BoxRec

McGuigan v Laporte, McGuigan v Taylor and Pedroza

littlepug wrote:Benn v Barkley

Yes, Benn did very well going abroad both with Barkley in a hum dinger! and snatching the title off Mauro Galvano in Italy and almost getting it snatched back, by underhand tactics of the Italians!

keithmoonhangover wrote:I ain't rewriting anything. I've watched the fight and Laing fought the perfect fight, which by your logic, means that it was what Duran didn't do, not what Laing did do. Applying that concept to all of the fights in history, every time a strong betting favourite lost, it was because they didn't train properly and weren't focused. Bollocks.

Keith, don't embarrass yourself further by demonstrating fundamental flaws in your thinking. Let me break it down for you and I'll remove Duran and Laing from the equation given you somehow think you can extrapolate a general point in logic from what I said:

Fighter A adopting the right tactics to beat an inferior version of Fighter B (let's call him Fighter B 1.0 for the sake of this) does not mean it is judged purely on what Fighter B didn't do, it means it is also judged in the context of Fighter B 1.0 being < Fighter B 2.0 (let's call this the 'regular' version). The critical point is that the two points (tactics and version of opponent) are not mutually exclusive and both can be factored into the decision-making criteria.
In fact, the only logic to be taken from this is not your bizarre claim, but rather than simply because Fighter A has adopted the right tactics to beat Fighter B 1.0 does not change the fact that they beat an inferior version and it is impossible to assume that the same tactics would beat Fighter B 2.0.
If you can't accept this premise, it means one of two things:
1) You believe that there is only one version of every fighter e.g. that the version of Mike Tyson that lost to Kevin Mcbride is the same version of Tyson that beat Larry Holmes.
Or
2) That a fighter adopting the right tactics to beat their opponent means the version of their opponent is irrelevant when assessing the magnitude of the victory e.g. the fact Mcbride adopted the right tactics against Tyson means it should be hailed as an outstanding victory irrespective of the fact it was against a shot, aged version of Tyson.

In conclusion, there's a reason why Laing's defeat of Duran is rarely recognised alongside other achievements such as Honeyghan vs Curry, and that's precisely because he faced an inferior version of Duran. In contrast to your claim, it doesn't mean that Laing didn't produce a good performance, he did, it's just that everyone except you also judges it in the context of the fact he was facing on out-of-condition, unmotivated version of Duran.

squared circle wrote:On the flipside what about the biggest "letdowns"? Not saying poor performances per se but where when a Brit was seen as in with a real chance and/or with hindsight we underestimated the oppo, and the result was either a shocker and/or completely deflating?

Off top of my head in modern times;

Wlad v haye
Clev v kovalev
Hatton v pac
Khan v Garcia
Hamed v barrera

Lewis v Rahman 1 was the only time I've ever been genuinely lost for words.

Deserter wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:I ain't rewriting anything. I've watched the fight and Laing fought the perfect fight, which by your logic, means that it was what Duran didn't do, not what Laing did do. Applying that concept to all of the fights in history, every time a strong betting favourite lost, it was because they didn't train properly and weren't focused. Bollocks.

Keith, don't embarrass yourself further by demonstrating fundamental flaws in your thinking. Let me break it down for you and I'll remove Duran and Laing from the equation given you somehow think you can extrapolate a general point in logic from what I said:

Fighter A adopting the right tactics to beat an inferior version of Fighter B (let's call him Fighter B 1.0 for the sake of this) does not mean it is judged purely on what Fighter B didn't do, it means it is also judged in the context of Fighter B 1.0 being < Fighter B 2.0 (let's call this the 'regular' version). The critical point is that the two points (tactics and version of opponent) are not mutually exclusive and both can be factored into the decision-making criteria.
In fact, the only logic to be taken from this is not your bizarre claim, but rather than simply because Fighter A has adopted the right tactics to beat Fighter B 1.0 does not change the fact that they beat an inferior version and it is impossible to assume that the same tactics would beat Fighter B 2.0.
If you can't accept this premise, it means one of two things:
1) You believe that there is only one version of every fighter e.g. that the version of Mike Tyson that lost to Kevin Mcbride is the same version of Tyson that beat Larry Holmes.
Or
2) That a fighter adopting the right tactics to beat their opponent means the version of their opponent is irrelevant when assessing the magnitude of the victory e.g. the fact Mcbride adopted the right tactics against Tyson means it should be hailed as an outstanding victory irrespective of the fact it was against a shot, aged version of Tyson.

In conclusion, there's a reason why Laing's defeat of Duran is rarely recognised alongside other achievements such as Honeyghan vs Curry, and that's precisely because he faced an inferior version of Duran. In contrast to your claim, it doesn't mean that Laing didn't produce a good performance, he did, it's just that everyone except you also judges it in the context of the fact he was facing on out-of-condition, unmotivated version of Duran.

