BoxRec

headhunter wrote: did benitez sort of nod to the crowd and break out into a beaming smile as soon as the punch had landed?

Yes I think you're right. He landed an almighty left hook, turned to the crowd with a big smile, and Mo toppled to the canvas out for 5 minutes.

I always remember, reading a peview in the Times: Maurice Hope sets out for his daily run in the desert in the late evening, the words "Mo Hope" on the back of his jacket, seemed to change in the shimering light like a mirage, and read "No Hope".

viciousmaussa wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

shoutout2u wrote: nice spin...but fact is the only 2 non-wbo champs he beat were a faded 33-year-old ibf champ tom johnson & wbc champ cesar soto, who was making 1st defense of crown he won by controversial decision over aging luisito espinoza!! in fact, that was soto's last significant win...logging only 2 wins over C-level fighters in 13 fights since then!!

but perhaps most significantly, hamed conspicuously avoided #1 wbo mandatory challenger juan manuel marquez for over 18 months...and with good reason---marquez would have exposed naz even before barrera did, since the versatile mexican was a natural featherweight as opposed to MAB, who was coming up directly from super bantam for the naz fight!!

The same Marquez who got beat by Norwood around that time? Or the same Marquez that was offerent the fight and priced himself out? Remind me what Maarquezs most meaningful win is?

Vasquez was linear and WBA champ when Hamed beat him, its just he dropped the belt to fight Hamed it still counts as beating all belt holders.

Lots of fighters who lose by devastating kos, or miss their chance at the top tend to lose their edge anyway. Allot of Hameds opponents may have been somewhat ruined by those KOs, who knows (yes I know Soto went the 12).

gotta agree with you here, glad you brought it up. in fact, i remember Marquez looking so bad and so cautious vs Norwood that few gave JMM a chance of beating Naz.

I'll give JMM credit. Some ppl say he beat Norwood.. I think he's 2-0 vs Pac and John, a great fighter who's been badly managed and punished for a cautious style of fighting.

But JMM was not top of the world at that time, as you say. JMM to me was the man when he beat Medina and Gainer. (when Barrera was conceding his throne by taking on ld Kelly and small Tapia)

It's a bit of a myth that "Marquez would've exposed Hamed". Because Marquez wasn't good enough for another couple of years at least.

i have confessed to being hasty and rash in saying JMM would have EXPOSED hamed the way MAB did (see previous post)...but he would clearly have been far more dangerous than the even higher-priced wilfredo vazquez (previous post again)...

my point is that hamed's handlers had by then mastered the strategy of searching for and finding big name greats who had recently become vulnerable (i dissect the nearly 38-year-old vazquez above)...

another excellent example was the once-beaten kevin kelley, with a glossy record of something like 46-1-2 and his ONLY loss being to formidable alejandro gonzalez...but anyone who had seen the PHENOMENAL amount of punishment kelley absorded in that epic war clearly knew that kelley was never the same fighter after that!! his draw with bones adams and a disastrous war & near KO loss to light-hitting derrick gainer (who had kevin almost out before getting iced himself) made it painfully clear that kelley was the PERFECT OPPONENT for naz' HBO/madison square garden debut!!

Most exciting brit ever is definitely Nazgul. No other brit fighter has made an international audience tune in. The closest would be lewis, but he had rather boring style (highly effective and I was a fan, but to the general audience it was rather boring) and he was carried mostly by the fact that he was a HW.

shoutout2u wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: The same Marquez who got beat by Norwood around that time? Or the same Marquez that was offerent the fight and priced himself out? Remind me what Maarquezs most meaningful win is?

Vasquez was linear and WBA champ when Hamed beat him, its just he dropped the belt to fight Hamed it still counts as beating all belt holders.

Lots of fighters who lose by devastating kos, or miss their chance at the top tend to lose their edge anyway. Allot of Hameds opponents may have been somewhat ruined by those KOs, who knows (yes I know Soto went the 12).

gotta agree with you here, glad you brought it up. in fact, i remember Marquez looking so bad and so cautious vs Norwood that few gave JMM a chance of beating Naz.

I'll give JMM credit. Some ppl say he beat Norwood.. I think he's 2-0 vs Pac and John, a great fighter who's been badly managed and punished for a cautious style of fighting.

