ADVERTISEMENT

Sport of Boxing. Who was or is your favorite Fighter? (Rocky Balboa not included)

I want to kick your ass as bad as Holmes would have taken apart Liston, Tyson, Frazier!

He would have outworked a young Foreman!

He would have had no problem going the distance with ALi because Ali would have never hit him!!!

It would have been a decision now corporate elites and people wanting to make money would have rigged it for ALi!
A prime Larry Holmes would have taken Tyson as well. Douglas beat Tyson with the exact same weapons in Holmes arsenal.....only Larry's was better. The jackhammer jab would have sent Tyson low and blind coming in. As Tyson would have come back up looking for his mark he would have been vulnerable for the uppercut. Holmes had one of the best uppercuts in the business. He was hurt and backed in a corner when Weaver came in looking for the kill and Larry completely changed the fight with 1 uppercut.

Tyson also had a flaw when he got frustrated or overconfident he would lunge on his way in. Holmes doubling with his jab and then launching an overhand right could have been the bait to catch Tyson leaping in.

Holmes was floored several times in his career but those were typical lapses in lessor fights. Against the better opponents (and probably Tyson) he didn't get careless.

Ali-Holmes in their primes? Curse of the boxer/boxer matchup. A puncher/boxer or puncher/puncher matchup has promise to be entertaining. Ali-Holmes in their prime might have been a very boring fight.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but this was a professional championship fight....not an amateur bout. Hagler clearly won this fight if it had been scored consistent with professional title bouts with Hagler being the champion and Leonard the challenger. Leonard was in survival mode and was running for his life. It was the only chance he had. Yes, he did land more punches than Hagler but they were meaningless punches that were thrown with nothing on them and zero impact on Hagler. In an amateur fight where you get 1 point for basically touching your opponent with the white part of your glove with zero judging for effect or aggression Leonard did play patty cake enough to have gotten a win.....but clearly this was not an amateur fight.

Hagler never stopped being the aggressor and pushing forward. Leonard's weak taps did nothing to him while the fewer punches he did land on Leonard had an obvious greater effect causing Leonard to run even harder. You do not take a fighters title away from him when his opponent picks a strategy of playing keep away or we would see boxing matches becoming nothing but boring dance a thons. Can you imagine basketball without a shot clock? A team could wait till they get a 2 point lead and then put in a lineup of 5 ball handlers to run the clock out. How would you like to watch an NCAA title game with Ray Leonard dribbling the ball nonstop for 3+ quarters?

I will whole heartedly agree with you that the expectation was that Hagler would destroy Leonard like he did Hearns and Mugabi. The fact that he didn't seemed to have a big influence on the judges and some watching. Even boxing analysts at the time noted this situation of Leonard beating the expectation he would get stomped so if he survived he must have won...right? Wrong.

Hagler did get the last laugh. He claimed on the spot he was done and everyone (myself included) figured there is no way he wouldn't fight Leonard in a rematch. Hagler said he thought Leonard needed the rematch more than him and walked away and as few fighters do......stayed retired. Leonard on the other hand did what most fighters do and hung around too long. After Hagler he had 5 more fights and only won twice ending his career getting knocked out.
Exactly.

Leonard’s strategy (and I believe Angelo Dundee confirmed this), was for Leonard to grow a flurry at the beginning, middle, and end of rounds, and dance away the rest of the time. That would make the judges think Leonard controlled the round when he really didn’t. It didn’t matter that the punches either didn’t land or were just pitty pats.

Hagler made a big mistake by not insisting the fight go 15 rounds instead of 12 (at that time, the sanctioning bodies were split on title fights being 12 or 15 rounds due to the death of Duk Koo Kim) Leonard was completely gassed at the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80
A prime Larry Holmes would have taken Tyson as well. Douglas beat Tyson with the exact same weapons in Holmes arsenal.....only Larry's was better. The jackhammer jab would have sent Tyson low and blind coming in. As Tyson would have come back up looking for his mark he would have been vulnerable for the uppercut. Holmes had one of the best uppercuts in the business. He was hurt and backed in a corner when Weaver came in looking for the kill and Larry completely changed the fight with 1 uppercut.

Tyson also had a flaw when he got frustrated or overconfident he would lunge on his way in. Holmes doubling with his jab and then launching an overhand right could have been the bait to catch Tyson leaping in.

Holmes was floored several times in his career but those were typical lapses in lessor fights. Against the better opponents (and probably Tyson) he didn't get careless.

Ali-Holmes in their primes? Curse of the boxer/boxer matchup. A puncher/boxer or puncher/puncher matchup has promise to be entertaining. Ali-Holmes in their prime might have been a very boring fight.

Excellent analysis, thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80
Exactly.

