BoxRec

Nowdays, we have Mayweather, Hatton, Mosley, Cotto and De La Hoya,
BUT Back in the 80s we had 4 great fighters...

ROBERTO DURAN (June 1951)
MARVIN HAGLER (May 1954)
SUGAR RAY LEONARD (May 1956)
TOMMY HEARNS (October 1958)

Here's the timeline, (it does get confusing)

June 1980: Duran outpoints Leonard
Nov 1980: Leonard stops Duran (8)
Aug 1981: Leonard stops Hearns (14)
Nov 1983: Hagler outpoints Duran
June 1984: Hearns stops Duran (2)
April 1985: Hagler stops Hearns (3)
April 1987: Leonard outpoints Hagler
June 1989: Leonard and Hearns, DRAW!
Dec 1989: Leonard outpoints Duran

***other fighters records against the BIG 4***

WILFREDO BENITEZ:
NOV 1979: Benitez loses to Lenoard (points)
JAN 1981: Benitez outpoints Duran
DEC 1981: Benitez loses to Hearns (points)

IRAN BARKLEY:
June 1988: Barkley stops Hearns
Febr 1989: Barkley loses to Duran (points)
Mar 1992: Barkley outpoints Hearns

HECTOR CAMACHO:
June 1996: Camacho outpoints Duran
Mar 1997: Camacho stops Leonard
July 2001: Camacho outpoints Duran

***NOW, I ASK YOU... WAS THIS A GOLDEN ERA IN BOXING WHEN YOU HAD THE BIG 4 FIGHTING COMPETIIVELY***

LAST QUESTION: WHEN DID EACH MAN (OF THE BIG 4) HAVE HIS PRIME?

Actually, Leonard stopped a game Benitez in the last round. It was a TKO.

well you have to throw in mosley and a few others

Well in the past decade we have:

Oscar De La Hoya:
Lost to Trinidad
Lost to Mosleyx2
KO'd Mayorga
KO'd Vargas
Defeated Quartey

Shane Mosley:
Defeated DLHx2
KO'd Vargasx2
Lost to Forrestx2
Lost to Wrightx2

Felix Trinidad:
Defeated DLH
KO'd Vargas
KO'd Mayorga

Ricardo Mayorga:
KO'd/Defeated Forrestx2
KO'd by Trinidad
KO'd by DLH
Defeated Vargas

Fernando Vargas:
Defeated Quartey
Defeated Wright
KO'd by DLH
KO'd by Trinidad
KO'd by Mosleyx2
Defeated by Mayorga

Vernon Forrest:
Defeated Mosleyx2
KO'd/Defeated by Mayorga
Defeated Quartey

Winky Wright:
Lost to Vargas
Defeated Mosleyx2
Defeated Quartey

Bernard Hopkins:
Defeated Trinidad
Defeated DLH
Defeated Wright

Ike Quartey:
Lost to DLH
Lost to Vargas
Lost to Wright
Lost to Forrest

Technically I could keep going with Cory Spinks, Jermain Taylor, and even more thrown in between WW and MW

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Well in the past decade we have:

Oscar De La Hoya:
Lost to Trinidad
Lost to Mosleyx2
KO'd Mayorga
KO'd Vargas
Defeated Quartey

Shane Mosley:
Defeated DLHx2
KO'd Vargasx2
Lost to Forrestx2
Lost to Wrightx2

Felix Trinidad:
Defeated DLH
KO'd Vargas
KO'd Mayorga

Ricardo Mayorga:
KO'd/Defeated Forrestx2
KO'd by Trinidad
KO'd by DLH
Defeated Vargas

Fernando Vargas:
Defeated Quartey
Defeated Wright
KO'd by DLH
KO'd by Trinidad
KO'd by Mosleyx2
Defeated by Mayorga

Vernon Forrest:
Defeated Mosleyx2
KO'd/Defeated by Mayorga
Defeated Quartey

Winky Wright:
Lost to Vargas
Defeated Mosleyx2
Defeated Quartey

Bernard Hopkins:
Defeated Trinidad
Defeated DLH
Defeated Wright

Ike Quartey:
Lost to DLH
Lost to Vargas
Lost to Wright
Lost to Forrest

Technically I could keep going with Cory Spinks, Jermain Taylor, and even more thrown in between WW and MW

So many suspect results looking at that good list.

