It's all BS, in my opinion. I wish it was like the old days where fighters got weighed on the day of the fight. They wouldn't have to gain all that weight.
You mean like one real world champion? I'd have it as follows:
Heavyweight: Wladimir Klitschko
Cruiserweight: Tomasz Adamek
Light heavyweight: Chad Dawson
Super middleweight: Not sure
Middleweight: Kelly Pavlik
Light middleweight: Not sure
Welterweight: Shane Mosley
Light welterweight: Timothy Bradley (since Pacquiao is now a welterweight)
Lightweight: Juan Manuel Marquez
Super featherweight: Not sure
Featherweight: Chris John
Super bantamweight: Celestino Caballero
Bantamweight: Hozumi Hasewaga
Come'on.. when Mayweather retired, the number one spot was up for grabs. It's obvious the two best in the division, at the time, were Cotto and Margarito. They battled it out and Margarito took the top spot. Then Mosley beat Margarito and now he has the top spot.
That extra weight could be the reason that eye of Vitalis got cut, yes Lennox Lewis won fair and square but Vitali is no joke and he will beat Haye. Vitali is going to have to not chase Haye though, he is going to have to wait until Haye comes to him. Haye has this style when he fights bigger guys where he'll run against them and throw a few punches because his stamina is in question. You can probably say Vitali kind of ran against Arreola, but I consider it less running when Vitali was atleast throwing over 8000 punches in the damn fight!
Bro, Haye just got rid of the most boring heavyweight champion in years. You should be celebrating.
Nah, hagler wasn't would be the slower of the two, and would give up quite a bit in height.
Don't know, man. Their speed wasn't that different and Hagler had a way of destroying the height advantage. It's all in opinion, though.
Hopkins beats monzon when you really think about it. Hagler would have been a tough one, could go either way, but Hagler being quite a bit shorter might mess things up.
I'll have to disagree on that one. Hagler would mess him up.
Him against Monzon is a tough fight to call, though.
You don't think that had anything to do with Douglas' unwillingness to lose? His constant jab in Mikes face? His determination, grit, hunger, and motivation to win at absolutely any cost?
It most certainly did.
Mike Tyson, unbeaten, in no wars... at 23 years old... was absolutely prime when he got knocked out... because he executed a wrong game plan, or didn't use all the tools in his arsenal has nothing to do with it.
You seem to not be reading my posts carefully.
I said that starting after the Spinks fight, he seemed to be decreasing in his overall boxing ability. Not punching ability. Boxing ability.
I also said that Douglas, on that night, would've still given a prime Tyson a challenge. He came in with a good game plan and had great determination. I don't even know how the outcome would be if he fought an '88 version of Tyson, that night.
All I'm saying is that it wasn't a prime Tyson. He had the prime punching power but not the prime boxing skill.
Only AFTER the spinks fight? He stopped Bruno in the 5th and his very next fight he knocked the guy out in the first round....
Again, I'm sorrry... but he was a consistent prime wrecking ball going into the Buster Douglas fight.
Just because you "think" he wasn't using the same boxing fundamentals, really doesn't justify the guy being in the absolute prime of his life, and coming off what? 8 consecutive knockout wins, and everyone one of them in about 8 rounds or less.
Mike Tyson was absolutely positively prime at 23 years old when he fought Buster Douglas.
What do you mean only? How does that raise any sort of suspicion?
He fired his best trainer Kevin Rooney. Some could even say that Rooney perfected Tyson's style more than Cus D'Amato. It was pretty obvious in the Bruno and Williams fight that he was relying on pure punching power. He didn't have the boxing skills he had, while Rooney was training him. If you can watch Tyson's fights, starting from the Holmes fight up to the Williams fight, and say his boxing ability didn't deteriorate at all, you must be blind.
I "think" he wasn't in his prime. Just like you "think" he was. This is a debate, isn't it? It's all about opinion.
And so what if he came off eight knockout victories? Six of them were in his prime and two weren't. He still always had punching power.
Stop repeatedly mentioning age, as if it's the number one factor to determine the prime of a fighter.
Probably not tonight, I have company on the way, but sometime during the day when I'm at work :lol1:
Sounds good. :boxing: Let me know, if you still want to.
He was on George Lopez's show last night pretending to announce a comeback. Lopez asked who is opponent will be and then replied Erik Estrada and everyone cracked up laughing. So he did say he was coming back but it was a silly joke.
Damn. Good way to attract viewers, though.
Do you think everyone is a clone of another person.. Robinson's natural weight at the time was 147.
Plus, fighters in those days didn't cut and gain weight in one day like they do nowadays.
You can stop being ignorant to the fact that you are literally saying he went from one of, if not THE best win of his career in Michael Spinks to out of his prime in two fights before he lost to Buster Douglas.
In that one round knockout, in that one minute and twenty seconds of fighting? You came to the conclusion this guy is out of his prime? From KOing Michael Spinks, within two fights he went to not in his prime anymore?
I saw a fighter moving around the ring and flicking his jab out a few times, clinch and throw some inside punches on Mike.. and not 20 seconds later get decapitated.
If you are going to tell me in one minute and twenty seconds of fighting that Mike Tyson is now out of prime because of that, then me and you are going to have to agree to disagree.
I agree LATER in his career, Mike stopped using the head movement, stopped using those fundamentals that made him great... but they were still there before buster Douglas, he was still creaming opponents.
And another thing, I am not being disrespectful to you, so do not act that way towards to me.
I'm not being ignorant. Rooney was fired from the team, right after the Spinks fight. Rooney was the key to Tyson's boxing ability. Without Rooney they had nothing. If you want, I'll watch a couple of his fights from '87 to the Bruno fight with you and we'll discuss them round by round. I'll show you how he wasn't the same.
It wasn't in that one fight. It was in both the Bruno and the Williams fight. He relied on punching rather than boxing (how many times have I said that now?).
And I don't know which fight you're talking about when describing flicking the jab and holding and then getting knocked out. I'm guessing the Williams fight? Well, Tyson didn't really land anything special before the knockout punch. He was getting beat to the punch and every time he tried to set up something, Williams would hold. That's why I'm saying that he only relied on punching power, at the time.
And you were being disrespectful towards me before I was to you. Here's some of your quotes before I started getting a bit ticked off:
Just because you "think" he wasn't using the same boxing fundamentals, really doesn't justify the guy being in the absolute prime of his life, and coming off what? 8 consecutive knockout wins, and everyone one of them in about 8 rounds or less.
No way can you just pick and choose like that, no way are you in a position to select when and where he's out of his prime just because you may not have liked the way he fought...
I was trying to participate in a discussion/debate on when his prime was before you started to talk to me as if my opinion was worthless.