Monzon & Hagler

[SABBATH]

But I'd still like to hear your breakdown on how Hearns matches up with Briscoe & Valdez, seeing as how you "STRONGLY" disagreed with me and my predictions...What weaknesses he's going to going to exploit & take advantage of from either fighter, and things of that nature.

Both Valdez and Briscoe would be giving away substantial height and reach to Hearns. Hearns had the boxing ability and handspeed to outbox the best boxers (Leonard, Benitez) combined with the KO power to stop world class light-heavyweights. While Briscoe and Valdez both had excellent chins they would have problems with with Hearns height and reach (as they did with Monzon) which was superior to that of Monzon's. Hearns also had superior handspeed to Monzon.

A reference was made by you to Hearns KO loss to Iran Barkley, but Barkley was a much bigger man than both Brisco and Valdez. At 6'1 Barkley was the same height as Hearns and didn't have the same difficulties getting close to Hearns that Briscoe and Valdez would. In fact 5'7 to 5'9 was the ideal height for a Hearns opponent, as Hearns was best able to exploit his physical advantages and power.

If Hearns respects the punching power of Valdez and Briscoe doesn't get careless and ties them up in close (unlike the Hagler fight when Hearns machismo got the better of him and he was determined to trade and KO Hagler) I'm sorry but I just don't see Briscoe or Valdez winning. If Benitez or Leonard can't outbox Hearns then those two aren't.

That leaves a shoot-out as the last option for these guys.

Hagler's win over Hearns was a rolling of the dice on Marvin's part, a banking of his chin holding up long enough to get Hearns out early. There was no masterful plan, or the exploiting of a Hearns technical flaw. It was essentially a streetfight (complete with low blows by Hagler) plain and simple. It took a ton of balls, heart and one of the greatest chins ever to pull off.

To state matter of factly that both Briscoe and Valdez would duplicate Hagler's win in a few more rounds downplays Hagler's accomplishment which was his greatest career win. Briscoe and Valdez are a definitive notch below Hagler and would likely be outpointed by Hearns.

Of course this is purely hypothetical you understand.

[Yogi]

Both Valdez and Briscoe would be giving away substantial height and reach to Hearns. Hearns had the boxing ability and handspeed to outbox the best boxers (Leonard, Benitez) combined with the KO power to stop world class light-heavyweights. While Briscoe and Valdez both had excellent chins they would have problems with with Hearns height and reach (as they did with Monzon) which was superior to that of Monzon's. Hearns also had superior handspeed to Monzon.

A reference was made by you to Hearns KO loss to Iran Barkley, but Barkley was a much bigger man than both Brisco and Valdez. At 6'1 Barkley was the same height as Hearns and didn't have the same difficulties getting close to Hearns that Briscoe and Valdez would. In fact 5'7 to 5'9 was the ideal height for a Hearns opponent, as Hearns was best able to exploit his physical advantages and power.

If Hearns respects the punching power of Valdez and Briscoe doesn't get careless and ties them up in close (unlike the Hagler fight when Hearns machismo got the better of him and he was determined to trade and KO Hagler) I'm sorry but I just don't see Briscoe or Valdez winning. If Benitez or Leonard can't outbox Hearns then those two aren't.

That leaves a shoot-out as the last option for these guys.

Hagler's win over Hearns was a rolling of the dice on Marvin's part, a banking of his chin holding up long enough to get Hearns out early. There was no masterful plan, or the exploiting of a Hearns technical flaw. It was essentially a streetfight (complete with low blows by Hagler) plain and simple. It took a ton of balls, heart and one of the greatest chins ever to pull off.

To state matter of factly that both Briscoe and Valdez would duplicate Hagler's win in a few more rounds downplays Hagler's accomplishment which was his greatest career win. Briscoe and Valdez are a definitive notch below Hagler and would likely be outpointed by Hearns.

Of course this is purely hypothetical you understand.

Good post and thanks for the response, my friend, but...

