FLINT ISLAND wrote:Colin Hart claimed that Ali would have toyed with Tyson when he was commentating on the Tyson V Douglas fight.
Hart looks at things through rose tinted glasses.
Naz was horrid to Darke in Altlantic City...............but Naz is a hypocrite - he treated people like poop himself
First Warren and then Enzo Calzaghe and Enzo Macc and now Colin Hart - refusing to give Haye credit for big wins.
Whats so silly about saying Ali would have toyed with Tyson? It's quite possible. Tyson never faced anyone with Ali's speed, toughness and overall skill level.
Tyson was in no kinda shape when he fought Douglas, FACT. A prime Tyson would have torn into Ali BIG time, if Our 'Enry could come within a whisker of ko'ing Ali then tyson would have obliterated him.
Perhaps. But Ali didn't train hard for Frazier 3 as he thought Joe was shot. The difference - Ali sucked it up and won.
Tyson could clearly have been in better shape against Douglas but the fact is he was hammered from beginning to end. Aside from a few seconds in the 8th he was dominated throughout and could hardly do a thing with him. He may have done better and maybe even won had he been in tip top condition but surely the fact that Douglas wasn't scared and had the perfect style to beat Tyson had something to do with it? On that night Douglas was an awesome fighting machine.
Ever since I became obsessed with boxing in the early 80s the journos in the national papers were cr@p. Their articles were always littered with errors. They get the title wrong, the round of the KO, the weight division. As a pain-in-the-ar$e-kid I used to write letters pointing out these errors and send them in… I know, I know, but I was 11 years old.
The best writing on boxing was always in books, magazines and now online. The papers haven’t had a decent boxing writer that I’ve noticed in quite some time.
I don’t know about rose-tinted specs… On one hand it’s a poor show not to allow Haye his moment. I also think Lennox Lewis was often unfairly put down. BUT at the same time it’s also nice not have to listen to the tired bu11sh1t that comes out of every writer involved in football who have a 2 season memory and will constantly tell you that the current crop of multi-millionaires are the greatest ever set of players of all-time that there’s ever been and ever will be (until next season).
As for the Marciano/Dempsey/Ali debate…
Come on… many modern HWs are juiced up. That goes for most sports. Legal or illegal is not the question. These guys are taking stuff that Dempsey wasn’t on.
The mentions here are all very flattering but I think we're judging Colin Hart on the wrong criteria here, he provides a conspicuous link between modern boxing and the by-gone era not a 20/20 perspective of the current scene.
There have been several instances in which the old fella has called it spot on while on TV, while the sycophants have trotted out the company line to protect their pay-day. Yet you all forget that conveniently.
Now, don't get me wrong I can grow tired of assurances that Ali would have beaten him or him or him but it isn't Colin's fault his formative years bore witness to the greatest heavyweight of all time who also happened to be the most iconic showman and anti-establishment figure of the modern world.
I defy anyone to have who witnessed Ali's greatness in wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the Lazarus like performance versus Leon Spinks not to mention a resume which also includes victories over Patterson, Liston, Bugner, Quarry, Lyle and Shavers to find it hard to surmise that Mike Tyson who fell to James Douglas, got beat up by Holyfield twice before he was 30 would have beaten him hard to accept.
Nor should we denigrate the fact he was ringside through those years, or that it was a time when boxing was a front row sport - when the world had one champion in each weight, a time when every working man knew who the British champion was, when fights were done over 15 rounds and there were fewer divisions. A time when boxing was free-to-air. A time when every paper had a fight writer.
It created some ivory towers but you can hardly blame Hart for having a warm glow about the period from 1965 to 1995, when he was ringside for arguably the sports richest period. Ali to Tyson, Hagler to Hamed, Leonard to Gatti, Liston to Holyfield. I think if any of us can claim they'd focus on the current scene more, offer them more credit than their predecessors, then I'd be first in line to call them a pigging liar.
True, Hart isn't Hemingway, but permit him the latitude of realising its human nature to believe it was better before.
Haye won a quarter of the world-title against a bloke who didn't win the belt in the ring and had been beaten with ease by a fat little bloke called Chagaev previously. Until Haye resurrects the long dormant concept of a single heavyweight champion by defeating the Ukrainian doctors then he can not claim to be heavyweight champion in the manner Tyson and Ali could. The possibility Haye could have beaten either man is essentially moot until that point anyway.