Duran's prime was during the 1970s. He was at his peak at Lightweight, probably the 3rd DeJesus fight.

Leonard's prime is hard to get right but probably at 147 before he retired the 1st time.

Hearns' prime was at 154 and runs up until the Hagler fight, he was never quite the same after that.

Hagler's prime was from about 79-84 IMO.

i think duran is beatter p4p than any of the current crop

leonard would probably be

hearns would be aswell

and marvin hagler would hand bernard hopkins his arse and then some

MOSLEY, DLH MAYWEATHER AND HOPKINS ARE THE ONLY GUYS THAT MAY BE GREAT IN THIS BUNCH

Terry D wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Well in the past decade we have:

Oscar De La Hoya:
Lost to Trinidad
Lost to Mosleyx2
KO'd Mayorga
KO'd Vargas
Defeated Quartey

Shane Mosley:
Defeated DLHx2
KO'd Vargasx2
Lost to Forrestx2
Lost to Wrightx2

Felix Trinidad:
Defeated DLH
KO'd Vargas
KO'd Mayorga

Ricardo Mayorga:
KO'd/Defeated Forrestx2
KO'd by Trinidad
KO'd by DLH
Defeated Vargas

Fernando Vargas:
Defeated Quartey
Defeated Wright
KO'd by DLH
KO'd by Trinidad
KO'd by Mosleyx2
Defeated by Mayorga

Vernon Forrest:
Defeated Mosleyx2
KO'd/Defeated by Mayorga
Defeated Quartey

Winky Wright:
Lost to Vargas
Defeated Mosleyx2
Defeated Quartey

Bernard Hopkins:
Defeated Trinidad
Defeated DLH
Defeated Wright

Ike Quartey:
Lost to DLH
Lost to Vargas
Lost to Wright
Lost to Forrest

Technically I could keep going with Cory Spinks, Jermain Taylor, and even more thrown in between WW and MW

Are you saying Mayorga is a great fighter?!

mayorga isnt even a good champion, if trash talking counted he would be up there but

Despite all of the current boxers mentioned (Hopkins, De La Hoya, Myweather) I still DON'T think that thse boxers, (while they are exceptionally talented) are as good as the ones from the past...

Crease wrote:Despite all of the current boxers mentioned (Hopkins, De La Hoya, Myweather) I still DON'T think that thse boxers, (while they are exceptionally talented) are as good as the ones from the past...

Very true. Think back to some of the titleholders in the 80's and there were some truly great fighters throwing serious leather

Crease wrote:Nowdays, we have Mayweather, Hatton, Mosley, Cotto and De La Hoya,
BUT Back in the 80s we had 4 great fighters...

ROBERTO DURAN (June 1951)
MARVIN HAGLER (May 1954)
SUGAR RAY LEONARD (May 1956)
TOMMY HEARNS (October 1958)

Here's the timeline, (it does get confusing)

June 1980: Duran outpoints Leonard
Nov 1980: Leonard stops Duran (8)
Aug 1981: Leonard stops Hearns (14)
Nov 1983: Hagler outpoints Duran
June 1984: Hearns stops Duran (2)
April 1985: Hagler stops Hearns (3)
April 1987: Leonard outpoints Hagler
June 1989: Leonard and Hearns, DRAW!
Dec 1989: Leonard outpoints Duran

***other fighters records against the BIG 4***

WILFREDO BENITEZ:
NOV 1979: Benitez loses to Lenoard (points)
JAN 1981: Benitez outpoints Duran
DEC 1981: Benitez loses to Hearns (points)

IRAN BARKLEY:
June 1988: Barkley stops Hearns
Febr 1989: Barkley loses to Duran (points)
Mar 1992: Barkley outpoints Hearns

HECTOR CAMACHO:
June 1996: Camacho outpoints Duran
Mar 1997: Camacho stops Leonard
July 2001: Camacho outpoints Duran

***NOW, I ASK YOU... WAS THIS A GOLDEN ERA IN BOXING WHEN YOU HAD THE BIG 4 FIGHTING COMPETIIVELY***

LAST QUESTION: WHEN DID EACH MAN (OF THE BIG 4) HAVE HIS PRIME?

Was this a Golden Era? Absolutely. Collectively, these four were better than any four of the other era, though that was a good era as well.

