BoxRec

granberry wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"You can thank "referee" Richard STEAL for that.

(And for many others).

Judge Dave Moretti had the fight 107-102 for Meldrick Taylor.

Judge Jerry Roth had it 108-101 for Taylor." - Granberry

I absolutely could not disagree more.

You think Richard STEAL was NOT the referee?

You are blind to 'referee' Richard STEAL's endless track record working for Don King's interests?

You think those judges DID NOT score the fight for Taylor in a lopsided margin?

I disagree strongly with the notion that the stoppage was bullshit. Here's the rub --- at what point is a referee no longer entitled to stop a bout? After the final bell? Two second before the final bell? Going into the last round?

Richard Steele is entitled to stop the fight on two grounds...

1) As the referee, he has the obligation to protect the fighter for every second of every round.

2) Taylor was one shot puppy. Surely, the damage Chavez incurred would have vindicated a stoppage in round six? Therefore, it vindicates a stoppage at any other time.

Now, if you want to say Steele was paid off, acting free of objectivity etc. that's a whole different kettle of fish (& certainly, may not be one without merit), however, on the basis of what went on in the ring, no one should be able to say the TKO was illegitimate by virtue of the fact it came with two seconds left on the clock. That's nonsense.

I Feel Fine wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: "oh, that's kewl. were r u goin 2 2moro then???"

I don't think I've ever spoken that way. Anyway, no, I wasn't around at the time, so you can cross that one off.

lol, of course not, I should have said, "For example", rather than, "case in point." My apologies.

napoles was a damned fool

No I was not even born.

does it have to be your favourite contemporary fighter or something ?


In that case I would chose Shane Moseley's loss to Vernon Forrest back in '02.

harrygreb wrote:napoles was a damned fool

why he was a fool in your view? I do not get it?

My most painful moment happened in one year: 1980

My 2 favorite fighters, Duran and Ali lost to Leonard and Holmes respectively....It was hard for me to watch. :( :( :(

Robinson wrote:No I was not even born.

does it have to be your favourite contemporary fighter or something ?


In that case I would chose Shane Moseley's loss to Vernon Forrest back in '02.

Not necessarily, but you have to have been a fight fan at the time of the toughest moment, in order to capture the reality of it a little better.

Sorry to rub it in, Robbie, but I predicted the loss to Forrest (& the nature of the defeat, i.e. a distance fight in which Mosley takes a pounding) & when everyone told me I was loco, I milked it for all it was worth

I also hurt when Holyfield lost to Bowe. I was only 12. I really did not know much about Bowe or boxing a great deal. I did like Holyfield. When I saw the result I was a bit sad.

Holyfield Vs Toney sucked to watch.

I dont know why but Tyson v Lewis really sucked. Eevn though I figured Tyson had very very little chance.

Marlin wrote:My favourite fighter is Roy Jones Jr. Need I say more?

yeah, that was a tough night. i was watching with a bunch of friends and when he lost, we were heartbroken. it made us feel old.

toughest moment for me was JC Chavez quitting on his stool against Grover Wiley a man he would have destroyed in his prime.

dempseyfire wrote: To watch a heavily eroded Evander

You missplett roided

I Feel Fine wrote:
Morales-Pacquiao III... watching one of the toughest guys in boxing in recent years being reduced to helplessness.

All guys go over the hill. Erik could have hidden behind his jab all damn night, but he lost the same way he always won - with a blaze of fists.

Even in his finale fight at 135, he still went toe-to-toe, no back-pedalling, no chicken-shitting, and no shame in getting whipped, finally, by a stronger, younger lion.

It happens to us all.

granberry wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"You can thank "referee" Richard STEAL for that.

(And for many others).

Judge Dave Moretti had the fight 107-102 for Meldrick Taylor.

Judge Jerry Roth had it 108-101 for Taylor." - Granberry

I absolutely could not disagree more.

You think Richard STEAL was NOT the referee?

You are blind to 'referee' Richard STEAL's endless track record working for Don King's interests?

You think those judges DID NOT score the fight for Taylor in a lopsided margin?

