-
Changing One's Mind on Fighters
As I get older, do more research, see more boxing, watch more footage, read more books and engage in ongoing conversations with other enthusiastic boxing fans, my perspective on several fighters has really, really changed. In no order, here are some of them.
Billy Conn-Old View-Exciting light heavy who had one great night against Joe Louis but was rated too high for personality/color reasons. New View-A spectacularly fast and slick light heavyweight and an amazing ring general. Beat the best middles and light heavies of his day repeatedly. Would be a handful for any light heavy ever.
Oscar de La Hoya-Old View-Excellent but not great fighter who lost his biggest fights and had stamina issues. New View-When we see the kind of roster the protected fighters of the last decade has fought, one now sees Oscar as a shining example of how we want our warriors to seek out other warriors, not to pad their records. He defeated an awful lot of very good fighters. I can't quite call him all-time great (but I'm still thinking), how about exemplary?
Ezzard Charles-Old View-Great fighter, but not the equal of say an Archie Moore. New View. Old View is a MORON! Charles had multiple wins over Burley, Moore, Maxim, Bivins, Yarosz, Lloyd Marshall, Joe Walcott etc. It is one of boxing's truly astonishing resumes. One of the ten best fighters of all-time in my view.
Roy Jones-Old View-The greatest fighter of the last twenty years. An unprecedented combination of speed and power. First New View-Roy's technique was terrible, he fought very limited competition and he was never a warrior. It is easy to look flashy against one's athletic inferiors, but it doesn't mean much. Not a top 50 all-timer. New, New View-The more you look at who Roy beat, the better his resume is. Nobody really beat him before he was 35 and he showed how he came off disappointment against Montell Griffin in one glorious round. Father Time is what got Roy. Tarver didn't. A top 50 all-timer.
Alexis Arguello-Old View-One of boxing's all-time greats, a top 20 kind of guy. New View-He's one of my favorite fighters and he IS an all-time great. But the more I look at his body of work and how he could get befuddled by gifted boxers, Alexis probably belongs in the 30-40 range. I still love the guy. But losses to Villomar Frernandez and Ernesto Marcel count too.
Mike Tyson-Old View-A very good heavy who couldn't handle tall fighters very well, was made to look ordinary by journeymen and geeze his worshippers are annoying! New View-While the above is all true, he should be viewed as a glorious comet. A terrifying ring presence, a top 10-15 heavyweight and deserving HOFer.
Nicolino Locche-Old View-Perhaps the greatest defensive fighter after Wille Pep. An all-time great. New View-The first statement above may still be true. But he had only a few big wins outside his home country and you wonder about the draws he got at home with Carlos Ortiz and Ismael laguna. A great fighter, but not a top 50 guy.
Tommy Hearns-Old View-A not quite all-time great. Defined more by his losses to Leonard and Hagler than his wins. New View-Old View is REALLY a MORON! Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Hill, Schuler, Kinchen, Roldan, Andries, Medal and Randy Shields? Are you kidding me? What a fighter!
Ray Robinson-Old View-Without question the greatest practicioner of the art in history. New View-As impossible as it sounds? He is still underrated. :)
Where am I wrong and who have your opinions changed on?
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
As I get older, do more research, see more boxing, watch more footage, read more books and engage in ongoing conversations with other enthusiastic boxing fans, my perspective on several fighters has really, really changed. In no order, here are some of them.
Billy Conn-Old View-Exciting light heavy who had one great night against Joe Louis but was rated too high for personality/color reasons. New View-A spectacularly fast and slick light heavyweight and an amazing ring general. Beat the best middles and light heavies of his day repeatedly. Would be a handful for any light heavy ever.
Oscar de La Hoya-Old View-Excellent but not great fighter who lost his biggest fights and had stamina issues. New View-When we see the kind of roster the protected fighters of the last decade has fought, one now sees Oscar as a shining example of how we want our warriors to seek out other warriors, not to pad their records. He defeated an awful lot of very good fighters. I can't quite call him all-time great (but I'm still thinking), how about exemplary?
