BoxRec

Chambers2 wrote:

deadpan wrote:Unequivocably Kirkland Laing

Excellent call. Saw an interview with 'The Gifted One' where he admitted smoking a spliff on the way to a British title fight , I think he still won. He oozed talent as the Duran result shows, but lacked the commitment, hence why he's being mentioned on here.

I heard from a mate that Kirkland died from his injuries when he fell from a balcony, can anyone confirm??

No he's still alive, there's a guy writing a book about him, who said he is devoting the money from the sales of the book to Kirkland.

Audley, Witter, Graham, Eastman, Danny Williams...

I still think Bruno was a good boxer who should have done better, he was just mentally weak.

He lost before even getting in the ring with Tyson the second time. Had a great jab when he was younger, big power etc etc.

After the Coetzee fight he should have gone on to the world title

If only he'd learned how to go down on one knee instead of just standing there taking a pasting.....

MightyWarrior wrote:Pat Barrett

Good call, i couldn't believe the performance against Galloway. Pat was on fire in 1991 with some chilling KO's , but something must have happened after that, as he just didn't perform in the title try.

Sometimes happens against the ultra-slippery types. They make very good boxers look clueless.

John Conteh.

Most of the fighters mentioned so far could maybe have done more with their talent, but none ever gave me the impression they were special fighters or potential greats.Conteh is the only one i would say that about.

MightyWarrior wrote:Pat Barrett

Ahh yes Pat Barrett - Definitely should have done better, he was awesome when on form.

Twinkle Toes wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Pat Barrett

Ahh yes Pat Barrett - Definitely should have done better, he was awesome when on form.

Yes he was a fearsome puncher, but got caught up in the local gang culture apparently, and that was all she wrote.

Yes good call on Barrett, I remember seeing him ice someone on the Mcauly-McKenzie undercard and was dead impressed....

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

deadpan wrote:Unequivocably Kirkland Laing

Excellent call. Saw an interview with 'The Gifted One' where he admitted smoking a spliff on the way to a British title fight , I think he still won. He oozed talent as the Duran result shows, but lacked the commitment, hence why he's being mentioned on here.

I heard from a mate that Kirkland died from his injuries when he fell from a balcony, can anyone confirm??

No he's still alive, there's a guy writing a book about him, who said he is devoting the money from the sales of the book to Kirkland.

Cheers James

Define undrachiever.
If someone gets three shots at a World Title, and loses them all is it not the case that they are simply not good enough ?
That is not underachievment that's just a fighter realising his status surely ?

Old bones Ian wrote:

dr_devious wrote:Howard Eastman is the biggest underachiever in recent years

Yes its a hard one to call that, Eastman has achieved alot. Britsh, Euro and Commonwealth titles, and has challenged twice for a world title losing on points both times (once to a HOFer), but most would say he has underachieved.

Compare him to Michael Watson , he only won the commonwealth title and came up short in 3 tries at a world title, losing 2 of those by KO. But would you say he underachieved?

Whats the difference?

There is a big difference between Eastman and Watson. Eastman hasnt always seemed to give of his best, and let the opportunity slip in his WBA fight against Joppy which was there for his taking. Admittedly he was up against it with BHop and put up a good show.
Watson put up brilliant efforts in all of his title fights, firstly when overmatched due to inexperience against the great Mike McCallum, then should have got the decision in the first Eubank fight, and cut down in the last round when winning the second fight.
Also, Watson was cut down in his prime and very early in his career, we dont know what he might have gone onto achieve. Watson was definitely not an underachiever

twenty six wrote:Define undrachiever.
If someone gets three shots at a World Title, and loses them all is it not the case that they are simply not good enough ?
That is not underachievment that's just a fighter realising his status surely ?

un·der·a·chieve

intr.v. un·der·a·chieved, un·der·a·chiev·ing, un·der·a·chieves

To perform worse or achieve less success than expected.
So I don't really think Howard Eastman falls into that category. Nobody expected him to rule the Middleweight division with an iron fist.

