smaller men. There really was no definitive victory for Hopkins as a middleweight.

I agree, but aside from Toney who was a Super Middleweight and above when Hopkins was a champion - there was no real talent out there. There is not one fighter I can really think of from his generation that I can think - "Yeah, its crazy Hopkins ducked ......"

Vanderpol, Daniel, Allen, Eastman, Joppy, Holmes - just about the best fighters at the weight from his generation.

I suppose there was Hasine Cherifi - but thats a bit like saying Leonard should never be ranked cause he didn't fight Colin Jones.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 28 Feb 2007, 18:38

stujones wrote:
Taki... wrote:
stujones wrote: Fair cop, but I think the manner of the RJJ loss doesn't harm his legacy as an all time great - obviously, will never make him the Greatest of all time. Not many fighters won rounds vs a pomp RJJ and he certainly did a better job than Toney. But yeah, should have fought Toney for sure and Winky. Of course he is fighting Winky now and would have fought him as a Middleweight champion had it not been that Jermain Taylor got there first (vs Hopkins I mean).

Monzon and Hagler never fought each other, which certainly would have helped the winners legacy and awful lot.
Hopkins does get rated down because his two superfights outside of RJJ were against much (naturally) smaller men. There really was no definitive victory for Hopkins as a middleweight.
I agree, but aside from Toney who was a Super Middleweight and above when Hopkins was a champion - there was no real talent out there. There is not one fighter I can really think of from his generation that I can think - "Yeah, its crazy Hopkins ducked ......"

Vanderpol, Daniel, Allen, Eastman, Joppy, Holmes - just about the best fighters at the weight from his generation.

I suppose there was Hasine Cherifi - but thats a bit like saying Leonard should never be ranked cause he didn't fight Colin Jones.

Hopkins could and probably should have chased Toney and RJJ up the weights. He always had the frame to fight at higher weights. There's no doubt in my mind there were better and more lucrative fights at higher weights for Hopkins. There was a definite paucity of truly (or possibly anything approaching) great talent at middleweight through most of Hopkins reign.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Mar 2007, 05:01

Taki... wrote:
stujones wrote:
M1kee50.
Hagler and Monzon might have beaten Hopkins, but chewed him up and spat him out I'm not so sure. Hopkins is a hard man who I think could have held his own with anyone. He's beaten just about everybody at Middleweight of his generation - the only exception is Wright.
Wright and a certain Roy Jones Junior... and the fact Hopkins never faced Toney should be noted too.

Well, Hopkins was crap when he fought Jones. Didn't get good for another 2 years.

Wright had loads of chances to face Hopkins. When he was junior middle champ he could've gone up at any time. However, both have managed their careers pretty poorly at times (Wright post Vargas pre Mosley / Hopkins post Tito-pre DLH) and been more interested in outclassing glamorous types.

I don't hold Jones against Hopkins, nor Wright who wasn't a middleweight until Hopkins was 40!

I don't think Toney matters either. Despite his skills, he spent a massive 10 year chunk badly out of shape. He was in his peak when spanked and humiliated by Jones, whereas a raw Hopkins did better v Jones. I think Toney's stock really goes down having suffered his 2nd one sided defeat, steroid shame and failing to win a heavyweight title.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Mar 2007, 05:03

Taki... wrote:
stujones wrote:
Taki... wrote: Hopkins does get rated down because his two superfights outside of RJJ were against much (naturally) smaller men. There really was no definitive victory for Hopkins as a middleweight.
I agree, but aside from Toney who was a Super Middleweight and above when Hopkins was a champion - there was no real talent out there. There is not one fighter I can really think of from his generation that I can think - "Yeah, its crazy Hopkins ducked ......"

Vanderpol, Daniel, Allen, Eastman, Joppy, Holmes - just about the best fighters at the weight from his generation.

I suppose there was Hasine Cherifi - but thats a bit like saying Leonard should never be ranked cause he didn't fight Colin Jones.
Hopkins could and probably should have chased Toney and RJJ up the weights. He always had the frame to fight at higher weights. There's no doubt in my mind there were better and more lucrative fights at higher weights for Hopkins. There was a definite paucity of truly (or possibly anything approaching) great talent at middleweight through most of Hopkins reign.

