Page 1 of 1
Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 18 Feb 2013, 21:38
by Esquire
Over the weekend I watched just about every available fight of Fenech's and his run from 118 lbs. to 130 lbs. was hurricane like. What a monster he was at that time and it still amazes me how Zarragoza, Villasana, and Mario Martinez lasted the distance. What chins on those guys. I didn't see the Jerome Coffee fight. He went the distance as well but my memory tells me he was a boxer/runner.
Azumah Nelson is easily one of my top 4 or 5 favorite fighters of all time (along with Sanchez, Arguello, Chavez, and maybe Buddy McGirt who grew up one town over from me. It would be fair to say that I like most fighters and love watching any boxing matchup. Always have.
Back to Nelson. Fenech beat the shit out of him in Vegas and got fvcking robbed, objectively robbed as I saw it. Funny how a fight of that historical magnitude was an undercard bought fought in the daylight.
Anyway, I always thought that Fenech suffered from not dominating any one division for very long. While he is an all time great I don't think he makes the top ten in any of the divisions he fought in. Look it up and you'll see.
I he had rightfully gotten the decision from Nelson I would have paid alot to see he try to pin Whitaker in a corner and pound away. The outcome of that fight would be in doubt had he not gotten screwed and then kayoed by Nelson later.
Where does Fenech rank all time? Is he a top 100 fighter of all time even if he isn't in the top ten of any division he fought in?
I expect to hear from the Aussie nation on this one but this one New Yorker's opinion was that Fenech was an animal that had a short shelf life due to his bruising style and brittle hands. But he was a force of nature while it lasted.
And finally, and I'd like someone to check this if they can, Fenech might have the least number of fights for a career of any of the inductees in Canastota. He only had 33 fights.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 18 Feb 2013, 21:46
by Rover
Off the top of my head, Spinks had 32.
One could argue that Fenech would make the top 10 at super bantam.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 18 Feb 2013, 22:12
by Esquire
Rover wrote:Off the top of my head, Spinks had 32.
One could argue that Fenech would make the top 10 at super bantam.
Michael Spinks, of course!!! How could I have missed that one. I actually went to a few of his fights - most notably the Tyson fight. I like Spinks very much. He had immense power. His one punch uppercut kayo of Marvin Johnson was a thing of beauty. I liked Marvin Johnson alot as a fighter. I think Johnson and Eddie Gregory (Mustafa Muhammed) are borderline HOf'ers.
Yes, maybe top ten at super bantam for Fenech. But he isn't getting a sniff as a bantamweight or a featherweight. Those divisions held some serious boxing royalty for a hundred years or more.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 18 Feb 2013, 22:29
by Rover
Esquire wrote:Rover wrote:Off the top of my head, Spinks had 32.
One could argue that Fenech would make the top 10 at super bantam.
Michael Spinks, of course!!! How could I have missed that one. I actually went to a few of his fights - most notably the Tyson fight. I like Spinks very much. He had immense power. His one punch uppercut kayo of Marvin Johnson was a thing of beauty. I liked Marvin Johnson alot as a fighter. I think Johnson and Eddie Gregory (Mustafa Muhammed) are borderline HOf'ers.
Yes, maybe top ten at super bantam for Fenech. But he isn't getting a sniff as a bantamweight or a featherweight. Those divisions held some serious boxing royalty for a hundred years or more.
Agreed on bantam and feather.
That Spinks KO of Johnson was awesome.
Mustafa had such a short reign; two defenses and then...poof.
Marvin also fell short against the top dogs of the era (Saad x2, Mustafa, Spinks). Very good light heavies, though.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 18 Feb 2013, 22:36
by SaadOffTheDeck
He was an excellent fighter and I credit him with a win over Nelson. I think he falls just short of the top 100, but I wouldn't be appalled to see him there. Guys like DLH probably rate higher and I don't see him as a top 100 guy.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 18 Feb 2013, 22:52
by Esquire
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:He was an excellent fighter and I credit him with a win over Nelson. I think he falls just short of the top 100, but I wouldn't be appalled to see him there. Guys like DLH probably rate higher and I don't see him as a top 100 guy.
As a fan of most combat sports, one of my favorite Fenech wins was his title winning effort against Samart Payakaroon. Payakaroon was a decent boxer with a smooth and flexible style who came to the boxing game late. What he really was though, was the absolute best Muay Thai fighter in the history of that sport, and that sport is the most savage and brutal combat sports ever devised. He was Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods,and Peyton Manning of his sport.
Fenech gave him a beating in there fight under the rules of boxing - fair and square and quite impressively. If that had been a Muay Thai match Fenech would be wheel-chair bound to this day. Different sports, different rules. As in in close fighter Fenech had few equals for that period of time.
I was astounded when Nelson smoked him in the rematch in Sydney. Shows you how great and resilient Azumah was.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 00:56
by giacomino
Loved watching Johnson and Muhammed but they aren't HOFmers.
Fenech was one of my favorite pressure fighters. Dude just came forward and said "eff you, i am going to kick your ass." But Whitaker would have slapped him silly If he'd beaten Nelson in their second fight, or gotten credit for winning the first, which he clearly did. Fenech's biggest problem was he could't stop breaking his hand. But he was super fun to watch
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 01:05
by Rover
giacomino wrote:Loved watching Johnson and Muhammed but they aren't HOFmers.
Fenech was one of my favorite pressure fighters. Dude just came forward and said "eff you, i am going to kick your ass." But Whitaker would have slapped him silly If he'd beaten Nelson in their second fight, or gotten credit for winning the first, which he clearly did. Fenech's biggest problem was he could't stop breaking his hand. But he was super fun to watch

Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 02:49
by SamWise72
There's no way Fenech was getting anywhere near Whittaker, but certainly a great fighter. I personally think his rise up the weights is more impressive than dominating any division.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 04:25
by Rover
SamWise72 wrote:There's no way Fenech was getting anywhere near Whittaker, but certainly a great fighter. I personally think his rise up the weights is more impressive than dominating any division.

Kinda like Pac.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 05:07
by Ezzard
I have massive respect for Fenech. I’d argue that he’s getting underrated on here.
I always felt the Nelson fights were inconclusive. In the first Azumah claims to have only recently recovered from malaria. In the second Fenech had a poor training camp with severely mashed up hands.
Jeff was too small to have had any chance with Whittaker.
I’d have backed Jeff over Pintor and Chandler. Gomez, not sure… Hard to tell with more recent guys because of size differences…
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 06:32
by Rover
Ezzard wrote:I have massive respect for Fenech. I’d argue that he’s getting underrated on here.
I always felt the Nelson fights were inconclusive. In the first Azumah claims to have only recently recovered from malaria. In the second Fenech had a poor training camp with severely mashed up hands.
Jeff was too small to have had any chance with Whittaker.
I’d have backed Jeff over Pintor and Chandler. Gomez, not sure… Hard to tell with more recent guys because of size differences…
I'd have taken Chandler over Fenech, though Fenech came along just after Chandler's reign (and Pintor's). Pintor's a tougher call, as Fenech really didn't do much at bantam (Shingaki twice, Coffey, McCrory). Was he too green at that weight? Very slim resume there.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 06:44
by Counter-puncher
Esquire wrote: Payakaroon was a decent boxer with a smooth and flexible style who came to the boxing game late.
Fenech gave him a beating in there fight under the rules of boxing - fair and square and quite impressively. .
he ran Payakaroon clean out of the ring, looked like if the ropes hadn't been there the guy would have been running for the exits Forrest Gump style.
the things I remember most clearly about Fenech; brutish strength and aggression but surprisingly fast hands for a swarmer, he was a decent athlete to go with his natural aggression, also he was a
very big drainer for the time and how he made 118 i will never know because he had to work some to get down even to 126lbs
the other thing i remember about him is that the fight with Villasana was probably the most brutal foul-filled spectacle I have seen. they chucked lowblows at each other (Villasana started it) non-stop. Fenech answering flagrant lowblows with bodyslams, shoulderslams, wild 12-punch combinations out of the clinch, epic stuff.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 07:15
by Datsue
Counter-puncher wrote:
he ran Payakaroon clean out of the ring, looked like if the ropes hadn't been there the guy would have been running for the exits Forrest Gump style.
the things I remember most clearly about Fenech; brutish strength and aggression but surprisingly fast hands for a swarmer, he was a decent athlete to go with his natural aggression, also he was a very big drainer for the time and how he made 118 i will never know because he had to work some to get down even to 126lbs
the other thing i remember about him is that the fight with Villasana was probably the most brutal foul-filled spectacle I have seen. they chucked lowblows at each other (Villasana started it) non-stop. Fenech answering flagrant lowblows with bodyslams, shoulderslams, wild 12-punch combinations out of the clinch, epic stuff.
Villasana's attitude to the rules =
I must watch that fight, & soon.
Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 07:27
by Rover
Datsue wrote:Counter-puncher wrote:
he ran Payakaroon clean out of the ring, looked like if the ropes hadn't been there the guy would have been running for the exits Forrest Gump style.
the things I remember most clearly about Fenech; brutish strength and aggression but surprisingly fast hands for a swarmer, he was a decent athlete to go with his natural aggression, also he was a very big drainer for the time and how he made 118 i will never know because he had to work some to get down even to 126lbs
the other thing i remember about him is that the fight with Villasana was probably the most brutal foul-filled spectacle I have seen. they chucked lowblows at each other (Villasana started it) non-stop. Fenech answering flagrant lowblows with bodyslams, shoulderslams, wild 12-punch combinations out of the clinch, epic stuff.
Villasana's attitude to the rules =
I must watch that fight, & soon.
Too bad they weren't around in Pedroza's time.

Re: Where to rate Jeff Fenech Historically
Posted: 19 Feb 2013, 07:36
by Ezzard
Fenech may well be rated higher if he had operated at say 140-147…