Perhaps more importantly, all four fought each atleast once.

When did each fighter (of the Big 4) have his prime? That is a more difficult question. Usually a fighter doesn't on his way up all of the sudden reaches his prime; usually it's a gradual thing. Same when their prime is over. Usually there is a gradual decline.
Having said that, I will take a stab at it:

Duran 1972-1983
Hagler 1978-1987
Hearns 1979-1987
Leonard 1979-1982

These fighter did have occasional off-fights during this time that weren't as good of a performance in certain fights that they had before or after these periods. However, on the whole these were their primes.

Camacho wasn't really a contemporary of these guys, he really was in between this era and the De La Hoya/Moseley/Tindidad etc. era. Same with Barkley.
Cuevas was more of a contempary; but both Duran and Hearns beat him badly.

Hey Alp, can you give your opinion on Wilfredo's B's prime years as well?

Buzz, that is difficult to say. I suppose that you could say Benitez was in his prime as early as 1976, when he beat Cervantes for the Jr Welterweight title at the age of 17. He was a bit inconsistent in the next couple of years. He didn't look good in the first fight with Weston or the first fight with Curry in 1977, though he did look better in the rematches. Certainly by the time he beat Palomino for the Welterweight title in 1979 he had reached his prime.

Pound for pound, Benitez was one of the Top 10 fighters in the world from 1979-1982. He seemed a bit better offensively during this time than he was from 1976-1978. He may also have been even better defensively during this time; and was certainly more consistent.

He defintely was well below form when he fought Mustapha Hamsho in 1983, and he never was near his previous level after that.

So I guess I would say his prime was 1979-1982.

Crease wrote: NOV 1979: Benitez loses to Lenoard (points)

I must have missed that one.

Keep up the good work, Crease.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Actually, Leonard stopped a game Benitez in the last round. It was a TKO.

The Las Vegas referee stopped the fight with 6 seconds left.

Because the betting line on the fight dictated that.

There was a big stink at the time about the "6-second" stoppage.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Crease wrote:Nowdays, we have Mayweather, Hatton, Mosley, Cotto and De La Hoya,
BUT Back in the 80s we had 4 great fighters...

ROBERTO DURAN (June 1951)
MARVIN HAGLER (May 1954)
SUGAR RAY LEONARD (May 1956)
TOMMY HEARNS (October 1958)

Here's the timeline, (it does get confusing)

June 1980: Duran outpoints Leonard
Nov 1980: Leonard stops Duran (8)
Aug 1981: Leonard stops Hearns (14)
Nov 1983: Hagler outpoints Duran
June 1984: Hearns stops Duran (2)
April 1985: Hagler stops Hearns (3)
April 1987: Leonard outpoints Hagler
June 1989: Leonard and Hearns, DRAW!
Dec 1989: Leonard outpoints Duran

***other fighters records against the BIG 4***

WILFREDO BENITEZ:
NOV 1979: Benitez loses to Lenoard (points)
JAN 1981: Benitez outpoints Duran
DEC 1981: Benitez loses to Hearns (points)

IRAN BARKLEY:
June 1988: Barkley stops Hearns
Febr 1989: Barkley loses to Duran (points)
Mar 1992: Barkley outpoints Hearns

HECTOR CAMACHO:
June 1996: Camacho outpoints Duran
Mar 1997: Camacho stops Leonard
July 2001: Camacho outpoints Duran

***NOW, I ASK YOU... WAS THIS A GOLDEN ERA IN BOXING WHEN YOU HAD THE BIG 4 FIGHTING COMPETIIVELY***

LAST QUESTION: WHEN DID EACH MAN (OF THE BIG 4) HAVE HIS PRIME?

Was this a Golden Era? Absolutely. Collectively, these four were better than any four of the other era, though that was a good era as well.

Perhaps more importantly, all four fought each atleast once.

When did each fighter (of the Big 4) have his prime? That is a more difficult question. Usually a fighter doesn't on his way up all of the sudden reaches his prime; usually it's a gradual thing. Same when their prime is over. Usually there is a gradual decline.
Having said that, I will take a stab at it:

Duran 1972-1983
Hagler 1978-1987
Hearns 1979-1987
Leonard 1979-1982

These fighter did have occasional off-fights during this time that weren't as good of a performance in certain fights that they had before or after these periods. However, on the whole these were their primes.