I think he just wanted Laing to get the credit for a very good victory. Obviously Duran was past his best.
Ps- Can you imagine a prime Tyson against Kevin McBride? The word 'massacre' springs to mind.

Stuarty30 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:I ain't rewriting anything. I've watched the fight and Laing fought the perfect fight, which by your logic, means that it was what Duran didn't do, not what Laing did do. Applying that concept to all of the fights in history, every time a strong betting favourite lost, it was because they didn't train properly and weren't focused. Bollocks.

Keith, don't embarrass yourself further by demonstrating fundamental flaws in your thinking. Let me break it down for you and I'll remove Duran and Laing from the equation given you somehow think you can extrapolate a general point in logic from what I said:

Fighter A adopting the right tactics to beat an inferior version of Fighter B (let's call him Fighter B 1.0 for the sake of this) does not mean it is judged purely on what Fighter B didn't do, it means it is also judged in the context of Fighter B 1.0 being < Fighter B 2.0 (let's call this the 'regular' version). The critical point is that the two points (tactics and version of opponent) are not mutually exclusive and both can be factored into the decision-making criteria.
In fact, the only logic to be taken from this is not your bizarre claim, but rather than simply because Fighter A has adopted the right tactics to beat Fighter B 1.0 does not change the fact that they beat an inferior version and it is impossible to assume that the same tactics would beat Fighter B 2.0.
If you can't accept this premise, it means one of two things:
1) You believe that there is only one version of every fighter e.g. that the version of Mike Tyson that lost to Kevin Mcbride is the same version of Tyson that beat Larry Holmes.
Or
2) That a fighter adopting the right tactics to beat their opponent means the version of their opponent is irrelevant when assessing the magnitude of the victory e.g. the fact Mcbride adopted the right tactics against Tyson means it should be hailed as an outstanding victory irrespective of the fact it was against a shot, aged version of Tyson.

In conclusion, there's a reason why Laing's defeat of Duran is rarely recognised alongside other achievements such as Honeyghan vs Curry, and that's precisely because he faced an inferior version of Duran. In contrast to your claim, it doesn't mean that Laing didn't produce a good performance, he did, it's just that everyone except you also judges it in the context of the fact he was facing on out-of-condition, unmotivated version of Duran.

I think he just wanted Laing to get the credit for a very good victory. Obviously Duran was past his best.
Ps- Can you imagine a prime Tyson against Kevin McBride? The word 'massacre' springs to mind.

Yep, fair enough fella, I've got no issue with that, just didn't appreciate the 'bollocks' claim etc.
As for prime Tyson vs McBride...

Deserter wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote: I think he just wanted Laing to get the credit for a very good victory. Obviously Duran was past his best.
Ps- Can you imagine a prime Tyson against Kevin McBride? The word 'massacre' springs to mind.

Yep, fair enough fella, I've got no issue with that, just didn't appreciate the 'bollocks' claim etc.
As for prime Tyson vs McBride...

Hang on, are we talking prime McBride?

Boxerbeetle wrote:

Deserter wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote: I think he just wanted Laing to get the credit for a very good victory. Obviously Duran was past his best.
Ps- Can you imagine a prime Tyson against Kevin McBride? The word 'massacre' springs to mind.

Yep, fair enough fella, I've got no issue with that, just didn't appreciate the 'bollocks' claim etc.
As for prime Tyson vs McBride...

Hang on, are we talking prime McBride?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Honeyghan v Curry
Turpin v SRR

Yep. I think Honeyghan is more impressive. Curry was a beast at that time.

It was. Although there always seems to be an excuse when a British fighter does well against a star, "his mind wasn't on the fight" "he'd fallen out with his manager" "he was struggling at the weight" etc. I've even heard some preposterous excuse that the only reason why Turpin beat Robinson was because Robinson was partying every night.

I think that the British boxing set up is for better than it used to be, international opposition is brought in earlier. It used to be that a promising boxer would win an area title, the British, then Commonwealth then European and then start to box Americans in the top 20. Boxers got to 30 bouts unbeaten but not really been exposed to anything too troubling. It was sometimes a genuine surprise when a UK boxer did anything but give a game losing effort.

Not the absolute biggest or greatest win, but Wayne McCullough going to Japan and beating Yakushiji on the cards was very impressive, and I'm not sure another Brit managed a win in Japan.

Geoff McCreesh got a good win in South Africa against Dingaan Thobela and went back to face Peter Malinga and came up short though his camp insisted Geoff had been drugged.

johnswan1 wrote:

Naandrew wrote:Khans fights with Maidana and Judah deserve a shout.

