Page 3 of 3
Posted: 24 Jul 2007, 16:48
by manchester-mexican
As a boxer Witter is good with his feet, keeping distance, timing counters though aswell as been a puncher. His defense is somewhat open too and against the massive reach of Harris and his compact punches this could spell problems although I give the edge to Witter[/quote]
i'm a hatton fan,so hav no feelin 4 shitter, but if harris comes wif the same attitude he did wif maussa ,he'll lose,he did'nt even train and after 5 rnds was out on his feet, pathetic.
Posted: 24 Jul 2007, 17:07
by Scrap
Hopkins is very good at stopping the other guy from fighting. leaves the parish to avoid the punch and leads with the head, its premeditated dont like to see it, ring smarts I dont like .
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 04:43
by Autobarn
Speaking of poor, why did Hagler always play the "poor man" when matching his skills with a fellow great (Leonard & Duran)?
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 08:35
by Autobarn
Terry D wrote:Autobarn wrote:Speaking of poor, why did Hagler always play the "poor man" when matching his skills with a fellow great (Leonard & Duran)?
Not sure what you mean but you seemed to have left out the Hearns fight.
Hagler-Duran was actually a clear-cut win aside from on the cards. Hagler came-out to counter Duran and Duran, for his part, came-out to counter Hagler with right hand leads and the result was that Hagler had to adjust mid-fight and did so well. He then took the late rounds, fortuitously as it panned-out, with some aggressive boxing.
Duran did very well with his right hand but, in my opinion, Hagler showed he was the better fighter.
Without going O/T I think Hagler won the Leonard fight. He fought a poor first few rounds then changed tack and won fairly handily.
I never said that BHop was up there with Hagler or Monzon. They are the top 2 MWs since the war, maybe of all time. They are half or one notch above him, but they dont bury Hopkins talent wise or achievement wise.
Well I flat-out disagree. Yes they fought smaller men in defining fights but you are saying Tito is equivalent to Hearns? I disagree. ODH is similar to ODH? Again I disagree.
During his title reign Hagler fought the better opposition. Prior to his title reign he fought absolutely every body and I for one think, despite his being aged, Briscoe was a very good scalp as was Monroe and their ilk. Hagler came through a baptism of fire there in Philly' and, unlike Hopkins, Hagler was faded by the time he became Champion and still performed better as far as I can see.
I did make sure to say "matching skills", as opposed to going to war.
Hagler tried to box with Duran and Leonard and boxed quite poorly. Making the kind of mistakes that his opponents wanted him to.
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 09:30
by THEBUTCH
I thought Hopkins was appalling and so was the referee. The referee should never have let him bend the rules as far as Bernard did. The head use and the constant holding ruined the fight, as it often does when Hopkins is boxing. Shambolic performance from Hopkins
Commiserations to Ronald Wright who tried to make a decent fight of things
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 10:19
by Max Molyneux
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 10:28
by Max Molyneux
So did Joe.
I don't think ground matters much.
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 10:36
by Max Molyneux
Yeah Hop In Equador which probably was as big as Joe going to Denmark.
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 10:48
by Max Molyneux
He certainly did get the Hopkins part wrong. Once he held the title though he didn't seem to travel. I wasn't trying to deny Joe made an error though.
Right about Roy though.
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 11:15
by Autobarn
Like I said earlier, when Hopkins did things how he wanted to, he didn't lose. When he couldn't dictate terms, he was very out of sorts drawing with Mercado (Hopkins was down twice) and Jones Jr. When he got Mercado in America, he was ok (also thanks to some fine tuning).
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 11:17
by Autobarn
Terry D wrote:I don't know, he made a tactical error with his stance at times and switched it successfully, in my mind in both fights but we don't 'Hagler Vs Ray: Who won pt 1125'.
That is pretty decent boxing and purer than rushing forward with your head down, landing a cuffing right then spoiling.
I do 'get' the Hopkins style, I think there are other fighters who have done the same things only better. A true ring master would have pinged Taylor with right hands then stepped-off and caught Taylor as the younger man tried to hold. Hopkins was a tactical disaster in those fights and patently cannot cope with speedy fighters.
shut up, Hopkins is one of the greatest ever.
Bert Sugar says so
LOL
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 16:15
by dr_devious
Terry D wrote: Well I flat-out disagree. Yes they fought smaller men in defining fights but you are saying Tito is equivalent to Hearns? I disagree. ODH is similar to ODH? Again I disagree.
During his title reign Hagler fought the better opposition. Prior to his title reign he fought absolutely every body and I for one think, despite his being aged, Briscoe was a very good scalp as was Monroe and their ilk. Hagler came through a baptism of fire there in Philly' and, unlike Hopkins, Hagler was faded by the time he became Champion and still performed better as far as I can see.
Im not saying that Tito is equivalent to Hearns, but ODH is similar to ODH
Hagler obviously beat better competition, there are similarities to their reigns though.
Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 17:58
by Autobarn
It's up to HBO not to bankroll the next mess just because Hopkins is promoted by GBP. Hopkins' post fight comments were terribly cynical and his performance hard on the eyes.
It's like, the only reason to keep fighting/putting these fights on is BECAUSE THEY CAN.
There's something badly wrong with a fighter as entertaining (albeit flawed) as Katsidis walking to the ring in a near empty arena - looking round and thinking "where the bloody hell is everyone?" - and a fighter as good as Linares on a big stage with no audience.
Hopefully this GBP-Arum cooperation will inject some life. Can't wait for Soto-Guzman btw.
Posted: 26 Jul 2007, 18:24
by stujones
I actually thought the fight was better than excepted.... I expected a snooze fest of the highest order.
I thought Hopkins won the fight clearly, just too strong for Wright... was isn't a comfortable Middleweight, let alone Light Heavy. Wright tried hard and will a champion again of some description at Light Middle or Middle.
As for Wright being a great, it a toughie... He's certainly beaten 2 greats and it could (untill last weekend IMO) argue that he only last 1 fight. The Simon and Vargas fights were close (I personally thought Winky beat Vargas, lost to Simon).... most (me included) seem to think he beat Taylor.
However, his time as the #1 Light Middle and his reign there was probably too short to be a great. He only was the true #1 when he beat Mosley, and he only defended that title once (to the same guy). I think he certainly had the potential to be a great, lovely skills.... but didn't make enough defences to call himself a great.