Funny thing about Hopkins is that he had the lengthy and dull title reign. But now with his prime well gone, he is entering genuinely big fights. If you count from the time he was 36, he's faced Tito, DLH, Taylor (x2), Tarver, and soon Wright. That's not bad, especially if he beats Wright.

Still, even his 160 reign was impressive when you account for his skills, fitness and discipline. His career has been pretty extraordinary to think that he peaked with an 11 round thrashing of Glen Johnson in 1997!

I agree some way with that Boxing news piece. That Hopkins was dull (whereas say Lewis was devastating at times) and was the undoing of a lot of big fights (Jones 2, Toney, Ottke, Calzaghe).

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Mar 2007, 05:10

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
viciousmaussa wrote:
J-C wrote: The younger more active Holyfield could have given Lewis a world of problems IMO.
Holy would've been stuck on the outside a lot, I reckon. He'd still be posing too long but firing isolated flurries (as with Foreman) rather than single hard shots (in Holy-Lewis 2).

He still loses at least 7-5 as I see it, in his peak. Also, the more active Holy wasn't as physically strong, and you never know with Evander. Seldom done 2 good performances in a row (Tyson looked ready to take over before the headbutts & biting, 2nd fight).
The young Holyfield had a pretty amazing work rate, something lewis never had really. I think that Holyfield's best work would have kept Lewis negative just potshotting with the jab, and trying to land the right. I don't think Lewis could have matched him for the pace, and would have lost it down the stretch.

Yet Holyfield wasn't as physically strong nor as hard hitting in his prime. I don't think he can put in a sustained assault because of the Lewis outside game. Holy needs to get in and out & IMO would get caught coming in. Evander could get on Bowe's chest all night because Bowe had a lazy, crap jab & was a natural short puncher/infighter.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 01 Mar 2007, 06:05

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Tyson was undoubtedly some way past his best when he faced Lewis, whereas Lewis was at his peak in terms of being the overall package. I knew Tyson had absolutely ZERO chance of winning that fight, and what's more, so did mike.
.

If you had been on Boxrec way back in 2002 you wouldn't have thought that. The vast majority said Tyson was gonna spark Lewis. No talk whatsoever of him being shot. Its all still here, archived.

Everybody became a genius after Lewis mushed him.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 01 Mar 2007, 06:06

stujones wrote: Nah, I heard that something went wrong with Golota's steriods that made him get psyched out.
.

B#llocks, he got bombed out with big punches. Excuses, excuses.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Mar 2007, 06:17

Punches had nothing to do with it. Golota only lost because he had an injection in his knee which made him hyperventilate, lowering his defenses and weakening his chin JUST ENOUGH for Lewis to knock him out.

What I like is how Floyd peppering feather fisted Baldomir for 12 rounds is acceptable, but Lewis v Tua - a man who had a legit puncher's chance - is "barely world class."

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Mar 2007, 09:04

overhand_right wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote: Tyson was undoubtedly some way past his best when he faced Lewis, whereas Lewis was at his peak in terms of being the overall package. I knew Tyson had absolutely ZERO chance of winning that fight, and what's more, so did mike.
.
If you had been on Boxrec way back in 2002 you wouldn't have thought that. The vast majority said Tyson was gonna spark Lewis. No talk whatsoever of him being shot. Its all still here, archived.

Everybody became a genius after Lewis mushed him.

Oh, so now you are telling me what I though in 2002 are you?

Well, for your information, in 2002, I was a regular columnist for eastsideboxing, and I wrote an article previewing the Lewis v Tyson fight, and I stated quite clearly that Tyson had no chance of winning. Citing the fact he hadn't beaten a top 10 fighter for almost a decade and had almost been beaten by Brian Nielsen.

I don't think that they archive my articles any more on there since I left, but I know what I wrote mate. For your information, my having an opinion on boxing, didn't begin and end with contributing to this forum.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 01 Mar 2007, 09:43

Poorly worded by me, didnt mean you specifically Mr Sarcasm, but im saying there was no talk of Tyson being shot and having no chance before the fight, it was after when everybody suddenly became smart and 'oh if he was a few years younger he would have killed Lewis' etc.

Although it does seriously concern me that you thought Tyson was "almost beaten by Brian Nielsen". In what bizarre counter-dimension did that occur?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Mar 2007, 09:47

Was it the Nielsen fight, yes I believe it was, where Mike was trailing on all the cards before he managed to find that shot to end the fight?