I don't agree with everything Hart says but I'll fight for his right to effuse about the good ole days.
Tyson vs Frazier would have been a hell of a fight, between two fighters who really took a backward step... and when they did, it usually meant big problems.
There would have been lots of arguements, counter arguements. I don't think anyone can be classed "a fool" for picking either guy.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happend had an ageing Liston been allowed to take part in the Heavyweight tourny to find Ali's successor. Foreman showed that Frazier can be hit and hurt by dynamite punchers early. I would argue that offensively, Tyson was as accurate, fast and sharp, as a young George. If not quite the same physical strength. If there was anyone who could find away through the Joe defense it would be Tyson.
However, if Joe could take Tyson's bombs, and suck it up as he did the Thriller in Manilla (Ali was superb throughout, but particularly early on), then you'd have to favour Frazier via a late KO for the reasons highlighted in the posts above.
One thing I would dispute is the opinion that Frazier would hurt Tyson early. For all his question marks about stamina and bottle, his chin was made of iron (no pun intended).
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think that as much as Hart might get criticised, he has a fair point. James Lawton made similar points.
It was a dreadful fight, and a terrible performance from both men - and it represents one of the low points in the history of heavyweight title fights.
Yes, it's nice to have a british fighter holding one of the heavyweight belts - but lets not be effusive here - it wasn't a great performance and Haye has to beat one of the Klitchskos if he wants to be considered one of the main men at heavyweight.
The heavyweight division is appalling at the moment - worse even than the late 80's before Tyson came along, Vitali and Wlad are so far ahead of all the leading contenders it's ridiculous, and neither man would have have dominated anything 10-15 years ago. They are merely the best in mediocre era.
Bravo, I whole heartedly agree and actually though that colin hart was correct in what he said. Has anyone actually seen the punch stats from Haye for the bout - I would like to see them...neither man deserved to be called heavyeight champ after that.
DavidPayne wrote:The mentions here are all very flattering but I think we're judging Colin Hart on the wrong criteria here, he provides a conspicuous link between modern boxing and the by-gone era not a 20/20 perspective of the current scene.
There have been several instances in which the old fella has called it spot on while on TV, while the sycophants have trotted out the company line to protect their pay-day. Yet you all forget that conveniently.
Now, don't get me wrong I can grow tired of assurances that Ali would have beaten him or him or him but it isn't Colin's fault his formative years bore witness to the greatest heavyweight of all time who also happened to be the most iconic showman and anti-establishment figure of the modern world.
I defy anyone to have who witnessed Ali's greatness in wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the Lazarus like performance versus Leon Spinks not to mention a resume which also includes victories over Patterson, Liston, Bugner, Quarry, Lyle and Shavers to find it hard to surmise that Mike Tyson who fell to James Douglas, got beat up by Holyfield twice before he was 30 would have beaten him hard to accept.
Nor should we denigrate the fact he was ringside through those years, or that it was a time when boxing was a front row sport - when the world had one champion in each weight, a time when every working man knew who the British champion was, when fights were done over 15 rounds and there were fewer divisions. A time when boxing was free-to-air. A time when every paper had a fight writer.
It created some ivory towers but you can hardly blame Hart for having a warm glow about the period from 1965 to 1995, when he was ringside for arguably the sports richest period. Ali to Tyson, Hagler to Hamed, Leonard to Gatti, Liston to Holyfield. I think if any of us can claim they'd focus on the current scene more, offer them more credit than their predecessors, then I'd be first in line to call them a pigging liar.
True, Hart isn't Hemingway, but permit him the latitude of realising its human nature to believe it was better before.
Haye won a quarter of the world-title against a bloke who didn't win the belt in the ring and had been beaten with ease by a fat little bloke called Chagaev previously. Until Haye resurrects the long dormant concept of a single heavyweight champion by defeating the Ukrainian doctors then he can not claim to be heavyweight champion in the manner Tyson and Ali could. The possibility Haye could have beaten either man is essentially moot until that point anyway.
I don't agree with everything Hart says but I'll fight for his right to effuse about the good ole days.
All well and good, and no doubt correct. But don't you think that if you're being paid to comment on fights that are happening now, don't you think that you need more than a passing knowledge of fighters who are fighting now?