First off let me say that by no means do I think either Valdez or Briscoe win a fight against Hearns by "outboxing" him sort of speak, because you & me both know that whatever outside boxing done in these is largely going to be done by Hearns. Briscoe used the jab and had a pretty stiff one at that, but that was only thrown between bobs and weaves as he looked to get in mid/short range for his hooks. Valdez showed the versatility to box on the outside and throw jabs & longer range combos when encountered with an aggressive opponent (Briscoe), but again, when against an outboxer (Monzon) he largely relied on the jab to get inside mid/short range behind his high guard & lower angles to throw the crisp power hooks & right hands...

Both of these guys are going to have to aggressively pursue somewhat of a "shootout" on the inside to win against Hearns, while relying on their much superior durability, physical strength, and stamina, as well as there own excellant power, and that's exactly what I think is going to happen...Hearns is going to have a strong start in these fights over the first two or three rounds, I think, by using his jab & long range right hands (reach) and legs, but by no means do I see him being able to keep the pace neccessary to largely hold Valdez or Briscoe off him for, maybe a third of the scheduled duration, at best. Before the fight was too much into things, these guys both forced a very active pace when they fought (whether it be against each other, or against Monzon, Gregory, etc.), both showed proven 15 round stamina at middleweight, as well as an ability to "come on strong" sort to speak when the fight was reaching the midway point and beyond.

Ok, let's see here...

You make a point of similiarity & difference between Hearns & Monzon, but while Hearns' had the superior handspeed, I don't think whatever differences in height & reach is factor being how minimal they were. Besides it wasn't just Monzon's outside ability that beat Briscoe & Valdez, as I'd say a lot of the credit for those wins had to do with Monzon's own excellant durability, stamina, as well as him being both smart & very strong on the inside. Now I don't have many memories of Monzon/Briscoe besides a general theme of what happened in the fight (their first fight was reportedly a "hometown decision" in favour of a draw), along with some flash memories of a long distance camera angle, but I can recall the rematch between Monzon & Valdez clearly enough to know that without both his great durability & stamina, it's very, very unlikely Monzon wins that fight...Valdez forced that fight from the early goings on, and his own style that night forced Monzon to "fight" more than "box" in an excellant battle that could be easily classified as more of a war of attrition. Both fighters landed a number of power shots in that fight, both fighters were rocked/hurt on occasion, and both fighters were forced to dig deep into their stamina reserves in what was the best fight I've ever seen from Monzon, from both a competitive & action point of view...

At middleweight, Hearns doesn't nearly have the durabilty, stamina, physical strength, nor the "ring smarts" of Monzon, especially on the inside, and I say that because, again, Hearns didn't nearly show that against fighters who had similiar attributes & styles to what Valdez & Briscoe offer...Whether it be Roldan, Barkley, or Hagler, whose only brought up as another illustrative purpose showing Hearns physical weakness against a style, as well as a great lack of both durabilty & stamina when presented with an aggressive style at middleweight.

You say Barkley was 6'1 and maybe he was, but he didn't win that fight against Hearns by being 6'1, not at all. Hearns picked him apart when Barkley stood upright for most of the first couple of rounds, and like I said earlier, I don't think it's any coincidence that Barkley had his success when he became more aggressive in the third round by putting his head down (becoming smaller) and fighting Hearns on the inside. Barkley's height was completely irrelevant in that fight if you ask me.

"If Hearns respects the punching power of Valdez and Briscoe doesn't get careless and ties them up in close."

You're asking a hell of a lot from Hearns, aren't you, my friend?

I mean, when did Hearns show that in any of his middleweight fights against opponents comparable to the conversation?

The truth is...he didn't.

The Hagler fight wasn't an abberation by no means, because Hearns showed a VERY similar mindset against both Roldan & Barkley in fights at this weight, and that was that "killed or be killed" attitude that came out in him when things got tough. Clinching by Hearns was at a minimum in any one of those three fights, and I'd bet it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that I could probably count the number of clinches of Hearns' from all three fights by only using my fingers and toes. He also got careless in all three fights of those fights too and got tagged for it, as he did many times throughout his career. All three of those fights also resembled much more of a "shootout" than a respect lidden & carefree boxing match, with Hearns never being shy about exchanging on the inside (and carelessly, at that) with those physically stronger & more durable fighters, even when he was rocked/hurt. Also all three fights show a definate lack of stamina on Hearns part when encountered with aggression that made him work, as he quite noticably got slower, more stationary, and simply very tired...Stamina, durability, physical strength, and that killed or be killed" mindset were a weakness in each and every one of those fights, and a few of those were big weaknesses.

