BoxRec

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:You were quick - see my second post :)

But yes, I agree about the coke. And I think he'd have beaten Duran. The fight he wanted was Leonard.

That would have been a classic.

Don't think he beats Duran who had the best combination of defense and aggressive boxing ever imo. Also better punching technique and timing. I don't think Leonard ducked him either, he fought Hearns instead who temporarily ended his career.

A great fighter none the less Pryor and he should of been undefeated against the men he faced

I didn't say he ducked him, I said it's the fight he wanted. Which he did.

Peak Duran v peak Pryor I'd go for Pryor, but it would be close and your argument is fair, he had better timing, but so did Arguello. Then again it can be argued Arguello was a tad past his peak.

Pryor's power, speed, unbelievable stamina and granite chin would have won him a points decision.

But I may be a little biased as he is my all-time favourite boxer

Herol Graham.
Charlie Magri.

Eubank may well have gotten to 46-0 if it hadn't been for what happened with Watson. I'm sure he would have beaten Collins if he wasn't reluctant to go for the finish. Then again, he may have been more adventurous in his matchmaking if it hadn't been for the Watson rematch, and that may also have cost him his unbeaten record.

Herol Graham or Hamed.

I do think Lewis deserved a chance to continue against McCall - he was the champion after all - but I think he would have been marmalised within seconds had that been the case - Lewis never exhibited particularly good powers of recovery, and his legs were definetly very wobbly when he got up from the McCall knockdown.

Hatton should be 46-0 because he was robbed against Mayweather because of that prick Joe Cortez

brian13 wrote:Hatton should be 46-0 because he was robbed against Mayweather because of that prick Joe Cortez

A few of Hatton's opponants could argue the same thing. Cortez wasn't great that night, but what he was trying to do is stop all the hugging Hatton does.

Cortez was appalling that night, - but I think ultimately Hatton would have lost, albeit over 12 instead of being KO'd.

Mayweather is just too good - he would have found another way to win whatever happened. Hatton is a very good fighter, but compared to Mayweather, he is just a chunky bully with very little skill, no knock on Hatton, but Mayweather is the best we have seen defensively since Sweet Pea.

observer1 wrote: Indeed that was lame.

But before that, there were people hating on Naseem for obtuse reasons, such as not being white. Harsh, but it's reality.

I "hated" Hamed, bought every PPV in the hope to see him get caught - even Billy Hardy! But never for racist reasons, mainly cause 1) He disrepected fighters and 2) he had some sort of "angle" which gave him and advantage in most if not all his title defences.

Guys past their primes, or a bit green at world level, under prepared, over-rated - there was always some sort of angle. For me he is 1-1 against A level fighters at their prime (Barrera and Medina).

I love Barrera to bits, but he is not quite in Floyds level. Naz never faced the P4P number 1, at a weight devision more suitable for the "champ".

No but given Barrera's career he was clearly elite level, there are few fighters in our era with a better record. The fact he lost a few has no impact for me, he could have avoided Jr Jones, but in fact he fought him twice and lost, and went on to have a great career.

Pacman's first fight against Barrera for me, shows just how good pacman was and is, in the rematch, I think he showed Barrrera a lot of respect.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:No but given Barrera's career he was clearly elite level, there are few fighters in our era with a better record. The fact he lost a few has no impact for me, he could have avoided Jr Jones, but in fact he fought him twice and lost, and went on to have a great career.

Pacman's first fight against Barrera for me, shows just how good pacman was and is, in the rematch, I think he showed Barrrera a lot of respect.

Yep he is all that, and I actually think the rematch showed that if Barrera was "right" in fight one he might have beaten Pacquiao. But yes, that is two all timers that Pacquiao absolutely outclassed and made silly - DLH and Barrera in the first fight.

However, Barrera smashed Hamed - every bit as convincing as Mayweather did vs Ricky. And lets not forget, it could be argued that Ricky hasn't won a fight at 147.

stujones wrote:

observer1 wrote: Indeed that was lame.