FLINT ISLAND wrote:Colin Hart claimed that Ali would have toyed with Tyson when he was commentating on the Tyson V Douglas fight.
Hart looks at things through rose tinted glasses.
Naz was horrid to Darke in Altlantic City...............but Naz is a hypocrite - he treated people like poop himself
First Warren and then Enzo Calzaghe and Enzo Macc and now Colin Hart - refusing to give Haye credit for big wins.
Not Darkie, a young Adam Smith. He thought Naz was his friend, and he learned things were somewhat different. Hamed behaved appallingly. History would suggest his career was on the downwards slope from then on as he began to believe his own hype, cut corners on training, and distance himself from those who had made him what he was ... ie Ingles, his mates at the Wincobank gym and FW's promotional team. He made lots of money thereafter, but became increasingly isolated and lonely I believe.
good points you mention mr payne, colin at least is a man of his own opinion, regardles of whose roof he is under. his eurosport career was short, and not seen him on sky for a while..
DavidPayne wrote:The mentions here are all very flattering but I think we're judging Colin Hart on the wrong criteria here, he provides a conspicuous link between modern boxing and the by-gone era not a 20/20 perspective of the current scene.
There have been several instances in which the old fella has called it spot on while on TV, while the sycophants have trotted out the company line to protect their pay-day. Yet you all forget that conveniently.
Now, don't get me wrong I can grow tired of assurances that Ali would have beaten him or him or him but it isn't Colin's fault his formative years bore witness to the greatest heavyweight of all time who also happened to be the most iconic showman and anti-establishment figure of the modern world.
I defy anyone to have who witnessed Ali's greatness in wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the Lazarus like performance versus Leon Spinks not to mention a resume which also includes victories over Patterson, Liston, Bugner, Quarry, Lyle and Shavers to find it hard to surmise that Mike Tyson who fell to James Douglas, got beat up by Holyfield twice before he was 30 would have beaten him hard to accept.
Nor should we denigrate the fact he was ringside through those years, or that it was a time when boxing was a front row sport - when the world had one champion in each weight, a time when every working man knew who the British champion was, when fights were done over 15 rounds and there were fewer divisions. A time when boxing was free-to-air. A time when every paper had a fight writer.
It created some ivory towers but you can hardly blame Hart for having a warm glow about the period from 1965 to 1995, when he was ringside for arguably the sports richest period. Ali to Tyson, Hagler to Hamed, Leonard to Gatti, Liston to Holyfield. I think if any of us can claim they'd focus on the current scene more, offer them more credit than their predecessors, then I'd be first in line to call them a pigging liar.
True, Hart isn't Hemingway, but permit him the latitude of realising its human nature to believe it was better before.
Haye won a quarter of the world-title against a bloke who didn't win the belt in the ring and had been beaten with ease by a fat little bloke called Chagaev previously. Until Haye resurrects the long dormant concept of a single heavyweight champion by defeating the Ukrainian doctors then he can not claim to be heavyweight champion in the manner Tyson and Ali could. The possibility Haye could have beaten either man is essentially moot until that point anyway.
I don't agree with everything Hart says but I'll fight for his right to effuse about the good ole days.
Absolutely right David. I don't believe Colin would claim to be Hemingway either, but his knowledge of the fight game is exceptional. If he could have penned his prose with the style of a McIlvanney, he would have been the best. But before you steam into his literary style, let's not forget he writes for the Sun, and it could be argued that he writes in a style that the newspaper needs. Let's not foget he has worked in Fleet Street (as was) as an editor and writer for some 45 years, and has the benefit of extraordinary experience.
To suggest, as some have, that Colin has no proper knowedge of the current era is simply not true. He merely has the miles on the clock to be able to put a performance into perspective. Even David Haye knows that those who are mentionning him in the same breath as Ali are speaking nonsense.
It is interesting how observers have differed in their take on Haye's performance. In boxing news, Claude Abrams and the Guardian's Kevin Mitchell seem to have seen something I certainly didn't witness. And columnists like Oliver Holt in the Mirror and the verbose Martin Samuel in the Mail, seem to think Haye was punch perfectly brilliant.
However, Colin Hart and Jim Lawton will not be alone in seeing the other side of things, in witnessing a fighter who ran and conned his way to a world title.