Camacho wasn't really a contemporary of these guys, he really was in between this era and the De La Hoya/Moseley/Tindidad etc. era. Same with Barkley.
Cuevas was more of a contempary; but both Duran and Hearns beat him badly.

Alp

I know this is old ground but can Duran really have been in his prime once he left the LW division? His greatest performance may not have been at LW but even so that's not the same thing. Once he left 135 his punch power was not what it was (as is for most fighters). He was still effective but surely his prime has to be defined by when he was at his most dangerous as a an opponent and that has to be 135.

Hearns, IMO, lost some punch resistance after the Hagler fight. It wasn't immediately obvious but he slowly went down after that fight.

Hagler was already fading in the Mugabi fight (which I think was 86). Leonard said as much...

I think Duran was just as good for several years after he left the lightweight division. He was only 26 when he moved up. He wasn't quite as quick, but was a little stonger. He didn't score as many knockouts, but his competiton was much better than it was when he was a lightweight.
In 1972/1973 Duran lost to DeJesus, had more trouble than he should have against a shot Angel Robinson a 10 rounds decision and couldn't stop journeyman Javier Ayala and Doc Mclendon.
As late as 1983, Duran had a couple of his best performances-Stopping Cuevas and Moore. He aslo went 15 rounds with Halger and was fairly competitive.

Hagler's fight against Mugabi was actually at least an normal performance for him. The Hagler-Mugabi fight was considered a great fight right after it happened. Mugabi fought the fight of his life and still Hagler beat him.
Watch Hagler's fights with Geraldo,Briscoe,the first Antuofermo fight, the Duran fight. Hagler was better against Mugabi than he did in those fights.
There was little talk about Hagler being past it after the Mugabi fight. It was only after Leonard beat Hagler that all of a sudden Hagler was past it. In the loss to Leonard, Hagler fought pretty well after the first 4 rounds.

Hearns is a little more difficult to gauge. He certainly didn't look bad in the 5 fights between the 1985 Hagler fight and the 1988 Barkley fight. He won easily against decent competition. I don't remember anyone saying he was past it. So I put his prime as ending in 1987.

Couple of comments. First I think Benitez's win over Antonio Cervantes was probably his best performance ever. Cervantes was an alltime great and he came into that fight red hot. On paper he looked way too experienced for the juvenile Benitez, but he ended up dropping a fairly close decision because Benitez's head movement was like radar in that fight.

Hagler get's alot of stick for his first bout with Antuofermo, and I'm not sure what went wrong that night. Antuofermo gave him probably the two worst rounds of his career in the 11th and 12th (I think) when he really hammered Hagler, but if you score the fight, Vito simply did not win enough rounds to deserve a draw.

Duran's performance is commendable against Hagler because he was so far from his peak division and prime years. Moving up means that a fighter's strength, durability, reach advantages, power, all go down in relative terms. Very few fighters who win a championship at one weight go on to have their peak at a higher weight.

This tends to happen with fighters who get early shots at titles when they are not fully established physically (Fenech) or guys who are genetic freaks (Hearns)... Other than Mickey Walker who is really considered to be at their best at a higher weight (not in terms of their performances in terms of their ability)? There are just too many disadvantages for a fighter giving up size.

I don't see how you can think Duran was stronger at 147 than 135, not in relative terms. I'd say that unless you fall into the Fenech or Hearns categories (and no substances are being introduced) that it's an impossibility.

Looking at Hearns record then I'm willing to go to 86. It was in 87 that the cracks began to show with him getting dropped by Andries (a man he completely dominated but couldn't finish) and then almost snatch defeat from the jaws of victory against Roldan.

The talk of Hgaler being past it was all over the media, after all that was Leonard's key belief for the bout. Is he past it or isn't he? was on everyone's lips. Most people seemed to agree with leonard that Hagler was fading though very few thought he'd slipped enough for an inactive Leonard to be able to beat him.

Ezzard

Don't know if you were meaning to say otherwise, but Tommy Hearns did stop Dennis Andries in a very one sided fight.

Seamus wrote:Ezzard

Don't know if you were meaning to say otherwise, but Tommy Hearns did stop Dennis Andries in a very one sided fight.

Well spotted, Seamus...