But JMM was not top of the world at that time, as you say. JMM to me was the man when he beat Medina and Gainer. (when Barrera was conceding his throne by taking on ld Kelly and small Tapia)

It's a bit of a myth that "Marquez would've exposed Hamed". Because Marquez wasn't good enough for another couple of years at least.

i have confessed to being hasty and rash in saying JMM would have EXPOSED hamed the way MAB did (see previous post)...but he would clearly have been far more dangerous than the even higher-priced wilfredo vazquez (previous post again)...

my point is that hamed's handlers had by then mastered the strategy of searching for and finding big name greats who had recently become vulnerable (i dissect the nearly 38-year-old vazquez above)...

another excellent example was the once-beaten kevin kelley, with a glossy record of something like 46-1-2 and his ONLY loss being to formidable alejandro gonzalez...but anyone who had seen the PHENOMENAL amount of punishment kelley absorded in that epic war clearly knew that kelley was never the same fighter after that!! his draw with bones adams and a disastrous war & near KO loss to light-hitting derrick gainer (who had kevin almost out before getting iced himself) made it painfully clear that kelley was the PERFECT OPPONENT for naz' HBO/madison square garden debut!!

true, there are faults with all those big names Naz fought, i.e. Robinson wasn't equipped to beat movers, Bungu was really fighting on fumes compared to his prime, etc etc. However, they were mostly classy fighters & it would be easy to get 'found out' before getting to Barrera.

Barrera just fought a perfect fight - that no one expected him to do - & Naz had long abandoned the skills that had got him to the top.

I think the Marquez from Medina onward is too alert a counter puncher and his combinations would take care of the Alicea-to-MAB version of Naz. But I think he needed the Norwood experience to improve. JMM was very off balance in that one.

I think it really depends on how you apply the word 'exposed' - exposed at the very highest level definitely.

MightyWarrior wrote:

headhunter wrote: did benitez sort of nod to the crowd and break out into a beaming smile as soon as the punch had landed?

Yes I think you're right. He landed an almighty left hook, turned to the crowd with a big smile, and Mo toppled to the canvas out for 5 minutes.

I always remember, reading a peview in the Times: Maurice Hope sets out for his daily run in the desert in the late evening, the words "Mo Hope" on the back of his jacket, seemed to change in the shimering light like a mirage, and read "No Hope".

Maurice got married a couple of days after the Benitez fight, apparently when in later years Benitez was ill , Hope would visit him and talk over their boxing days, seems a good bloke

viciousmaussa wrote:

shoutout2u wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:gotta agree with you here, glad you brought it up. in fact, i remember Marquez looking so bad and so cautious vs Norwood that few gave JMM a chance of beating Naz.

I'll give JMM credit. Some ppl say he beat Norwood.. I think he's 2-0 vs Pac and John, a great fighter who's been badly managed and punished for a cautious style of fighting.

But JMM was not top of the world at that time, as you say. JMM to me was the man when he beat Medina and Gainer. (when Barrera was conceding his throne by taking on ld Kelly and small Tapia)

It's a bit of a myth that "Marquez would've exposed Hamed". Because Marquez wasn't good enough for another couple of years at least.

i have confessed to being hasty and rash in saying JMM would have EXPOSED hamed the way MAB did (see previous post)...but he would clearly have been far more dangerous than the even higher-priced wilfredo vazquez (previous post again)...

my point is that hamed's handlers had by then mastered the strategy of searching for and finding big name greats who had recently become vulnerable (i dissect the nearly 38-year-old vazquez above)...

another excellent example was the once-beaten kevin kelley, with a glossy record of something like 46-1-2 and his ONLY loss being to formidable alejandro gonzalez...but anyone who had seen the PHENOMENAL amount of punishment kelley absorded in that epic war clearly knew that kelley was never the same fighter after that!! his draw with bones adams and a disastrous war & near KO loss to light-hitting derrick gainer (who had kevin almost out before getting iced himself) made it painfully clear that kelley was the PERFECT OPPONENT for naz' HBO/madison square garden debut!!

true, there are faults with all those big names Naz fought, i.e. Robinson wasn't equipped to beat movers, Bungu was really fighting on fumes compared to his prime, etc etc. However, they were mostly classy fighters & it would be easy to get 'found out' before getting to Barrera.