Leonard’s strategy (and I believe Angelo Dundee confirmed this), was for Leonard to grow a flurry at the beginning, middle, and end of rounds, and dance away the rest of the time. That would make the judges think Leonard controlled the round when he really didn’t. It didn’t matter that the punches either didn’t land or were just pitty pats.

Hagler made a big mistake by not insisting the fight go 15 rounds instead of 12 (at that time, the sanctioning bodies were split on title fights being 12 or 15 rounds due to the death of Duk Koo Kim) Leonard was completely gassed at the end.

Hagler made 2 more errors that in hindsight gave away advantages which as champion he could have dictated instead of caving to Leonard's insistence and conditions for the fight.

Gloves. Middleweight fights at that time saw 8oz gloves used. Leonard insisted on 10oz gloves.

Ring size. Rings are not uniform in size but instead the governing bodies issue minimum and maximum sizes. This fight (again per Leonard's insistence) was in a large ring.

Hagler was either overconfident or in such a hurry to get Leonard in the ring (it was in no way close to being a mandatory defense) that he gave away some of the decisions on terms he held as champion in order to get Leonard in the ring. Bad move on his part. He should have dictated the terms of the fight and told Leonard to take it or leave it.
 
Hagler made 2 more errors that in hindsight gave away advantages which as champion he could have dictated instead of caving to Leonard's insistence and conditions for the fight.

Gloves. Middleweight fights at that time saw 8oz gloves used. Leonard insisted on 10oz gloves.

Ring size. Rings are not uniform in size but instead the governing bodies issue minimum and maximum sizes. This fight (again per Leonard's insistence) was in a large ring.

Hagler was either overconfident or in such a hurry to get Leonard in the ring (it was in no way close to being a mandatory defense) that he gave away some of the decisions on terms he held as champion in order to get Leonard in the ring. Bad move on his part. He should have dictated the terms of the fight and told Leonard to take it or leave it.
I had forgotten about the gloves and ring size....thanks for the reminder.

You are 100% correct. At the time I kept thinking “Why is Hagler giving all these concessions to Leonard?” Leonard needed the fight more than Marvin. He should have told Leonard “Fight under my terms or go pound sand.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80
Excellent call on Jerry Quarry. He lost some, but good lord could he take a punch.
Jerry Quarry died at 53 and his brother Mike at 55. Jerry fought, Patterson, Ali, Frazier, Norton and Ellis. Took a heck of a beating. Late 60's, early 70's, Quarry was the most popular heavyweight.
 
Last edited:
Ali was my favorite in 70's. I was one of the few. Too young to understand the draft thing. Kids in school did not like Ali because of their dads. I followed boxing close in 70. Ron Lyle, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, Ken Norton, Frazier, Foreman, Spinks brothers, 1972 olympic boxing team etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O-townHawkstar
JFC how did Roy not get mentioned before page 2? Still only this one mention until now. Roy Jones Jr is my favorite too. Current favorite is Teofimo Lopez. Do any of you guys actually watch boxing with all you're frontrunner responses?
A few of us watched boxing before the 90's. Jones was exciting in a flashy way, but had some pretty terrible fundamentals that caught up to him once his speed began to evaporate.

In hindsight, probably his best win was Hopkins in '93 on HBO, a rather pedestrian 116-112 on all the cards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80
Arturo "Thunder" Gatti

tumblr_p51bsi1lb11u9e9wjo1_400.gifv
I loved the gotti wars fights. Maybe some of the best ever.
 
The VFW and American Legion Halls
despised Cassius Clay as a draft
dodger. He was willing to fight for money,
but not fight for his country. His brain
took a beating in the ring and he ended
up with Alzheimers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80
The VFW and American Legion Halls
despised Cassius Clay as a draft
dodger. He was willing to fight for money,
but not fight for his country. His brain
took a beating in the ring and he ended
up with Alzheimers.
Ali won the fight but Foreman the war. The rope a dope worked well enough to win but took a horrible price both in remainder of his career and life. Foreman on the other hand...look at all can you say about his life after that fight. Glad for George.
 
The boxing industry would be wise to go back to network television. They would make a heck of a lot more money, have more fans, and have more endorsements.

The problem is, it is one of the most corrupt sports due to agents, licensing, etc.
Imo what killed boxing is mma. More violence. Shorter and more matches and fewer questionable subjective decisions. TV would help to get more of a following but I'm not sure it would be enough.
 
In a blast from the past, boxing was on
network television on weeknights in the
1950's. Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer was one
of the main sponsors with their commercials.
And then we got to witness Paret & Griffith (who was mentioned as a favorite on page 1). A similar outcry occurred 20 years later when we saw Kim & Mancini.

I think Fox is doing a good job of promoting the sport with PBC, as HBO dropped it a few years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O-townHawkstar
Another favorite of mine that I haven't seen listed was Alexis Arguello. He was like a matador in a bullfight. The shit Prior pulled on him was criminal.
 