But before that, there were people hating on Naseem for obtuse reasons, such as not being white. Harsh, but it's reality.

I "hated" Hamed, bought every PPV in the hope to see him get caught - even Billy Hardy! But never for racist reasons, mainly cause 1) He disrepected fighters and 2) he had some sort of "angle" which gave him and advantage in most if not all his title defences.

Guys past their primes, or a bit green at world level, under prepared, over-rated - there was always some sort of angle. For me he is 1-1 against A level fighters at their prime (Barrera and Medina).

stujones, i have read your posts, so from my knowledge, i know you are intelligent enough to NOT be racist.

Obviously im not saying all Naseem haters are Racist. But many hate Naseem for reasons outside boxing.

but like i said, i trust you to know better than the sad ignorants running about.

As for having some "angle" to give him advantage, maybe so. But Calzaghe and Lewis have a bigger case of having an angle to make them advantage, especially Calzaghe..

And hey, if it works for them.....

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Cortez was appalling that night, - but I think ultimately Hatton would have lost, albeit over 12 instead of being KO'd.

Mayweather is just too good - he would have found another way to win whatever happened. Hatton is a very good fighter, but compared to Mayweather, he is just a chunky bully with very little skill, no knock on Hatton, but Mayweather is the best we have seen defensively since Sweet Pea.

It would have been by KO still. Nothing Cortez did could be proven to be directly attributable to the assertion that the KO was early.

Terry D wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:Eubank may well have gotten to 46-0 if it hadn't been for what happened with Watson. I'm sure he would have beaten Collins if he wasn't reluctant to go for the finish. Then again, he may have been more adventurous in his matchmaking if it hadn't been for the Watson rematch, and that may also have cost him his unbeaten record.

Plus his money problems would have remained the same, forcing him to fight on beyond his ability to do so, meaning he gets the two Thompson reversals in any case.

But would he have ended up fighting Thompon if he hadn't lost to Collins?

Lots of what-ifs here, but I think for the purpose of the question, Eubank could have done it, especially as he liked to fight often.

Gray-Fox wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Cortez was appalling that night, - but I think ultimately Hatton would have lost, albeit over 12 instead of being KO'd.

Mayweather is just too good - he would have found another way to win whatever happened. Hatton is a very good fighter, but compared to Mayweather, he is just a chunky bully with very little skill, no knock on Hatton, but Mayweather is the best we have seen defensively since Sweet Pea.

It would have been by KO still. Nothing Cortez did could be proven to be directly attributable to the assertion that the KO was early.

Cobblers - Hatton became frustrated with Cortez' constant intervention and point deduction - he threw caution to the wind and that's why he got knocked out.

observer1 wrote:

stujones wrote:

observer1 wrote: Indeed that was lame.

But before that, there were people hating on Naseem for obtuse reasons, such as not being white. Harsh, but it's reality.

I "hated" Hamed, bought every PPV in the hope to see him get caught - even Billy Hardy! But never for racist reasons, mainly cause 1) He disrepected fighters and 2) he had some sort of "angle" which gave him and advantage in most if not all his title defences.

Guys past their primes, or a bit green at world level, under prepared, over-rated - there was always some sort of angle. For me he is 1-1 against A level fighters at their prime (Barrera and Medina).

stujones, i have read your posts, so from my knowledge, i know you are intelligent enough to NOT be racist.

Obviously im not saying all Naseem haters are Racist. But many hate Naseem for reasons outside boxing.

but like i said, i trust you to know better than the sad ignorants running about.

As for having some "angle" to give him advantage, maybe so. But Calzaghe and Lewis have a bigger case of having an angle to make them advantage, especially Calzaghe..

And hey, if it works for them.....

People disliked Naz, because he acted like a cocky prick - simple as. If that was a persona he created to sell tickets, then he had nobody but himself to blame - judging by the way he acted over the incident where he marmalised someone with his car - I'd say it seems likely it wasn't just him feigning for the cameras, he comes across as an arrogant swine.

