BoxRec

I think Nigel was fighting lightheavies and cruisers coming down when he was at supermiddle and could still make middle,that's why his power seemed to evaporate. NOBODY knocked out Amparo or Sanderline,look at their records on boxrec. Nigel did punch v.hard,but not huumungously hard as was the hype of his early career,even at the end of his career going into 'Sudden Impact' with Gerald that hype was still carrying over.

I think Nigel lost abit of speed at supermiddle as well,he only went up there to chase Eubank.

silkov wrote: The ko losses can be misleading though, Jackson was a phenominal puncher and noone in their right mind would hold that loss against Herol, the Brewer fight on the other hand came when Herol was in his late 30s and considered washed up by most people, and Brewer himself was a good puncher. The truth is that with a bit more luck Herol would have been world champion... if he was around now he would probably have 20 odd defences behind him like the likes of Hatton and Calzaghe....

Herol was told to see the round out against a partially sighted Jackson who'd virtually lost interest - the fight was about to be called off.. For some reason he still looked to press the fight and got nailed.... Some might argue that's not bad luck.. He knew who he was fighting and what Jackson was capable of.. I agree that today, it's likely Herol would hold a World belt of some description, he was too talented to rule him out.. Just a shame he did do it when it mattered.. He's a top bloke and it would be nice to see him getting more coverage, following his boxing career.

HEROL BOMBER GRAHAM WAS BETTER THAN CALZAGHE, NO Q, YOU COULDN'T HIT THE GEEZER WHEN HE WAS IN MOVE-MODE AND DODGE-MODE, BUT HE JST PRESSED TOO MUCH AGAINST KALAMBAY AND MCCALLUM AND LAST FEW SECS AGAINST JACKSON, IF HE FOUGHT TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY AS A PURE DEFENCE GENIUS HE WOULD OF WON THOSE FIGHTS HANDS DOWN, AND HE BEAT EVERYONE ELSE HANDS DOWN INCL BRIT, COMMONWEALTH AND EURO TITLES AT BOTH 154 AND 160. THEY SAY YOU COULDN'T SEE BOMBER'S SHOTS COMING, ONLY HEAR THEM! THE SWITCH-HITTING, ANGLES, DANCING AND UPPER BOD MOVEMENT WERE ALL CRAZY. A SHOT EUBANK AND OLD HOPKINS ARE NOT IN THE LEAGUE OF KALAMBAY AND MCCALLUM........

Bullshit.

Terry D wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Terry D wrote: Nice post. no offence but I do not see Herol as on even the aging Leonard's level. No one could beat Hagler but the judges

I only watched Leonard-Hagler once when I was much younger and went more for the outlanding method of scoring so scored it something like 9-3 Leonard. I now prefer heavier more effective punches so perhaps I'd score it differently now?

I think Hagler can be a bit overrated and he did have problems with boxer mover types. Given Graham would be a bad style match up and that Haglers old tired legs would have to chase all night while getting picked off, was bigger than leonard, then I say its a possibility Bomber Graham could do the unthinkable and knocked the old man off his perch. I'm sure if Hatton never fought Tyszu the thought of him beating an albeit old Tyszu would be laughable but it happened

Hagler is seriously underrated. He was past his best for his title reign but was still fearsome and people only remember that Hagler.

In contention fights against Hart, Watts and Monroe (avenging his losses) he boxed and banged with guys who would hold titles in this era. His footwork was great, no plodding then, and he could box, bang, go leftie, switch to orthodox and turned uppercuts under like no other fighter. He boxed well against Seales, Carbrera, Geraldo and Hamani and by the time he fought Vito his legs were fading a bit. So Hagler went away and adapted to become a fearsome and destructive fighter, but never quite as good as he had been when his body and skills were in tandem.

Between 1976-1980 he was up there with the contender Sonny Liston, pre-Army Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, and early Ezzard Charles as one of the best fighters I've ever seen.

Even at the time you talk about an aged Hagler is streets ahead of the overrated Graham. Despite all the whys and wherefores Graham stood with his hands down and chin-up in front of one of the most dangerous punchers of all time and got clocked. No fluke there. He also threw a valuable point away in the McCallum fight.

Defending yourself against shots the way Graham did was impressive but Hagler could switch it around and his arms were so long it would be like trying to defend against hammers being swung on ropes.

Hagler KO's him for me.

Nice simile there Terrence, I like it, Hammers being swung on ropes.