Hagler. is my favorite fighter of all time, someone I rooted for to win and was upset when some idiot judge said that Leonard fight was 118-110. It is a fight, not a game of patty-cake

couple fighters I dont think have been mentioned that I was a big fan.

Mark Breland-pure talent that didnt translate to what many thought he would be as a professional, even though 35-3-1 is not terrible. But he was all world as an amateur. 1982 to 1984 was a hell of a run -the lead up to the Olympics and winning the gold , he was special

Pernell Whitaker- The Chavez loss is perhaps the biggest screw job in boxing ( and that says something) and De La Hoya was also bad, but not as bad. The guy was a huge talent that didnt get his due because he was on the wrong side of a couple bad decisions
Completely agree about Whitaker. He beat De La Hoya like how he won almost all of his fights but for some reason in THAT fight it wasn't good enough. Fixed.
 
Sorry but this was a professional championship fight....not an amateur bout. Hagler clearly won this fight if it had been scored consistent with professional title bouts with Hagler being the champion and Leonard the challenger. Leonard was in survival mode and was running for his life. It was the only chance he had. Yes, he did land more punches than Hagler but they were meaningless punches that were thrown with nothing on them and zero impact on Hagler. In an amateur fight where you get 1 point for basically touching your opponent with the white part of your glove with zero judging for effect or aggression Leonard did play patty cake enough to have gotten a win.....but clearly this was not an amateur fight.

Hagler never stopped being the aggressor and pushing forward. Leonard's weak taps did nothing to him while the fewer punches he did land on Leonard had an obvious greater effect causing Leonard to run even harder. You do not take a fighters title away from him when his opponent picks a strategy of playing keep away or we would see boxing matches becoming nothing but boring dance a thons. Can you imagine basketball without a shot clock? A team could wait till they get a 2 point lead and then put in a lineup of 5 ball handlers to run the clock out. How would you like to watch an NCAA title game with Ray Leonard dribbling the ball nonstop for 3+ quarters?

I will whole heartedly agree with you that the expectation was that Hagler would destroy Leonard like he did Hearns and Mugabi. The fact that he didn't seemed to have a big influence on the judges and some watching. Even boxing analysts at the time noted this situation of Leonard beating the expectation he would get stomped so if he survived he must have won...right? Wrong.

Hagler did get the last laugh. He claimed on the spot he was done and everyone (myself included) figured there is no way he wouldn't fight Leonard in a rematch. Hagler said he thought Leonard needed the rematch more than him and walked away and as few fighters do......stayed retired. Leonard on the other hand did what most fighters do and hung around too long. After Hagler he had 5 more fights and only won twice ending his career getting knocked out.
I can see you're passionate about that fight, but we can agree to disagree. Neither guy really hurt the other. I watched the fight again after and scored it for Leonard by 1-2 points...not that I am perfect at it.

I got most of my respect for Hagler during the Mugabi fight. Mugabi had knocked out everybody. Hagler took his shots and wore him out with power punches of his own. Mugabi seemed unbeatable at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SigMaintHawk
I can see you're passionate about that fight, but we can agree to disagree. Neither guy really hurt the other. I watched the fight again after and scored it for Leonard by 1-2 points...not that I am perfect at it.

I got most of my respect for Hagler during the Mugabi fight. Mugabi had knocked out everybody. Hagler took his shots and wore him out with power punches of his own. Mugabi seemed unbeatable at the time.
Hagler vs "the Beast"Mugabi is one of my favorite fights...watched it dozens of times..
 
The boxing industry would be wise to go back to network television. They would make a heck of a lot more money, have more fans, and have more endorsements.

The problem is, it is one of the most corrupt sports due to agents, licensing, etc.
Yeah it is and has lost a lot of its appeal because of that. Do the people who control boxing not see that?
That Fury fight made a lot of money tho.
 
I di
Saw it in my dormroom at Hillcrest. What a great fight, but then....

Lots of mentions in this thread of Danny "Little Red" Lopez. Man, he was fun to watch.

He was great to watch. Would almost always get knocked down in first few rounds, then eventually he'd land that bomb of a right hand. Game over. I enjoyed Alexis Arguello as well. Such a technically sound boxer, seemed like a good person as well.
 
Gatti/Ward. Their first fight was the best damn fight I've ever seen.

Hearns/Hagler. Just non stop action. Delivering and taking a beating. Made me a fan of both of them that night.

Tommy was so much fun to watch as he came to beat ass. He was absolutely robbed by Sugar Ray who had a knack for using his flair to win decisions rather than skill. I never liked Leonard due to that. He screwed Hagler as well.

I never liked Tyson that much. Guy never beat anyone but so many who grew up in the 80's/90's think he's the greatest. Nah...just whipped a bunch of punching bags; Evander picked him apart.
Sugar Ray would come alive at the end of each round with flurries to impress the judges.
 