Barrera just fought a perfect fight - that no one expected him to do - & Naz had long abandoned the skills that had got him to the top.

I think the Marquez from Medina onward is too alert a counter puncher and his combinations would take care of the Alicea-to-MAB version of Naz. But I think he needed the Norwood experience to improve. JMM was very off balance in that one.

I think it really depends on how you apply the word 'exposed' - exposed at the very highest level definitely.

as with your countryman taki, with whom i have also had many knockdown, drag-out debates over the years, i see myself finding an increasing amount of common ground on various topics with you and a growing respect for your overall knowledge of the fight game...

i agree with most of your take above & had not considered the learning experience that JMM received in the norwood bout, tho i still believe he was shafted (primarily by overrated ref joe cortez, who has failed to live up to his lofty reputation on numerous notable occasions---freitas-casamayor, ruiz-holyfield being other examples)...

the lone caveat re: your above response is that barrera also appeared to be past his prime and that was the primary reason he was carefully selected for hamed's "career-defining fight"...

1. barrera had already been stopped by a fighter with similar speed but much less power than hamed---junior jones, who also won the rematch against an overly cautious barrera still burdened by the baggage of their 1st bout!!

2. the 1st jones loss took enuf of a mental toll on barrera that he significantly dropped the level of his competition after the jones rematch, all the way until the 1st morales fight...

3. while the 1st morales fight clearly showed MAB had managed to put the after-effects of the jones fights behind him, it took a tremendous physical toll on both men (that just 13 months before barrera-hamed)!! in barrera's case he looked VERY vulnerable against very ordinary venezuelan balbuena and while his tko win over faded jesus salud looked good on its surface, it came against a 37-year-old who had not had a significant win in 4 full years (and fell even farther afterwards)...

4. clearly hamed's people expected the battle-weary, one-dimensional barrera that traded bombs (and paid the price) with jones (1st time) & morales, but marco had clearly developed another aspect to his game by then (BEHIND THE SCENES in training)---one which has served him quite well since then, most notably in the recent juarez rematch!!

would you agree that hamed might have been better-advised to not jump to pro ranks at age 18 without building a stronger foundation of essential boxing skills as an amateur?

Obviously it was a shock for Hamed that Barrera would keep on returning from setbacks and become an all time great. That will always sober a cocky sod who falls in love with his power so much that he abandons all skills.

Good point, MAB did fit the same bill as a lot of Naz foes, moving up in weight, not as fresh anymore, etc etc. Naz must've thought he would fold the first time he got tagged. In reality, he should've looked at MAB-Jones II (Barrera timid but skilfull) and MAB-Salud (beating an old man but looking VERY slick).

I think Naz only remembered the Barrera of the McKinney and Jones I fights, ie powerful but open to power shots and ready be to knocked over. After Jones stopped MAB, Naz was at the press conference being a big headed bastard, going on about how easy Barrera was to hit

Very glad that MAB humiliated Naz as I was desperate for Barrera to win.

IMO all Hamed needed to do was to focus on his skills & he could've had a bit better career. After he beat Robinson his ego swelled so much and he was vulnerable to getting caught in just about every fight. I don't believe the Ingle style was exposed at the highest level, personally, as Herol Graham fought Mike McCallum & Sumbu Kalambay on level terms...For me it was Naz's bad attitude and ego that proved his undoing in- and ultimately-out of the ring.

shoutout2u wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

shoutout2u wrote: i have confessed to being hasty and rash in saying JMM would have EXPOSED hamed the way MAB did (see previous post)...but he would clearly have been far more dangerous than the even higher-priced wilfredo vazquez (previous post again)...

my point is that hamed's handlers had by then mastered the strategy of searching for and finding big name greats who had recently become vulnerable (i dissect the nearly 38-year-old vazquez above)...

another excellent example was the once-beaten kevin kelley, with a glossy record of something like 46-1-2 and his ONLY loss being to formidable alejandro gonzalez...but anyone who had seen the PHENOMENAL amount of punishment kelley absorded in that epic war clearly knew that kelley was never the same fighter after that!! his draw with bones adams and a disastrous war & near KO loss to light-hitting derrick gainer (who had kevin almost out before getting iced himself) made it painfully clear that kelley was the PERFECT OPPONENT for naz' HBO/madison square garden debut!!

true, there are faults with all those big names Naz fought, i.e. Robinson wasn't equipped to beat movers, Bungu was really fighting on fumes compared to his prime, etc etc. However, they were mostly classy fighters & it would be easy to get 'found out' before getting to Barrera.