Andries dropped him I wrote 'sropped' which could have been 'stopped' or 'dropped' (though 'd' is nect to 's' on the keyboard: that's my excuse anyway). I've edited it since.

Hearns dominated Andries but even so Dennis put him down. I think it was ruled a slip but it obviously wasn't and Tommy himself admitted as much.

Again, at 175 Hearns is too far away from his bets fighting weight to be at his peak.

That's my belief anyway.

For the life of me I can't remember Hearns getting dropped by Andries. Maybe someone has it on film.

Odd how little I hear about Hearns v Roldan. The Hitman dropped Roldan 4 times I think before the bout ended, and yet there was so much more to the fight. Hearns got hit with some massive shots between knockdowns and looked to be in trouble a couple of times. The following Monday night, Hearns appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, and it was the first time I noticed a definite slur in his speech.

Seamus wrote:For the life of me I can't remember Hearns getting dropped by Andries. Maybe someone has it on film.

Odd how little I hear about Hearns v Roldan. The Hitman dropped Roldan 4 times I think before the bout ended, and yet there was so much more to the fight. Hearns got hit with some massive shots between knockdowns and looked to be in trouble a couple of times. The following Monday night, Hearns appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, and it was the first time I noticed a definite slur in his speech.

Yes, it was the point where I thought Tommy's resisitance was seriously in question. Roldan was tough, strong, determined and awkward but not really a banger.

I think the Andries KD was ruled a slip by the ref. I do remember the camera seeming to be quite a way from the ring in the version broadcast in the UK.

Ezzard,
-My point about Hagler was that in 1983, Duran was atleast as good as he was in 1972, when most people (including yourself) says his prime started. I pointed out that if you take the Hagler fight, and his other two fights in 1983 (brutal stoppages against Cuevas and Moore), he was atleast as good as he was in 1972/1973.

-Other than Mickey Walker, what other fighters were better after they moved up in weight? There are many. Her are a few:

Jimmy Ellis was a mediocre middleweight for several years, and was a much better heavyweight.
Tony Canzoneri started at bantamweight, and was a better fighter in several higher weight classes.
Henry Armstrong was a very good featherweight, but was a much better lightweight and welterweight.
Max Schmeling was a good lightheavyweight, but was clearly a better heavyweight.
Jimmy McClarnin began as a featherweight and became a much better welterweight.
Jose Napoles was a very good lightweight, but was a better welterweight.
Eddie Mustapha Muhammad first several years were as a middleweight, but was a better lightheavyweight.

There are many others that fall into this category. There are countless others who were about the same after moving up from one weight class to another.
It all depends if the move up in weight is natural. If it's because the fighter doesn't want to train and gets fat and can't make the weight anymore, then of course he would be better at the lower weight. However, if it's because he naturally is getting bigger, then he probably will be as good as when he gets older.

Duran himself began his career as a bantamweight. He was gradually gained weight throughout his 20's. Even when he was the lightweight champion, he would often have non-title fights at 140. In fact he had a fight at 140 as early as 1973! He had 8 fights at 140 or above before he moved up to 147 at the age of only 26. He had 8 fights at welterweight before he fought for the welterweight title. To say that he wasn't a natural 147 is just ignoring the facts.

I would put Durans' fights with Palomino, Leonard I,Cuevas, and Moore with any of his fights at lightweight. You also have to keep in mind that his competition was much better at 147/154 than it was at 135.

Do I think Duran was stronger at 147 than he was at 135 in relative terms ? (I'm assuming you mean that he was now going up against 147 fighters who obviously tend to be stonger than 135 pound fighters.) No. He was about the same, in relative terms.
However, in relative terms, he was just as fast when he was at 147 as he was at 135. 135 pound fighters tend to be faster than 147 pound fighters.
In relative terms, Duran was pretty close physically in his late 20's as he was in his early 20. He was also more experienced in his late 20's.

I don't know about Hearns being past it by 1987. I don't recall either the Andries fight or the Roldan fight as being that hard for him. I certainly don't recall at the time anyone saying hearns was washed up. Perhaps you are right, maybe in retrospect, the signs were beginning to show that he was slipping in 1987.

I honestly didn't hear all of this talk about Hagler being past it after the Mugabi fight. Most people thought the Mugabi-Hagler fight was a great fight. ESPN kept showing it over and over. I do remember Leonard saying that he thought he could beat Hagler after the fight, but almost no one took him seriously. Most people didn't think Leonard would make it past the first few rounds. All I kept hearing was how invincible Hagler was.