Khan's an interesting one. Although he's been some exciting fights, especially before he joined Hunter, the career defining fights that people will remember are probably the Prescott and Garcia defeats. The Maidana fight was a good fight, but Khan didn't box to his strengths throughout and was fairly undisciplined so it's not one I'd pick as one of the finest by a Brit. Khan was exciting when he used to get drawn into a toe to toe slugfest, even after being flattened. He doesn't do that any more and as a result has become boring.

he should really look to walk on to those shots more, give the fans excitement in that case

palooka wrote:Geoff McCreesh got a good win in South Africa against Dingaan Thobela and went back to face Peter Malinga and came up short though his camp insisted Geoff had been drugged.

This post reminded me of carl thompson stopping rothman in spectacular style. Always raises a smile

freddydoesdallas wrote:

palooka wrote:Geoff McCreesh got a good win in South Africa against Dingaan Thobela and went back to face Peter Malinga and came up short though his camp insisted Geoff had been drugged.

This post reminded me of carl thompson stopping rothman in spectacular style. Always raises a smile

I was at that one - great comeback. I remember I was sat behind Dave Pariss at ringside, and he turned to me and said 'You watch, Carl's playing possum, one big right hand and it's goodnight Vienna.' Literally 5 seconds later - it was.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

freddydoesdallas wrote:

palooka wrote:Geoff McCreesh got a good win in South Africa against Dingaan Thobela and went back to face Peter Malinga and came up short though his camp insisted Geoff had been drugged.

This post reminded me of carl thompson stopping rothman in spectacular style. Always raises a smile

I was at that one - great comeback. I remember I was sat behind Dave Pariss at ringside, and he turned to me and said 'You watch, Carl's playing possum, one big right hand and it's goodnight Vienna.' Literally 5 seconds later - it was.

What a brilliant fight to have been at. A connoisseurs choice to say 'i was there'! Was that the headline fight?

freddydoesdallas wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I was at that one - great comeback. I remember I was sat behind Dave Pariss at ringside, and he turned to me and said 'You watch, Carl's playing possum, one big right hand and it's goodnight Vienna.' Literally 5 seconds later - it was.

What a brilliant fight to have been at. A connoisseurs choice to say 'i was there'! Was that the headline fight?

I read an account from that fight from the referee - Richie Davies if I'm not mistaken. Sorry if I am! He said he was a whisker, a whisker away from stopping that fight and declaring Rothman the winner.
Carl Thompson. What a fighter. He came from left field but this guy is one of THE big boxing names from my youth.

It may have been on the undercard of a Clinton Woods fight not sure.

Also was at ringside for Thompson v Haye.

http://bucketofspit.blogspot.co.uk/

I just found this, an old blog I had that I totally forgot - I'd predicted an Abraham win on the night.

palooka wrote:McGuigan v Laporte, McGuigan v Taylor and Pedroza

wouldn't want to take anything away from Barry , but wasn't Pedroza a really old man ?

rd350lc wrote:

palooka wrote:McGuigan v Laporte, McGuigan v Taylor and Pedroza

wouldn't want to take anything away from Barry , but wasn't Pedroza a really old man ?

He was old for a featherweight but had enough knowledge and tricks to keep him in there against almost anyone. It was still a good scalp good Barry though he'd have lost to a prime Pedroza. The wins v Taylor and LaPorte were very good wins.

palooka wrote:

rd350lc wrote:

palooka wrote:McGuigan v Laporte, McGuigan v Taylor and Pedroza

wouldn't want to take anything away from Barry , but wasn't Pedroza a really old man ?

He was old for a featherweight but had enough knowledge and tricks to keep him in there against almost anyone. It was still a good scalp good Barry though he'd have lost to a prime Pedroza. The wins v Taylor and LaPorte were very good wins.

I think that and the Hatton v Tszyu fights were very similar, two old long time champs, who were both offered career high paydays to put their title on the line in the challengers back yard - shrewd matchmaking in both cases. Neither man would have beaten the champ in their prime.

nicely summed up and as I remembered he kept himself well away from Azumah Nelson at that time .

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think that and the Hatton v Tszyu fights were very similar, two old long time champs, who were both offered career high paydays to put their title on the line in the challengers back yard - shrewd matchmaking in both cases. Neither man would have beaten the champ in their prime.

Yep, great comparison to make as both were examples of the art of match-making. Loved Barry, but the timing was perfect for him.

rd350lc wrote:nicely summed up and as I remembered he kept himself well away from Azumah Nelson at that time .

Certainly his management wanted no part of nelson,, and wisely so,, Nelson was still in his prime and would have torn barry a new hole. Sorry bazza, but it's the truth.