BoxRec

Goz wrote:
That's the fight as I remember it although Tyson definitely showed some distress signals in that final round and I was surprised when they pulled Nielsen out.

Didn't Calzaghe fight on the same bill?

Ray Mercer got cut v Bryan Scott so belted him out in the 2nd, then Joe Calzaghe smashed up some inept American tourist, one of those white club fighter types.

The close of rd 6 saw Nielsen rocked yet again, and he pulled out after. Guy was such a feather hitter, no way could he make any dent on Tyson and never had a chance.

I taped Mosely/Forrest II myself at the time, put it on DVD the other week. Haven't finalised the disc yet though because i didnt bother taping the undercard fight, Tarver ko5 Eric Harding.

Need someone who taped that fight to sell me it on DVD, so if you have it let me know buddy

If anyoen cares, im chasing

RJJ ko7 Kelly - Forrest w12 Mosely 1 - Hopkins ko10 Daniels (this was all braodcast on one Sky show)

and Freitas w12 Casamyaor, all off sky, all from Jan 2002 if memory serves.

Was less of a completist freak in those days, hence why i only watched, never thinking 5 years later would want to view again.Grrr

overhand_right wrote:

Goz wrote:
That's the fight as I remember it although Tyson definitely showed some distress signals in that final round and I was surprised when they pulled Nielsen out.

Didn't Calzaghe fight on the same bill?

Ray Mercer got cut v Bryan Scott so belted him out in the 2nd, then Joe Calzaghe smashed up some inept American tourist, one of those white club fighter types.

The close of rd 6 saw Nielsen rocked yet again, and he pulled out after. Guy was such a feather hitter, no way could he make any dent on Tyson and never had a chance.

Yeah fair play just watched the last round here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkTYz2KlAq8

Although the beating Nielsen had taken in the early rounds was certainly diminishing and given Tyson's propensity to implode I thought Nielsen might have stuck around, but it wasn't as bad for Tyson as my memory was telling me.

Bryan 'Bam Bam' Scott - I remember that guy. He actually stung Mercer a few times, until Mercer woke up & caned him. I remember what Mercer said at the time. "Get me those Klitschko boys and a coupla easy paydays". He should've taken Bam Bam (aka Fat Lump) as a bad omen!

Terence wrote: Did Sky show Freitas-Casamayor? I don't recall, I had to shell-out for a copy from the US. I could have saved a tenner, damn.

There's been so many combinations of fights with Casamayor/Freitas/Corrales/Castillo that i forget, but im sure i watched this fight on Sky.

Apparently sky catagorically DID NOT show Corrales/Freitas, though

viciousmaussa wrote:

Taki... wrote:

stujones wrote:
M1kee50.
Hagler and Monzon might have beaten Hopkins, but chewed him up and spat him out I'm not so sure. Hopkins is a hard man who I think could have held his own with anyone. He's beaten just about everybody at Middleweight of his generation - the only exception is Wright.

Wright and a certain Roy Jones Junior... and the fact Hopkins never faced Toney should be noted too.

Well, Hopkins was crap when he fought Jones. Didn't get good for another 2 years.

Wright had loads of chances to face Hopkins. When he was junior middle champ he could've gone up at any time. However, both have managed their careers pretty poorly at times (Wright post Vargas pre Mosley / Hopkins post Tito-pre DLH) and been more interested in outclassing glamorous types.

I don't hold Jones against Hopkins, nor Wright who wasn't a middleweight until Hopkins was 40!

I don't think Toney matters either. Despite his skills, he spent a massive 10 year chunk badly out of shape. He was in his peak when spanked and humiliated by Jones, whereas a raw Hopkins did better v Jones. I think Toney's stock really goes down having suffered his 2nd one sided defeat, steroid shame and failing to win a heavyweight title.

Hopkins was crap when he fought Jones! Based on what evidence?
Hopkins spent pretty much all his time (outside of Taylor and Jones) at middleweight facing mediocre middleweights or quality fighters moving up from light-middle or welter.
Winky was always a natural light-middle which is why he had no problem making the weight in his late 20's and early 30's. And that was always the problem for Hopkins; his massive fights were always (Jones aside) against men who were stretching it by moving up to middle.
As for Toney. Look at him now and tell me he was out of shape fighting at Supermiddle! Hopkins was obviously well within his comfort zone at middleweight and just chose not to test himself against the Toney's, Calzaghe's, Jones and Ottke's.

Taki... wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

Taki... wrote: Wright and a certain Roy Jones Junior... and the fact Hopkins never faced Toney should be noted too.

Well, Hopkins was crap when he fought Jones. Didn't get good for another 2 years.

Wright had loads of chances to face Hopkins. When he was junior middle champ he could've gone up at any time. However, both have managed their careers pretty poorly at times (Wright post Vargas pre Mosley / Hopkins post Tito-pre DLH) and been more interested in outclassing glamorous types.