The newspaper world, like the world of the internet, is about opinion, and I respect and defend the right to voice those opinions. Colin Hart has international respect and is surely destined to be a Hall of Fame inductee for his services to boxing journalism.
To abuse him is truly pathetic. You might not agree with what he is saying, but his thoughts are certainly worth hearing.
rhino222 wrote:good points you mention mr payne, colin at least is a man of his own opinion, regardles of whose roof he is under. his eurosport career was short, and not seen him on sky for a while..
His Eurosport career was short because he called crap crap, and the bosses didn't like it. At least Sky allow Jim Watt, Colin Hart (on Sky Sports News) and co to say what they believe.
stujones wrote:Tyson vs Frazier would have been a hell of a fight, between two fighters who really took a backward step... and when they did, it usually meant big problems.
There would have been lots of arguements, counter arguements. I don't think anyone can be classed "a fool" for picking either guy.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happend had an ageing Liston been allowed to take part in the Heavyweight tourny to find Ali's successor. Foreman showed that Frazier can be hit and hurt by dynamite punchers early. I would argue that offensively, Tyson was as accurate, fast and sharp, as a young George. If not quite the same physical strength. If there was anyone who could find away through the Joe defense it would be Tyson.
However, if Joe could take Tyson's bombs, and suck it up as he did the Thriller in Manilla (Ali was superb throughout, but particularly early on), then you'd have to favour Frazier via a late KO for the reasons highlighted in the posts above.
One thing I would dispute is the opinion that Frazier would hurt Tyson early. For all his question marks about stamina and bottle, his chin was made of iron (no pun intended).
Always thought Frazier was the one guy Tyson could definitely have beaten. Tyson was less mentally strong, but he was much quicker and hit a lot harder shot for shot too.
Frazier also lack any wins in his resume against the biggest hitters of his era the liks of Lyl and Shvers are notble by thir absence. Theone big hitter he did face, Foreman, annihilated him.
DavidPayne wrote:The mentions here are all very flattering but I think we're judging Colin Hart on the wrong criteria here, he provides a conspicuous link between modern boxing and the by-gone era not a 20/20 perspective of the current scene.
There have been several instances in which the old fella has called it spot on while on TV, while the sycophants have trotted out the company line to protect their pay-day. Yet you all forget that conveniently.
Now, don't get me wrong I can grow tired of assurances that Ali would have beaten him or him or him but it isn't Colin's fault his formative years bore witness to the greatest heavyweight of all time who also happened to be the most iconic showman and anti-establishment figure of the modern world.
I defy anyone to have who witnessed Ali's greatness in wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the Lazarus like performance versus Leon Spinks not to mention a resume which also includes victories over Patterson, Liston, Bugner, Quarry, Lyle and Shavers to find it hard to surmise that Mike Tyson who fell to James Douglas, got beat up by Holyfield twice before he was 30 would have beaten him hard to accept.
Nor should we denigrate the fact he was ringside through those years, or that it was a time when boxing was a front row sport - when the world had one champion in each weight, a time when every working man knew who the British champion was, when fights were done over 15 rounds and there were fewer divisions. A time when boxing was free-to-air. A time when every paper had a fight writer.
It created some ivory towers but you can hardly blame Hart for having a warm glow about the period from 1965 to 1995, when he was ringside for arguably the sports richest period. Ali to Tyson, Hagler to Hamed, Leonard to Gatti, Liston to Holyfield. I think if any of us can claim they'd focus on the current scene more, offer them more credit than their predecessors, then I'd be first in line to call them a pigging liar.
True, Hart isn't Hemingway, but permit him the latitude of realising its human nature to believe it was better before.
Haye won a quarter of the world-title against a bloke who didn't win the belt in the ring and had been beaten with ease by a fat little bloke called Chagaev previously. Until Haye resurrects the long dormant concept of a single heavyweight champion by defeating the Ukrainian doctors then he can not claim to be heavyweight champion in the manner Tyson and Ali could. The possibility Haye could have beaten either man is essentially moot until that point anyway.
I don't agree with everything Hart says but I'll fight for his right to effuse about the good ole days.