Ezzard Charles-Old View-Great fighter, but not the equal of say an Archie Moore. New View. Old View is a MORON! Charles had multiple wins over Burley, Moore, Maxim, Bivins, Yarosz, Lloyd Marshall, Joe Walcott etc. It is one of boxing's truly astonishing resumes. One of the ten best fighters of all-time in my view.
Roy Jones-Old View-The greatest fighter of the last twenty years. An unprecedented combination of speed and power. First New View-Roy's technique was terrible, he fought very limited competition and he was never a warrior. It is easy to look flashy against one's athletic inferiors, but it doesn't mean much. Not a top 50 all-timer. New, New View-The more you look at who Roy beat, the better his resume is. Nobody really beat him before he was 35 and he showed how he came off disappointment against Montell Griffin in one glorious round. Father Time is what got Roy. Tarver didn't. A top 50 all-timer.
Alexis Arguello-Old View-One of boxing's all-time greats, a top 20 kind of guy. New View-He's one of my favorite fighters and he IS an all-time great. But the more I look at his body of work and how he could get befuddled by gifted boxers, Alexis probably belongs in the 30-40 range. I still love the guy. But losses to Villomar Frernandez and Ernesto Marcel count too.
Mike Tyson-Old View-A very good heavy who couldn't handle tall fighters very well, was made to look ordinary by journeymen and geeze his worshippers are annoying! New View-While the above is all true, he should be viewed as a glorious comet. A terrifying ring presence, a top 10-15 heavyweight and deserving HOFer.
Nicolino Locche-Old View-Perhaps the greatest defensive fighter after Wille Pep. An all-time great. New View-The first statement above may still be true. But he had only a few big wins outside his home country and you wonder about the draws he got at home with Carlos Ortiz and Ismael laguna. A great fighter, but not a top 50 guy.
Tommy Hearns-Old View-A not quite all-time great. Defined more by his losses to Leonard and Hagler than his wins. New View-Old View is REALLY a MORON! Cuevas, Benitez, Duran, Hill, Schuler, Kinchen, Roldan, Andries, Medal and Randy Shields? Are you kidding me? What a fighter!
Ray Robinson-Old View-Without question the greatest practicioner of the art in history. New View-As impossible as it sounds? He is still underrated. :)
Where am I wrong and who have your opinions changed on?
We think very much alike...you must be a genius!!!;D
My view or Jones Jr is about the same as your first view, I'm just now getting acquainted with Locche, and I can't believe you mentioned Randy Shields. I really thought he beat Cuevas. I thought Hearns became a better fighter after he had problems with his right hand and he developed the hook to the body- that could have been a big difference in the Leonard fight, first one.
Over the years, what has struck me most is how many top fighters there were that nobody talks about. Guys like Eddie Booker, Jack Chase, Bandit Romero all fought in California at the same time. The one that I'd really like to see or, at least read more about, is Shorty Hogue. Tough guy, competitive with the above, but he seems to have unraveled pretty quickly after losing to Burley.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Greysnotold,
Locche has to be seen to be believed. Youtube only has a couple of things on him in his prime, here's a little. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEKHMUCh8k
The guys he's fighting are not stiffs, the first is HOFer Pambele and the last is undisputed 140 king Paul Fuji.
The whole Black Murderers Row of the 1940's, guys like Chase and Booker and Burley and Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall and Bert Lytell were all serious, serious business.
I don't know much at all about Hogue, but anyone who beat Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall and Eddie Booker sure had something goign for him.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
I love the way he uses his right hand, like he is shooing flies.
Here's a guy that I go back and forth on: Orlando Canizales. He was one hell of a fighter, one of my favorites for years, but I'm forever changing up on how I see him among the best bantams. I can't make up my mind on how he'd fare against Zarate, Olivares, Jofre, even Zamora on a good night. (I've only seen Jofre in the Harada fights, and I thought that he won the first one, though it has been years since I watched them) Also, Ortiz, though I've only read about him.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
grey,
Canzales is a guy I have always thought was one of the first beneficiaries of the alphabet system. No doubt a fine fighter, but his best win was who? Bones Adams. A very good win, butnot exactly ATG stuff is it? he had a gazillion defenses but only a handful against ranked guys. There's a lot of Johnny Tapia (one of my faves) here. I'd loved to have seen Canizales take on the Japanese guy Yakushuki? Yakushiji? I just can't see Canizales staying with the guys you listed...but we're all guessing here.
