Page 1 of 1
Shane Mosley vs Lloyd Honeyghan. What If?
Posted: 24 Feb 2006, 16:21
by KOJOE90
At Welterweight who would have won? The Honeyghan who destroyed Don Curry versus the Mosley who outpointed De La Hoya?
Shane Mosley
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=4952
Lloyd Honeyghan
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=613
Who wins fight fans?
Posted: 24 Feb 2006, 16:33
by KO Artist
Honeyghan.
Main reason is speed. Shane greatest strength was his speed. But Lloyd was faster, better puncher, better reflexes.
Lloyd would nullify Moseley and outpoint him
Posted: 24 Feb 2006, 16:50
by Arsenal
Does anyone else think that Honeygan was under-rated? For what he achieved I don't think he gets the credit he deserves. It many top 10 Brits lists he is nowhere to be soon. I think he was better than people give him credit for.
Posted: 24 Feb 2006, 20:28
by BoxBuzz
I'm goin against the early posters on this one. I don't see Shane losing to the same crop of fighters that Lloyd did. Lloyd was good no doubt takin nothing from him.
Posted: 25 Feb 2006, 17:35
by meade95
Shane beats Lloyd (IMO)......By either UD or late TKO -
Posted: 27 Feb 2006, 05:14
by dr_devious
I'd take Shane Mosley to beat Lloyd Honeyghan, on points at Lloyd's peak or by stoppage later in his career.
Lloyd Honeyghan had 2 great years 1986-1988. His victory over an overrated Don Curry catapulted him to stardom and he did the business in a few defences. Thereafter he was disappointing, especially against Marlon Starling and Mark Breland, both world class fighters but hardly all-time greats. Thats why he doesnt get in any top 10 p4p Brit lists.
Posted: 27 Feb 2006, 05:42
by john2345
Although I had a lot of respect for what Honeyghan achieved I'd have to go with Shane on this one.
People talk about Lloyd being under-rated but I think there's a tendency to under-rate Mosley. At his peak (e.g. De La Hoya 1) he was quite something, and I feel that Honeyghan's style and size would really suit him.
But then again, I though the same about Don Curry!
Good match up, worth paying to see!
J
Posted: 28 Feb 2006, 14:50
by walshb
Honeygan at his peak was a damn great fighter who would have been too strong and busy for Shane. Shane was very good, but not a natural welter. Honey was a natural gifted strong Welter. And he was fit as hell at his peak...
Posted: 28 Feb 2006, 19:19
by EriqS
Mosley by KO, by round 10. Honeyghan did have skills, but in my opinion he's not underrated. His upset of Curry was not so surprising in hindsight. Curry weighed nearly 160 only a few days before the fight and was already suffering from burnout--though it wasn't widely perceived at the time. Honeyghan went on to KO Johnny Bumphus--whose legs were gone, whose jaw was windowpane glass, and whose appetite for "extra legal substances" was already out of control. Honeyghan then outpointed talented but feather-fisted Maurice Blocker in a fairly close fight, and then got the shit kicked out of him by Marlon Starling. No way Mosley loses to Honeyghan.
Posted: 04 Mar 2006, 10:43
by KOJOE90
KO Artist wrote:Honeyghan.
Main reason is speed. Shane greatest strength was his speed. But Lloyd was faster, better puncher, better reflexes.
Lloyd would nullify Moseley and outpoint him
Do you really think Honeyghan was faster than Mosley?
I'm not sure if I agree with that.
Posted: 04 Mar 2006, 11:24
by stujones
Mosley wins at Welterweight prime for prime. Although, both are similar in that they had a relatively short prime.
Whilst Honeyghun was excellent and probably deserves to be considered in the same line as Moseley, I just think his greatest win was more to do with Curry's problems than anything else. Look what happend vs Starling (who was possibly past his best when they met).
I would say Mosley is at least in the same league as Starling and above the likes of Blocker.