Absolutely right David. I don't believe Colin would claim to be Hemingway either, but his knowledge of the fight game is exceptional. If he could have penned his prose with the style of a McIlvanney, he would have been the best. But before you steam into his literary style, let's not forget he writes for the Sun, and it could be argued that he writes in a style that the newspaper needs. Let's not foget he has worked in Fleet Street (as was) as an editor and writer for some 45 years, and has the benefit of extraordinary experience.
To suggest, as some have, that Colin has no proper knowedge of the current era is simply not true. He merely has the miles on the clock to be able to put a performance into perspective. Even David Haye knows that those who are mentionning him in the same breath as Ali are speaking nonsense.
It is interesting how observers have differed in their take on Haye's performance. In boxing news, Claude Abrams and the Guardian's Kevin Mitchell seem to have seen something I certainly didn't witness. And columnists like Oliver Holt in the Mirror and the verbose Martin Samuel in the Mail, seem to think Haye was punch perfectly brilliant.
However, Colin Hart and Jim Lawton will not be alone in seeing the other side of things, in witnessing a fighter who ran and conned his way to a world title.
The newspaper world, like the world of the internet, is about opinion, and I respect and defend the right to voice those opinions. Colin Hart has international respect and is surely destined to be a Hall of Fame inductee for his services to boxing journalism.
To abuse him is truly pathetic. You might not agree with what he is saying, but his thoughts are certainly worth hearing.
Whilst I will defend Colin's knowledge of the past and his right to compare the present era nd it' achievements to the past, I've witnessed first hand his lack of knowledge of the current fght scene. Colin defiitely knows agood fighter from a bad one, but I don't think he's got a lot of interest in current boxing.
DavidPayne wrote:Frazier would have broken Tyson's heart. And stopped him in the championship rounds.
Tyson was a great fighter who fought only good opponents on the whole.
Don't think Frazier would have lasted long enough to make it to the later rounds. If he got past 6 rounds, he could win, but Tyson' speed and weight of shot would have taken him out of there shockingly fast I think.
Foreman for all his exceptional physical gifts, was not as good technically as a prime Tyson, and nowhre near as quick obviously.
DavidPayne wrote:The mentions here are all very flattering but I think we're judging Colin Hart on the wrong criteria here, he provides a conspicuous link between modern boxing and the by-gone era not a 20/20 perspective of the current scene.
There have been several instances in which the old fella has called it spot on while on TV, while the sycophants have trotted out the company line to protect their pay-day. Yet you all forget that conveniently.
Now, don't get me wrong I can grow tired of assurances that Ali would have beaten him or him or him but it isn't Colin's fault his formative years bore witness to the greatest heavyweight of all time who also happened to be the most iconic showman and anti-establishment figure of the modern world.
I defy anyone to have who witnessed Ali's greatness in wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the Lazarus like performance versus Leon Spinks not to mention a resume which also includes victories over Patterson, Liston, Bugner, Quarry, Lyle and Shavers to find it hard to surmise that Mike Tyson who fell to James Douglas, got beat up by Holyfield twice before he was 30 would have beaten him hard to accept.
Nor should we denigrate the fact he was ringside through those years, or that it was a time when boxing was a front row sport - when the world had one champion in each weight, a time when every working man knew who the British champion was, when fights were done over 15 rounds and there were fewer divisions. A time when boxing was free-to-air. A time when every paper had a fight writer.
It created some ivory towers but you can hardly blame Hart for having a warm glow about the period from 1965 to 1995, when he was ringside for arguably the sports richest period. Ali to Tyson, Hagler to Hamed, Leonard to Gatti, Liston to Holyfield. I think if any of us can claim they'd focus on the current scene more, offer them more credit than their predecessors, then I'd be first in line to call them a pigging liar.
True, Hart isn't Hemingway, but permit him the latitude of realising its human nature to believe it was better before.
Haye won a quarter of the world-title against a bloke who didn't win the belt in the ring and had been beaten with ease by a fat little bloke called Chagaev previously. Until Haye resurrects the long dormant concept of a single heavyweight champion by defeating the Ukrainian doctors then he can not claim to be heavyweight champion in the manner Tyson and Ali could. The possibility Haye could have beaten either man is essentially moot until that point anyway.
I don't agree with everything Hart says but I'll fight for his right to effuse about the good ole days.
