View Full Version : the man
JoondalupJ
30 May 2009, 23:26
Perhaps now we will really see how good Mundine is ,now that he wants to take on the real topline fighters in the USA. Have to say, I always thought him as "bum of the month" man but now I'm not too sure , he looks very fast , just might surprise everyone and beat someone with a real background and a real title.
Any one tell me who is the real champ in Mundine's division, which champion stands out . Perhaps one day they may go back to one champ per division.
Perhaps now we will really see how good Mundine is ,now that he wants to take on the real topline fighters in the USA. Have to say, I always thought him as "bum of the month" man but now I'm not too sure , he looks very fast , just might surprise everyone and beat someone with a real background and a real title.
Any one tell me who is the real champ in Mundine's division, which champion stands out . Perhaps one day they may go back to one champ per division.
Any one tell me who is the real champ in Mundine's division? Marvin Hagler;).
Bum of the month. Joe Louis opponents;).
Perhaps one day they may go back to one champ per division. I wish;).
After 40+ years of watching the sweet science I feel that I have seen, heard and read it all before. In fact I feel that about everything:(.
JoondalupJ
31 May 2009, 21:06
Any one tell me who is the real champ in Mundine's division? Marvin Hagler;).
Bum of the month. Joe Louis opponents;).
Perhaps one day they may go back to one champ per division. I wish;).
After 40+ years of watching the sweet science I feel that I have seen, heard and read it all before. In fact I feel that about everything:(.
Then is boxing finished . Is there no credability in this sport anymore. When you say things like Marvin Hagler or Ray Leonard then I guess you saying nothing stands up nowadays. Your right. There are so many champions no one knows who the real ones are, hey? I followed the sport too and love it but I'm lost in a different world of boxing today. Its a pitty, 40 years would be my span of watching too.I can remember Lionel and
Fammo and Bobby Steve the iceman and poor old Foster Bibron, even Jimmys unfortunate comeback.
Well that was the good old days.I guess no one knows anymore.
Any one tell me who is the real champ in Mundine's division? Marvin Hagler;).
(.My favourite fighter
Partly resposible for the greatest 3 rounds of boxing ever.What a prime Hagler would to to any of todays middleweights would be tantamount to murder.
As for Mundine out of the currnet crop of so called champs @ 160 I think he would most likely go after Sturm.Just hope he eventually matches up on Pavlik
Then is boxing finished . Is there no credability in this sport anymore.
Was there ever mate? Some seem to think that there was some golden era when it was a pristine sport but the reality is that it has always been controversial. Tex Rickard. The Don King of his day. Jack Dempsey would not fight a black men. Fixed fights with Jake La Motta an example.
When you say things like Marvin Hagler or Ray Leonard then I guess you saying nothing stands up nowadays. Your right. There are so many champions no one knows who the real ones are, hey? I followed the sport too and love it but I'm lost in a different world of boxing today.
I am not sure I care as much but I still like a good fight. I like to think that I see past the hype of a Mundine for example so therefore can view his career dispassionately. As to your first point I think that the day the WBC became a 2nd organisation apart form the NBA (Future WBA) the sport was doomed to factionalism but I think there are some great fighters that have appeared after that. As to Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Leonard that was an era that was always going to be difficult to top with boxing fans like you and I who lived that.
Its a pitty, 40 years would be my span of watching too.I can remember Lionel and Fammo and Bobby Steve the iceman and poor old Foster Bibron, even Jimmys unfortunate comeback.
Well that was the good old days.I guess no one knows anymore.
Iceman? Do you mean Trevor Thornberry?
My favourite fighter
Partly resposible for the greatest 3 rounds of boxing ever.What a prime Hagler would to to any of todays middleweights would be tantamount to murder.
What a fight that was. I reckon I watched that about 10 times in one day when I was a young bloke.
How about Hearns v Duran though! That punch was amazing.
As for Mundine out of the currnet crop of so called champs @ 160 I think he would most likely go after Sturm.Just hope he eventually matches up on Pavlik
I have not seen the likes of Strum to be honest and have only seen Pavlik once. Mundine has the speed and is a good defensive boxer. I am of the opinion that he lacks power nowadays and especially at Middleweight. I suspect that he will not beat these blokes from what I have read about them though. He should have stayed at Super Middleweight. He looked too gaunt the other night.
hellfire
9 Jun 2009, 20:02
What a fight that was. I reckon I watched that about 10 times in one day when I was a young bloke.
How about Hearns v Duran though! That punch was amazing.
You enjoy seeing one of the greatest fighters of all time giving up a foot in reach, about 6 inches in height, plus 3 divisions and nearly a decade above/past his best, getting knocked out cold? You're a cold man!
