Anthony Mundine- Place in History?

[BennyST]

on par with Jeff Harding

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. He had a much longer career funnily enough, despite starting late and coming from another sport. Harding had a very short career. Really only six years, with one single comeback fight two years after that. 25 fights over six years, while Mundine has now had 50 over 14 years. Literally twice the fights and more than twice the time.

The thing is, Harding had many less fights, but he won the title off a long, multiple time LHW champion rather than just a vacant strap.

Harding's best wins, Dennis Andries and Christophe Tiozzo, during his short reign (short career really) are significantly better than what Mundine did though as a champion. Harding also gave a still great McCallum a very tough fight in his last fight after coming back from a two year retirement in what was a pretty decent scrap. Could have taken it at his best.

Mundine though, he's really just a decent everyday champ. Nothing special, but not bad either. He really cops more flack than he's deserving maybe, and he's probably a bit better than he's become thought of overall, but he's really just a typical champion of the day. Some ok wins, some bad losses.

The Ottke fight was probably a little early for him after starting. Straight from a big pro career in rugby to pro boxing and a title fight after 10 fights. Not the smartest way to do it, and while he dominated the fight, he also got caught weirdly and KTFO.

It's really the one fight, and point in his career, I feel sorry for Mundine about. He was winning it so easily, and looking like a pretty darn good prospect, and then with only a round or two to go, he gets caught with a bad temple shot. It would have been good for him to have won it. I wish he had. That may also be because I really don't like Ottke and he was more than deserving of a loss from a new pro, with no am experience, coming from another sport with only 10 fights.

He could have done better though. He only ever won vacant titles, never off one of the top guys. I think there really came a turning point some years ago in which he really stopped looking for hard fights, and just took mediocre fights that got him a lot of money. More so than most champs. He was getting paid millions to fight Sam Soliman, so why fight tougher opponents. I think he could have done ok at a higher level and have a little more respect as a result.

As it stands, he's really just an ok champion that could, and should, have done more.

[just the facts]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. He had a much longer career funnily enough, despite starting late and coming from another sport. Harding had a very short career. Really only six years, with one single comeback fight two years after that. 25 fights over six years, while Mundine has now had 50 over 14 years. Literally twice the fights and more than twice the time.

The thing is, Harding had many less fights, but he won the title off a long, multiple time LHW champion rather than just a vacant strap.

Harding's best wins, Dennis Andries and Christophe Tiozzo, during his short reign (short career really) are significantly better than what Mundine did though as a champion. Harding also gave a still great McCallum a very tough fight in his last fight after coming back from a two year retirement in what was a pretty decent scrap. Could have taken it at his best.

Mundine though, he's really just a decent everyday champ. Nothing special, but not bad either. He really cops more flack than he's deserving maybe, and he's probably a bit better than he's become thought of overall, but he's really just a typical champion of the day. Some ok wins, some bad losses.

The Ottke fight was probably a little early for him after starting. Straight from a big pro career in rugby to pro boxing and a title fight after 10 fights. Not the smartest way to do it, and while he dominated the fight, he also got caught weirdly and KTFO.

It's really the one fight, and point in his career, I feel sorry for Mundine about. He was winning it so easily, and looking like a pretty darn good prospect, and then with only a round or two to go, he gets caught with a bad temple shot. It would have been good for him to have won it. I wish he had. That may also be because I really don't like Ottke and he was more than deserving of a loss from a new pro, with no am experience, coming from another sport with only 10 fights.

He could have done better though. He only ever won vacant titles, never off one of the top guys. I think there really came a turning point some years ago in which he really stopped looking for hard fights, and just took mediocre fights that got him a lot of money. More so than most champs. He was getting paid millions to fight Sam Soliman, so why fight tougher opponents. I think he could have done ok at a higher level and have a little more respect as a result.

As it stands, he's really just an ok champion that could, and should, have done more.

the question was Mundines place in history and a good answer is "on par with Harding"

[Bodyshot3]

Harding is streets ahead of Mundine in my opinion....yes, it was a short career but packed with the far more meaningful fights and impressive results. He did not lose against domestic opposition, beat Andries as a virtual novice, then beat Tiozzo and Andries in their own backyards.

Harding was a bona fide WBC world champion when the green belt was still the one to own - Mundine was pissing about defending his WBA belt against domestic opponents like Nader Hamdan (who'd struggle to get a PABF title) and Jose Clavero.

[Weebler I]

What Mundine did was special, he succeeded in two (very different) professional sports. Very few sportsmen ever manage to crossover.

Imagine an American who succeeded in playing the Superbowl and then becoming a multiple world champ in boxing. He would be rightly lauded and that is the equivalent of what Mundine achieved in Australia.

[Anthony342]

What Mundine did was special, he succeeded in two (very different) professional sports. Very few sportsmen ever manage to crossover.

Imagine an American who succeeded in playing the Superbowl and then becoming a multiple world champ in boxing. He would be rightly lauded and that is the equivalent of what Mundine achieved in Australia.

Yeah kind of like Deon Sanders winning a Super Bowl and almost winning a World Series ring

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Yeah kind of like Deon Sanders winning a Super Bowl and almost winning a World Series ring

I think he did win a World Series in 95 with the braves

[soul_survivor]

Mundine fought a legit world champion in Ottke in only his 11th pro fight and this after having spent so much of his youth playing Rugby. To come from another sport into boxing and fight for a world championship against a guy who is extremely experienced is rare.

he then managed to win a title, go the distance with Kessler, beat Green and stopped Soliman, both far more experienced and managed to beat one of the best Aussie boxers of the last decade in Geale.

People tend to forget the guy is 38 and is past prime, so his fight against Mosley was almost on equal footing.

I think the fact that Mundine has spoken out against racism in Australian sport and spoken out against the US and is a vocal Muslim has made it difficult for him to be accepted on American TV, where he could easily have fought a few more times. that does make people judge him slightly differently.

there are no two ways about it, Mundine is a great cross over athlete but not a great boxer.

[BennyST]

the question was Mundines place in history and a good answer is "on par with Harding"

Thanks for that info mate.

You're taking offense that I replied in a discussion forum?

Should we have all simply praised your response?

[Bodyshot3]

@Weebler1....that is fair comment, excelling at two seriously tough contact sports is worthy of praise.

[Anthony342]

I think he did win a World Series in 95 with the braves

There ya go.