Still - bloody fantastic fighter in his day! By all accounts Roberto Duran is a pig of a human being - but i still idolise him as a fighter.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

ALI wrote:Hamed got his arse handed to him by Barrera and dissapeared from the game, he's not worthy IMO. Hatton took the Mayweather defeat like a true champion and relishes the chance of a rematch.

Hatton got his ass handed to him by KO by someone he was mocking the power of pre-fight 'I 'ope ya hit harder than that in the ring Floyd', it seems he did Ricky

How Ricky is worthy of being undefeated after not being in the class of Mayweather and avoiding his toughest challengers at 140 is beyond me. Hamed could conceivably beat Barrera at his best, you can't say the same for Hatton against Mayweather

Captain Hook wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:You were quick - see my second post :)

But yes, I agree about the coke. And I think he'd have beaten Duran. The fight he wanted was Leonard.

That would have been a classic.

Don't think he beats Duran who had the best combination of defense and aggressive boxing ever imo. Also better punching technique and timing. I don't think Leonard ducked him either, he fought Hearns instead who temporarily ended his career.

A great fighter none the less Pryor and he should of been undefeated against the men he faced

I didn't say he ducked him, I said it's the fight he wanted. Which he did.

Peak Duran v peak Pryor I'd go for Pryor, but it would be close and your argument is fair, he had better timing, but so did Arguello. Then again it can be argued Arguello was a tad past his peak.

Pryor's power, speed, unbelievable stamina and granite chin would have won him a points decision.

But I may be a little biased as he is my all-time favourite boxer

Duran would have nailed Pryor, eventually. Pryor's defence was too loose and his chin was not as strong as you make out. He went down several times in the pros. I have an amateur tape of him and little Curtis Harris drops him flat on his back with a right hand. Typically, Pryor rolls completely over and then jumps up, ready to continue.
It would have been a long night between Pryor and Duran because Pryor would have boxed Duran, as he did Arguello. Duran, however, would land those big rights until the long night was over. Duran in shape (and he would have trained for Aaron) was a slick, patient hunter.

Gary mason

I keep seeing Gary Mason in Wimbledon by the station - he looks surprisingly small in the flesh - though he is certainly a chunky geezer.

Was a murderous puncher Mason - shame for him he ran into Lewis - Mason Bruno would have been a humdinger.

Speak of the devil - just Saw Gary in Sainsbury's - he must have the biggest head I've ever seen, this side of the kid from Mask.

The last time I saw a head like that, I was watching a documentary on Easter Island.

Haye, without a shadow of a doubt

Baring in mind his drive to fight the absolute best available, and take no weak touches... if he made it 46-0, he'd have won the undisputed cruiser title, fought both Klitschkos, and defended against the next 20 best heavies D

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I keep seeing Gary Mason in Wimbledon by the station - he looks surprisingly small in the flesh - though he is certainly a chunky geezer.

Was a murderous puncher Mason - shame for him he ran into Lewis - Mason Bruno would have been a humdinger.

I saw Gary Mason a few years back near Liverpool st... Think he was working for a courier at the time. Like you say, surprisingly small, but like all heavyweights, a neck as big as my waist, and hands like shovels.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Speak of the devil - just Saw Gary in Sainsbury's - he must have the biggest head I've ever seen, this side of the kid from Mask.

The last time I saw a head like that, I was watching a documentary on Easter Island.

x2

I interviewed him a few years back and I can't say he struck me as being particularly small. Did a good piece on him, if I may say so myself, and pitched it to BN, who I was doing features for on a semi-regular basis at the time. A shame they didn't take it... and then I had a hard drive crash which lost the article forever :(

A nice guy, though. Had a good laugh with him and he seemed happy enough, although yet to find his post-boxing niche. At least he was trying, though, unlike so many others. Would be interested to know what he's doing now.