BoxRec

Notice here (link below) Eubank saying he rates Stretch a 7 (out of 10), 'but because he's a southpaw, 8.5... 9!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNt4o6c ... re=related


allegedly would have signed Eubank in 1988 if not for Tony Collins out of a southpaw stance making him look silly in the gym.

Against a southpaw Eubank's jab wouldn't come off right and his right hand would turn into a kind of roundhouse punch with little power.

Its got to be Cooper, I remember Coletti handing him his arse for a week at the Becket many years ago it was interesting.

tony3 wrote:I always thought Steve Collins was a bit overrated.

He lost his biggest fight -against McCallum- and caught Eubank/Benn at the right time.

Benn fought both matches against Collins with a shadow on the brain and Eubank's appetite for battle had faded badly after Watson 2.

To me Collins was an a tough, upper tier journeyman who struck gold near the end of his career.

Agree completely, however for the purposes of the article Collins couldn't be considered because he isn't British.

harrygreb wrote:this article of olivers is so full of ill conceived rubbish i'm almost speechless.
ok, henry cooper would not have cut it in world class company but minter was by everyones reckoning at the time of the 2nd antuofermo fight the best middleweight in the world. oliver doesnt remember but alan was favourite to beat hagler in that fight. few knew just how great marvelous marvin was.
mcguigan was pretty good against pedroza but absolutely scintillating against bernard taylor. again he was certainly the worlds best in his division (save for all time great nelson.) beaten more by the heat than by steve cruz when he lost his title.
i often find your posts and articles puzzling mr fennel, but this one is just badly thought out.

So what if Minter was favourite vs Hagler? The bookies don't decide the outcome of the fight. I never said he hadn't earned the title on merit, nor debated his world position at the time. My point is he's HISTORICALLY over-rated, and what happened against Hagler, and subsequently, shows this.

Agree McGuigan was beaten by the heat against Cruz, but it is significant he never came back from the defeat. If he really was so unlucky in Vegas, and such a top operator, he would have at least challenged for the belt again.

stujones wrote:

Loftgroov wrote:
I'm never going to be into Joe Calzaghe in quite the same way somehow...despite their difference in ability.

I still think its a tough prediction prime for prime had they fought. Although, now Joe's achievements outweighs Eubank's significantly so is deservedly ranked higher.

A pre-Watson Eubank might have stretched JC further than anyone else has managed, but I still think that Calzaghe's blurring speed woul dhave boxed him into a corner.

KO Artist wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:The final part in my under/over-rated series.

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_2881- ... story.html

No Mancunians this time, I promise!

Surely a tongue in cheek article?

What about Audley Harrison, Amir Khan, Jack Bodell, Naseem Hamed, Clinton Woods, Lennox Lewis and Dave Green?

Aside from the fact that most of those are still fighting, I think you do Woods and Hamed a disservice. For the latter, I think most fight fans accept that he was a great showman who never went on to beat genuinely great fighters, whilst Woods has won a genuine world title and may yet go on to beat some big names.

over-rated by you oliver. the rest of us are able to assess a fighter with accuracy. it wasnt just the bookies that made alan a favourite v hagler,
most boxing analysts did - tell me you didnt - the post seems to be about trying to look clever by putting down some pretty good and high achieving british fighters.

Tykemania wrote:

KO Artist wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:The final part in my under/over-rated series.

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_2881- ... story.html

No Mancunians this time, I promise!

Surely a tongue in cheek article?

What about Audley Harrison, Amir Khan, Jack Bodell, Naseem Hamed, Clinton Woods, Lennox Lewis and Dave Green?

Aside from the fact that most of those are still fighting, I think you do Woods and Hamed a disservice. For the latter, I think most fight fans accept that he was a great showman who never went on to beat genuinely great fighters, whilst Woods has won a genuine world title and may yet go on to beat some big names.

Good point on Woods, he could still go on and beat someone like Dawson or one of the other top lightheavys, bit early to say he is over rated, let his career finish first.

harrygreb wrote:over-rated by you oliver. the rest of us are able to assess a fighter with accuracy. it wasnt just the bookies that made alan a favourite v hagler,
most boxing analysts did - tell me you didnt - the post seems to be about trying to look clever by putting down some pretty good and high achieving british fighters.

Again, I'm not disputing the opinion of the fighters AT THE TIME. Minter was the undisputed man who beat the man. Can't argue with that. It's his HISTORICAL position I'm talking about. He was a genuine and a worthy world champ, but he wasn't a modern great. Hagler was, and you saw what happened when they fought.

But the implied suggestion therefore Oliver, is that someone has regarded Minter as a modern great.

I dont recall anyone doing that. Add the fact 'great' conjures very different definition's from everyone and you are, essentially, wrestling with fog.

It was a brave article, but its forum topic because the foundations of thinking have to be impossible to build upon.

For reference, wasn't Cooper flattened in a round by Ingo's Bingo?

DavidPayne wrote:For reference, wasn't Cooper flattened in a round by Ingo's Bingo?

Five rounds. But what is your point?

thanks davidpayne for exposing the flaw in olivers thread.
yes, oliver we all saw what happened when minter ran into hagler - alan lasted as long as all time great tommy hearns.
do you see my point?

harrygreb wrote:thanks davidpayne for exposing the flaw in olivers thread.
yes, oliver we all saw what happened when minter ran into hagler - alan lasted as long as all time great tommy hearns.
do you see my point?

And was it three rounds of similarly immortal drama; a contender for the greatest fight of all time?

If you are comparing Minter with Hearns, then you are simply proving I am right to say people over-rate him!

As for Cooper, opinion is divided among knowledgeable boxing fans, with more coming down on the same side as me, but there remains a significant body of them - and an even greater body of casual fans - who maintain Cooper was world class and would have had the beating of other domestic heavies through history.

