george foreman and his everywhere punch the punch he used to throw that could come as an uppercut a hook or straightit was very deceptive and effective not to mention powerful!
Thomas Hearns and his Incredible Right Hand.
DITTO!! it was easily the best right hand ever!! incredibly fast and powerful
his jab anmd left hook were also great punches
i love frasiers left hook because he used it so well
did anyone see the clinton woods fight? this guys was more than proven wrong
eubank and benn just 'celebrity boxers' at their time these were two of the best boxers around and are 2 of the best british boxers ever IMO
royjones was p4p the best and IMHO was probably in the top 10 of all time
Why do they even bother anymore.. The HW should simply be changed to the Don King Divison.. no more pretense.. I am sure valuev will fight every single washed up DK stable boy.. I am surprised Golota hasn't been given another chance..
naa golota had talent when he wasn;t biting or whacking testicles
bob fitzsimmons was a middleweight that fought at heavy and apparently had 1 punch KO power even then!
however theres no footage of him so i would have to say SRR is the best pound for pound
He was winning he fight on the cards and it was in england which says even more..cant really count that as a loss unless your a benn fanatic.. also if the ref let mcclellan at benn in the first round instead instead of blocking mcclellan that fight would of been over in 1 round..
G-man lost the fight its as simple as that! this argument has been in so many posts!
it is true nthat mckellan never truely proved himself in multiple divisions as kid achlles mentioned BUT he did destroy all his opponents apart from benn in a tyson like fashion. he could box and punch(like hearns) but could also take a good punch(not like hearns) he had everything.
i could not rate hi in top ten P4p not because he isn't good enough but because we cannot be sure he was.
WRONG, HE WAS WINNING THE FIGHT EASY THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED HIM WAS THE FREAK ACCIDENT... BUT YOUR RIGHT THAT YOU CANT RANK HIM BECUASE HE NEVER REALLY GOT STARTED.. BUT AS FAR AS IM CONCEREND HE WAS KILLING BENN.. BENN IS OVERRAEED BECAUSE OF THIS FIGHT
mckellan won the first round BIG but benn won almost all of the subsequent rounds and caused the KO, which was unfortunately permenant
It is amazing that so many people are starting to respect McClellan, the fighter. I hope this will continue in the later 2000s. Im very happy about that.
its such a shame he couldn't have acheived more manny said that he was one of the most complete fighters he has trained and i can believe it!
his fight against benn was one of the best in history
it would't really be fair it would mean boxers with a height advantage would also have a weight advantage.
i think its up to the trainers and the boxers heavyweights don't seem as dedicated as they used to be. most of the top ten are flabby.
in the past fighters would always get as light as possible for the fight but now they seem to prefer to have a spare tire or three
No, most likely he would pound you half to death. Wlad Klitschko would likely knock him out, but would also have a bit of trouble getting in range. Valuev would be very hard for Peter to figure out, although Big Sam would eventually tag him.
ok yeh your right!
i can only see wlad gic=ving him trouble.
wlad has a great jab hook and straight right hand and he would certianly hurt foreman and be ahead on points but at some point wlad weak chin would get tagged then the third best finisher of all time would do what he does best!
Adding more muscle would probably just make him slower and he would also have to fight at a slower pace not to gas out after 3 or 4 rounds.
He looks very natural at his weight and it is probably where he would be his best.
i doubt he could gt any slower
the older foreman was a smarter more focused fighter but the younger foreman is quicker and more powerful
however the older foreman knows how the younger one thinks he would know how he would attack and could therefore counter
Ages like 35 to 45. What allows them to fight is that I think that they have Technical skills to fall back on that allows them to fight a lon time. Fighters like James Toney, Winky Wright, Wladimir Klitschko, Floyd Mayweather, Bernard Hopkins all haves skills that they all can or had fall upon to continue a successful career. Fighters like Roy Jones, Diego Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, Tarver, and Gatti don't possess these skills so as they get older they don't have nothing to fall back on, because they ain't use to fighting two different ways.
usually its money that forces a fighter to go on but some fighters do age slower than others foreman for example could be effective after a 10 year lay off yet frazier and bowe were spent after a few short years
lennox lewis true potential was only realised after he became 30
well in the first fight listons left shoulder was apparently out. in the secod fight he got knocked out by the phantom punch. ali's punches had some power to them occasionally and that phantom punch came from nowhere so that COULD be a legit knockout
he had alot of gift decisions in his career..he didnt know what a body attack was....he didnt have any power and larry holmes who fought a very similar style to ali was better..ali's best win was that lucky win over foreman..in which he lost every round other then the last when foreman fell out from exhaustion
you know i could disprove any of those statements but i can't be arsed!
To me, boxing just has more class. That's not an insult to MMA, just the way I see things. MMA takes skill; but it's essentially a beat-down, whereas with boxing you can only use your fists and your wits...that's it. You have two hands and your opponen has two hands and when you get knocked down, you have to get back up....and nobody jumps on you while you're down, which is a dirty tactic to me.
Boxing is one of the last places that a "fair fight" can take place. If you knock somebody down, you give him a chivalrous chance to get back up and continue or yield. MMA is skilled; but feels more like two skilled animals going at it for supremacy, rather than two men fencing in a test of skill and cunning.
Chivalry; allowing your opponent a fair chance to get up if you knock him down...that's the difference. To me, boxing's more "sporting".
That's why it will always be the "King of Sports"....and the "Sport of Kings".
i couldn't have said it beter myself!
even the fans boo when 2 MMAists are on the ground hugging
boxing is a noble sport, i was taught not to punch a man when hes down and i think thats the way it should be