I've not seen all of those fights you mention, wish I had, but no doubt Hagler was a near perfect fighting machine in his pomp. He waited around for far too long for his title reign to come, but made the best of it by turning into a human wrecking ball.

No-one has yet mentioned 'Sibbo' who would have given Herol a run for his money circa 1984.

Sibbo referred to Herol Graham as a 'limbo dancer' but they never thought and thats one of the great shames of British boxing as that would have been a cracker style wise!

Terry D wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terry D wrote: Hagler is seriously underrated. He was past his best for his title reign but was still fearsome and people only remember that Hagler.

In contention fights against Hart, Watts and Monroe (avenging his losses) he boxed and banged with guys who would hold titles in this era. His footwork was great, no plodding then, and he could box, bang, go leftie, switch to orthodox and turned uppercuts under like no other fighter. He boxed well against Seales, Carbrera, Geraldo and Hamani and by the time he fought Vito his legs were fading a bit. So Hagler went away and adapted to become a fearsome and destructive fighter, but never quite as good as he had been when his body and skills were in tandem.

Between 1976-1980 he was up there with the contender Sonny Liston, pre-Army Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, and early Ezzard Charles as one of the best fighters I've ever seen.

Even at the time you talk about an aged Hagler is streets ahead of the overrated Graham. Despite all the whys and wherefores Graham stood with his hands down and chin-up in front of one of the most dangerous punchers of all time and got clocked. No fluke there. He also threw a valuable point away in the McCallum fight.

Defending yourself against shots the way Graham did was impressive but Hagler could switch it around and his arms were so long it would be like trying to defend against hammers being swung on ropes.

Hagler KO's him for me.

Nice simile there Terrence, I like it, Hammers being swung on ropes.

I've not seen all of those fights you mention, wish I had, but no doubt Hagler was a near perfect fighting machine in his pomp. He waited around for far too long for his title reign to come, but made the best of it by turning into a human wrecking ball.

I'll get that thing set-up and you'll be able to get them no worries.

Hagler was a wonderful fighter in his pomp. There is an arsehole on the BOTP forum who just slates him as a plodder who lost to Leonard but Hagler was old then. A lot is made of Leonard being out for a while but in the HBO preview Gil Clancy raised the point that Hagler had been fighting regularly for years but had now slowed his fights down to one a year and this hurts the active fighter far more.

Anyway, Ray did not need to be sharp with his punching and reflexes because his feet and his hype did the bulk of the work in the fight.

Jackson was a good British fighter but Hagler is a stone-cold legend.

I tell you something, Leonard fought amazingly well that night. Despite all of Hagler's complaints about Leonard shoeshining in the fight, that's not what I saw, Leonard was rattling that big shiny dome of Hagler's with machine-gun like combinations, it was like his fists were attached to Haglers head with elastic bands at some points, and I thought Hagler looked quite stunned at one point, if not badly hurt.

Leonard was still quicksilver quick even after the layoff.

The fact is that Benn would never have been able to ko Graham with one shot like Jackson, Benn relied on landing a lot of punches to ko a class fighter... the fact that Jackson one punched koed a higher calibre of opposition than Benn supports my point...
Also when talking about Grahams durability dont forget his fight with Mccallum, who was a dangerous puncher himself (koed Watson) yet didnt come close to stopping Herol. The closest Herol got to fighting for the title in his prime was in the Mccallum fight.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terry D wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Nice simile there Terrence, I like it, Hammers being swung on ropes.

I've not seen all of those fights you mention, wish I had, but no doubt Hagler was a near perfect fighting machine in his pomp. He waited around for far too long for his title reign to come, but made the best of it by turning into a human wrecking ball.

I'll get that thing set-up and you'll be able to get them no worries.

Hagler was a wonderful fighter in his pomp. There is an arsehole on the BOTP forum who just slates him as a plodder who lost to Leonard but Hagler was old then. A lot is made of Leonard being out for a while but in the HBO preview Gil Clancy raised the point that Hagler had been fighting regularly for years but had now slowed his fights down to one a year and this hurts the active fighter far more.

Anyway, Ray did not need to be sharp with his punching and reflexes because his feet and his hype did the bulk of the work in the fight.

Jackson was a good British fighter but Hagler is a stone-cold legend.

I tell you something, Leonard fought amazingly well that night. Despite all of Hagler's complaints about Leonard shoeshining in the fight, that's not what I saw, Leonard was rattling that big shiny dome of Hagler's with machine-gun like combinations, it was like his fists were attached to Haglers head with elastic bands at some points, and I thought Hagler looked quite stunned at one point, if not badly hurt.