And yet remove the man from the fame, and take away that one famous left hook, and is he really so much better than the likes of Richardson, Bodell, Dunn, Prescott et al? YES, he WAS better, but not by such a great deal as for him to be afforded sporting immortality while the others are remembered just as honest but limited triers.

On a purely sporting note I dont see Minter as overated, he achieved a lot and against some very good fighters, beating Vito was a superb achievement, doin it Twice is incredible!!!

He lost to Hagler...oh, strike me down, he lost to the best Middle of the modern generation

Henry Cooper isn't over-rated, I think he just enjoys greater affection because of his longevity, the famous left hook and lest we forget he was European Champion (twice-from memory) than his inherent abilities justify. His career close defeat to Bugner only served to heighten the love affair with the old fella. Brits love a game loser. Hence Bruno's place alongside Our 'Enry and why Eubank became universally more popular in heroic defeat to Thompson than in victory over Benn, Watson, Wharton and Rocchigiani

However, to contextualise my point about him being flattened by Ingo Bingo, I was actually backing up the argument that he was far more vulnerable and exposed at world-level than perhaps those romantics who picture Clay on the ground will remember.

Equally, and to contradict myself once more. Cooper did more than one left hook in fights with Clay, he was competitive too. This may have been due to Clay's arrogance etc but Cooper was competitive before the cuts stoppage.

Terry D makes a valid assumption on my behalf but that isn't the point I was making. More subtly I would suggest a context needed applying for each fighter, if Minter's standing as a 'modern great' was being picked apart I could see the sense in it and would understand the brevity of Ollie's claims. I don't think Ollie made the statement on where fighters were rated and therefore where they were over or under rated at that level, so he provided no clear benchmark for his ensuing thesis, perhaps I need to read it again.

And in Minter's case, the fact remains, nobody in my experience would ever define him as a modern great anyway - the ranking Ollie has subsequently explained he was providing critique against. He was, what he was. A belt holder who had some very, very good wins against Vito, Finnegan (don't under-rate Finnegan) and was able to compete in world-class. In Hagler, he met a guy able to dominate at world-class.

My summary point was, though brave and doubtless very productive at raising profile for Ollie's work because the subject is so provocative I would venture that it is an impossible task. The foundations of the article, the entirely subjective and fluid status of fighters being over or under-rated is a forum topic, not a basis for a series of published articles.

I would instinctively counter that cautious stand by saying, I admire Ollie's willingness to put his neck on the block on any topic. It's what makes the world go around and far too many articles lack balls.

Its why, to quote another popular topic on here, Buncey is a necessity on the box. Because he states a strong opinion with energy.

Thanks for your intelligent appraisal, Dave.

The question of the measuring stick for whether fighters are over or under-rated is as subjective as the opinions themselves, and each is for different reasons.

Cooper and Eubank because of their pop culture appeal. McGuigan because of his Hall of Fame placing.

Winstone and Minter were of course worthy champions but my argument was they were lucky to reign at the time they did. (Minter being a "modern great" I cannot unfortunately reference, but I have heard it said in domestic terms. Nobody's saying he's an international modern great, but a British one, which I still think is exagerrating his achievements)

Should this have been a published series of articles rather than a forum topic?

I say why not? Opinion-based features are as much a part of publishing as news-based articles. Your own site is compiled almost exclusively of opinion, Dave. And I have indeed seen similar topics as this in the American magazines in the past.

It was always a risk to write a couple of negative opinion pieces, as the reaction to this and my over-rated current boxers has shown. My "under-rated" articles provoked a response too, of course, but as they were positive articles, the reaction was not as strong. Inevitably, any high-profile boxer will have his supporters, and to criticise him is for the writer himself to invite criticism.

At the end of the day, they are just the opinions of one man. Thank you to those who read and especially to those who appreciate it for the above and are mature enough to understand everyone has a right to an opinion, and the fact the opinion may differ from theirs is not in itself a slight on their professionalism.

Finally, as with my "current over-rated" article, I have no ill-feeling or agenda against any of the boxers mentioned, in the same way as I have no connection with or reason to promote those I mentioned as under-rated. I have full respect for them as people and as fighters, and even in the critical pieces, highlighted and gave appropriate credit for what they did achieve. I never took that away from them, just suggested their reputation may be greater than their achievements.

gOOD STUFF

how about duke mckenzie

banjo wrote:how about duke mckenzie

Again, i'd say he's not over rated, no-one says he was a great champion, he was a good one.

Wins over Magri, Canizales, Soto, Benavides prove that

i know mckenzie was a good fighter but he was never really the man in those weight divisions

not comparing minter with hearns, ollie again you miss my point.
but i am comparing how long both lasted against hagler. you seem to imply that losing in three rounds to marvin negates your right to greatness. clearly (although i tried to make it clear in my previous post) it does not (re hearns)

harrygreb wrote:not comparing minter with hearns, ollie again you miss my point.
but i am comparing how long both lasted against hagler. you seem to imply that losing in three rounds to marvin negates your right to greatness. clearly (although i tried to make it clear in my previous post) it does not (re hearns)

Good point, but a single fight does not make or break a fighter's reputation. Which, you will say, is exactly your point. But Hearns achieved more than enough either side of the Hagler fight to justify his position, whereas Minter did, after all, only beat the one man at world title level, as good as those wins were, and never came back from the Hagler defeat.

You two have a testy relationship don't you?

Terry D wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:You two have a testy relationship don't you?

I wouldn't say that, I was actually being serious in the previous post. I disagreed with Oliver on a few points on a earlier article but I think we've had some emails pass between us since then.

Actually he did insult me this morning on Facebook.

Yeah, no problems between Terry and me. At least not until after he gets me that pint he owes me.

i quit