BoxRec

Apologies for revisiting this topic but Flintoff has been brought up alot recently by a number of members on threads about MBC and journeyman boxers.

Whilst I kinda agree that Flintoff shouldn't have boxed, it is worth remembering that he boxed a man who was 2-0 at the time, not the usual 2-35 type boxer that one would expect from a debut. Also, Richard Dawson has gone on to accumulate a 5-3-2 record which isn't at all shameful.

Obviosuly Flintoff was granted a license largely as a PR exercise in an attempt to broaden the appeal of the sport amongst the general public, but like it or not he did pick up a win no matter how ugly it was, against a boxer who IS a boxer rather than an experiment.

Childish I know, and often posted but here again is the proof that Flintoff is better than Ali.

Freddie Flintoff PTS4 Richard Dawson
Richard Dawson UD6 Ty Cobb
Ty Cobb UD6 Jason Nicholson
Jason Nicholson DQ1 Joey Abell
Joey Abell TKO4 Louis Monaco
Louis Monaco TKO5 Kevin McBride
Kevin McBride TKO6 Mike Tyson
Mike Tyson TKO4 Larry Holmes
Larry Holmes RTD10 Muhammad Ali

But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

mickey1975 wrote:But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

Absolutely. I recently saw Tommy Morrison's son beat up Richard Dawson. Yet while Dawson lost (I think it was over in one or two rounds), the difference in the way he fought was significant. He wasn't afraid to let his punches go against a heavy handed opponent.

Against Freddie he was petrified of throwing punches.

And, rightly so...

Dixonian wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

Absolutely. I recently saw Tommy Morrison's son beat up Richard Dawson. Yet while Dawson lost (I think it was over in one or two rounds), the difference in the way he fought was significant. He wasn't afraid to let his punches go against a heavy handed opponent.

Against Freddie he was petrified of throwing punches.

And, rightly so...

He threw something alright....

mickey1975 wrote:But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

He turned up to lose, not really different to most journeymen.

digzee wrote:

Dixonian wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

Absolutely. I recently saw Tommy Morrison's son beat up Richard Dawson. Yet while Dawson lost (I think it was over in one or two rounds), the difference in the way he fought was significant. He wasn't afraid to let his punches go against a heavy handed opponent.

Against Freddie he was petrified of throwing punches.

And, rightly so...

He threw something alright....

Yep, a short instinctive counter-right. His response was almost apologetic. Strolling around on the backfoot, letting Freddie recover his equilibrium, and not throwing a punch of significance for the rest of the fight.

expe wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

He turned up to lose, not really different to most journeymen.

Dawson was 2-0 at the time, hardly a journeyman. And the majority of journeymen would leave survival mode temporarily after scoring a knockdown. The whole fight stunk as badly as the Banks-Mitchell rematch.

Boxerbeetle wrote:

expe wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

He turned up to lose, not really different to most journeymen.

Dawson was 2-0 at the time, hardly a journeyman. And the majority of journeymen would leave survival mode temporarily after scoring a knockdown. The whole fight stunk as badly as the Banks-Mitchell rematch.

He was brought in to lose, same as a journeyman is, he knew why he was in there and stuck to it, again the same as journeymen do.

expe wrote: He was brought in to lose, same as a journeyman is, he knew why he was in there and stuck to it, again the same as journeymen do.

I'd say there's a big difference between a journeyman brought in to lose and a boxer who could probably win a fight with ease (as evidenced by the accidental knockdown) but opts not to do so for presumably financial incentives.

Another difference being that UK based journeymen don't like to win too many in case in case they get seen as too risky and their regular flow of fights slows down. This wouldn't really apply to a two-bout fighter from the USA.

It was made for tv of course he was paid to lose

expe wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:

expe wrote:But Dawson didn't try and nearly had a heart attack when he knocked Freddie down by accident?

He turned up to lose, not really different to most journeymen.

Dawson was 2-0 at the time, hardly a journeyman. And the majority of journeymen would leave survival mode temporarily after scoring a knockdown. The whole fight stunk as badly as the Banks-Mitchell rematch.

He was brought in to lose, same as a journeyman is, he knew why he was in there and stuck to it, again the same as journeymen do.[/quote]


Pure pish...he threw the fight and was likely paid to. The journeyman analogy is ridiculous.

Flintoff Vs Richard Dawson was as legitimate as Mickey Rourke Vs Elliot Seymour.

Journeymen get matched at the level above them so with proper matchmaking fights don't need to be fixed.
The problem with Flintoff was that it was impossible to find a worse heavyweight on the planet

It was a fornicating embarrassing affair for all concerned and utterly pointless.

It it makes it very tough for them to criticise anything about the MBC, if you are going to judge them on the same criteria.

Coco wrote:It it makes it very tough for them to criticise anything about the MBC, if you are going to judge them on the same criteria.

It makes it difficult for the board to rake the moral high ground.

I am not sure what is worse, the fact that such an incompetent boxer was given a licence or the fact that the fight was clearly a fix.

I think if we are fishing for giving Flintoff kudos for the fight then its got to be that he took it serious and put the training and dedication in. Lets not forget the courage to get in the ring for sparring and the fight. Not everyone can do it. Its way out of his comfort zone and he has to be applauded for it.

Old Jack J wrote:I think if we are fishing for giving Flintoff kudos for the fight then its got to be that he took it serious and put the training and dedication in. Lets not forget the courage to get in the ring for sparring and the fight. Not everyone can do it. Its way out of his comfort zone and he has to be applauded for it.

I'd applaud him if he went down the am route but to pretend he was a pro and get a fixed fight all on TV was just publicity whoring. Not applause worthy, more cringeworthy.

Of course it was publicity but if we HAVE to find complimentary things to say about his venture......

Old Jack J wrote:Of course it was publicity but if we HAVE to find complimentary things to say about his venture......

Why do you HAVE to? The whole thing was a fraud.

He should've just done a white collar fight against another celeb.

stevieb_8006 wrote:He should've just done a white collar fight against another celeb.

Probably wouldn't have got paid a load of money for that though I doubt?

Rexob wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:He should've just done a white collar fight against another celeb.

Probably wouldn't have got paid a load of money for that though I doubt?

This goes for the board too, took their pieces of silver etc
At least for Flintoff he did his bit, trained double hard, had the fight,

Boxerbeetle wrote:The whole fight stunk as badly as the Banks-Mitchell rematch.

This.

Only difference between the two was that I saw the Flintoff thing coming a mile away and made some money at the bookies. I can't say the same about Mitchell sadly.