Boxers Who Had Other Boxers Numbers But Wern't As Good

[amat]

Tarver didn't have jones number. Jones beet him twice(once as an amateur) before Tarver landed a good punch. That can happen to anyone.

Unless we're talking Bowe - Lewis, amateurs don't mean anything especially when the fighters were 13 when they fought. Tarver may not have had Jones number, but there has to be a reason RJ didn't press Tarver in their third fight.

[LegendBoxing65]

Jones is a better fighter than Tarver. That is plain and simple. Same as Hearns being better than Barkley. We know Jones and Hearns are better than Tarver and Barkley, yet they were beaten 2 times by both and both guys were knocked out pretty bad by Tarver and Barkley. yet Jones beats most guys who Tarver struggles with easily.

[THE THIRD MAN]

I'm going back a bit here, how did Rafael Herrera who was a good fighter beat a prime Ruben Olivares...
TWICE!!!!

[THE THIRD MAN]

Hatton over tszyu?

I think Phillips over Tszyu was more of a surprise, Hatton is a better fighter than Phillips and age caught up with Tszyu.

[meowza]

Hmm.. of those not mentioned already, first one that comes to mind is Ivan Robinson vs. Gatti twice

[ICB]

Mark Willis vs Greg Page can't believe talented hw like Page lost to journeyman like Willis twice.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Fulmer v Robinson?

[DaxxKahn]

Ross Purity over Wladimir Klitschko

[bigragu]

I would say Holyfield vs Tyson but i think had they met in 1991/92 Tyson would have won but in 1996 Holyfield had Tyson's number Tyson was flat his footwork was crap and i watched how they worked Tyson out in a analysis programme on sky.And Collins vs Eubank

move the timeframe back 4 yrs.....1987-88 Tyson...still had Kevin Rooney....unbeatable

[El Gamo]

I agree with someone who postd to have ones number,one must have fought the other more than once otherwise we don't know if they their number. My nominations are Randall and JCC, Forrest Mosley too.

[SweetPea]

I would say Holyfield vs Tyson but i think had they met in 1991/92 Tyson would have won but in 1996 Holyfield had Tyson's number Tyson was flat his footwork was crap and i watched how they worked Tyson out in a analysis programme on sky.And Collins vs Eubank

move the timeframe back 4 yrs.....1987-88 Tyson...still had Kevin Rooney....unbeatable

Holyfield would've beaten Tyson whether they fought in 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007.. 2027. Holyfield was simply a better fighter than Tyson.

[X]

Hagler not as good as Hearns.......I am the Biggest Tommy Hearns fan you will find but...Hagler was everything a fighter can be and then some......Hell to this day IMO he beat Leonard

I knew there was a reason I liked you ! My thoughts exactly !!

cc

[DaxxKahn]

Hagler not as good as Hearns.......I am the Biggest Tommy Hearns fan you will find but...Hagler was everything a fighter can be and then some......Hell to this day IMO he beat Leonard

I knew there was a reason I liked you ! My thoughts exactly !!

cc

CC Back at ya...Great Minds Must Think A like...

[MistaDibbs]

I agree with someone who postd to have ones number,one must have fought the other more than once otherwise we don't know if they their number. My nominations are Randall and JCC, Forrest Mosley too.

Exactly. One fight is either a good night or a blow-out, not one fighter having the other fighter's number. Examples of this would Klitschko vs. Byrd (2 fights), Hopkins vs. Allen (3 fights), Maskaev vs. Rahman (2 fights) and if Brewster just happens to pull a small miracle and defeat Klitschko in their second meeting, that one will qualify. Out those examples (and I know there are many more), I would have to say that Maskaev vs. Rahman and Brewster vs. Klitschko (if Brewster beats Klitschko again) are prime examples of what this thread is addressing because Maskaev and Brewster are not that good.

[LegendBoxing65]

Hearns and Hagler are difficult to compare. Hagler did beat Hearns in 1985 but Hagler never ever moved up and tested his skills against bigger guys like say Michael Spinks. That should work a little against him in rating him against Hearns, who moved all over the place in the 80s and 90s. Would it be fair to say if Spinks stopped Marvin that Spinks was necessarily better? Because Hearns did stop Duran and Hagler could not. Hearns did knock down Leonard and Hagler did not. Hearns did stop Roldan in 4 and Hagler in 10. If the Hagler/Hearns fight did not happen, who would be looked at as better? Hagler would have beaten Duran and then lost to Leonard, and Hearns would have stopped Duran and fought Ray twice earning a draw. And then Hearns beat Virgil Hill in 1991. And Virgil had the same amount of title defenses in 1991 as Hagler had in 1985. The books do not show totally that Hagler is better than Hearns, but their fight does show that yes Hagler beat Hearns. And we have to respect that. But a fighters overall career does matter, and fact is that Hearns fought more Hall of famers than Hagler did. As for Marvin at middleweight, Hagler always was a big middleweight in thickness and muscle. A strong middleweight. Even Hearns and Mugabi didn't budge Marvin. That is a strong man. But at lightheavyweight against Saad Muhammad or Spinks or Qawi believe me Hagler would have had to rely on some skills to beat them. and he had them.. He was a good boxers when he had to be, but he never had to be much with his physical strength. I am not talking punching power which Marvin had a B grade in power, but his physical strength was A. Hearns moved up and tested himself in higher divisions and fought some of the best ever.. I think we know more about Hearns limitations and strengths than we do Haglers since Tommy did have to rely on backing up and finding ways to win in a struggle, just on the fact that Tommy moved up and fought all sorts of guys and had to rely on more than just strength. yet Tommy also had the weaker chin than Marvin and left himself open to counters. The one fight which obviously hurts Hearns is Iran Barkley. But alot of fighters have those kinds of style matchups.