Here's some prime time Eder Jofre against no joke Jose Medel, who a year later KO'd Harada in Tokyo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGp7QXPjYUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv0vrg6tSSs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MEBNiN2yJQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdP0_omKFy0&feature=related
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
I've seen that fight- used to have tape of it, back when stuff was still on tape.
What do you think about Kenny Norton? Back in the 70s he was my favorite HW (though I was always more a fan of the lighter weights), and I thought he was something. I guess there's no argument that he was a pretty good fighter, despite starting late, but how he merits being in the HOF escapes me.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I've seen that fight- used to have tape of it, back when stuff was still on tape.
What do you think about Kenny Norton? Back in the 70s he was my favorite HW (though I was always more a fan of the lighter weights), and I thought he was something. I guess there's no argument that he was a pretty good fighter, despite starting late, but how he merits being in the HOF escapes me.
Norton was a very good heavyweight and would have probably done well had he fought in an era populated without big punchers. But he seemed to just freeze with those guys. I'm not sure he had a gladss chin ans much as a glass mind when dealing with a bomber.
Were I in charge of the HOF the first thing I'd do would be to get a series of guys out. In no order, Norton, Brian Mitchell, O Canzales, B. McGuigan (who I loved), Terry Norris, Jeff Fenech, Billy Graham, Laszlo Papp (not fair I know, but...).
Here's a guy who is aboslutely REVERED and it escapes me. Marcel Cerdan. Excellent fighter, tough guy, his fight against Zale remains a masterpiece, but he only fought 6-7 guys I know anything about. I knwo he was a victim of the war years, but life ain't fair.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I've seen that fight- used to have tape of it, back when stuff was still on tape.
What do you think about Kenny Norton? Back in the 70s he was my favorite HW (though I was always more a fan of the lighter weights), and I thought he was something. I guess there's no argument that he was a pretty good fighter, despite starting late, but how he merits being in the HOF escapes me.
Norton was a very good heavyweight and would have probably done well had he fought in an era populated without big punchers. But he seemed to just freeze with those guys. I'm not sure he had a gladss chin ans much as a glass mind when dealing with a bomber.
Were I in charge of the HOF the first thing I'd do would be to get a series of guys out. In no order, Norton, Brian Mitchell, O Canzales, B. McGuigan (who I loved), Terry Norris, Jeff Fenech, Billy Graham, Laszlo Papp (not fair I know, but...).
Here's a guy who is aboslutely REVERED and it escapes me. Marcel Cerdan. Excellent fighter, tough guy, his fight against Zale remains a masterpiece, but he only fought 6-7 guys I know anything about. I knwo he was a victim of the war years, but life ain't fair.
I followed Norris from his 4th or 5th fight, loved him, but he shouldn't be in the HOF, nor should Inegmar Johansson. And I didn't know, but should've guessed, about Fenech. It comes from alphabet straps (which look suspiciously like pro wrestling belts) as real world titles. And having to induct a few people every year. Billy Graham was such a good fighter and I really enjoy his way of fighting but he doesn't belong either.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I've seen that fight- used to have tape of it, back when stuff was still on tape.
What do you think about Kenny Norton? Back in the 70s he was my favorite HW (though I was always more a fan of the lighter weights), and I thought he was something. I guess there's no argument that he was a pretty good fighter, despite starting late, but how he merits being in the HOF escapes me.
Norton was a very good heavyweight and would have probably done well had he fought in an era populated without big punchers. But he seemed to just freeze with those guys. I'm not sure he had a gladss chin ans much as a glass mind when dealing with a bomber.
Were I in charge of the HOF the first thing I'd do would be to get a series of guys out. In no order, Norton, Brian Mitchell, O Canzales, B. McGuigan (who I loved), Terry Norris, Jeff Fenech, Billy Graham, Laszlo Papp (not fair I know, but...).