Barrera just fought a perfect fight - that no one expected him to do - & Naz had long abandoned the skills that had got him to the top.

I think the Marquez from Medina onward is too alert a counter puncher and his combinations would take care of the Alicea-to-MAB version of Naz. But I think he needed the Norwood experience to improve. JMM was very off balance in that one.

I think it really depends on how you apply the word 'exposed' - exposed at the very highest level definitely.

as with your countryman taki, with whom i have also had many knockdown, drag-out debates over the years, i see myself finding an increasing amount of common ground on various topics with you and a growing respect for your overall knowledge of the fight game...

i agree with most of your take above & had not considered the learning experience that JMM received in the norwood bout, tho i still believe he was shafted (primarily by overrated ref joe cortez, who has failed to live up to his lofty reputation on numerous notable occasions---freitas-casamayor, ruiz-holyfield being other examples)...

the lone caveat re: your above response is that barrera also appeared to be past his prime and that was the primary reason he was carefully selected for hamed's "career-defining fight"...

1. barrera had already been stopped by a fighter with similar speed but much less power than hamed---junior jones, who also won the rematch against an overly cautious barrera still burdened by the baggage of their 1st bout!!

2. the 1st jones loss took enuf of a mental toll on barrera that he significantly dropped the level of his competition after the jones rematch, all the way until the 1st morales fight...

3. while the 1st morales fight clearly showed MAB had managed to put the after-effects of the jones fights behind him, it took a tremendous physical toll on both men (that just 13 months before barrera-hamed)!! in barrera's case he looked VERY vulnerable against very ordinary venezuelan balbuena and while his tko win over faded jesus salud looked good on its surface, it came against a 37-year-old who had not had a significant win in 4 full years (and fell even farther afterwards)...

4. clearly hamed's people expected the battle-weary, one-dimensional barrera that traded bombs (and paid the price) with jones (1st time) & morales, but marco had clearly developed another aspect to his game by then (BEHIND THE SCENES in training)---one which has served him quite well since then, most notably in the recent juarez rematch!!

would you agree that hamed might have been better-advised to not jump to pro ranks at age 18 without building a stronger foundation of essential boxing skills as an amateur?

I think thats a very good anlalysis but disagree with the last point. Staying in the amms would not have helped Hamed at all. In fact training harder, maintaining and improving on his 1995 form (which was his peak) would have made Hamed-Barrera very competitive. Also to the people who maintain MAB would always beat Hamed, the pre-Jones MAB who was hell bent on engaging would probably have been ko'd.

Just watched it recently, Barrera fought a sublime counterpunching fight, and Hamed would stupidly walk forwald looking to land 1 big shot, if Hamed had stood on his back foot and waited for Barrera to so something it would have been more successfull, albeit a boring strategy.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

shoutout2u wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:true, there are faults with all those big names Naz fought, i.e. Robinson wasn't equipped to beat movers, Bungu was really fighting on fumes compared to his prime, etc etc. However, they were mostly classy fighters & it would be easy to get 'found out' before getting to Barrera.

Barrera just fought a perfect fight - that no one expected him to do - & Naz had long abandoned the skills that had got him to the top.

I think the Marquez from Medina onward is too alert a counter puncher and his combinations would take care of the Alicea-to-MAB version of Naz. But I think he needed the Norwood experience to improve. JMM was very off balance in that one.

I think it really depends on how you apply the word 'exposed' - exposed at the very highest level definitely.

as with your countryman taki, with whom i have also had many knockdown, drag-out debates over the years, i see myself finding an increasing amount of common ground on various topics with you and a growing respect for your overall knowledge of the fight game...

i agree with most of your take above & had not considered the learning experience that JMM received in the norwood bout, tho i still believe he was shafted (primarily by overrated ref joe cortez, who has failed to live up to his lofty reputation on numerous notable occasions---freitas-casamayor, ruiz-holyfield being other examples)...

the lone caveat re: your above response is that barrera also appeared to be past his prime and that was the primary reason he was carefully selected for hamed's "career-defining fight"...