I have not seen the likes of Strum to be honest and have only seen Pavlik once. Mundine has the speed and is a good defensive boxer. I am of the opinion that he lacks power nowadays and especially at Middleweight. I suspect that he will not beat these blokes from what I have read about them though. He should have stayed at Super Middleweight. He looked too gaunt the other night.
Sturm is okay, nothing special. Pavlik is disgustingly one-dimensional. Any top slick boxer with a decent chin should be able to beat him. Hopkins took him to school, I think Mundine could definitely pull off something similar, though less dominant, because he's nowhere near Hopkins, even at this advanced age.
I'd possibly argue than Mr. Monzon is the man at 160. Marv was a gem, and comfortably top 2 at the weight, but there is no clear leader between those two. Sugar Ray on his day would probably beat them both, though we all know his terrible inconsistency at 160. But I guess that can be attributed to fighting every few weeks! And if you want to throw in a smokey, Roy Jones Jr. [while being terribly unproven at the weight] would be an absolute nightmare for ANY middleweight in history. His accomplishments there wouldn't see him crack the top 50, but his ability head-to-head at 160 and 168 was something to behold.
As for the bum of the month... that's too often taken out of context. That was more of a "who's next?" question/comment, than "who the hell is this guy?" A credit to Louis' awesome dominance. But I'm sure that after watching the sport for as long as you have, you know that all too well.
Boxing is far from finished my friends. I saw something interesting the other day [an article by a highly respected boxing journalist] that had Morales, Barrera, Pacquiao and Marquez being compared to the 'Fab Four' [Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns]. At first glance many may scoff, perhaps due to the nostalgic favouritism that is inherent with boxing supporters. "The guys from the past would destroy the current crop of fighters". If you go back to 1967-ish, the question wasn't "who wins out of Ali and Louis?". It was "how early does Louis put him in a body bag?". There were exceptions of course, there always are.
But anyway, the comparison is actually pretty interesting. I came up with something on another site, that has it's database down at the minute, but I'll try to do it from memory.
Morales = Duran
Pacquiao = Leonard
Barrera = Hearns
Marquez = Hagler
Duran beats Leonard in a classic fight, by a close by clear decision.
Morales beats Pacquiao in a classic fight, by a close by clear decision.
Leonard gets revenge via humiliation in their rematch.
Pacquiao gets revenge via the first stoppages of Morales' career in their rematches.
P4P king Tommy Hearns gets stopped by Leonard late.
No. 3 P4P Barrera gets stopped by Pacquiao late.
Leonard edges Hagler in a massively disputed decision.
Pacquiao edges Marquez in a massively disputed decision [or two].
Hagler stops Hearns in an action-packed fight.
Marquez beats Barrera in a close action-packed fight.
Hearns beats Duran senseless.
Barrera had the wood over Morales in their series.
There are obviously holes in my analyis [I didn't raise the comparison, I just did this part of it], such as Marquez not fighting Morales, where Hagler did fight Duran. But nonetheless, both eras had incredible rivalries with each other, both were always near the top of the P4P rankings, both had absolute cracking fights that will go down as classics. We're incredibly lucky to be witnessing this era!
The only problem with the era is the increasing tendancy of the top fighters to avoid each other [except for the guys mentioned, as well as guys like Mosley, Hopkins etc., who are all near retirement]. The only solution to this is to make only one belt per division, so that they have to fight each other to get it! But this will never happen. Oh well.
Quality post hellfire and great to read sensible discussion as opposed to the semi literate Mundine hatred by individuals that have never watched an undercard fight in their life.
Boxing is far from finished my friends. I saw something interesting the other day [an article by a highly respected boxing journalist] that had Morales, Barrera, Pacquiao and Marquez being compared to the 'Fab Four' [Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns]. At first glance many may scoff, perhaps due to the nostalgic favouritism that is inherent with boxing supporters. "The guys from the past would destroy the current crop of fighters". If you go back to 1967-ish, the question wasn't "who wins out of Ali and Louis?". It was "how early does Louis put him in a body bag?". There were exceptions of course, there always are.
I agree with you. I actually have no nostalgia for the past in any sport other than the historical and discussions on the past hero's being better than today's are subjective at best. You mention Morales. I first caught Morales while he was something like 40-0 and was stunned at his ability. He was as smooth as silk, he was fast of hands, had good upper body and head movement and he packed a punch in both hands. He was bloody fantastic and I have to say that he was as good a boxer/fighter that I had seen. I then proceeded to try and watch all his fights and was never let down. His first against Pacquiao I thought was a fair win, though a mate with me was of the opposite opinion. Unfortunately after that time caught him up. It is sad that due to the alphabet soup world champs, you touched on that with your point about one belt per division, he will not be remembered as he deserved. Pac man will though. His wins are now defining.