Ok maybe the wording was bad by me this time. What I meant was that Nielsen was showing Mike up pretty badly, and was winning the fight at the time of the stoppage. Mike looked truly awful that night, and that was the fight that finally convinced me that he had zero chance against a fit, motivated and what was really a peak version of Lennox Lewis.

Sarcastic.....moi

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Mar 2007, 09:52

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Was it the Nielsen fight, yes I believe it was, where Mike was trailing on all the cards before he managed to find that shot to end the fight?

Ok maybe the wording was bad by me this time. What I meant was that Nielsen was showing Mike up pretty badly, and was winning the fight at the time of the stoppage. Mike looked truly awful that night, and that was the fight that finally convinced me that he had zero chance against a fit, motivated and what was really a peak version of Lennox Lewis.

Sarcastic.....moi

Not seen that fight with Nielsen, but wasn't that Tyson-Botha you're referring to?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Mar 2007, 10:00

Nope, Nielsen was ahead at the time of the stoppage as a I recall.

Whoops! It is the Botha fight I'm referring too. I remember though that Tyson still looked shit and slow against Nielsen.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 01 Mar 2007, 10:04

Tis true, Tyson was blowing big time against Nielsen although I didn't know he was behind on the cards. I thought he was running out of gas and then I was surprised when Nielsens corner pulled him out.

I thought when Tyson was trailing and turned it with one shot was the Botha fight.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 Mar 2007, 10:17

Yeah, it was the botha fight, I checked the fight reports. The flabby Dane actually looked in better shape (figuratively speaking) than Tyson, although he did absorb a pretty bad beating, you got the feeling that Tyson might just implode given another round or so.

Botha was manhandling Tyson quite badly in their fight, before Tyson found a peach of a right hand through the guard as I recall.

Wasn't a bad fighter Botha actually.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Mar 2007, 11:10

Yes, Botha wasn't quite in Brian Mitchell and prime Vuyani Bungu's league, was he? Closer to Corrie Sanders.

I think I was at uni when it was Lewis-Tyson. I'd given up on boxing for a while & I didn't even know about the fight until I saw a billboard somewhere near Rotherham. But I knew that Tyson didn't have much of a shot.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 01 Mar 2007, 11:17

Christ almight i thought i was talking with seriousboxing fans then it turns out you boys dont know the difference between a Frans Botha and a Brian Nielsen?!!

Tyson fought Botha in 1999 after an EIGHTEEN month layoff/suspension.

Tyson fought Brian Nielsen in 2001, won all 6 rounds on all 3 judges socrecards, decked him in the 3rd and completely dominated the fight.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 01 Mar 2007, 11:21

overhand_right wrote:Christ almight i thought i was talking with seriousboxing fans then it turns out you boys dont know the difference between a Frans Botha and a Brian Nielsen?!!

Tyson fought Botha in 1999 after an EIGHTEEN month layoff/suspension.

Tyson fought Brian Nielsen in 2001, won all 6 rounds on all 3 judges socrecards, decked him in the 3rd and completely dominated the fight.

fat mighty whites, reverse racism for you - "they all look the same"...

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 01 Mar 2007, 11:26

viciousmaussa wrote:
overhand_right wrote:Christ almight i thought i was talking with seriousboxing fans then it turns out you boys dont know the difference between a Frans Botha and a Brian Nielsen?!!

Tyson fought Botha in 1999 after an EIGHTEEN month layoff/suspension.

Tyson fought Brian Nielsen in 2001, won all 6 rounds on all 3 judges socrecards, decked him in the 3rd and completely dominated the fight.
fat mighty whites, reverse racism for you - "they all look the same"...

That's the fight as I remember it although Tyson definitely showed some distress signals in that final round and I was surprised when they pulled Nielsen out.

Didn't Calzaghe fight on the same bill?

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 01 Mar 2007, 11:27

Hey mate, still looking. The US version of the 3 fights are easy to find, but i just cannot f#ckin tolerate Jim Lampley, drives me completely mad. Ruins everything fight hes on.

Thats why i need the Sky versions.

Why the fook didnt i just tape them myself when i watched them!!?? :x