Basically the way I see it is you're asking Hearns to do something that he never showed himself capable of when fighting at this weight, and while it's a great gameplan, history shows us that Hearns just wouldn't be following the blueprint laid out...Too much of a "warrior heart" in him, I'd say.

As far as Hagler's plan of attack against Hearns, I'd say that it was in fact a masterful plan against Hearns (or the right plan), because Hearns always showed that technical weakness to a strong, aggressive inside game, even going back to his days as an amateur and continuing on to when Leonard clearly got the better of Hearns on the inside.

I'm not saying either Valdez or Briscoe are going to duplicate that win by Hagler either, as I just don't see them coming out and basically dominating Hearns the way Hagler did from the get-go (save a few moments to begin the first round, Hagler basically kicked Hearns' ass). But like I have alluded to already, I think they do eventually get to a fading Hearns and take him out in fights that eventually are going to have there fair share of "shootout" moments. You can also say that Hagler is a notch above Valdez & Briscoe, and I wouldn't argue that point. But then again, with all things considered throughout their respective middlweight careers (I'm speaking only middleweight here), I'd certainly consider both Valdez & Briscoe a level above Hearns, and certainly moreso than that when compared to the likes of Barkley & Roldan.

[SABBATH]

"If Hearns respects the punching power of Valdez and Briscoe doesn't get careless and ties them up in close."

You're asking a hell of a lot from Hearns, aren't you, my friend?

I mean, when did Hearns show that in any of his middleweight fights against opponents comparable to the conversation?

The truth is...he didn't.

Basically the way I see it is you're asking Hearns to do something that he never showed himself capable of when fighting at this weight, and while it's a great gameplan, history shows us that Hearns just wouldn't be following the blueprint laid out...Too much of a "warrior heart" in him, I'd say.

No, I'm not asking alot of Hearns since after the Hagler fight Hearns often resorted to holding and clinching on the inside or when shaken, Roldan (Hearns clinched plenty of times, watch it again it's posted on www.youtube.com ), Leonard, Kinchen...just about any fight he was shook afterwards. Against Leonard in their rematch, I'd say Hearns followed the mindset (ie: respect for power, tie the man up, using caution, don't get careless) that I'm laying out almost to a tee in fact.

Regarding the Hearns/Monzon comparisins I agree with Monzon's superior attributes to Hearns that you laid out, but I would add that Hearns had better footspeed and lateral mobility than Monzon, making infighting exchanges with Valdez and Briscoe less frequent than those with Monzon. Hearns could quite easily resort to being the boxer and did it several times in his career. Sometimes he was the Motor City Cobra instead of the Hit Man.

BTW you stated earlier "Juan Roldan was a strong, aggressive & hard hitting middleweight who gave Hearns loads of trouble and just about stopped him". That's quite a stretch to prove your point as Roldan took a **** kicking, possibly only won a round (maybe the third by a slim margin), hit the deck 4 times and was 10 counted within 4 rounds. He did noticeably stun Hearns in the 4th round but after briefly clearing his head, Hearns immediately recovered turned the tables and KO'd Roldan moments later. Sure doesn't constitute Roldan just about stopping Hearns to me.

I would also mention that Roldan had an excellent chin bringing 70 fights into the Hearns match having only been stopped by Hagler. I'd have to dust off the old VHS to review that fight but I seem to recall Roldan going down only after a blatant thumb by Hagler. In any event, I'm unaware of Roldan being otherwise floored in those 70 prior fights, so bouncing Roldan off the canvas 3 times and scoring a clean 10 count KO demonstrated the awesome power of Hearns as much as anything.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t-17xUyL7...elated&search=

And once again like so many point/counterpoint discussions regarding hypothetical match-ups between fighters of different eras, it is once again the more modern fighter of the two who ends up getting scrutinized/broken down/and evaluated to the minute details due to the more readily availability footage as well as more recent memory of said modern fighter. I can guarantee at our age we both have seen a whole hell of alot of Hearns ( I followed Hearns career from amateur onwards and saw most of his fights) than we have Briscoe which is why these conversations can too often be one-sided (going both ways either in emphasizing Hearns strengths and weaknesses).