Absolutely right David. I don't believe Colin would claim to be Hemingway either, but his knowledge of the fight game is exceptional. If he could have penned his prose with the style of a McIlvanney, he would have been the best. But before you steam into his literary style, let's not forget he writes for the Sun, and it could be argued that he writes in a style that the newspaper needs. Let's not foget he has worked in Fleet Street (as was) as an editor and writer for some 45 years, and has the benefit of extraordinary experience.
To suggest, as some have, that Colin has no proper knowedge of the current era is simply not true. He merely has the miles on the clock to be able to put a performance into perspective. Even David Haye knows that those who are mentionning him in the same breath as Ali are speaking nonsense.
It is interesting how observers have differed in their take on Haye's performance. In boxing news, Claude Abrams and the Guardian's Kevin Mitchell seem to have seen something I certainly didn't witness. And columnists like Oliver Holt in the Mirror and the verbose Martin Samuel in the Mail, seem to think Haye was punch perfectly brilliant.
However, Colin Hart and Jim Lawton will not be alone in seeing the other side of things, in witnessing a fighter who ran and conned his way to a world title.
The newspaper world, like the world of the internet, is about opinion, and I respect and defend the right to voice those opinions. Colin Hart has international respect and is surely destined to be a Hall of Fame inductee for his services to boxing journalism.
To abuse him is truly pathetic. You might not agree with what he is saying, but his thoughts are certainly worth hearing.
Whilst I will defend Colin's knowledge of the past and his right to compare the present era nd it' achievements to the past, I've witnessed first hand his lack of knowledge of the current fght scene. Colin defiitely knows agood fighter from a bad one, but I don't think he's got a lot of interest in current boxing.
He has plenty of interest in the fights that matter. Ask him about Cotto-Pacquiao and you won;t think he has "lack of knowledge of the current fight scene." Maybe he doesn't have the anorak recall of a stats man, but is that knowledge or just worthless statistics?
DavidPayne wrote:The mentions here are all very flattering but I think we're judging Colin Hart on the wrong criteria here, he provides a conspicuous link between modern boxing and the by-gone era not a 20/20 perspective of the current scene.
There have been several instances in which the old fella has called it spot on while on TV, while the sycophants have trotted out the company line to protect their pay-day. Yet you all forget that conveniently.
Now, don't get me wrong I can grow tired of assurances that Ali would have beaten him or him or him but it isn't Colin's fault his formative years bore witness to the greatest heavyweight of all time who also happened to be the most iconic showman and anti-establishment figure of the modern world.
I defy anyone to have who witnessed Ali's greatness in wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the Lazarus like performance versus Leon Spinks not to mention a resume which also includes victories over Patterson, Liston, Bugner, Quarry, Lyle and Shavers to find it hard to surmise that Mike Tyson who fell to James Douglas, got beat up by Holyfield twice before he was 30 would have beaten him hard to accept.
Nor should we denigrate the fact he was ringside through those years, or that it was a time when boxing was a front row sport - when the world had one champion in each weight, a time when every working man knew who the British champion was, when fights were done over 15 rounds and there were fewer divisions. A time when boxing was free-to-air. A time when every paper had a fight writer.
It created some ivory towers but you can hardly blame Hart for having a warm glow about the period from 1965 to 1995, when he was ringside for arguably the sports richest period. Ali to Tyson, Hagler to Hamed, Leonard to Gatti, Liston to Holyfield. I think if any of us can claim they'd focus on the current scene more, offer them more credit than their predecessors, then I'd be first in line to call them a pigging liar.
True, Hart isn't Hemingway, but permit him the latitude of realising its human nature to believe it was better before.
Haye won a quarter of the world-title against a bloke who didn't win the belt in the ring and had been beaten with ease by a fat little bloke called Chagaev previously. Until Haye resurrects the long dormant concept of a single heavyweight champion by defeating the Ukrainian doctors then he can not claim to be heavyweight champion in the manner Tyson and Ali could. The possibility Haye could have beaten either man is essentially moot until that point anyway.
I don't agree with everything Hart says but I'll fight for his right to effuse about the good ole days.
All well and good, and no doubt correct. But don't you think that if you're being paid to comment on fights that are happening now, don't you think that you need more than a passing knowledge of fighters who are fighting now?