1. barrera had already been stopped by a fighter with similar speed but much less power than hamed---junior jones, who also won the rematch against an overly cautious barrera still burdened by the baggage of their 1st bout!!

2. the 1st jones loss took enuf of a mental toll on barrera that he significantly dropped the level of his competition after the jones rematch, all the way until the 1st morales fight...

3. while the 1st morales fight clearly showed MAB had managed to put the after-effects of the jones fights behind him, it took a tremendous physical toll on both men (that just 13 months before barrera-hamed)!! in barrera's case he looked VERY vulnerable against very ordinary venezuelan balbuena and while his tko win over faded jesus salud looked good on its surface, it came against a 37-year-old who had not had a significant win in 4 full years (and fell even farther afterwards)...

4. clearly hamed's people expected the battle-weary, one-dimensional barrera that traded bombs (and paid the price) with jones (1st time) & morales, but marco had clearly developed another aspect to his game by then (BEHIND THE SCENES in training)---one which has served him quite well since then, most notably in the recent juarez rematch!!

would you agree that hamed might have been better-advised to not jump to pro ranks at age 18 without building a stronger foundation of essential boxing skills as an amateur?

I think thats a very good anlalysis but disagree with the last point. Staying in the amms would not have helped Hamed at all. In fact training harder, maintaining and improving on his 1995 form (which was his peak) would have made Hamed-Barrera very competitive. Also to the people who maintain MAB would always beat Hamed, the pre-Jones MAB who was hell bent on engaging would probably have been ko'd.

Just watched it recently, Barrera fought a sublime counterpunching fight, and Hamed would stupidly walk forwald looking to land 1 big shot, if Hamed had stood on his back foot and waited for Barrera to so something it would have been more successfull, albeit a boring strategy.

i'll take your word for it that hamed's problem was NOT leaving the amateurs too early, since you obviously have seen more of his amateur & early pro fights than i have!! i guess we've all learned something from this thread and that's good because being teachable can only help someone improve WHATEVER it is they do...too bad for naz that he wasnt teachable in his chosen craft!!

colin jones, we must not forget colin jones

harrygreb wrote:colin jones, we must not forget colin jones

jones was a great fighter, the look on kirkland laings face when colin caught him was pure wtf?
his only losses where a split decision to milton mccrory in the states and a cuts stoppage by a prime don curry.
he also had a DQ against a fella named ramsey, anyone know what this was for?

shoutout2u wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

shoutout2u wrote: i have confessed to being hasty and rash in saying JMM would have EXPOSED hamed the way MAB did (see previous post)...but he would clearly have been far more dangerous than the even higher-priced wilfredo vazquez (previous post again)...

my point is that hamed's handlers had by then mastered the strategy of searching for and finding big name greats who had recently become vulnerable (i dissect the nearly 38-year-old vazquez above)...

another excellent example was the once-beaten kevin kelley, with a glossy record of something like 46-1-2 and his ONLY loss being to formidable alejandro gonzalez...but anyone who had seen the PHENOMENAL amount of punishment kelley absorded in that epic war clearly knew that kelley was never the same fighter after that!! his draw with bones adams and a disastrous war & near KO loss to light-hitting derrick gainer (who had kevin almost out before getting iced himself) made it painfully clear that kelley was the PERFECT OPPONENT for naz' HBO/madison square garden debut!!

true, there are faults with all those big names Naz fought, i.e. Robinson wasn't equipped to beat movers, Bungu was really fighting on fumes compared to his prime, etc etc. However, they were mostly classy fighters & it would be easy to get 'found out' before getting to Barrera.

Barrera just fought a perfect fight - that no one expected him to do - & Naz had long abandoned the skills that had got him to the top.

I think the Marquez from Medina onward is too alert a counter puncher and his combinations would take care of the Alicea-to-MAB version of Naz. But I think he needed the Norwood experience to improve. JMM was very off balance in that one.