I would love to draw from references of Briscoe twice being beaten by Luis Rodriguez, or his losses to Percy Manning, Rudolpho Marshall, Stanley Hayward, Vincente Rondon, Juarez DeLima, Joe Shaw, Luis Vinales, or getting decked by Rafael Gutierrez but I've never seen those fights so unfortunately can't draw an argument out of those fights other than what's on paper and the obvious "Hearns was only beaten by world champions, lost far fewer fights and never lost to fighters of that calibre". Nor can I even negatively dissect Briscoe's wins (as you did Hearns) without seeing it for myself, and since this discussion is based on just that, my opinion, a newspaper account of said fights ain't gonna cut it for me.

In any event I contacted a friend of mine via e-mail who used to spar with Briscoe and holds both Briscoe and Hearns in high regard. I asked for his opinion and some general comments. If you're interested I will forward his response to you for what it's worth.

[oldgringo]

No, I'm not asking alot of Hearns since after the Hagler fight Hearns often resorted to holding and clinching on the inside or when shaken, Roldan (Hearns clinched plenty of times, watch it again it's posted on www.youtube.com ), Leonard, Kinchen...just about any fight he was shook afterwards. Against Leonard in their rematch, I'd say Hearns followed the mindset (ie: respect for power, tie the man up, using caution, don't get careless) that I'm laying out almost to a tee in fact.

Regarding the Hearns/Monzon comparisins I agree with Monzon's superior attributes to Hearns that you laid out, but I would add that Hearns had better footspeed and lateral mobility than Monzon, making infighting exchanges with Valdez and Briscoe less frequent than those with Monzon. Hearns could quite easily resort to being the boxer and did it several times in his career. Sometimes he was the Motor City Cobra instead of the Hit Man.

BTW you stated earlier "Juan Roldan was a strong, aggressive & hard hitting middleweight who gave Hearns loads of trouble and just about stopped him". That's quite a stretch to prove your point as Roldan took a **** kicking, possibly only won a round (maybe the third by a slim margin), hit the deck 4 times and was 10 counted within 4 rounds. He did noticeably stun Hearns in the 4th round but after briefly clearing his head, Hearns immediately recovered turned the tables and KO'd Roldan moments later. Sure doesn't constitute Roldan just about stopping Hearns to me.

I would also mention that Roldan had an excellent chin bringing 70 fights into the Hearns match having only been stopped by Hagler. I'd have to dust off the old VHS to review that fight but I seem to recall Roldan going down only after a blatant thumb by Hagler. In any event, I'm unaware of Roldan being otherwise floored in those 70 prior fights, so bouncing Roldan off the canvas 3 times and scoring a clean 10 count KO demonstrated the awesome power of Hearns as much as anything.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t-17xUyL7...elated&search=

And once again like so many point/counterpoint discussions regarding hypothetical match-ups between fighters of different eras, it is once again the more modern fighter of the two who ends up getting scrutinized/broken down/and evaluated to the minute details due to the more readily availability footage as well as more recent memory of said modern fighter. I can guarantee at our age we both have seen a whole hell of alot of Hearns ( I followed Hearns career from amateur onwards and saw most of his fights) than we have Briscoe which is why these conversations can too often be one-sided (going both ways either in emphasizing Hearns strengths and weaknesses).

I would love to draw from references of Briscoe twice being beaten by Luis Rodriguez, or his losses to Percy Manning, Rudolpho Marshall, Stanley Hayward, Vincente Rondon, Juarez DeLima, Joe Shaw, Luis Vinales, or getting decked by Rafael Gutierrez but I've never seen those fights so unfortunately can't draw an argument out of those fights other than what's on paper and the obvious "Hearns was only beaten by world champions, lost far fewer fights and never lost to fighters of that calibre". Nor can I even negatively dissect Briscoe's wins (as you did Hearns) without seeing it for myself, and since this discussion is based on just that, my opinion, a newspaper account of said fights ain't gonna cut it for me.

In any event I contacted a friend of mine via e-mail who used to spar with Briscoe and holds both Briscoe and Hearns in high regard. I asked for his opinion and some general comments. If you're interested I will forward his response to you for what it's worth.