Well, doesn't he meet that criteria, "passing", he knew Haye fought for the WBA title versus Valuev, it was a shocker to witness and it doesn't reall ymake him a heavyweight champin,, and he's right Harry Gibbs or our current bulldog Richie Davies would both have had a word with them for not making it a fight. Hart is employed to provide a link between eras to help provide an anchor for the dislocated 35-75 year old who isn't interested in boxing any more. He's provides a different context, and a welcome ballast to the Haye bandwagon jumpers who've know him since he was an embryo etc.
DavidPayne wrote:Frazier would have broken Tyson's heart. And stopped him in the championship rounds.
Tyson was a great fighter who fought only good opponents on the whole.
Don't think Frazier would have lasted long enough to make it to the later rounds. If he got past 6 rounds, he could win, but Tyson' speed and weight of shot would have taken him out of there shockingly fast I think.
Foreman for all his exceptional physical gifts, was not as good technically as a prime Tyson, and nowhre near as quick obviously.
From 1986 to 1989, Tyson gives anyone trouble. Speed, power and intimidation. Shame the Holyfield fight never came off in 90. That would have been interesting. Except, by then Tyson was already beginning to unravel and might have found Evander too tough. Personally, I believe Ali of say 1966 v Williams would have had the speed, reactions and sheer boxing ability to cope with Tyson. But remember the great one on his arse against Cooper and Frazier. And Tyson v Cooper is not even a debating issue.
great piece from colin hart. plenty of people who dont usually follow boxing watched the fight and i would guess most thought it was absolutely terrible.
lowersmiths wrote:great piece from colin hart. plenty of people who dont usually follow boxing watched the fight and i would guess most thought it was absolutely terrible.
I defy anyone to have who witnessed Ali's greatness in wars with Frazier, Foreman, Norton and the Lazarus like performance versus Leon Spinks not to mention a resume which also includes victories over Patterson, Liston, Bugner, Quarry, Lyle and Shavers to find it hard to surmise that Mike Tyson who fell to James Douglas, got beat up by Holyfield twice before he was 30 would have beaten him hard to accept.
Nor should we denigrate the fact he was ringside through those years, or that it was a time when boxing was a front row sport - when the world had one champion in each weight, a time when every working man knew who the British champion was, when fights were done over 15 rounds and there were fewer divisions. A time when boxing was free-to-air. A time when every paper had a fight writer.
It created some ivory towers but you can hardly blame Hart for having a warm glow about the period from 1965 to 1995, when he was ringside for arguably the sports richest period. Ali to Tyson, Hagler to Hamed, Leonard to Gatti, Liston to Holyfield. I think if any of us can claim they'd focus on the current scene more, offer them more credit than their predecessors, then I'd be first in line to call them a pigging liar.
True, Hart isn't Hemingway, but permit him the latitude of realising its human nature to believe it was better before.
Haye won a quarter of the world-title against a bloke who didn't win the belt in the ring and had been beaten with ease by a fat little bloke called Chagaev previously. Until Haye resurrects the long dormant concept of a single heavyweight champion by defeating the Ukrainian doctors then he can not claim to be heavyweight champion in the manner Tyson and Ali could. The possibility Haye could have beaten either man is essentially moot until that point anyway.
I don't agree with everything Hart says but I'll fight for his right to effuse about the good ole days.[/quote]
Absolutely right David. I don't believe Colin would claim to be Hemingway either, but his knowledge of the fight game is exceptional. If he could have penned his prose with the style of a McIlvanney, he would have been the best. But before you steam into his literary style, let's not forget he writes for the Sun, and it could be argued that he writes in a style that the newspaper needs. Let's not foget he has worked in Fleet Street (as was) as an editor and writer for some 45 years, and has the benefit of extraordinary experience.
To suggest, as some have, that Colin has no proper knowedge of the current era is simply not true. He merely has the miles on the clock to be able to put a performance into perspective. Even David Haye knows that those who are mentionning him in the same breath as Ali are speaking nonsense.
It is interesting how observers have differed in their take on Haye's performance. In boxing news, Claude Abrams and the Guardian's Kevin Mitchell seem to have seen something I certainly didn't witness. And columnists like Oliver Holt in the Mirror and the verbose Martin Samuel in the Mail, seem to think Haye was punch perfectly brilliant.
However, Colin Hart and Jim Lawton will not be alone in seeing the other side of things, in witnessing a fighter who ran and conned his way to a world title.
