BoxRec

bennie wrote:Magri beating Laciar, Danny beating a Mike Tyson trained by Freddie Roach, Terry Downes boxing the ears off Joey Giardello...

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.

keithmoonhangover wrote:Ted Kid Lewis beating Jack Britton over the pond was a great performance.

Benn-Barkley was an amazing performance.

In a perverse way, Dennis Andries' performance against Tommy Hearns was a great performance.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Ted Kid Lewis beating Jack Britton over the pond was a great performance.

Benn-Barkley was an amazing performance.

In a perverse way, Dennis Andries' performance against Tommy Hearns was a great performance.

My god did Andries take a shelling that night. Few people would have kept getting up like that.

Hearns' power really was freakish, to carry it all the way to 175 from 147 is surreal - I think it was that huge frame of his, he had a heavyweight's torso on a welterweights legs.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:Ted Kid Lewis beating Jack Britton over the pond was a great performance.

Benn-Barkley was an amazing performance.

In a perverse way, Dennis Andries' performance against Tommy Hearns was a great performance.

My god did Andries take a shelling that night. Few people would have kept getting up like that.

Hearns' power really was freakish, to carry it all the way to 175 from 147 is surreal - I think it was that huge frame of his, he had a heavyweight's torso on a welterweights legs.

I agree. He wanted to fight Tyson at one point, which would have been madness, but I wonder what Hearns would have done at Heavy.

keithmoonhangover 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.

Embarrassing myself? No. Just no.

I'm not saying Laing beat Duran in his prime. Absolutely not. But he did beat the Duran of that night. To say that Duran was out of shape and unfocused is complete speculation. At his best, Laing was a highly skilled. Inconsistent, but highly skilled. Duran wasn't at his best, but Laing beat him fair and square.

To say that fighter A only beat fighter B because B didn't train and couldn't be arsed on the night, could be applied to any fight in history.

For some reason, according to some fans, Duran only lost when he couldn't be arsed. Nonsense.

For the record, I don't think there is only one version of every boxer and I didn't suggest that anywhere. So again, bollocks.

jamesmcdonnell wrote: That would have been a very short fight. Tyson would have gotten inside that long lead hand and knocked him senseless with the first shot he landed.

Hearns could probably have won a few fights at heavy if he landed big first, but he'd have been larruped the minute anyone connected, he has a long skinny Neck Tommy, he wasn't built to take bit punches, certainly not from genuine heavyweights.

Ezzard wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: That would have been a very short fight. Tyson would have gotten inside that long lead hand and knocked him senseless with the first shot he landed.

Hearns could probably have won a few fights at heavy if he landed big first, but he'd have been larruped the minute anyone connected, he has a long skinny Neck Tommy, he wasn't built to take bit punches, certainly not from genuine heavyweights.

Andries actually dropped Hearns in that fight but it didn't count and was ruled a slip. Tommy, always a genuine guy, admitted after the fight that it was a legit KD. Not bad for Dennis after being dropped 7 or 8 times.

Hearns' durability was a little like Bruno's. It gets underrated. They had good chins but when they got fatigued they would unravel. They both also had poor survival instincts. Hagler said to Hearns in an interview straight after Tommy's rematch with Ray Leonard, "You finally learned to clinch." (or something like that)

Compare Round 2 of Duran-Leonard with Leonard-Hearns.

Duran has Leonard on rubber legs. Ray puts a lock on him like you've never seen. Probably, if not definitely, he should have been deducted a point. But it got him through. When Ray has Tommy hurt. Tommy doesn't know what to do. He can't close down Ray. He just tucks in and takes a hammering.

palooka wrote:Cowdell v Sanchez
McCauley v Bassa
Though he lost every second Andy Hollighan gave it a fight go with a prime Chavez in front of a massive crowd.
Johnny Nelson gave Adilson Rodriguez 2 very hard fights in Brazil at heavyweight.

stujones wrote:SRR vs Turpin - end of thread surely.

Deserter wrote:Keith, once again your argument has logical flaws I could drive a truck through, but for the sake of keeping this brief, I'll just point out that you've admitted that Duran wasn't at his best, which is a large part of why Laing's victory doesn't rank up there with the likes of Honeyghan. That is all

On a more positive note, couldn't agree more re. Andries - now there's a fighter who's never fully had his dues.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Deserter wrote:Keith, once again your argument has logical flaws I could drive a truck through, but for the sake of keeping this brief, I'll just point out that you've admitted that Duran wasn't at his best, which is a large part of why Laing's victory doesn't rank up there with the likes of Honeyghan. That is all

On a more positive note, couldn't agree more re. Andries - now there's a fighter who's never fully had his dues.

I said Duran was past his prime, but he did the best he could on the night, which wasn't good enough, Laing beat him fair and square. It isn't as big an achievement as Honeyghan, but it is still a massive achievement and Laing should get more credit for it. To merely say Duran lost because he didn't train properly and wasn't focused is naïve.

Deserter wrote:Why so? Are you saying that if Duran had trained properly and was focused Laing would have still won?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Deserter wrote:Why so? Are you saying that if Duran had trained properly and was focused Laing would have still won?

What makes you think Duran didn't train properly? Because he lost?

Deserter wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Deserter wrote:Why so? Are you saying that if Duran had trained properly and was focused Laing would have still won?

What makes you think Duran didn't train properly? Because he lost?

I've already explained why:
1) Because of how he looks in the fight compared to the Duran that fought Leonard two years earlier and even the Duran that fought Davey Moore nearly a year later - sluggish and laissez faire.

2) ) Because Duran's lifestyle at the time is well documented - I've already mentioned previously he was in equally poor shape for the Jimmy Batten fight that he subsequently won and books like Four Kings and Hands of Stone are explicit about his ballooning up in weight and party lifestyle.

3) The context: do you honestly believe that a boxing great taking part in a non-title fight against a relative non-entity who was not expected to pose a threat would focus and train as hard as he would if he was facing a more feared opponent and/or fighting for a world title? Come on, please....

Of course if you want to ignore that mountain of evidence and instead believe that he'd trained properly and was focused for the fight despite there being nothing to support that belief, you're welcome to do so

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Deserter wrote: 'Evidence'? Something in a book? What Duran 'looked' like? Laing being a 'non-entity'?

Which of Duran's losses do you think he did train properly for?