JoondalupJ
10 Jun 2009, 00:17
Was there ever mate? Some seem to think that there was some golden era when it was a pristine sport but the reality is that it has always been controversial. Tex Rickard. The Don King of his day. Jack Dempsey would not fight a black men. Fixed fights with Jake La Motta an example.
I am not sure I care as much but I still like a good fight. I like to think that I see past the hype of a Mundine for example so therefore can view his career dispassionately. As to your first point I think that the day the WBC became a 2nd organisation apart form the NBA (Future WBA) the sport was doomed to factionalism but I think there are some great fighters that have appeared after that. As to Hagler, Hearns, Duran and Leonard that was an era that was always going to be difficult to top with boxing fans like you and I who lived that.
Iceman? Do you mean Trevor Thornberry?
Thanks for the comments. The iceman I remember was Steve Axcell, not sure of the spelling but I believe he may have been hurt in a fight.
JoondalupJ
10 Jun 2009, 00:27
Thanks for the comments. The iceman I remember was Steve Axcell, not sure of the spelling but I believe he may have been hurt in a fight.
John and Hellfire, both of you thanks for your comments gents .Both you chaps seem to know the fight game pretty well.I am definately no expert, but just enjoyed the sport at its best. I'm interested in reading opinions from serious followers. I guess its a little different nowadays, but, its true I suppose, boxing was good /bad /brilliant in all eras .I do think that the splitting of boxing organizations over the years has made our modern era very difficult to know whats happening , like me, my interest is, I like the fights but I'm not hugely knowledgable about these times. Thanks fellas.
ps. Joe puts Ali in a body bag???? Kostya what do you reckon?
the_interloper
10 Jun 2009, 00:29
Anyone else find it interesting he's dropping in weight when he's getting on in years? Most blokes put on weight, interesting, are there blokes he's scared of in super middle?
And BTW, watched Famechon v Harada the other night, awesome blue, Fammo had great evasive skills! :thumbsu:
hellfire
10 Jun 2009, 10:56
Quality post hellfire and great to read sensible discussion as opposed to the semi literate Mundine hatred by individuals that have never watched an undercard fight in their life.
:D:thumbsu:
I agree with you. I actually have no nostalgia for the past in any sport other than the historical and discussions on the past hero's being better than today's are subjective at best. You mention Morales. I first caught Morales while he was something like 40-0 and was stunned at his ability. He was as smooth as silk, he was fast of hands, had good upper body and head movement and he packed a punch in both hands. He was bloody fantastic and I have to say that he was as good a boxer/fighter that I had seen. I then proceeded to try and watch all his fights and was never let down. His first against Pacquiao I thought was a fair win, though a mate with me was of the opposite opinion. Unfortunately after that time caught him up. It is sad that due to the alphabet soup world champs, you touched on that with your point about one belt per division, he will not be remembered as he deserved. Pac man will though. His wins are now defining.
Definitely. Morales is among my favourite fighters of all time, he was really something special. He was a true fighter for the fans, he never backed down from a scrap, even if he could've easily won from a distance. I'll never forget the moment in the 12th around against Pacquiao when he turned southpaw, just to taunt Pacquiao and give the fans some drama. He got nailed with the straight left hand about 6 or 7 times, and got stunned a little, but he was too stubborn and kept fighting southpaw! A true warrior.
Time did catch up with him unfortunately, too many brawls for such a damaging style. As you said, Pacquiao will be remembered better than Morales, he is really doing a modern-day Henry Armstrong right now (as good as you can do in a time without real lineal champs and frequent fighting etc.). I just hope he can beat Mayweather, because I love the guy.
hellfire
10 Jun 2009, 11:09
John and Hellfire, both of you thanks for your comments gents .Both you chaps seem to know the fight game pretty well.I am definately no expert, but just enjoyed the sport at its best. I'm interested in reading opinions from serious followers. I guess its a little different nowadays, but, its true I suppose, boxing was good /bad /brilliant in all eras .I do think that the splitting of boxing organizations over the years has made our modern era very difficult to know whats happening , like me, my interest is, I like the fights but I'm not hugely knowledgable about these times. Thanks fellas.
ps. Joe puts Ali in a body bag???? Kostya what do you reckon?