Good post sir.

[K-DOGG]

Just wanted to take a moment to recognize a great debate between two men/posters whom I hold in the highest regard for their superior knowledge of this game we all love. Yogi, SABBATH...thanks for the great read on the disection of possible Hearns-Briscoe/Vasquez match-ups fellas.

Salute to both of you!

[The Surgeon]

Its a great debate, not ur run of the mill "ur an idiot if u dont think Tyson beats Godzilla!" ****! Very intelligent stuff, Big up Big up!

[Yogi]

Sabbath;

Yeah, I just watched that Hearns/Roldan fight again a couple of days ago, my friend, but thanks anyways for the point of direction...And seeing as how you quoted an earlier comment of mine in your post, I guess I'll address that fight first...

Yes, I stand by that statement of giving Hearns loads of trouble and just about stopped him, as I believe both are accurate to what I saw take place in the fight. Hearns had a big first round in it when he landed a couple of good right hands that dropped Roldan, and he also began the third with a knockdown (a less "convincing" one, comparitively speaking). But it wasn't before too long in that second round where Roldan started to get inside & score on Tommy (who was more stationary than in the first), which allowed the momentum to switch somewhat in the fight. And in the third, I'd take your "possible maybe" wording out and say Roldan won that round plenty clear enough in my eyes, as Roldan continued to build momentum in that round by again having success in getting inside & roughing up Hearns (who was again more staionary and quite visibly fatigued), as well as landing in there with punches that "noticably stunned" Hearns on at least two occasions during those three minutes (Roldan also appeared to have stunned Hearns a little bit in that wild first round, but that wasn't as noticable as in the third). As far as the fourth round goes, I would personally use different wording to Hearns condition after that punch than just merely "stunned", but that may just be a difference in wording we're using to describe that. I saw a figher who was tagged, hurt quite badly, and on wobbly or shaky legs for some time after that, and I certainly did not see a fighter who was only "briefly" hurt or one who "immediately recovered" from that punch, nor does a knockout coming a half round later constitute as being "moments later...Hearns was rocked and on wobbly legs (noticable for some time after the punch...at least a half of minute, and note how Roldan hurt Hearns on that occasion by simply walking straight in and throwing a few wild punches, with Hearns doing nothing to stop him), and during that sequence of events, I didn't see a fighter who was relying on the clinch (maybe two attempts?), but instead a fighter who was very willing to partake in a dangerous "shootout" while he was still in the recovery stage...

I ask, though, without the benefit of the hindsight in knowing the result...Would the pattern of how the fight switched momentum from Hearns' side to Roldan's side going into the fourth, coupled with the fact that Roldan hurt Hearns as bad as he did to begin that round, not give one the impression that Roldan was on the verge of stopping Hearns?

I'd say so, because up until Hearns turned things around again after being hurt in the fourth, that was certainly my impression when I watched the fight as it happened, as it was when eliminating hindsight most recently...I certainly see an element of "coming back from the brink of defeat" in that fight.

As far as Roldan's own durability & chin, I also think Roldan possesed an element of both and have always had that impression, although I have to question if it was in fact "excellant" overall when, despite the amount of fights he had in his career, that chin was tested so little against the top middleweights of the era. Maybe I should have checked his record before typing this, but I don't recall him having more than maybe five or six fights at the high level (Hagler, Hearns, Fletcher, Kinchen, and Nunn come to memory), yet I see him being stopped in three of them...and didn't Nunn (who showed flashes of power, but was not considered a strong puncher) even drop him once in the maybe first round in that fight after landing a long straight left? Who knows for sure, but maybe Roldan was susceptible to those long outside punches that dropped him in the Hearns fight. Or maybe, like some have said, Roldan was a bit used up after the Hagler fight and his punch resistence decreased somewhat...Either or, while I'd say Roldan's chin was good, I just can't put it at the level of Briscoe's & Valdez' when those two had proven their respective chins against a greater level of competition and with a much better track record against those of that level, and that's also giving consideration to both Valdez & Briscoe having a much less wide open style with certainly a significant edge in defensive skills over Roldan.