The problem wit the whole Don King fix theory, is that how would King plan on Taylor being seriously hurt and pretty much out of it in the 12th? If Taylor had paced himself better and fought smarter, he would've won a comfortable decision . . .hell, even in his state he could've just ran on his bicycle the entire 12th round.

Same problem with the fools who say Brewster-Klitschko was the result of Don King poisoning . . .what kind of poison would have Wlad strong enough to knock down Brewster in the 4th and seconds away from a stoppage? And knowing Brewster would survive?

If King has been fixing all these fights he sure is bad at it.

dempseyfire wrote:

granberry wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"You can thank "referee" Richard STEAL for that.

(And for many others).

Judge Dave Moretti had the fight 107-102 for Meldrick Taylor.

Judge Jerry Roth had it 108-101 for Taylor." - Granberry

I absolutely could not disagree more.

You think Richard STEAL was NOT the referee?

You are blind to 'referee' Richard STEAL's endless track record working for Don King's interests?

You think those judges DID NOT score the fight for Taylor in a lopsided margin?

The problem wit the whole Don King fix theory, is that how would King plan on Taylor being seriously hurt and pretty much out of it in the 12th? If Taylor had paced himself better and fought smarter, he would've won a comfortable decision . . .hell, even in his state he could've just ran on his bicycle the entire 12th round.

Same problem with the fools who say Brewster-Klitschko was the result of Don King poisoning . . .what kind of poison would have Wlad strong enough to knock down Brewster in the 4th and seconds away from a stoppage? And knowing Brewster would survive?

If King has been fixing all these fights he sure is bad at it.

You are blind to 'referee' Richard STEAL's endless track record working for Don King's interests?

Chavez was King's fighter.

Taylor was not.

2 and 2 equals 4.

granberry wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

granberry wrote: You think Richard STEAL was NOT the referee?

You are blind to 'referee' Richard STEAL's endless track record working for Don King's interests?

You think those judges DID NOT score the fight for Taylor in a lopsided margin?

The problem wit the whole Don King fix theory, is that how would King plan on Taylor being seriously hurt and pretty much out of it in the 12th? If Taylor had paced himself better and fought smarter, he would've won a comfortable decision . . .hell, even in his state he could've just ran on his bicycle the entire 12th round.

Same problem with the fools who say Brewster-Klitschko was the result of Don King poisoning . . .what kind of poison would have Wlad strong enough to knock down Brewster in the 4th and seconds away from a stoppage? And knowing Brewster would survive?

If King has been fixing all these fights he sure is bad at it.

You are blind to 'referee' Richard STEAL's endless track record working for Don King's interests?

Chavez was King's fighter.

Taylor was not.

2 and 2 equals 4.

I'll go along with that, I just can not believe that fight could have not gone a few more seconds and be allowed to finish out naturally.

dagosd2000 wrote:My guy was Jose Napoles

. Napoles 's style went right into Carlos's power. .

That's the truth.

.

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:
Morales-Pacquiao III... watching one of the toughest guys in boxing in recent years being reduced to helplessness.

All guys go over the hill. Erik could have hidden behind his jab all damn night, but he lost the same way he always won - with a blaze of fists.

Even in his finale fight at 135, he still went toe-to-toe, no back-pedalling, no chicken-shitting, and no shame in getting whipped, finally, by a stronger, younger lion.

It happens to us all.

Yes, still a tough thing to watch though. No?

I cannot believe people look right past Taylor's condition as a result of that fight & declare it was a robbery.

Once again --- the referee has the right to stop the fight at any time. If Taylor were in the exact same shape in round six as he was in twelve, nobody would complain.

There is no such thing as an, "11 round, 58 second fight."

Given Taylor's condition, I'd say Steele's verdict is vindicated, wouldn't you?

I would have let Taylor go on.

I think what the fight does prove though is that there should be 15 rounders. If there were 15 rounders Hagler might have beaten Leonard, Leonard would have probably knocked out Hearns in the rematch, Chavez would have knocked out Taylor, De La Hoya would have fought more or ran more against Trinidad, making the decision clearer, and Hopkins probably would have won a decision against Taylor. A lot of the controversial fights of the last twenty years are because of the loss of 15 rounders.