Yeah the splitting of the belts was a terrible thing to happen. The earliest occasion I can recall of this happening was when Ali was champ in the 60s. The heavyweight championship had been unified forever [I'm pretty sure], and when Ali chose to give Sonny Liston a rematch, the WBA decided to strip Ali of the title, and then Machen and Terrell fought for the vacant belt. Of course, everyone knew that Ali was the champ, so the WBA belt meant nothing. But it was eventually unified again when Ali humiliated Terrell in 67.
These days fighters seem reluctant to unify belts, partially because they prefer staying "on top" rather than raking risks for the sake of their legacy, and partially because fighters are changing weights so often! There are a few modern champs who unified divisions, our own Kostya Tszyu is one, Bernard Hopkins did it at 160 a few years back. I think with guys like Don King and Bob Arum getting on in years, it's up to De La Hoya and other young promoters to try to change this trend and get boxing back on the mainstream map!
And I think Ali would beat Louis. Possibly after tasting the canvas. His movement and handspeed would be terrible for Louis who utilised that very textbook 'old-school', somewhat stationary style. Billy Conn used his movement and boxing skills to beat Louis over 12 rounds before getting knocked out. I think Ali would do something similar, but without getting knocked out.
Anyone else find it interesting he's dropping in weight when he's getting on in years? Most blokes put on weight, interesting, are there blokes he's scared of in super middle?
And BTW, watched Famechon v Harada the other night, awesome blue, Fammo had great evasive skills! :thumbsu:
Yeah it is going against the trend. He probably felt that if he could comfortably make the weight, then he would carry bigger power and more speed at the weight. Not sure if it's worked according to plan. Shane Mosley did something similar by moving back to 147, except it appeared to work for him, given that he knocked out Margarito!!
There is even talk of him dropping further to a catch weight of about 143-144 to fight Pacquiao. Impressive at his age.
JoondalupJ
16 Jun 2009, 05:32
Yeah the splitting of the belts was a terrible thing to happen. The earliest occasion I can recall of this happening was when Ali was champ in the 60s. The heavyweight championship had been unified forever [I'm pretty sure], and when Ali chose to give Sonny Liston a rematch, the WBA decided to strip Ali of the title, and then Machen and Terrell fought for the vacant belt. Of course, everyone knew that Ali was the champ, so the WBA belt meant nothing. But it was eventually unified again when Ali humiliated Terrell in 67.
These days fighters seem reluctant to unify belts, partially because they prefer staying "on top" rather than raking risks for the sake of their legacy, and partially because fighters are changing weights so often! There are a few modern champs who unified divisions, our own Kostya Tszyu is one, Bernard Hopkins did it at 160 a few years back. I think with guys like Don King and Bob Arum getting on in years, it's up to De La Hoya and other young promoters to try to change this trend and get boxing back on the mainstream map!
And I think Ali would beat Louis. Possibly after tasting the canvas. His movement and handspeed would be terrible for Louis who utilised that very textbook 'old-school', somewhat stationary style. Billy Conn used his movement and boxing skills to beat Louis over 12 rounds before getting knocked out. I think Ali would do something similar, but without getting knocked out.
Yeah it is going against the trend. He probably felt that if he could comfortably make the weight, then he would carry bigger power and more speed at the weight. Not sure if it's worked according to plan. Shane Mosley did something similar by moving back to 147, except it appeared to work for him, given that he knocked out Margarito!!
There is even talk of him dropping further to a catch weight of about 143-144 to fight Pacquiao. Impressive at his age.
I beleive Fammo and Harada fought twice, was it number two that Fammo knocked Harada out of the ring. What an acheivment Harada was a tough customer.
hellfire
20 Jun 2009, 15:45
I beleive Fammo and Harada fought twice, was it number two that Fammo knocked Harada out of the ring. What an acheivment Harada was a tough customer.
Yeah it was the second fight, and Harada retired after it from memory. :thumbsu:
JoondalupJ
27 Jun 2009, 17:07
Yeah it was the second fight, and Harada retired after it from memory. :thumbsu:
G,day folks
Congrats Hellfire Pies looked very dangerous today Thomas seemed to open up a bit that
Brown ex docker he had a good one , they all seemed to lift. I think your boys only scraped in against Sydney last week but they sure as hell belted the Dockers today.
Just a quickie on a boxing note and I know I probably seem to go backwards in time ,but I watched Evander Holyfeild and George Foreman on the fight classics last night and it is one of the toughest hardest fights from big boys I've seen (1991). Holyfeild took some massive blows from George and also gave George some absolute rippers ,I actually thought he might have knocked him out but the big guy just took them. Strange my memory is crap. I did not know the result can you beleive, and it was a great pleasure to watch. Darchanyin is fighting this week also I beleive, that willbe a ripper too.