Have you seen the Mugabi-Hagler fight recently? Do you really think Hagler looked better against Briscoe,Geraldo,Antuofermo I ?

Ambling Alp wrote:Ezzard,
-My point about Hagler was that in 1983, Duran was atleast as good as he was in 1972, when most people (including yourself) says his prime started. I pointed out that if you take the Hagler fight, and his other two fights in 1983 (brutal stoppages against Cuevas and Moore), he was atleast as good as he was in 1972/1973.

-Other than Mickey Walker, what other fighters were better after they moved up in weight? There are many. Her are a few:

Jimmy Ellis was a mediocre middleweight for several years, and was a much better heavyweight.
Tony Canzoneri started at bantamweight, and was a better fighter in several higher weight classes.
Henry Armstrong was a very good featherweight, but was a much better lightweight and welterweight.
Max Schmeling was a good lightheavyweight, but was clearly a better heavyweight.
Jimmy McClarnin began as a featherweight and became a much better welterweight.
Jose Napoles was a very good lightweight, but was a better welterweight.
Eddie Mustapha Muhammad first several years were as a middleweight, but was a better lightheavyweight.

There are many others that fall into this category. There are countless others who were about the same after moving up from one weight class to another.
It all depends if the move up in weight is natural. If it's because the fighter doesn't want to train and gets fat and can't make the weight anymore, then of course he would be better at the lower weight. However, if it's because he naturally is getting bigger, then he probably will be as good as when he gets older.

Duran himself began his career as a bantamweight. He was gradually gained weight throughout his 20's. Even when he was the lightweight champion, he would often have non-title fights at 140. In fact he had a fight at 140 as early as 1973! He had 8 fights at 140 or above before he moved up to 147 at the age of only 26. He had 8 fights at welterweight before he fought for the welterweight title. To say that he wasn't a natural 147 is just ignoring the facts.

I would put Durans' fights with Palomino, Leonard I,Cuevas, and Moore with any of his fights at lightweight. You also have to keep in mind that his competition was much better at 147/154 than it was at 135.

Do I think Duran was stronger at 147 than he was at 135 in relative terms ? (I'm assuming you mean that he was now going up against 147 fighters who obviously tend to be stonger than 135 pound fighters.) No. He was about the same, in relative terms.
However, in relative terms, he was just as fast when he was at 147 as he was at 135. 135 pound fighters tend to be faster than 147 pound fighters.
In relative terms, Duran was pretty close physically in his late 20's as he was in his early 20. He was also more experienced in his late 20's.

I don't know about Hearns being past it by 1987. I don't recall either the Andries fight or the Roldan fight as being that hard for him. I certainly don't recall at the time anyone saying hearns was washed up. Perhaps you are right, maybe in retrospect, the signs were beginning to show that he was slipping in 1987.

I honestly didn't hear all of this talk about Hagler being past it after the Mugabi fight. Most people thought the Mugabi-Hagler fight was a great fight. ESPN kept showing it over and over. I do remember Leonard saying that he thought he could beat Hagler after the fight, but almost no one took him seriously. Most people didn't think Leonard would make it past the first few rounds. All I kept hearing was how invincible Hagler was.

Have you seen the Mugabi-Hagler fight recently? Do you really think Hagler looked better against Briscoe,Geraldo,Antuofermo I ?

Of the guys you give as examples only Armstrong won a championship at the lower weight you quote. This was my point: 'Very few fighters who win a championship at one weight go on to have their peak at a higher weight.'

Napoles, I believe, moved up to 147 because he couldn't get a shot at 135. We saw the best of him at 147 because that's where he could operate and make the most money. We can't say for sure how good he would have been at 135 had he got a shot and campaigned for longer there.

Anyone can build up muscle and become bigger and stronger but it is never in proportion to your natural weight. Even when guys naturally grow bigger the chances are they were more formidable at the lower weight. Definitely more physically formidable but a lot depends on their style and how much/little experience they get to counter the drawbacks of fighting bigger men.

I think that's it for me, Alp and all you wonderful boxrec people who have argued the toss with me over the last 12 months.... Have a merry xmas and enjoy the time off work or whatever else you do/don't do...

best

Ezzard