I think it really depends on how you apply the word 'exposed' - exposed at the very highest level definitely.

as with your countryman taki, with whom i have also had many knockdown, drag-out debates over the years, i see myself finding an increasing amount of common ground on various topics with you and a growing respect for your overall knowledge of the fight game...

i agree with most of your take above & had not considered the learning experience that JMM received in the norwood bout, tho i still believe he was shafted (primarily by overrated ref joe cortez, who has failed to live up to his lofty reputation on numerous notable occasions---freitas-casamayor, ruiz-holyfield being other examples)...

the lone caveat re: your above response is that barrera also appeared to be past his prime and that was the primary reason he was carefully selected for hamed's "career-defining fight"...

1. barrera had already been stopped by a fighter with similar speed but much less power than hamed---junior jones, who also won the rematch against an overly cautious barrera still burdened by the baggage of their 1st bout!!

2. the 1st jones loss took enuf of a mental toll on barrera that he significantly dropped the level of his competition after the jones rematch, all the way until the 1st morales fight...

3. while the 1st morales fight clearly showed MAB had managed to put the after-effects of the jones fights behind him, it took a tremendous physical toll on both men (that just 13 months before barrera-hamed)!! in barrera's case he looked VERY vulnerable against very ordinary venezuelan balbuena and while his tko win over faded jesus salud looked good on its surface, it came against a 37-year-old who had not had a significant win in 4 full years (and fell even farther afterwards)...

4. clearly hamed's people expected the battle-weary, one-dimensional barrera that traded bombs (and paid the price) with jones (1st time) & morales, but marco had clearly developed another aspect to his game by then (BEHIND THE SCENES in training)---one which has served him quite well since then, most notably in the recent juarez rematch!!

would you agree that hamed might have been better-advised to not jump to pro ranks at age 18 without building a stronger foundation of essential boxing skills as an amateur?

I think in this instance it makes no difference, as all Brendan Ingle trained fighters, or most of them anyway, fight in the same switch hitting, reflex defence, unorthodox way. From the time they walk in the gym until they leave it is like a production line. Amatuers or Pro's they all get taught the same.

headhunter wrote:

harrygreb wrote:colin jones, we must not forget colin jones

jones was a great fighter, the look on kirkland laings face when colin caught him was pure wtf?
his only losses where a split decision to milton mccrory in the states and a cuts stoppage by a prime don curry.
he also had a DQ against a fella named ramsey, anyone know what this was for?

from johnnyowen.com

Colin's first defeat came against the American, Curtis Ramsey in a controversial decision. In the third round with Ramsey hurt from Jones hooks to his body, he sank to the floor. The
fight seemed to be over for Ramsey, but as he hit the canvas
Colin landed a light punch to the side of his head. The
referee Welshman, Adrian Morgan, signalled the end of the
fight. Without question that final punch was insignificant,
however, Colin had hit his opponent while he was down. The
referee was in no doubt that the rules had to be applied and
showing no favouritism toward his countryman disqualified
Colin for hitting his opponent while on the canvas.

I remember Harry Carpenter being outraged by the ref's decision to DSQ Jones in that one. Seemed a very petty decision, as the fallen American was clearly faking it.

One of the hardest single punchers ever seen in the UK was Jones. Right hand or left hook, it didn't seem to matter.

He KO'd Laing with the left hook first time round, and while Kirk was watching out for the left hook in the rematch, Jones cold cocked him with a right hand like the crack of doom

MightyWarrior wrote:I remember Harry Carpenter being outraged by the ref's decision to DSQ Jones in that one. Seemed a very petty decision, as the fallen American was clearly faking it.

One of the hardest single punchers ever seen in the UK was Jones. Right hand or left hook, it didn't seem to matter.

