P.S. Gerald McClellan is one of my favourite boxers of all time. Him and Jones were acquaintances not friends!!! Gerald wanted to fight Jones desperately as he felt he could knock him out!!!
Printable View
P.S. Gerald McClellan is one of my favourite boxers of all time. Him and Jones were acquaintances not friends!!! Gerald wanted to fight Jones desperately as he felt he could knock him out!!!
this funny to me...most will say "roy would have beaten all of them" then say "roy was the one ducking them"....
I think Eubank would have been destroyed, He is too much of a pot shotting in and out guy , Jones would get too much time to think, and he is too quick to be fought like that, you can't in and out vs Jones cause he counters too fast,
the only way to beat Jones is imo how Glen JOhnson did it, pressure pressure pressure, which is why i think Eubank loses and Benn has a chance.
prime jones had too much power, speed and quickness guranteed he would have hurt benn badly enough for him to slow down..a body shot probably...Quote:
Originally Posted by Poom
BENN was semi chasing him after MCCLENNAN
EUBANK sat on his throne so he didnt go chasing anyone, however JONES JNR was chasing EUBANK
NIGEL has a slim punchers chance (very slim actualy), and EUBANK might scrape the first couple rounds but would lose the rest by being out worked once ROY measures him up, however EUBANK would make ROY look bad no question about that (who didnt CHRIS made look bad ?)
thulani maligni..the same guy that roy stopped...Quote:
Originally Posted by petem
Benn would never take Jones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nium
I never liked Chris style plus he had alot of gift decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by petem
You weren't born when Eubank fought Benn, just makes me laugh when you say "I never liked Chris' style" ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Big H i don't understand why you keep saying this you don't have to be born in era to know if you like someones boxing style or not i never personally liked Eubanks style and it doesn't matter if i would of been born in that era or whenever wouldn't change my opinion and it shouldn't make a difference when your born.
Had you grown up on Eubank and Naz and Tyson though your opinions could be different
Not really i did watch alot of Naz when i was younger never liked him or Eubank or Tyson theres some boxers you just don't like and others you do like its personal preference and it doesn't matter when your born.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYSONBRUNO
it helps if your a fan while they are active or around while they are active if you get me im not been a wanker with you im just saying ;)
Its fine got no problem with it.
It's a good point. I have a theory:
We all always rate the people whose peak we saw when we were in our formative or adolescent years. I mean this in a visceral sense (as we all also admire people who we intellectually know were great fighters before or after our time, but not in the same gut-led way. For example, I think Jack Dempsey and Felix Trinidad are really great fighters, but they don't excite me as much as Mike Tyson or Nigel Benn because I grew up watching them in their peak)
I think this is because young males (particularly) see and look up to someone slightly older than them. The person cannot be too much older, ie they have to be the same generation, but are usually a bit older.
The same young males find it difficult to accept that their idol is later over the hill and old, as it reminds them of their own ageing and mortality. Hence, the attutide "it was better in my day...... these young guys are crap nowadays" etc etc etc.
I can usually guess how old any poster is on this site by listening to who they say are their boxing idols.
Any thoughts (I think maybe this was what was being said, rather than anyone having a go at you for being a sprog Ice (?) ;D