I don't hold Jones against Hopkins, nor Wright who wasn't a middleweight until Hopkins was 40!

I don't think Toney matters either. Despite his skills, he spent a massive 10 year chunk badly out of shape. He was in his peak when spanked and humiliated by Jones, whereas a raw Hopkins did better v Jones. I think Toney's stock really goes down having suffered his 2nd one sided defeat, steroid shame and failing to win a heavyweight title.

Hopkins was crap when he fought Jones! Based on what evidence?
Hopkins spent pretty much all his time (outside of Taylor and Jones) at middleweight facing mediocre middleweights or quality fighters moving up from light-middle or welter.
Winky was always a natural light-middle which is why he had no problem making the weight in his late 20's and early 30's. And that was always the problem for Hopkins; his massive fights were always (Jones aside) against men who were stretching it by moving up to middle.
As for Toney. Look at him now and tell me he was out of shape fighting at Supermiddle! Hopkins was obviously well within his comfort zone at middleweight and just chose not to test himself against the Toney's, Calzaghe's, Jones and Ottke's.

Hopkins was rawer than uncooked meat. He was poor in the 1st Mercado fight too (the following year) - had the look of a limited slugger with poor balance - and didn't look a world beater til the 2nd Mercado fight (1995). He didn't look particularly well rounded until 1997, when he battered Johnson.

I've been a big fan of Toney and Hopkins due to their old school, economical, master boxing. They can both certainly be faulted. Hopkins did fight some soft/decent middles. When Toney went in with top quality many of the fights were razor thin & controversial.

I like Toney mostly for his 1991-1994 fights. But he was shockingly bad vs Jones and Tiberi. There are the weight excuses which are probably legit, but up a light heavy he was still losing to Thadzi & being bothered by Griffin. Which tells me he wouldn't have beaten Tarver...Toney's not really a factor on the Hopkins resume, because it took him 10 years to get over the Jones fight. These should keep Toney out of the hall of fame, but I don't see any reason why Hopkins shouldn't get in!

viciousmaussa wrote:Hopkins was rawer than uncooked meat. He was poor in the 1st Mercado fight too (the following year) - had the look of a limited slugger with poor balance - and didn't look a world beater til the 2nd Mercado fight (1995). He didn't look particularly well rounded until 1997, when he battered Johnson.

I've been a big fan of Toney and Hopkins due to their old school, economical, master boxing. They can both certainly be faulted. Hopkins did fight some soft/decent middles. When Toney went in with top quality many of the fights were razor thin & controversial.

I like Toney mostly for his 1991-1994 fights. But he was shockingly bad vs Jones and Tiberi. There are the weight excuses which are probably legit, but up a light heavy he was still losing to Thadzi & being bothered by Griffin. Which tells me he wouldn't have beaten Tarver...Toney's not really a factor on the Hopkins resume, because it took him 10 years to get over the Jones fight. These should keep Toney out of the hall of fame, but I don't see any reason why Hopkins shouldn't get in!

I didn't think Hopkins was that raw. He certainly improved over the years, but having said that he never again faced anyone of Jones quality or ability.

I just think that Hopkins showed a distinct lack of ambition throughout much of his time at middleweight. He certainly belongs in the HOF because he dominated an entire division for a decade, but even against DLH (overmatched at middleweight) and Trinidad (again, overmatched at middleweight) Hopkins was never out of his comfort zone.

I half agree about Toney not getting in, but only really on the steroids issue. For me that puts a black mark against everything he achieved in the sport.

Taki... wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:Hopkins was rawer than uncooked meat. He was poor in the 1st Mercado fight too (the following year) - had the look of a limited slugger with poor balance - and didn't look a world beater til the 2nd Mercado fight (1995). He didn't look particularly well rounded until 1997, when he battered Johnson.

I've been a big fan of Toney and Hopkins due to their old school, economical, master boxing. They can both certainly be faulted. Hopkins did fight some soft/decent middles. When Toney went in with top quality many of the fights were razor thin & controversial.

I like Toney mostly for his 1991-1994 fights. But he was shockingly bad vs Jones and Tiberi. There are the weight excuses which are probably legit, but up a light heavy he was still losing to Thadzi & being bothered by Griffin. Which tells me he wouldn't have beaten Tarver...Toney's not really a factor on the Hopkins resume, because it took him 10 years to get over the Jones fight. These should keep Toney out of the hall of fame, but I don't see any reason why Hopkins shouldn't get in!

I didn't think Hopkins was that raw. He certainly improved over the years, but having said that he never again faced anyone of Jones quality or ability.

I just think that Hopkins showed a distinct lack of ambition throughout much of his time at middleweight. He certainly belongs in the HOF because he dominated an entire division for a decade, but even against DLH (overmatched at middleweight) and Trinidad (again, overmatched at middleweight) Hopkins was never out of his comfort zone.

I half agree about Toney not getting in, but only really on the steroids issue. For me that puts a black mark against everything he achieved in the sport.

