Dwight Muhamed Qawi called Marvin Hagler out

[TheGreatA]

Looks like you're a bit too sold on power. I think a fighter with great ring generalship, a consistent jab and quick hands has a better chance than a knockout puncher against Ray Robinson who was never knocked out. Gavilan certainly did better against Robinson than Rocky Graziano for example.

It's quite telling of Robinson's greatness if a top 10 all-time great welterweight is considered "in over his head" against him.

[r.burgundy]

Looks like you're a bit too sold on power. I think a fighter with great ring generalship, a consistent jab and quick hands has a better chance than a knockout puncher against Ray Robinson who was never knocked out. Gavilan certainly did better against Robinson than Rocky Graziano for example.

It's quite telling of Robinson's greatness if a top 10 all-time great welterweight is considered "in over his head" against him.

i belive that you have to be able to hurt somebody.if not.your in the wrong buisness.the common denominator amongst most great fighters is good to great power

im a firm believer in srr.i dont think he could be outboxed at welter.only guys ive give a chance to are leonard,hearns,and mayweather.id give hearns the best shot being as how he could fight at a distance if he chose

[TheGreatA]

i belive that you have to be able to hurt somebody.if not.your in the wrong buisness.the common denominator amongst most great fighters is good to great power

im a firm believer in srr.i dont think he could be outboxed at welter.only guys ive give a chance to are leonard,hearns,and mayweather.id give hearns the best shot being as how he could fight at a distance if he chose

And you just saw Gavilan knocking a middleweight out. He punched hard enough to earn the respect of his opponents. It's not like he was a Paulie Malignaggi. Not all great fighters are KO artists, see Willie Pep and Pernell Whitaker, even Ali wasn't a huge puncher.

I agree with you on Robinson at welter, he was close to unbeatable at the weight, but it's not like we should discredit his opposition because Robinson was too good for them. That doesn't make any sense. Gavilan would be a great win for anybody at 147, including Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns.

[BennyST]

i didnt mean greb was literally a fictional character,it was a reference to his superhuman feats in the ring,which conviently there is no footage of.if there is video of jack johnson ,you can not convince there isnt a single match of greb on video

Are we on to a conspiracy here? *gasp*

Because the white middleweight champion (could this possibly be some kind of racist commentary I'm making?) was actually really ****, the whole world (well, the whole white world anyway) secretly kept his tapes under lock and key (and stole all the rest that everyone else had) and then changed all his wins over all those amazing champions....Huh? Did I just say 'all those wins'? Hold on, did they change them from losses to wins or did he actually somehow beat all those great HOF champs? No! He must have lost to every great fighter he ever fought, white and black! That's what they did! He lost to every fighter he ever faced and all of the Fat old US of A changed boxrec (lol) and all accounts of the day to show that he somehow won them. pwn LAMO! Greb gets pwned by Money Mai and Pakiow!

Hmmm.....Nonetheless, whoever pwns who, we should get to the bottom of this conspiracy. Jack Johnson was black and on film but Greb was white and not on film, therefore he must be **** because it was obviously a conspiracy that he beat all those HOF champions without any footage!

I'm on to you 'boxing history'! I know where you live! I'm gonna hunt you down and then kill every single one of those reporters worldwide (even if they are all dead) and kill you for reporting false info and creating this world wide conspiracy on such an internationally important subject as Greb!

[r.burgundy]

And you just saw Gavilan knocking a middleweight out. He punched hard enough to earn the respect of his opponents. It's not like he was a Paulie Malignaggi. Not all great fighters are KO artists, see Willie Pep and Pernell Whitaker, even Ali wasn't a huge puncher.

