Nigel Benn: "Calzaghe Beats Me, Hagler, Hearns, Sugar"

[Thread Stealer]

Baby feed u... For your info check this out....All of them have been fighting in the middleweight champioships in the later part & displayed excellent performances...Leonard/Duran 3 is in the WBC SMW Championship, Leonard/Hearns 2 WBC & WBO SMW Championship, Leonard/Hagler WBC MW Championship, Hagler/Hearns WBC/WBA/IBF MW Championship, Hearns/Duran WBC LMW Championship, Hagler/Duran WBC/WBA/IBF MW Championship...

Leonard and Duran were badly faded and looked terrible in their 3rd fight. They were booed badly and the crowd chanted "bull****" because the fight was so boring. KO Magazine bashed it and titled it "Sweet Nothings" after the fight. Duran's most telling "blow" was a headbutt that cut Leonard. They both weighed in at the middleweight limit (or below) anyway.

Again, Leonard and Hearns were faded in their rematch, 6 months before Leonard-Duran 3. The fight was at a catchweight of 163, a full 5 pounds below 168. The fight was entertaining, but it doesn't mean they were anything near prime.

I don't see the point of bringing up 154 and 160 lb fights when we are comparing them to Calzaghe. Calzaghe is a super middleweight under different weigh-in rules. He'd most likely be a light-heavyweight under the old rules, given that he has had documented problems making 168 with 30-32 hours to rehydrate.

if u say very good chance it doesn't sounds conclusive...considering Joe's unbeaten record & 2nd P4P today not necessarily as a fan but to lay down reasonable basis...don't be to die hard fanatic w/ these lightheavyweights they are not worth to talk about...ur out of ur way...

Okay, we have different opinions on "very good chance", so I'll clarify it. Calzaghe would not be a hopeless underdog against LHWs like Foster, Spinks, and Qawi, but I would not pick him to beat any of them.

Why not discuss mythical matchups with Calzaghe and light-heavyweights? They're more his size than the prime versions of the guys Benn brought up. We're already on the subject of mythical matchups of Calzaghe, and someone else talked about Joe's chances against great LHWs.

[BennyST]

Leonard did KO Lalonde at 168 although he looked bad in that fight.



I don't really see the point in saying that Calzaghe would beat a couple of welterweights but it's a nice thing for Benn to say I guess.

Yeah, him saying it makes little real sense. I think it's just that mythical thing that those guys have in everyone's mind. If you can beat them you can beat anyone. Really though, him saying he would is just pointless.

This is the thing that I would like everyone to look at though. Anyone saying it's crazy that he would beat them, and that he would get KO'd by all of them just need to go and rewatch the above fight with Leonard and LaLonde and then the Duran and Leonard fight at SMW. After re-watching the LaLonde fight I truly think it's highly likely that Leonard would get TKO'd. I don't think Calzaghe had the power to KO him but he definitely had the speed, stamina and combinations to mess him up over the course of a fight. You saw with Camacho that you don't need great power to KO Leonard, you just need to be able to land and keep landing and Calzaghe would do that a lot better than an old Camacho or slow, no-defense-at-all, ****eful LaLonde.

I don't see how many could disagree with that in fact. You would simply have to be blind. Some of the combinations that LaLonde landed were combinations that Calzonie would be throwing all night long. The uppercut sequence in that video are rather similar to what Calzaghe throws inside a lot. They were landing flush.

Duran is just too small. No point in even discussing that one. He would get outworked to a UD.

Hearns has the possibility to win but again, I think that one just need to watch him at LHW/SMW or his latter MW days. He was able to be out-worked. Barkley did it in their second fight very well. He crowded inside and punched non stop. Now, Barkley had ten times the power of Calzaghe, but he didn't have half the skills of him either so it works both ways. It's possible that Hearns could take a decision by out-boxing him, but I do think that Calzaghe was smart enough and good enough to be able to work his way inside and stay there for much of the fight, smothering Hearns' power shots and making it an ugly brawling kind of fight.


Hagler I think would have the skills to land the cleaner shots over the night especially the earlier part of the fight. Calzaghe would try to work inside and flurry off combo's and I believe that Hagler would be landing the cleaner shots and countering well. Great, hard fight though that would be very close.

Anyway, for everyone that thinks this is ridiculous just go watch the full LaLonde fight. You'll see all you need to see there. Calzaghe wins it pretty easily. After that, go watch the Kinchen, Barkley and latter SMW fights of Hearns. He has the skill but he can also be beaten. Kinchen who hwas a light puncher put him down with a grazing, but flush chin shot, as in it landed right on his chin but without full power. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Calzaghe with his much faster hands and better combinations could do this a number of times throughout. Hearns was hittable.

I really don't see what the big deal is about this. This is not P4P, this is when those guys were fighting at those weights and it's highly likely that they would lose, apart from Hagler and maybe Hearns.

[BennyST]

Duran's most telling "blow" was a headbutt that cut Leonard. They both weighed in at the middleweight limit (or below) anyway.