I Feel Fine wrote:

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:
Morales-Pacquiao III... watching one of the toughest guys in boxing in recent years being reduced to helplessness.

All guys go over the hill. Erik could have hidden behind his jab all damn night, but he lost the same way he always won - with a blaze of fists.

Even in his finale fight at 135, he still went toe-to-toe, no back-pedalling, no chicken-shitting, and no shame in getting whipped, finally, by a stronger, younger lion.

It happens to us all.

Yes, still a tough thing to watch though. No?

Ha, well it wasn't pleasant, of course not, but here's how it is; Erik has given us DOZENS of nights of fantastic pugilism, he left his very soul back in the ring with the effort of those fights. In 2018, nobody will remember him sitting on his ass looking across at Pac thinking, "What a beautiful night to retire!", everyone will remember how he overpowered Pac the first time, how he knocked Chavez down twice - something that even Mayweather couldn't -, how he body-punched MAB to the canvas, how he got into that life/death struggle with Chi, how he stayed upright uninterrupted against Kevin Kelley while making sure Kelley didn't, how he thrilled the WORLD with that gladiatorial contest with MAB first time, the sweet display of craftsmanship against Mcullough (which first made me a fan), and of course, taking Zaragoza's crown.

After all of that...there's no way I thought the good times would roll forever. No, my friend, it wasn't particularly easy to watch, but like I said, he was as much a warrior in defeat as he was in victory.

I think we agree.

i understand that the safety of the sport is to be considered with the reducing of those last 3 rounds. But too often I have watched a championship fight and felt sad that it was over all ready.

I do have to agree though that alot of controversies would have been cleared up had the fight gone that bit longer.

I remember reading some where that the 15 rounds were reduced to make the sport more TV friendly.

Robinson wrote:i understand that the safety of the sport is to be considered with the reducing of those last 3 rounds. But too often I have watched a championship fight and felt sad that it was over all ready.

I do have to agree though that alot of controversies would have been cleared up had the fight gone that bit longer.

I remember reading some where that the 15 rounds were reduced to make the sport more TV friendly.

Only thing is the data doesn't support the idea that fifteen-rounders do excess damage to the fighters. The sport needs them back.

I will say this, though --- as a die-hard De La Hoya fan, I sure think his career would look a whole lot less impressive in the fifteen-round era, & I'm not just talking about the battle with Trinidad

Robinson wrote:Patterson Vs Ali 1-

To me this fight is just plain painful. I dont think Patterson would have beaten Ali. BUT in this fight it was clear he was not 100%. If it was his back injury or just an off night, in either case it was a bad night not to be feeling your best. I hate this fight to watch out of all of my favourite guys fights.

Patterson Vs Litson 1 and 2-

Patterson being dominated and owned, Liston had his number and would dominate him at nearly any stage.

Holmes Vs Spinks 1-



I think to call this a draw would be fare, but out of all the Holmes fights in his title reign this is the one where he looked the oldest and past his best. Holmes could not adjust to the in and out awkwardness of Spinks.

Patterson was definitely hindered by back trouble in the first Ali fight. I remember watching a replay of this fight, and his trainer, Chickie Ferrara, I believe, lifting him up between rounds to try to work out the back problem.

Ali would have won anyway.

To answer the topic question, my most painful moment was when I heard on the radio the words..."in a shocking upset tonight, heavyweight champion Joe Frazier was knocked down 6 times in two rounds and has lost his title to the new champion, George Foreman."

Painful, but not totally surprised. Joe's fight with Stander prior to Foreman had been televised and I could tell Frazier was definitely past his peak.

I Feel Fine wrote:I would have let Taylor go on.

I think what the fight does prove though is that there should be 15 rounders. If there were 15 rounders Hagler might have beaten Leonard, Leonard would have probably knocked out Hearns in the rematch, Chavez would have knocked out Taylor, De La Hoya would have fought more or ran more against Trinidad, making the decision clearer, and Hopkins probably would have won a decision against Taylor. A lot of the controversial fights of the last twenty years are because of the loss of 15 rounders.

Agree on all points.

The sport lost something with the loss of 15 rounders.