Here's a guy who is aboslutely REVERED and it escapes me. Marcel Cerdan. Excellent fighter, tough guy, his fight against Zale remains a masterpiece, but he only fought 6-7 guys I know anything about. I knwo he was a victim of the war years, but life ain't fair.
I followed Norris from his 4th or 5th fight, loved him, but he shouldn't be in the HOF, nor should Inegmar Johansson. And I didn't know, but should've guessed, about Fenech. It comes from alphabet straps (which look suspiciously like pro wrestling belts) as real world titles.
And having to induct a few people every year. Billy Graham was such a good fighter and I really enjoy his way of fighting but he doesn't belong either.
I sympathize with the HOF folks. I mean I think that induction weekend generates revenue they have got to have to survive. But a mandatory four inductions for since WWII fighters is very shortly going to get out of control. I mean that implies we have 10-15 HOFers active now. It's crazy! Can't they get away with two mandatories and draw the same crowds?
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Well, I've been told here that Pacquiao has fought 15 hofers so it shouldn't be that hard:confused:
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Well, I've been told here that Pacquiao has fought 15 hofers so it shouldn't be that hard:confused:
Let's see. I think Morales, MAB, Oscar and probably JMM are locks. Oscar was shot, but that's what seven fights against the other three.
Hatton is a maybe
Sasakul probably ought to go, but he probably won't.
Who the hell else is even discussable????????????
I mean Clottey and Ledwaba and Cotto are fine fighters, but HOFers?
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
I figured Oscar, Barrera, Marquez, and Morales...and he is a reluctant admission.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I figured Oscar, Barrera, Marquez, and Morales...and he is a reluctant admission.
Morales is reluctant? I like it! A man with high standards!
I figured wins over a still formidable Zaragoza, MAB, Paulie, McCullough, the Flushing Flash and a win over Manny that gets bigger by the fight gave him a resume better than JMM's and at least as good as MAB's.
But again, I love high standards and I'd rather keep the deserving out that see it watered down.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Canizales was missing that fellow star dance partner...say a Junior Jones when it should have happened and not lbs and years later. Bones was a quality in hindsight fighter but when he met Canizales he was a gutsy green teenager with a killer box cut and a busted jaw. Did well to hang in there in a man vs boy scrap, showed some tight boxing. Good fight.
I dont think he benifited from alpahabet boys or protected belt but def had some iffy calls...namely 1st Reyes and Hardy fights. He was the goods and a seriously slept on champion though not spectacular in any one aspect. He may have been vanilla a bit but shoot I think he did enough to beat Vasquez when he went up.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Roy Jones-Old View-The greatest fighter of the last twenty years. An unprecedented combination of speed and power. First New View-Roy's technique was terrible, he fought very limited competition and he was never a warrior. It is easy to look flashy against one's athletic inferiors, but it doesn't mean much. Not a top 50 all-timer. New, New View-The more you look at who Roy beat, the better his resume is. Nobody really beat him before he was 35 and he showed how he came off disappointment against Montell Griffin in one glorious round. Father Time is what got Roy. Tarver didn't. A top 50 all-timer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only one i'm going to comment on Marble, is Roy Jones Jr., was his competition really all that great when compared to the resumes of the top 50 all-time greats? Father- time you say? Jones was only 34 when he fought Tarver the 2nd time and nearly lost their first fight. In his next fight he was knocked unconscious by journeyman Glen Johnson, and then went on to lose his 3rd fight with Tarver. In my view, Jones Jr's opponents finally figured out his unorthodox style, and he hasn't won a meaningful fight against a top level opponent since then.
-
Jones was one of the greatest. Yeah, he lost to Tarver and it was a slippery slope after that but don't think for a second Jones isn't an atg. Jones messed up when he dropped that weight to give Tarver the rematch, he got caught and itwas downhill. Don't be fooled...Tarver, Johnson, or any of those guys don't beat prime Jones.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Manny Pacquiao-Old View: Relentless one-dimensional fighter who posses great speed and power. Trains like a mad man to get himself ready for the big fights. New View: Relentless one-dimensional fighter who posses great speed and power. Juices like a mad man to get himself ready for the big fights
Joe Calzaghe-Old View: Overrated slapper who retired from boxing in order to protected his tainted 0. New View: Overrated slapper who retired from boxing in order to protected his tainted 0 and sniff coke
Ricky Hatton-Old view: Limited boxer with a bad drinking addiction. New View: Limited promoter with a bad drinking and gravy addiction
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
James DeGale -old view = talented fighter , loud mouth and ugly long faced cunt .
new view - ugly long faced cunt with big mouth.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Brilliant read.
