Re: fighters ruined by first loss
Posted: 25 Jan 2021, 03:17
that aussie kid john ryder mercked hasnt fought in almost 2 years, kid seemed wrecked after that loss, wouldnt surprise me if he packed it in pretty much
Him draining himself to 168 to get KO'd by Ward was a bad move, and then he was KO'd early by Stevenson. He wasn't remotely the fighter that he was. He was very good and had great scalps and then after losing started coming overweight, seemed all over the place mentally and looked terrible. It's a waste in terms of, i think he'll be overlooked in the history of the division but before he lost i think prime Chad Dawson would have given today's light heavyweights fits. Even I'd forgotten about the Adamek win, which was excellent, wasn't it He? He just didn't rebound and his form dipped dramatically.world ranked wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 20:24That Adamek win was underrated as well. I dont Dawson was a waste. He was a decent champ. never great but not a waste. I'm not sure how who beat very good fighters and world champs is a waste of a career.Cyclops wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 16:56 Chad Dawson probably deserves an honourable mention. He'll won't be remembered for being as good as he was even though he was extremely good: lost a strange one to Pascal and then was banjoed by Andre Ward a fight removed later and fell off a cliff form wise after that.
People forget he beat Hopkins much easier than Calzaghe: in fact Hopkins was terrified of him, and Joe didn't seem to be in too much of a rush to fight him either. An incredible waste.
I don't think he was the smartest guy. I hope he made some money.
Great callf read wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 05:37 Gerry Cooney. When he lost to Larry Holmes June 11 1982 he was as good as done. He only fought another 5 times with 2 more losses to Michael Spinks and George Foreman. He was outclassed and overmatched against Holmes but to his credit he gave it his all. I believe that if he fought a few of the other champs around that time he would have a good chance of victory. Mancini lost to a superior fighter in Arguello but bounced back 7 months later to defeat Arturo Frias.
Forest I was apparently where he first began slurring his words for a couple of weeks after every fight. (Now he's permanently incomprehensible.) While he later pulled off a good if flattering win over an... 'unarmed' Margarito, he never looked brilliant again. I can't believe a fight like Forrest I wouldn't have a deleterious effect on a man's health. It gives me a headache just watching it!world ranked wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 20:21I would say that Margarito fight and even the Cotto fight he looked pretty damn good.
I think that's a sound call. He might have beaten Paulie after Floyd but Paulie couldn't punch and from what I recall he looked like he had Hatton bothered in the first. I think Floyd cracked his chin.
He’s great. Getting past Paul Speak is the hard part.Cyclops wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 15:40I think that's a sound call. He might have beaten Paulie after Floyd but Paulie couldn't punch and from what I recall he looked like he had Hatton bothered in the first. I think Floyd cracked his chin.
Certainly the Pacquiao fight seems to have given Ricky PTSD.
Hatton's a funny one, isn't he? I've known a few people that have met him and heard all the usual stories but that he was still nice and friendly. Lots of people seem to be down on him on here. I thought he was an exceptional 'plucky Brit' that the people got behind. The Hatton/Calzaghe era of British boxing wasn't so bad. There were some big fights there.
And lazcano hit him with a few check hooks similar to floyd,he just wasnt the same guy after floyd beat him.Cyclops wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 15:40I think that's a sound call. He might have beaten Paulie after Floyd but Paulie couldn't punch and from what I recall he looked like he had Hatton bothered in the first. I think Floyd cracked his chin.
Certainly the Pacquiao fight seems to have given Ricky PTSD.
Hatton's a funny one, isn't he? I've known a few people that have met him and heard all the usual stories but that he was still nice and friendly. Lots of people seem to be down on him on here. I thought he was an exceptional 'plucky Brit' that the people got behind. The Hatton/Calzaghe era of British boxing wasn't so bad. There were some big fights there.
Cyclops wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 04:54Him draining himself to 168 to get KO'd by Ward was a bad move, and then he was KO'd early by Stevenson. He wasn't remotely the fighter that he was. He was very good and had great scalps and then after losing started coming overweight, seemed all over the place mentally and looked terrible. It's a waste in terms of, i think he'll be overlooked in the history of the division but before he lost i think prime Chad Dawson would have given today's light heavyweights fits. Even I'd forgotten about the Adamek win, which was excellent, wasn't it He? He just didn't rebound and his form dipped dramatically.world ranked wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 20:24That Adamek win was underrated as well. I dont Dawson was a waste. He was a decent champ. never great but not a waste. I'm not sure how who beat very good fighters and world champs is a waste of a career.Cyclops wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 16:56 Chad Dawson probably deserves an honourable mention. He'll won't be remembered for being as good as he was even though he was extremely good: lost a strange one to Pascal and then was banjoed by Andre Ward a fight removed later and fell off a cliff form wise after that.
People forget he beat Hopkins much easier than Calzaghe: in fact Hopkins was terrified of him, and Joe didn't seem to be in too much of a rush to fight him either. An incredible waste.
I don't think he was the smartest guy. I hope he made some money.
f read wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 05:37 Gerry Cooney. When he lost to Larry Holmes June 11 1982 he was as good as done. He only fought another 5 times with 2 more losses to Michael Spinks and George Foreman. He was outclassed and overmatched against Holmes but to his credit he gave it his all. I believe that if he fought a few of the other champs around that time he would have a good chance of victory. Mancini lost to a superior fighter in Arguello but bounced back 7 months later to defeat Arturo Frias.
Dennis Rappaport was a complete knob.bennie wrote: ↑30 Jan 2021, 03:47f read wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 05:37 Gerry Cooney. When he lost to Larry Holmes June 11 1982 he was as good as done. He only fought another 5 times with 2 more losses to Michael Spinks and George Foreman. He was outclassed and overmatched against Holmes but to his credit he gave it his all. I believe that if he fought a few of the other champs around that time he would have a good chance of victory. Mancini lost to a superior fighter in Arguello but bounced back 7 months later to defeat Arturo Frias.
Cooney stood a much better chance against WBA champion Mike Weaver than he did against Holmes. Unfortunately, he was co-managed by Dennis Rappaport and Mike Jones, also known in boxing circles as "The Wacko Twins", and they messed up every fighter they touched. They paid Howard Davis a fortune to turn pro in 1977, after Davis had won lightweight gold in the Montreal Olympics (and the Val Barker Trophy as the best boxer in the Games) and Davis proceeded to underachieve throughout his disappointing career, although he did come close to winning the WBC lightweight title in 1984 against Edwin Rosario but close is not good enough.
Cooney was also an underachiever and he went into the Holmes fight with three minutes and 45 seconds of action in the previous two years, which is obviously ludicrous. Plus, he was drinking heavily as the weight of expectancy got on top of him. Nevertheless, he fought a good fight and should have bounced back but Gerry was a sensitive soul who took the defeat badly. He despised his managers and he despised Don King, who had the leading contenders sewn up and froze Cooney out. The drinking got worse and Cooney was on a bottle of scotch a day for the remainder of his stop-start career. Thankfully, he quit the bottle many moons ago.