Actually, if you watch the replays of that section of the fight, there was no headbutt at all. I think the commentators thought there was and repeated it but if you watch the round and the replay of it, there is definitely no headbutt and the cut is caused by a big right hand that lands for Duran when they both throw simultaneously but Leonard's misses and Duran's lands. You can see Leonard stagger back from it. Nonetheless, it was a terrible fight and Duran looked like hell in it. I think he was basically done for a while after the brutal Barkley fight.

I agree with you on most other stuff though.

[Thread Stealer]

Actually, if you watch the replays of that section of the fight, there was no headbutt at all. I think the commentators thought there was and repeated it but if you watch the round and the replay of it, there is definitely no headbutt and the cut is caused by a big right hand that lands for Duran when they both throw simultaneously but Leonard's misses and Duran's lands. You can see Leonard stagger back from it. Nonetheless, it was a terrible fight and Duran looked like hell in it. I think he was basically done for a while after the brutal Barkley fight.

I agree with you on most other stuff though.

Thanks.

I would double check, but that's a fight I don't care to ever watch again.

[znarfv_y2k8]

Leonard and Duran were badly faded and looked terrible in their 3rd fight. They were booed badly and the crowd chanted "bull****" because the fight was so boring. KO Magazine bashed it and titled it "Sweet Nothings" after the fight. Duran's most telling "blow" was a headbutt that cut Leonard. They both weighed in at the middleweight limit (or below) anyway.

Again, Leonard and Hearns were faded in their rematch, 6 months before Leonard-Duran 3. The fight was at a catchweight of 163, a full 5 pounds below 168. The fight was entertaining, but it doesn't mean they were anything near prime.

I don't see the point of bringing up 154 and 160 lb fights when we are comparing them to Calzaghe. Calzaghe is a super middleweight under different weigh-in rules. He'd most likely be a light-heavyweight under the old rules, given that he has had documented problems making 168 with 30-32 hours to rehydrate.



Okay, we have different opinions on "very good chance", so I'll clarify it. Calzaghe would not be a hopeless underdog against LHWs like Foster, Spinks, and Qawi, but I would not pick him to beat any of them.

Why not discuss mythical matchups with Calzaghe and light-heavyweights? They're more his size than the prime versions of the guys Benn brought up. We're already on the subject of mythical matchups of Calzaghe, and someone else talked about Joe's chances against great LHWs.

Ok, it seems ur not one of the million of fans of these Great Champions as what their reputation showed them in the past...i find it degrading the quality of their rivalries if i consider ur's cause the quality of fights they've fought into makes them great not only in the WW's but same as in the MW's...ur entitled to ur own opinion & i respect that...
I've seen the growing interest displayed here because of the names of these great champions (Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, & Duran) being link to Joe...not of Michael Spinks, Foster, etc...

[BennyST]

Thanks.

I would double check, but that's a fight I don't care to ever watch again.

Yep, I know what you mean. Terrible fight. But, like the mythical heabutt in Nate Campbell vs Juan Diaz, which so many people go on about as the reason he lost when in fact it was never there. Campbell caught him with a great uppercut and busted his eye open. Not that Duran won or anything but you know what I mean.....


Anyway, good stuff TS. One of the few who seems to be able to see things as they are.

[Thread Stealer]

Ok, it seems ur not one of the million of fans of these Great Champions as what their reputation showed them in the past...i find it degrading the quality of their rivalries if i consider ur's cause the quality of fights they've fought into makes them great not only in the WW's but same as in the MW's...ur entitled to ur own opinion & i respect that...
I've seen the growing interest displayed here because of the names of these great champions (Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, & Duran) being link to Joe...not of Michael Spinks, Foster, etc...

How is it degrading?

Damn near all great fighters (and athletes) decline. It's just the way it goes. Fighters compete at the highest level for a long time, and eventually they start to decline. That doesn't mean they ****** by then or anything. They were still better than most pro fighters out there. They had just declined from their previous high level of performance.

You can see that their reflexes were slower. Leonard's stamina wasn't the same either. He was visibly tired by the 5th or 6th round against Hagler. Manny Steward said that Leonard had the greatest stamina ever. Maybe Manny was exaggerating as he often does, but Leonard certainly had amazing stamina in the late 70s/early 80s. Sure Leonard was using his legs a lot, but he also was in the Duran rematch, and he looked very strong and didn't ever seem fatigued to me. He also finished the 15th round very strong against Duran in Montreal, after taking an absolute battering to the body. His finishes in the 13-15 rounds against Benitez and Hearns also showed his stamina. Against Hagler, you could see the difference.

[BennyST]

Ok, it seems ur not one of the million of fans of these Great Champions as what their reputation showed them in the past...i find it degrading the quality of their rivalries if i consider ur's cause the quality of fights they've fought into makes them great not only in the WW's but same as in the MW's...ur entitled to ur own opinion & i respect that...
I've seen the growing interest displayed here because of the names of these great champions (Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, & Duran) being link to Joe...not of Michael Spinks, Foster, etc...

Mate, you're missing the point entirely of what TS is trying to say. I'm sure he's a big a fan of these guys as any boxing fan is. Nonetheless, the simple truth is that when they were fighting at those higher weights, at the end of their careers, they were not nearly as good and their performances were, in some cases, terrible.