I'm the biggest Hopkins defender on this Brit forum, but I concede that the bastard let any Hopkins supporter down for his post Trinidad fights. Also, after showing he could dominate an elite light heavy, I did think 'Why didn't you do that before?'

The Frank Lotierzo argument that Hopkins is too small & naturally slim for anything over 160 is a falsity.

Nonetheless - Taylor might go down as a great one day, especially if he gets revenge on Wright and KOs some of the exciting middles. A different kind of great than Jones, ie one who has competitive fights...Also Wright is very well rated these days and apparently a "top 3 p4p and easily a HOFer" (according to Maxboxing Eric Foreskin).


It was Toney (vs Jirov) that got me back into boxing, after Hopkins (post Tito) turned me off. But Toney really let himself and everyone who believed in him down. In a connect the dots kind of way he's a probably Hall of Famer, but he's def given cynics amunition - plenty of it.

viciousmaussa wrote:

overhand_right wrote:Christ almight i thought i was talking with seriousboxing fans then it turns out you boys dont know the difference between a Frans Botha and a Brian Nielsen?!!

Tyson fought Botha in 1999 after an EIGHTEEN month layoff/suspension.

Tyson fought Brian Nielsen in 2001, won all 6 rounds on all 3 judges socrecards, decked him in the 3rd and completely dominated the fight.

fat mighty whites, reverse racism for you - "they all look the same"...

i get these two mixed up myself.....
which one was it that tyson put a bit of an arm lock on?

headhunter wrote:

viciousmaussa wrote:

overhand_right wrote:Christ almight i thought i was talking with seriousboxing fans then it turns out you boys dont know the difference between a Frans Botha and a Brian Nielsen?!!

Tyson fought Botha in 1999 after an EIGHTEEN month layoff/suspension.

Tyson fought Brian Nielsen in 2001, won all 6 rounds on all 3 judges socrecards, decked him in the 3rd and completely dominated the fight.

fat mighty whites, reverse racism for you - "they all look the same"...

i get these two mixed up myself.....
which one was it that tyson put a bit of an arm lock on?

Both I think, but Botha was the more famous incident (Botha yelped in agony).

Tyson was terrible vs Botha, looked lethargic and with no interest. He didn't look any great shakes vs Neilson. Tired after the 2nd in that one - but Neilson was nowt but a punch bag. First real indications of just how bad Tyson's stamina was and he was way overweight.

Am I the only one thinking Lewis was shot as well by the time he fought Tyson?

wouter wrote:Am I the only one thinking Lewis was shot as well by the time he fought Tyson?

I felt his tactics were great. But his speed and his legs did seem to be going.

I think it's down to definition of shot. My definition of shot would imply a fighter is finished, can't take a shot, legs gone etc...

I don't think that can be used to describe Lewis at the time of the Tyson fight although I would agree he was in some decline.

For me his peak wasn't far prior to that, I think the Holyfield fights and the wins over Grant/Botha/Tua were his peak, I just think his tactics were bad against Holyfield, he should have made an easier night of it.

Lewis is not dissimilar to Holyfield in that it's hard to nail down a peak because around the time of a string of impressive victories you will get a dodgy one thrown in there which creates some doubt....

All I know is I wish we had them now...

Goz wrote:I think it's down to definition of shot. My definition of shot would imply a fighter is finished, can't take a shot, legs gone etc...

I don't think that can be used to describe Lewis at the time of the Tyson fight although I would agree he was in some decline.

For me his peak wasn't far prior to that, I think the Holyfield fights and the wins over Grant/Botha/Tua were his peak, I just think his tactics were bad against Holyfield, he should have made an easier night of it.

Lewis is not dissimilar to Holyfield in that it's hard to nail down a peak because around the time of a string of impressive victories you will get a dodgy one thrown in there which creates some doubt....

All I know is I wish we had them now...

Yeah pretty much everything you said sums up my feelings. People really do misuse the word shot. Shot is Buster Douglas getting whacked out by Lou Savarese, not Lewis stopping Rahman, Tyson, and Klitschko in a row, although he was clearly an ageing fighter and past his physical peak.

Agreed.

Shot is:

Tyson - Mcbride
SR Leonard - Camacho
Ali - Berbick/Holmes
Honeygan - Dodson

Terence wrote:

wouter wrote:Am I the only one thinking Lewis was shot as well by the time he fought Tyson?

Nope. His legs looked gone at times in Rahman II and for me he peaked around the time of the Morrison fight.

If his legs were gone Terrence, he would never have had the platform to deliver that huge right cross he felled Rahman with. His legs were a bit stiff, and he wasn't moving that well, but he was far from shot for me. The performances against Morrison and Justin Fortune were two of his most impressive, where he still had the speed and flexibility to deliver sizzling combinations.

The shots he knocked Fortune down with were terrifying!!

I was using the term shot loosely. He was not 'Tyson vs. McBride-shot' but he had seen much better days.