Leonard was still quicksilver quick even after the layoff.

I agree that it was a great performance by Leonard, but Hagler was past his best also, he was only about 50% the Hagler of 1980-1983 when I think he was at his peak... Haglers decline had been visible against Mugubi, which was the reason for Leonard finally deciding to take the fight. Had they fought in 82 or 83 Hagler would have steamrolled him imo...

Entirely disagree Terrence. Watched it very recently and had Leonard a clear and convincing winner.

Terry D wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Terry D wrote: I'll get that thing set-up and you'll be able to get them no worries.

Hagler was a wonderful fighter in his pomp. There is an arsehole on the BOTP forum who just slates him as a plodder who lost to Leonard but Hagler was old then. A lot is made of Leonard being out for a while but in the HBO preview Gil Clancy raised the point that Hagler had been fighting regularly for years but had now slowed his fights down to one a year and this hurts the active fighter far more.

Anyway, Ray did not need to be sharp with his punching and reflexes because his feet and his hype did the bulk of the work in the fight.

Jackson was a good British fighter but Hagler is a stone-cold legend.

I tell you something, Leonard fought amazingly well that night. Despite all of Hagler's complaints about Leonard shoeshining in the fight, that's not what I saw, Leonard was rattling that big shiny dome of Hagler's with machine-gun like combinations, it was like his fists were attached to Haglers head with elastic bands at some points, and I thought Hagler looked quite stunned at one point, if not badly hurt.

Leonard was still quicksilver quick even after the layoff.

Leonard fought a good fight but not the winning one. Hagler landed the more solid blows and forced Leonard to disengage and move. I never saw Leonard box with quite that much distance. He was clearly putting it on a lot of the time. He would wind-up shots that were blocked or missed and his every move was scored by the judges. That 10-point card that came is as clear an indication as you can get that the occasion got to the judges and they scored the story rather than the fight.

Boxing gave Leonard every break in the book including two titles in two divisions in a single night. It was obscene.

Leonard looked the more hurt in the fight. Hagler should have said he was going to take the fight then arranged a public contract signing and told Leonard to "f*ck off" before tearing the contract up and retired leaving Leonard with only the Hearns rematch he held-off for years. Leonard would have had to negotiated himself to the middleweight title by other means.

I like watching Leonard fight but the man leaves me cold.

I agree with a lot of what you say about Leonard and his attitude, but regarding the verdict of the fight having watched it recently i made Ray the winner. For me he just outboxed Hagler, especially early on when Marvin was really shocking and couldnt get anything off. What surprised me also is that Leonard seemed to hurt Hagler a number of times and it was Hagler rather than Leonard who seemed tireder at the finish. A lot of it is interpretation, but for me Leonard was the better boxer that night, he out thought Hagler. In fact the biggest mistake of Hagler and his people was allowing themselves to be out thought prior to the fight also.... i really think Hagler underestimated Leonard and certainly didnt expect him to be so sharp or to take his shots and once the fight got going he couldnt adjust....

I think it was the 10th or 11th round, where Leonard caught him with a Terrific salvo of punches, great action in that round, and stopped Hagler dead in his tracks just as Marvin was looking like getting untracked.

I never said he was hurt, said the punches him stopped dead in his tracks.

Hearns was the only man to outright hurt Marvin, and even that was fleeting.

You could see the panic in Hearns' eyes when he cracked Marvin with that punch and followed up with a brutal assault, every punch of which landed flush, and Marvin just shook it off.

Psychologically that must be terrible, when you're a puncher of Hearns' calibre and you hit someone and they barely register it.

Herol Graham was Kevin Keegan's Newcastle in the 1990'.

Packed with flair, speed, loved to entertain, enjoyed fighting and capable of humilating the best opponents.

But when you look back, they/he didn't ACTUALLY win anything. And when presented with the chance and way out in front. They/he were overtaken.

Herol is my favourite fighter of all time.

And circumstances always play a part in a fighter's career, but the bottom line is, he fought some top class guys when challenging for the title.

Was Herol better than Rob Reid, Glen Catley and Richie Woodhall who can call say they were a world-champion?

I'd say he would have beaten all of them, the facts suggest all three were superior.

[quote="DavidPayne"]Herol Graham was Kevin Keegan's Newcastle in the 1990'.

Packed with flair, speed, loved to entertain, enjoyed fighting and capable of humilating the best opponents.