The Duran/Leonard 3 fight is simply a fizzer. It was a non-fight, especially after the fights each guy had beforehand, which could very well be the reason they performed so bad in that fight. Leonard wasn't that old, but he was past it, while Duran was just plain old and way past his proper weight.

The Hearns/Leonard fight was very exciting, but again, both guys were past it though Hearns still did a lot after that fight. Again though, Leonard lost badly in that fight, no matter what the judges say, he simply got out-fought and out-boxed throughout the whole fight. Disgusting, ridiculous decision and it shows that Leonard was not what he used to be. All the fights above MW were terrible for all of them apart from Hearns who did some great stuff. Leonard and Duran would have lost though. Hearns may have taken it but I think he would be outfought and Hagler would have been the only one to stand a really good chance. We have no idea what he would be like at the higher weight though. I still think he would win.

[znarfv_y2k8]

Yeah, him saying it makes little real sense. I think it's just that mythical thing that those guys have in everyone's mind. If you can beat them you can beat anyone. Really though, him saying he would is just pointless.

This is the thing that I would like everyone to look at though. Anyone saying it's crazy that he would beat them, and that he would get KO'd by all of them just need to go and rewatch the above fight with Leonard and LaLonde and then the Duran and Leonard fight at SMW. After re-watching the LaLonde fight I truly think it's highly likely that Leonard would get TKO'd. I don't think Calzaghe had the power to KO him but he definitely had the speed, stamina and combinations to mess him up over the course of a fight. You saw with Camacho that you don't need great power to KO Leonard, you just need to be able to land and keep landing and Calzaghe would do that a lot better than an old Camacho or slow, no-defense-at-all, ****eful LaLonde.

I don't see how many could disagree with that in fact. You would simply have to be blind. Some of the combinations that LaLonde landed were combinations that Calzonie would be throwing all night long. The uppercut sequence in that video are rather similar to what Calzaghe throws inside a lot. They were landing flush.

Duran is just too small. No point in even discussing that one. He would get outworked to a UD.

Hearns has the possibility to win but again, I think that one just need to watch him at LHW/SMW or his latter MW days. He was able to be out-worked. Barkley did it in their second fight very well. He crowded inside and punched non stop. Now, Barkley had ten times the power of Calzaghe, but he didn't have half the skills of him either so it works both ways. It's possible that Hearns could take a decision by out-boxing him, but I do think that Calzaghe was smart enough and good enough to be able to work his way inside and stay there for much of the fight, smothering Hearns' power shots and making it an ugly brawling kind of fight.


Hagler I think would have the skills to land the cleaner shots over the night especially the earlier part of the fight. Calzaghe would try to work inside and flurry off combo's and I believe that Hagler would be landing the cleaner shots and countering well. Great, hard fight though that would be very close.

Anyway, for everyone that thinks this is ridiculous just go watch the full LaLonde fight. You'll see all you need to see there. Calzaghe wins it pretty easily. After that, go watch the Kinchen, Barkley and latter SMW fights of Hearns. He has the skill but he can also be beaten. Kinchen who hwas a light puncher put him down with a grazing, but flush chin shot, as in it landed right on his chin but without full power. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Calzaghe with his much faster hands and better combinations could do this a number of times throughout. Hearns was hittable.

I really don't see what the big deal is about this. This is not P4P, this is when those guys were fighting at those weights and it's highly likely that they would lose, apart from Hagler and maybe Hearns.

Yes, i agree w/ u in some point here & u made some good analysis...i have to add some observation of mine, yes some of those fights were not that super exciting fights of these greats but of course as age pass by it shows a lot of factors affecting their performances...but considering all of them will be match up at their prime age & make the weight at middleweight or super middleweight, Joe vs one of the greats Leonard, Hagler Hearns & Duran, i think they have their chances unique to every fighter but not to the extent that Nigel Benn is too fast to have such conclusive judgment...i believe its a debatable thing, that needs deeper analysis...

[znarfv_y2k8]

Mate, you're missing the point entirely of what TS is trying to say. I'm sure he's a big a fan of these guys as any boxing fan is. Nonetheless, the simple truth is that when they were fighting at those higher weights, at the end of their careers, they were not nearly as good and their performances were, in some cases, terrible.

The Duran/Leonard 3 fight is simply a fizzer. It was a non-fight, especially after the fights each guy had beforehand, which could very well be the reason they performed so bad in that fight. Leonard wasn't that old, but he was past it, while Duran was just plain old and way past his proper weight.

The Hearns/Leonard fight was very exciting, but again, both guys were past it though Hearns still did a lot after that fight. Again though, Leonard lost badly in that fight, no matter what the judges say, he simply got out-fought and out-boxed throughout the whole fight. Disgusting, ridiculous decision and it shows that Leonard was not what he used to be. All the fights above MW were terrible for all of them apart from Hearns who did some great stuff. Leonard and Duran would have lost though. Hearns may have taken it but I think he would be outfought and Hagler would have been the only one to stand a really good chance. We have no idea what he would be like at the higher weight though. I still think he would win.

..but in this case i don't agree w/ u...maybe my reaction to ur other qoute will make sense at all...