The newspaper world, like the world of the internet, is about opinion, and I respect and defend the right to voice those opinions. Colin Hart has international respect and is surely destined to be a Hall of Fame inductee for his services to boxing journalism.
To abuse him is truly pathetic. You might not agree with what he is saying, but his thoughts are certainly worth hearing.[/quote]
Whilst I will defend Colin's knowledge of the past and his right to compare the present era nd it' achievements to the past, I've witnessed first hand his lack of knowledge of the current fght scene. Colin defiitely knows agood fighter from a bad one, but I don't think he's got a lot of interest in current boxing.[/quote]
He has plenty of interest in the fights that matter. Ask him about Cotto-Pacquiao and you won;t think he has "lack of knowledge of the current fight scene." Maybe he doesn't have the anorak recall of a stats man, but is that knowledge or just worthless statistics?[/quote]
Don't you think that any boxing fan, let alone boxing writer, is going to knowabout one of the biggest fights this decade? Hardly a major accolde is it?
All I'm saying is, I don't think Hart has a very deep knowledge of the current scene outside of the major names - I can't blame him really - a lot of the current scene sucks balls, too many belt holders, too many crap fights, If I'd been writing for as long as he has, I doubt I'd give a fidders fart about who the leading contenders in every division were either but my point is, that as a boxing journalist,you should know these things. I no longer really write an more, but when I did, I knew who ll the leading contenders were in ever division were, because I made it my business too.
DavidPayne wrote:Frazier would have broken Tyson's heart. And stopped him in the championship rounds.
Tyson was a great fighter who fought only good opponents on the whole.
Don't think Frazier would have lasted long enough to make it to the later rounds. If he got past 6 rounds, he could win, but Tyson' speed and weight of shot would have taken him out of there shockingly fast I think.
Foreman for all his exceptional physical gifts, was not as good technically as a prime Tyson, and nowhre near as quick obviously.
From 1986 to 1989, Tyson gives anyone trouble. Speed, power and intimidation. Shame the Holyfield fight never came off in 90. That would have been interesting. Except, by then Tyson was already beginning to unravel and might have found Evander too tough. Personally, I believe Ali of say 1966 v Williams would have had the speed, reactions and sheer boxing ability to cope with Tyson. But remember the great one on his arse against Cooper and Frazier. And Tyson v Cooper is not even a debating issue.
Ali was pretty green against Cooper that wasn't really his peak - and even there he showed tremendous powers f recovery.
Ali did strugle with speedy smaller fighters also. I think Tyson would have started well, but would have foun Ali's moveent a nightmare to cope with and become frustrated pretty quickly.
It bored me rigid. And for all their weaknesses I would love to see the punch stats round by round.
I'm pleased my outburst has attracted some counter-balance to the easy reflex of denigrating him. I'm not a fan, but I think he's often on the nose on subjective issues like this because he is willing to remind all of us that it used to be clearer and more precise. Does that make him a rhetoric fuelled annoyance - to some, the truth is often inconvenient.
Did anyone think Lee Savold won the world title when he beat Bruce Woodcock?
Nah. Of course not.
Valuev was an incredible opponent because of his enormity and a very, very worthy win for Haye he answered so many questions about his ability and supposed falability but it didn't make him the world-champion in the sense of the term as understood for the century before the 1980's.
DavidPayne wrote:It bored me rigid. And for all their weaknesses I would love to see the punch stats round by round.
I'm pleased my outburst has attracted some counter-balance to the easy reflex of denigrating him. I'm not a fan, but I think he's often on the nose on subjective issues like this because he is willing to remind all of us that it used to be clearer and more precise. Does that make him a rhetoric fuelled annoyance - to some, the truth is often inconvenient.
Did anyone think Lee Savold won the world title when he beat Bruce Woodcock?
Nah. Of course not.
Valuev was an incredible opponent because of his enormity and a very, very worthy win for Haye he answered so many questions about his ability and supposed falability but it didn't make him the world-champion in the sense of the term as understood for the century before the 1980's.
I watched at mine with about 10 people - all of whom were groaning after 3 rounds and complaining at how shit it was.
Aside from the physical spectacle of the size disparity, it was an abysmal fight - hopefully, win or lose, Haye will put on a better disply against Wlad or Vitali.