As far as your point in regards to different eras, sure Hearns is more easily available to view nowadays, but we're talking about matchups that pit fighters against each other that are only 10-15 years apart, and who are being viewed under basically the same technology that Hearns is. It's fairly easy to visualize these matchups, if you ask me, and although we can't (or haven't) see a number of fights from both Valdez' & Briscoe's career, neither of them are any great secret in terms of there being footage available of them (I've seen moreso of Briscoe, though, but in recent times, I've certainly seen more of them two than I have Roldan or just about any other of the more modern middleweights of that mid/late 80's era) and we can certainly see or scrutinize respective strengths & weaknesses from both fighters. In fact, I had Valdez/Briscoe II on my computer for the longest time, as it was on here for at least a year previous to when my computer took that **** in the summer, and funny enough, I've seen that fight more recently than I have Hagler/Hearns or until the last couple of days, any fight of Tommy Hearns' for tha matter...If you don't have it or haven't seen it recently enough, I just might be able to track that fight down for you via either getting a direct link or by putting in a request to the guy who gave me the fight in the first place.

What else?

Umm...no offense, but no, I'm not particularily interested in your friend's opinion, whatever that may be, as I just don't know the guy, and I'm sure you wouldn't care too much about a friend/fight collector of mine's opinion of these matchups who's also in the "business". If we asked around enough, I'm also very sure we can both grab many a second hand opinion on these matchups from those with knowledge of all the fighters being discussed, but our own opinions are the only two that matter in this conversation.

And I guess that leaves the rematch with Leonard, which I haven't seen recently enough to agree or disagree too strongly with how Hearns fought, but I do recall one of the middle rounds (I think somewhere around the 6th or so) in it when Leonard had Hearns quite hurt on a couple of occasions and visibly shaken for a significant portion of the round, with Hearns doing not much beyond him lying on the ropes covering up and trying to combat Leonard by throwing back at him...Very little in the way of any Hearns' clinching in that round under the circumstances, I do recall, and my memory also tells me that he fought back with carelessness in that round and did pay for it again after being initially hurt earlier in the round...

Now again, if Hearns did fight a more careless fight against Leonard in their rematch, it would've been against a guy who shares very little in the way of similiarities to Briscoe & Valdez in both style and attributes (like I've stated, Hearns did not do those things against fighters who are similiar in ways and instead was much more liable to shoot it out with them). Leonard fought in-and-out, side-to-side style based on quick handspeed, footspeed, and reflexes. He didn't nearly nearly have the aggressive mid range/inside style that Briscoe or Valdez would present Hearns, and he certainly didn't have anything near the physical strength that they did in attacking their way inside, which likely allowed Hearns to have much, much more room to box Leonard from the outside than he would have against those two. But no matter how Hearns fought Leonard in that fight, it still says something about his durability and stamina when he's getting hurt on occasion (which does represent his carelessness in how he fought when hurt) in that fight, as well as barely being able to stand up in the last round when his legs were all but completely gone.

Anyways, like you said earlier, these mythical matchups are all hypotheical in nature, although the least I could do is thank you for the discussion and a completely original one at that, as it's especially very refreshing having an intelligent conversation on great matchups that have absolutely nothing to do with the heavyweight division. From what I've seen from a style/attribute point of view, my money is certainly going to be on Valdez & Briscoe to win against Hearns, and you haven't said anything that has changed my mind in the least. I'm also completely fine with you having a difference of opinion on these two matchups, as well, nor will I fret if I haven't said anything to change your own educated opinion.

But I think we can both agree on one thing, though...In the days of every fight seemingly being broadcast on PPV, I'd certainly be much more willing to shell out the bucks for a Valdez/Hearns or a Briscoe/Hearns fight (favourites listed first, out selection in bold type) than the vast majority of middleweight fights that have been on in the more modern age of the division. Both from a drama and action point of view, both those fights would have at the least been "good fights" had they came around an era before/after, with all the makings of being simply "great fights" that leave you hoarse and on the edge of your seat.

Anyways, that'll about do me for the discussion, but with it being New Year's Eve, I must wish you a sincere Happy New Year, my friend, with all the best of wishes to you & your's in 2007.