Tommy Hearns is a great fighter and only beaten by great fighters himself which is no shame as Manny Pac would lose to SRL. Hearns is a legend.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Brilliant read.
Tommy Hearns is a great fighter and only beaten by great fighters himself which is no shame as Manny Pac would lose to SRL. Hearns is a legend.
Yeah, not one of my finest hours not getting that the first time around.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Hearns was pretty good. Lost twice to Iran Barkley, and I guess he just had his number. But there's a couple other glitches in his career that make me wonder about him being 'great.'
He fought Doug DeWitt, nobody's definition of a great, or particularly good, fighter. He had skills and some mental lapses that held him back, and a very solid chin for most of his career. Hearns hit DeWitt with something like 22 straight punches at the end of the 2nd round of their fight and didn't hurt him: but Doug had a good chin and Hearns was having hand problems then. In the 7th round DeWitt landed several body punches and took it all out of Hearns.
Hearns fought Olijade and out boxed him, knocked him down. In the course of trying to finish him, Hearns got hit with a left hook that took his legs straight away. He had nothing and sleep walked the rest of the way against a guy that had less and didn't know what he had in front of him.
In my mind, his inability to take a punch and recover is what keeps Hearns from being a truly top-flight fighter. Granted, he could concievably overwhelm a guy like he did Duran (a better fighter), but, if that didn't work, he was waiting to be had. Thjis was true throughout his entire career, at every weight. McCallum would've beaten him, Toney, and a bunch of others.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Hearns was pretty good. Lost twice to Iran Barkley, and I guess he just had his number. But there's a couple other glitches in his career that make me wonder about him being 'great.'
He fought Doug DeWitt, nobody's definition of a great, or particularly good, fighter. He had skills and some mental lapses that held him back, and a very solid chin for most of his career. Hearns hit DeWitt with something like 22 straight punches at the end of the 2nd round of their fight and didn't hurt him: but Doug had a good chin and Hearns was having hand problems then. In the 7th round DeWitt landed several body punches and took it all out of Hearns.
Hearns fought Olijade and out boxed him, knocked him down. In the course of trying to finish him, Hearns got hit with a left hook that took his legs straight away. He had nothing and sleep walked the rest of the way against a guy that had less and didn't know what he had in front of him.
In my mind, his inability to take a punch and recover is what keeps Hearns from being a truly top-flight fighter. Granted, he could concievably overwhelm a guy like he did Duran (a better fighter), but, if that didn't work, he was waiting to be had. Thjis was true throughout his entire career, at every weight. McCallum would've beaten him, Toney, and a bunch of others.
I thought Kinchen beat him. And though in well late years journeyman Delgado gave him hell. Manny should have done him right and pulled him aside far earlier..."son its time". Watching him pull up lame vs Grant was sad to see. Maybe in alot of ways Hearns embodied Kronk, didn't want to see it end.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Kinchen was another fight where he didn't take it well.
But Hearns could get you, too. Duran, I think, was a better fighter, in that he'd beat guys that Hearns couldn't, but I can't see him ever beating Hearns. Just styles, I guess.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Kinchen was another fight where he didn't take it well.
But Hearns could get you, too. Duran, I think, was a better fighter, in that he'd beat guys that Hearns couldn't, but I can't see him ever beating Hearns. Just styles, I guess.
Totally agree. Styles and that straight 'come to jeezus' like right hand Hearns had. One of the most devastating kos ever seen.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
I saw Hearns fight in LA once, against Kemper Morgan (Morton?), and he knocked him out with a left hook.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Hearns was pretty good. Lost twice to Iran Barkley, and I guess he just had his number. But there's a couple other glitches in his career that make me wonder about him being 'great.'
