Tweet
After watching Billy Joe Saunders' masterclass against Lemieux I was thinking how good he is compared to the best British middleweights of the past. How does he compare to Minter, Sibson and Finnegan for instance as well as others?
-
-
Randy Turpin? -
We don't have enough of a sample size to say, surely.
Lemieux isn't really that good.
His next fights should tell us more.Comment
-
Interesting question. But I probably agree it is too early to know. Lemieux is quite uneducated as a pugilist. He is simply a specialist. Stand still for him and he will show you. Cutting the ring off is a phrase he has probably heard somewhere or the other. He cannot remember where just now.
Up the scale of competition he paid in front of his dressed-up girlfriend for all the hooky from class he played by easily not winning a single round. David Lemieux had somehow slipped through the cracks of the educational system with a diploma that said he knew how to box. That was a lie.
But how good is Saunders? Apparently, not bad at all. Yet top pro boxers from a level above their competition generally KO them when they have them hopelessly outclassed, and that is a fact, and is also how their records get so good. He must be a fairly light puncher. Saunders is an arm puncher, not to say he could not deliver with power if he had that in mind. Against a more fierce opponent he might have to. He is pretty athletic, and Lemieux helped him show that feature off. We saw nothing about his guts and heart yet. He did not need them. Maybe later someone will make him show his hole cards. He makes me think of Calzaghe in style and attitude, right down to the sinister stance (in antiquated heraldric language).
If Golovkin were unable to run him down and catch him, Canelo probably could not either. Oddly enough, Saunders and Jacobs is the fight that interests me most now, because Jacobs is a big, fast middleweight, too. It will take a man with some feet to catch up with Saunders, who will likely not depart from his game plan and perhaps would not even know how to. His plan B might be to perform plan A better.Comment
-
BJS fought and beat the poor man's version of orlando salido of the middleweights.
bjs has nothing for canelo or GGG.Comment
-
Ok let me state it slightly differently, is Saunders at his best better than Tony Sibson at his? What do people think, the best Saunders (Lemieux fight) versus the best Sibson (Salvemini, Minter, Davison???)Comment
-
Could he beat Eubank or Benn? Not sure based on a win over a very easy to figure out Lemiuex.Comment
-
Sibson was very strong, physically, but not nearly as fast and mobile as Saunders. I would take Billy Joe to win on points.Originally posted by Humean View PostComment
-
Britain hasn't really had many considerably top level MWs. Turpin obviously has that exceptional night against Robinson and is iconic because of it.
There could have been a great series of fights a few years ago with Macklin, Barker and Murray all at or near the world level at the same time but each guy dropped out. Murray and Macklin both should hold wins over Sturm and Barker beat a very good fighter in Geale.
BJS might turn out to be very good but he needs a win over GGG or Canelo to be ranked above the names I mentioned.Comment
-
Turpin did defeat Robinson and that's a feather in any ones cap.
Remember that Sugarman fought 7 fights from 5/21 thru
7/10 during his European "vacation". Never trained a day in Europe just played golf every day all day. Played cards at night along with dancing in the clubs.
No excuse to drop a decision to Turpin who was a solid fighter but remember 2 months later Sugar KO'd Turpin in NYC.
I'll take Turpin over Saunders until Saunders steps up and takes on Jacobs or GGG. The fights will be boring he's gone run run........and run some more.
RayComment
Comment