He KO'd Laing with the left hook first time round, and while Kirk was watching out for the left hook in the rematch, Jones cold cocked him with a right hand like the crack of doom

Yeah Jones was a very hard puncher, seems unreal that McCory could stand up to him for 24 rounds

Conteh
Honeyghan
Lewis
Naz
Eubank
Benn
McGuigan
Hatton
Bruno
Laing
Graham
Hodkinson
Watson
Pyatt
Jones
Nelson
Cowdell
McDonnell

topper123 wrote:

headhunter wrote:

harrygreb wrote:colin jones, we must not forget colin jones

jones was a great fighter, the look on kirkland laings face when colin caught him was pure wtf?
his only losses where a split decision to milton mccrory in the states and a cuts stoppage by a prime don curry.
he also had a DQ against a fella named ramsey, anyone know what this was for?

from johnnyowen.com

Colin's first defeat came against the American, Curtis Ramsey in a controversial decision. In the third round with Ramsey hurt from Jones hooks to his body, he sank to the floor. The
fight seemed to be over for Ramsey, but as he hit the canvas
Colin landed a light punch to the side of his head. The
referee Welshman, Adrian Morgan, signalled the end of the
fight. Without question that final punch was insignificant,
however, Colin had hit his opponent while he was down. The
referee was in no doubt that the rules had to be applied and
showing no favouritism toward his countryman disqualified
Colin for hitting his opponent while on the canvas.

cheers mate

[quote="boxingchat"]Conteh
Honeyghan
Lewis
Naz
Eubank
Benn
McGuigan
Hatton
Bruno
Laing
Graham
Hodkinson
Watson
Pyatt
Jones
Nelson
Cowdell
McDonnell[/quote]


sorry but i cant see a few of these men in front of minter or sibson or owen or hope or magri so good as cowdell was (a defensive genius) or clever like mcdonnell, pyatt doesnt rank high, nelson doesnt get into any brit elite 5 surely, and hoko was only briefly a very a good fighter, think again

boxingchat wrote:Conteh
Honeyghan
Lewis
Naz
Eubank
Benn
McGuigan
Hatton
Bruno
Laing
Graham
Hodkinson
Watson
Pyatt
Jones
Nelson
Cowdell
McDonnell

Interesting list, some of whom I don't agree should be there - McDonnell and Bruno especially. Hodkinson and Pyatt had too short a career at the top. Think Stevie Robinson should be there above those.

However, it was nice an impartial list and not just with one promoter.

Any reason for the Calzaghe omition?

stujones wrote:

boxingchat wrote:Conteh
Honeyghan
Lewis
Naz
Eubank
Benn
McGuigan
Hatton
Bruno
Laing
Graham
Hodkinson
Watson
Pyatt
Jones
Nelson
Cowdell
McDonnell

Interesting list, some of whom I don't agree should be there - McDonnell and Bruno especially. Hodkinson and Pyatt had too short a career at the top. Think Stevie Robinson should be there above those.

However, it was nice an impartial list and not just with one promoter.

Any reason for the Calzaghe omition?

i think he`s omitted calzaghe`s name because he`s still fighting.

headhunter wrote:

stujones wrote:

boxingchat wrote:Conteh
Honeyghan
Lewis
Naz
Eubank
Benn
McGuigan
Hatton
Bruno
Laing
Graham
Hodkinson
Watson
Pyatt
Jones
Nelson
Cowdell
McDonnell

Interesting list, some of whom I don't agree should be there - McDonnell and Bruno especially. Hodkinson and Pyatt had too short a career at the top. Think Stevie Robinson should be there above those.

However, it was nice an impartial list and not just with one promoter.

Any reason for the Calzaghe omition?

i think he`s omitted calzaghe`s name because he`s still fighting.

But he got Hatton on there.

Magri was mediocre.A B level fighter with excellent power and a terrible chin.

lvlarc_uk wrote:

headhunter wrote:

stujones wrote: Interesting list, some of whom I don't agree should be there - McDonnell and Bruno especially. Hodkinson and Pyatt had too short a career at the top. Think Stevie Robinson should be there above those.

However, it was nice an impartial list and not just with one promoter.

Any reason for the Calzaghe omition?

i think he`s omitted calzaghe`s name because he`s still fighting.

But he got Hatton on there.

yeah, didnt spot his name in there.

charlie was world champ although his route to it was terry lawless at his craftiest.
do you remember how long it took before magri got anywhere near a decent opponent? my godfathers, talk about cotton wool!!
but, he made it and therefore who can argue. he had talent did magri but, as you say, not a good beard and i suppose would struggle to scrape in to a brit top 10 let alone 5. however, i like him and i have enjoyed a drink at "the victoria" on a few occasions. cheers!

please NO BOXERS CURRENTLY FIGHTING. does this include Audley harrison, i hear you say!!!!