He fought Doug DeWitt, nobody's definition of a great, or particularly good, fighter. He had skills and some mental lapses that held him back, and a very solid chin for most of his career. Hearns hit DeWitt with something like 22 straight punches at the end of the 2nd round of their fight and didn't hurt him: but Doug had a good chin and Hearns was having hand problems then. In the 7th round DeWitt landed several body punches and took it all out of Hearns.
Hearns fought Olijade and out boxed him, knocked him down. In the course of trying to finish him, Hearns got hit with a left hook that took his legs straight away. He had nothing and sleep walked the rest of the way against a guy that had less and didn't know what he had in front of him.
In my mind, his inability to take a punch and recover is what keeps Hearns from being a truly top-flight fighter. Granted, he could concievably overwhelm a guy like he did Duran (a better fighter), but, if that didn't work, he was waiting to be had. Thjis was true throughout his entire career, at every weight. McCallum would've beaten him, Toney, and a bunch of others.
I hear ya on everything you said. But I'd argue the Olajide, Dewitt fights he still won. And neither of those guys was a joke. As for your suppositions, even if I agree with them (which I largely do) woulda coulda shoulda just carries no weight with me...or only a little anyway (I am too often wrong in actual predictions). Hearns fought an excellent collection of fighters, defeated some true greats in Duran and Benitez and gave everyone he fought, including ATG's absolute hell.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Kinchen was another fight where he didn't take it well.
But Hearns could get you, too. Duran, I think, was a better fighter, in that he'd beat guys that Hearns couldn't, but I can't see him ever beating Hearns. Just styles, I guess.
Totally agree. Styles and that straight 'come to jeezus' like right hand Hearns had. One of the most devastating kos
ever seen.
Watching that fight was the strangest thing. I had never before, and would never see again, Duran look really, really uncomfortable in the ring. Frustrated sure. But he looked at Hearns like Tommy was from another planet and where the hell was the cavalry?
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Hearns was pretty good. Lost twice to Iran Barkley, and I guess he just had his number. But there's a couple other glitches in his career that make me wonder about him being 'great.'
He fought Doug DeWitt, nobody's definition of a great, or particularly good, fighter. He had skills and some mental lapses that held him back, and a very solid chin for most of his career. Hearns hit DeWitt with something like 22 straight punches at the end of the 2nd round of their fight and didn't hurt him: but Doug had a good chin and Hearns was having hand problems then. In the 7th round DeWitt landed several body punches and took it all out of Hearns.
Hearns fought Olijade and out boxed him, knocked him down. In the course of trying to finish him, Hearns got hit with a left hook that took his legs straight away. He had nothing and sleep walked the rest of the way against a guy that had less and didn't know what he had in front of him.
In my mind, his inability to take a punch and recover is what keeps Hearns from being a truly top-flight fighter. Granted, he could concievably overwhelm a guy like he did Duran (a better fighter), but, if that didn't work, he was waiting to be had. Thjis was true throughout his entire career, at every weight. McCallum would've beaten him, Toney, and a bunch of others.
Hearns had his faults. No denying that. You make some decent points. You consider him to be a good fighter. But his resume says otherwise. No matter what happened in the Olijade and DeWitt fights he still won them. And they were clearcut wins. Add Pipino Cuevas, Roberto Duran, Bruce Curry, Wilfred Benitez, Ray Leonard (that was no draw), Virgil Hill, Angel Espada and it ain't hard to see why he's pretty much consider great by most
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Kinchen was another fight where he didn't take it well.
But Hearns could get you, too. Duran, I think, was a better fighter, in that he'd beat guys that Hearns couldn't, but I can't see him ever beating Hearns. Just styles, I guess.
Totally agree. Styles and that straight 'come to jeezus' like right hand Hearns had. One of the most devastating kos
ever seen.
Watching that fight was the strangest thing. I had never before, and would never see again, Duran look really, really uncomfortable in the ring. Frustrated sure. But he looked at Hearns like Tommy was from another planet and where the hell was the cavalry?