[SABBATH]

Umm...no offense, but no, I'm not particularily interested in your friend's opinion, whatever that may be, as I just don't know the guy, and I'm sure you wouldn't care too much about a friend/fight collector of mine's opinion of these matchups who's also in the "business". If we asked around enough, I'm also very sure we can both grab many a second hand opinion on these matchups from those with knowledge of all the fighters being discussed, but our own opinions are the only two that matter in this conversation.

That's unfortunate because this particular friend of mine is not a fight collector. He was a professional fighter who trained at Joe Frazier's Gym and has been in the ring as a sparring partner swapping punches with among others, Michael Spinks, Dwight Qawi, Curtis Parker and Bennie Briscoe and trained alonside Hearns and Sugar Ray Leonard (he was also trained by George Benton who fought Briscoe knew him well and may have had some interesting comments). I'm sure he could offer some insight into Bennie's strength, punching power, fighting style as well as any interesting comments Briscoe may have made to him regarding his fights with Monzon, Valdez etc....I usually find first hand information of this sort to be somewhat helpful and informative and am looking forward to hearing from him. His opinion may mirror yours for all I know.

Ah well...Happy New Year.

[Yogi]

That's unfortunate because this particular friend of mine is not a fight collector. He was a professional fighter who trained at Joe Frazier's Gym and has been in the ring as a sparring partner swapping punches with among others, Michael Spinks, Dwight Qawi, Curtis Parker and Bennie Briscoe and trained alonside Hearns and Sugar Ray Leonard (he was also trained by George Benton who fought Briscoe knew him well and may have had some interesting comments). I'm sure he could offer some insight into Bennie's strength, punching power, fighting style as well as any interesting comments Briscoe may have made to him regarding his fights with Monzon, Valdez etc....I usually find first hand information of this sort to be somewhat helpful and informative and am looking forward to hearing from him. His opinion may mirror yours for all I know.

Ah well...Happy New Year.

Ah, I see who you speak of now, I think, and if Frank does get back to you, pass along the New Year wishes to him too, coming from someone whose read and enjoyed more than a few of his articles...especially the ones where he states his opinion & views as to how Jimmy Young was "screwed" against Ali, which may or may not be in line with your own thinking (not that it matters either way).

P.S. Lots of written views, both contemporary and modern writings, can still be found in regards to Briscoe, so I'd strongly doubt that Frank is going to offer anything of significance that hasn't been written before.

[Yogi]

...and didn't Nunn (who showed flashes of power, but was not considered a strong puncher) even drop him once in the maybe first round in that fight after landing a long straight left?

This post is neither here or there, but my own curiousity got the better of me, so I dug out one of my dust covered tapes and had a lookie for myself...

The punch that dropped Roldan in the first wasn't a straight left hand from the outside, but instead a left uppercut from Nunn that landed flush in between an exchange on the ropes...It must be said that that punch was also not thrown with a whole lot of force behind it, and appeared to be more of an arm punch than anything. Then again, it must be said that, although a completely legitimate knockdown, Roldan (who stepped into the punch) wasn't hurt all that badly from the punch, and appeared to be more stunned & suprised than anything.

Bernstein's commentary of the fight would have you believe that Hearns hurt Roldan four or five times in the first round with that left uppercut, as well as numerous other times in the fight...I didn't see none of that though, as besides the first round knockdown, and a couple of brief moments in the third & fifth (left hand again from Nunn...straight left in the third, uppercut in the fifth), I didn't see Roldan noticably stunned or hurt at all, save for the last round of the fight when Nunn finished Roldan off after Nunn himself had been caught with a few good right hands earlier in the round. Still the knockout wasn't all that convincing in nature either, as Nunn did noticably hurt Roldan with yet another left uppercut and then landed another soon after which dropped Roldan on all fours and for the count. But while he certainly appeared to be hurt from those last two uppercuts of Nunn's, it does appear that Roldan basically conceded the count in that one...He was hurt, but wasn't out of it by any means, and it certainly looked like he could've gotten up but simply chose not to.

Anyways, my curiosity did get the better of me, but after watching the fight again I am now quite aware why that tape had gathered so much dust and why I haven't watched that fight for so long. It was just not a fight that I enjoyed, not even a little bit, although when comparisions are made between the Hearns & Nunn fights, I just don't see any noticable difference between Roldan in each of them and what he brought to the table...Same guy both times.