But when you look back, they/he didn't ACTUALLY win anything. And when presented with the chance and way out in front. They/he were overtaken.

Herol is my favourite fighter of all time.

And circumstances always play a part in a fighter's career, but the bottom line is, he fought some top class guys when challenging for the title.

Was Herol better than Rob Reid, Glen Catley and Richie Woodhall who can call say they were a world-champion?

I'd say he would have beaten all of them, the facts suggest all three were superior.[/quot

Graham would have stood all three on their heads!... I cant belive that youd rate them over Herol just because they held 'titles' and I use that word loosely. Graham lost to Mccallum and Kalambay when near and around his peak, Kalambay is in my opinion he most underrated champion of his era, look at the guys he beat, ...then in Mccallum Graham lost to an all time great who gave a peak james Toney fits when Toney was 'the man'.... and the Graham lost to Jackson, a guy who is probably the best one punch ko artist I've ever seen at any weight.... its hardly a bad record.... pit the likes of Reid, Woodhall and Catley in with the guys that beat Herol and they would never have even been in the race, let alone winning or narrowly losing the fights. Reid was taken apart by Malinga, imagine what a Graham or a Mccallum would have done to him.
Whats also being over looked here is the part that Barney Eastwood played in Grahams defeats. When he came into the picture he tried to get Graham to have a more aggressive 'crowd pleasing' style. This si one of the reasons that Herol forced the fight against Jackson when all he needed to have done is box and move and wait for Jackson to be stopped because of his eyes... but he tried to force the fight and get a impressive stoppage and he paid dearly for that....

Silkov.

Read the fkking post. Particularly the last line.

I'm making the point that, while he failed at world-title level he fought two very, very good champions in McCallum and Kalumbay and was dreadfully unlucky/stupid versus Jackson.

So he didn't get letters after his name e.g. WBC, WBA etc which on the criteria of others means he's a less significant fighter than those who did, for example Reid, Catley or Woodhall.

So winning belts needn't rubber stamp any fighters authenticity as a world class fighter.

Like you, and as I post above, I think Graham would have beaten them all. I think he would have beaten Hopkins in a dull match too.

I wouldn't have backed him to beat Hagler or Leonard, but I'd have fancied him versus Duran, Eubank, Collins and Benn - but perhaps not Watson.

I dunno why, I just fancy Watson's straight shooting.

Chris Eubank got it right in his memorable quote

"Herol Graham is a thskillthster"

I remember Adwick Leisure centre rocking when he knocked out Charlie Boston.

DavidPayne wrote:Silkov.

Read the fkking post. Particularly the last line.

I'm making the point that, while he failed at world-title level he fought two very, very good champions in McCallum and Kalumbay and was dreadfully unlucky/stupid versus Jackson.

So he didn't get letters after his name e.g. WBC, WBA etc which on the criteria of others means he's a less significant fighter than those who did, for example Reid, Catley or Woodhall.

So winning belts needn't rubber stamp any fighters authenticity as a world class fighter.

Like you, and as I post above, I think Graham would have beaten them all. I think he would have beaten Hopkins in a dull match too.

I wouldn't have backed him to beat Hagler or Leonard, but I'd have fancied him versus Duran, Eubank, Collins and Benn - but perhaps not Watson.

I dunno why, I just fancy Watson's straight shooting.

I have flu! hence my rather dithery reading!... I hope it didnt cause you too much distress!... 8) ....we seem to agree actually on the main points... I would have backed Herol to beat the Hagler who lost to Leonard and even the one who beat Mugubi....

Think Graham would have beaten Frankie Liles who was briefly champion when Graham returned. Liles was finished.

Imagine Steve Collins in with Herol Graham! That would be ridiculous. What a horrible, horrible mismatch.

Some serious overrating going on here. Bomber was great domestically, much as Nottingham sidekick Kirkland Laing was great domestically, but at world level he got ragged and left his chin out to dry. Bomber to beat Hagler?

Not in a million years.

DavidPayne wrote: Like you, and as I post above, I think Graham would have beaten them all. I think he would have beaten Hopkins in a dull match too.

Doubt it, Herol would probably have won every round, then managed to knock himself out on the ring post with 10 seconds to go.

bennie wrote:Some serious overrating going on here. Bomber was great domestically, much as Nottingham sidekick Kirkland Laing was great domestically, but at world level he got ragged and left his chin out to dry. Bomber to beat Hagler?

Not in a million years.

Spot on.

Herol was good but not that good.