Its always struck me odd that one yeh. With nothing but mass respect to Duran, almost seemed a man vs boy match, ya know. He just detonated on his chin.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mars_ax
Roy Jones-Old View-The greatest fighter of the last twenty years. An unprecedented combination of speed and power. First New View-Roy's technique was terrible, he fought very limited competition and he was never a warrior. It is easy to look flashy against one's athletic inferiors, but it doesn't mean much. Not a top 50 all-timer. New, New View-The more you look at who Roy beat, the better his resume is. Nobody really beat him before he was 35 and he showed how he came off disappointment against Montell Griffin in one glorious round. Father Time is what got Roy. Tarver didn't. A top 50 all-timer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only one i'm going to comment on Marble, is Roy Jones Jr., was his competition really all that great when compared to the resumes of the top 50 all-time greats? Father- time you say? Jones was only 34 when he fought Tarver the 2nd time and nearly lost their first fight. In his next fight he was knocked unconscious by journeyman Glen Johnson, and then went on to lose his 3rd fight with Tarver. In my view, Jones Jr's opponents finally figured out his unorthodox style, and he hasn't won a meaningful fight against a top level opponent since then.
I think his unorthodox speed training and agility was the only thing that allowed him to get away with a lot of very wild stuff that many others couldn't even imagine doing at that time.
Traditionalists of solid ring work hate these types.
Once he actually believed his own hype and thought he was king he rode his merits instead of training even harder, With no traditional technique to fall back on his lack of explosiveness and still putting himself in the old positions didn't help. It was his own fault he slacked off instead he should of dropped right off.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
Hearns was pretty good. Lost twice to Iran Barkley, and I guess he just had his number. But there's a couple other glitches in his career that make me wonder about him being 'great.'
He fought Doug DeWitt, nobody's definition of a great, or particularly good, fighter. He had skills and some mental lapses that held him back, and a very solid chin for most of his career. Hearns hit DeWitt with something like 22 straight punches at the end of the 2nd round of their fight and didn't hurt him: but Doug had a good chin and Hearns was having hand problems then. In the 7th round DeWitt landed several body punches and took it all out of Hearns.
Hearns fought Olijade and out boxed him, knocked him down. In the course of trying to finish him, Hearns got hit with a left hook that took his legs straight away. He had nothing and sleep walked the rest of the way against a guy that had less and didn't know what he had in front of him.
In my mind, his inability to take a punch and recover is what keeps Hearns from being a truly top-flight fighter. Granted, he could concievably overwhelm a guy like he did Duran (a better fighter), but, if that didn't work, he was waiting to be had. Thjis was true throughout his entire career, at every weight. McCallum would've beaten him, Toney, and a bunch of others.
Hearns had his faults. No denying that. You make some decent points. You consider him to be a good fighter. But his resume says otherwise. No matter what happened in the Olijade and DeWitt fights he still won them. And they were clearcut wins. Add Pipino Cuevas, Roberto Duran, Bruce Curry, Wilfred Benitez, Ray Leonard (that was no draw), Virgil Hill, Angel Espada and it ain't hard to see why he's pretty much consider great by most
And the very fact they were dominant wins speak volumes aswell, well maybe not against Wilfredo Benitez. But points wise is was pretty wide, and he was miles ahead against Sugar Ray Leonard in the 1st fight, and won the rematch but was robbed.
Tommy Hearns didn't have the best chin, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter. I mean Joe Louis and Wilfredo Benitez didn't have great chins either, but there still great fighters.
-
Re: Changing One's Mind on Fighters
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chinchekked
Jones was one of the greatest. Yeah, he lost to Tarver and it was a slippery slope after that but don't think for a second Jones isn't an atg. Jones messed up when he dropped that weight to give Tarver the rematch, he got caught and itwas downhill. Don't be fooled...Tarver, Johnson, or any of those guys don't beat prime Jones.
Jones Jr. had a unorthodox style, (not unlike Prince Hamed) hit, but not be hit, that was hard, almost impossible for his opponents to crack. At first, he was head and shoulders above most of his competition, but eventually, his competition got better and figured his style out, Tarver being the first. Since then, Jones Jr. has become just another over-hyped, over-payed, has been.