I agree with you on Robinson at welter, he was close to unbeatable at the weight, but it's not like we should discredit his opposition because Robinson was too good for them. That doesn't make any sense. Gavilan would be a great win for anybody at 147, including Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns.

thats true but imagine if whitaker had above average power.that would be scary

its not so much about discrediting his opposition as it is to overcrediting.if srr wins,nobodys suprised.he was supposed to.but foreman was a different monster altogether.people thought ali was gonna die in there.you can say gavilan is a top 10 ww,but you can make a case for george as a top 10 lb for lb in history.ali beating george is 1 of the great fights and wins in boxing history,gavilan is a footnote in a legendary career

and i dont think gavilan would stand a chance against srl or hearns

[r.burgundy]

Are we on to a conspiracy here? *gasp*

Because the white middleweight champion (could this possibly be some kind of racist commentary I'm making?) was actually really ****, the whole world (well, the whole white world anyway) secretly kept his tapes under lock and key and then changed all his wins over all those amazing champions....Hold on, did they change them from losses to wins or did he actually somehow beat all those great HOF champs?

Hmmm.....We should get to the bottom of this conspiracy. Jac Johnson was black and on film but Greb was white on not, therefore he must be **** because it was obviously a conspiracy that he beat all those HOF champions without any footage!

I'm on to you 'boxing history'! I know where you live!

you said it not me.i leave you with a quote from ali"television is exposin these bums"

[TheGreatA]

thats true but imagine if whitaker had above average power.that would be scary

its not so much about discrediting his opposition as it is to overcrediting.if srr wins,nobodys suprised.he was supposed to.but foreman was a different monster altogether.people thought ali was gonna die in there.you can say gavilan is a top 10 ww,but you can make a case for george as a top 10 lb for lb in history.ali beating george is 1 of the great fights and wins in boxing history,gavilan is a footnote in a legendary career

and i dont think gavilan would stand a chance against srl or hearns

I don't think so. Foreman tends to be overrated because of his power. His boxing skills were quite terrible in comparison to most greats. The fight was only an upset due to Ali being past his prime, much like when Robinson KO'd Fullmer with one punch. Prime for prime no contest.

Gavilan would give any welterweight a tough fight.

[BennyST]

i thought his wiki bio said 23.might have misread.but either way,he didnt have a snowballs chance in hell of beating srr.would you say he had a chance?

Their first fight was a very good, hard fought, close fight.

[r.burgundy]

I don't think so. Foreman tends to be overrated because of his power. His boxing skills were quite terrible in comparison to most greats. The fight was only an upset due to Ali being past his prime, much like when Robinson KO'd Fullmer with one punch. Prime for prime no contest.

Gavilan would give any welterweight a tough fight.

what about foremans 2nd run through the ranks?he won the hw title at 45!!!how many fighters can win a belt at 45 in any era or division.i think his skills were underated as he proved he was pretty capable boxing in his 2nd run.though no great feat,he outboxed the hell out shannon briggs,threw a perefect punch to ko moorer.when he was young he didnt neccesarily have to box,and lets not forget he had a few years off also

[TheGreatA]

what about foremans 2nd run through the ranks?he won the hw title at 45!!!how many fighters can win a belt at 45 in any era or division.i think his skills were underated as he proved he was pretty capable boxing in his 2nd run.though no great feat,he outboxed the hell out shannon briggs,threw a perefect punch to ko moorer.when he was young he didnt neccesarily have to box,and lets not forget he had a few years off also

Foreman improved as a boxer during his comeback although he wasn't physically the same. He proved a lot with his comeback but if we were to forget for a moment that he was 40+ years old then his comeback doesn't look overly impressive as he struggled with mediocre fighters that he would have KO'd in his prime.

I tend to think that Foreman could have been the greatest puncher ever had the physical ability of his young self been combined with the smarts of the 40+ year old Foreman, but it never truly happened.

When he was younger, he was too wild and reckless to be considered the best. When he was old, he no longer had the explosiveness and reflexes that he used to have. He was a brute force in his prime but he could be outsmarted. As an old man he struggled to pull the trigger at times and found it difficult to cut off the ring against younger, faster men.