With Eastman's talent he should have won a world title, he had the beating of Joppy and probably should have got the decision, but didnt give it his all. Hence he is an underachiever, and I'm one of his fans

Joe Bugner, Craig Demondy who beat Naz as an amateur but went on to be a crackhead and Bobby Wells who won the bronze medal as a super heavyweight in the 1984 olympics and KO'd Gary Mason in the ABAs but was a bust as a pro.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:Joe Bugner, Craig Demondy who beat Naz as an amateur but went on to be a crackhead and Bobby Wells who won the bronze medal as a super heavyweight in the 1984 olympics and KO'd Gary Mason in the ABAs but was a bust as a pro.

When did that happen to Dermody, before, during or after his pro career?
Whats he like now?

Coco wrote:

Carlos-Wigan wrote:Joe Bugner, Craig Demondy who beat Naz as an amateur but went on to be a crackhead and Bobby Wells who won the bronze medal as a super heavyweight in the 1984 olympics and KO'd Gary Mason in the ABAs but was a bust as a pro.

When did that happen to Dermody, before, during or after his pro career?
Whats he like now?

I'm sure one of the Manchester lads would be able to fill in the gaps better than me but Demondy he was a multi titled junior ABA champion and young England international who went pro with Brian Hughes. Hughes said that Demondy was the most talented fighter he ever had. From what I have read it was during his pro career that he started taking drugs but I'm ready to be corrected off any reliable sources.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=20734

dr_devious wrote:With Eastman's talent he should have won a world title, he had the beating of Joppy and probably should have got the decision, but didnt give it his all. Hence he is an underachiever, and I'm one of his fans

Nah. He didn't win one fight he might have but didn't have it in him and has continuously proved that since.

Amir Khan would be an under-achiever now if he was sloppy in his next fight against Limmond and beaten and then kept losing. That would be under achieving as big things are expected of him, minor world title minimum requirement.

Carlos you are correct.

Did he meet Naz as an amateur, Craig is four years older than Hamed?
Say they did when Craig was 20, just before they went pro, Hamed would have only been 16 and a genuine Flyweight whereas craig is more of a feather??

Two fighters who certainly had more talent than their achievements.

Dean Pithie and Howard Clarke (I know he had a world title shot, but should have won a title of some description with his talent).

stujones wrote:Two fighters who certainly had more talent than their achievements.

Dean Pithie and Howard Clarke (I know he had a world title shot, but should have won a title of some description with his talent).

Remember Robert Dickie Stu? Thats a guy who should have won a lot more than he did. And Rudi Pika (RIP)

Look up a feller called Andy Nance boxrec fans! no1 contender to the WBC world light welterweight title but kept failing a brain scan. But he was British!

He was a good boxer Dickie, a decent body puncher if I remember rightly. I think he was stripped of his British title with a broken hand but went on too become the first Brit (I think) to win an International/Intercontinental title. I remember for weeks our family thought he was a WBC world champion... up untill his first defence where the commentators really had to explain the International belt.

He probably would have been good enough to win the EBU title and fight for a World title proper... but doubt he would have won one. Good fighter though, a pity he seems to have been forgot about - the sport could do with someone like him as a coach.

There have been some "dream" matches involving Welsh fighters, not all Wales vs Wales, that never took place. Whilst for me Steve Robinson vs Barry Jones for the WBO Super Feather Title currently is the biggest shame - Robert Dickie vs Floyd Havard would have been a great one. Havard is another that could be on this thread.

Others were Colin Jones vs Lloyd Honeyghun.... I never realised untill recently that Jones was up for it (I always thought he immediately retired post Curry, never to dream of a return). Enzo Mac vs David Haye is another.

Eamonn Laughran - good little fight maybe over achieved in getting the WBO belt so soon in his career. However, he was a good fighter and I thought he would have a LONG career at European level. However, losses his WBO title and that was that.

Floyd Havaard, Theres a name, probably the biggest of the lot in my book. A great Amatuer who I thought was a certainty for a World Title, looking back I often wonder what went wrong, Great Boxer

Scrap wrote:Floyd Havaard, Theres a name, probably the biggest of the lot in my book. A great Amatuer who I thought was a certainty for a World Title, looking back I often wonder what went wrong, Great Boxer

His chronic hand problems didn't help , also when he faced Molina he just wasn't strong enough to hold the champion off.