Yeah it is and has lost a lot of its appeal because of that. Do the people who control boxing not see that?
That Fury fight made a lot of money tho.

Boxing is absolutely corrupt.

However, boxing has ALWAYS been corrupt. When it's been popular, its been corrupt, when it's been down, it's been corrupt. It's a thing for sure, but it really doesn't correspond with boxing's popularity or lack thereof.

A lot of the problems that plague boxing have always been problems, or are intrinsic to the sport, and are really side issues not directly related to whether its up or down.

Also, boxing is wildly popular almost everywhere else in the world, so it's really the United States where it is "down" (although not as much as people like to say).

In my opinion, the main factors impeding more popularity in America is as follows:

1) Inactivity of the fighters. This is a more recent development when almost nobody is fighting more than 1-2 times a year. Now, when you're talking the MEGA superstars, that's not unusual. You might have 1-2 guys who are the absolute pinnacle of their fame and they only fight once or twice a year, that's no big deal. When you reach that stage, you've earned it, and every event is a huge deal. Right now, only Canelo Alvarez, Manny, and maybe now Tyson Fury are that status.

But when there are so many good young exciting fighters, they just simply don't fight frequently enough to maintain momentum. Let's say you tune into a Terance Crawford or Errol Spence fight or something and they are spectacular...it's simply too much to wait at least six months (if you're lucky) before you tune in again. It's just too much. Established stars should be trying to fight 3 times a year, even if two are against bums.

And with so many belts, guys are picking up a belt early in their career now, and are barely exceeding prospect status before going on the 2x a year schedule. Guys like Shakur Stevenson, Devin Haney, etc...these guys have belts, but they absolutely should be trying to fight 3-4 times a year.

2) The three way cold war between promoters/networks that ties up fighters into exclusive contracts and prevent good fights from being made. This happened in the past to some extent, for example when Tyson and Lewis were tied up with different interests. Fights have been tough to make over promotional or television differences. But in the past, that mainly applied to superstars.

Currently, virtually every fighter at every level is now gated off, we're not talking about merely obstructing mega-fights between mega-stars, although that's a problem. You're talking about obstructing the kind of fights that MAKE boxers into mega-stars. There are so many great fighters who are being denied the career-making fights that they need to become stars, and engage the fans more than a few times a year.

There are other problems too, but those are the most serious and intractable to me. The truth is, boxers are making more than ever. Boxers you've never heard of make money that would make almost all UFC stars jealous as hell. There isn't a whole lot of incentive to do things differently from the fighters perspective. And I can't blame them for not wanting to take more beatings by better fighters more times a year as long as the money is what it is.
 
Ray Robinson was the best there ever was or will be. These guys today fight a couple of times a year. RR was 85-2 as an amateur. 69 by KO, 40 in the 1st round. Finished with 173 pro wins.
 
Well, Im 42 so there is nobody for my age group like what Tyson was in his prime. He wasnt the best technical fighter, but he was a tornado of fury at that time that you just had to see.
Tyson for me. When I'm watching ufc or whatever with my son, my go to is: "You know who this guy reminds me of? MIKE TYSON. Go to Youtube and pull up Tyson's best knockouts"
 
  • Like
Reactions: O-townHawkstar
Warchant folks have heard my Tyson rant a dozen times, but here's my take:

85% of people WAY overrate Tyson as a fighter, including most casual fans.

The other 15% (mostly boxing junkies) underrate him significantly.

Most of the hyperbole of Tyson being the best ever, would have beaten any heavyweight, never would have lost if Cus didn't die, etc...is totally bogus. The guy doesn't have anything in his resume to back that up. He never beat, nor even was competitive with another elite or near-elite heavyweight...he lost non-competitively to the two he faced (Holyfield and Lewis), and didn't face the others he could have (Foreman v2, Bowe). He lost to a generously non-elite heavyweight while he was considered in his prime, and was only "washed up" in retrospect after he lost. The resumes and styles of many former heavyweight greats, put against Tyson's, would strongly suggest they should be favored.

HOWEVER...Tyson was no joke. He was WAY more technically skilled than most people gave/give him credit for, with hand speed and footwork among all time elite, and underrated defense. Do not underestimate his wipeout of Holmes. At the time, that win was considered a joke, but Holmes went on to being a credible heavyweight gatekeeper for many years. Holmes went the distance with Holy, and was never knocked down again (other than being "knocked down" off balance by Butterbean when he was 52 years old). And nobody ever gave that Tyson win the appropriate revisionist treatment.

Tyson would not be an easy out for any heavyweight in history. There are several historical heavyweights I favor to beat him, but I think he carries a significant chance against pretty much all of them. That's saying a whole lot.

Mike Tyson is probably just outside the top ten all-time at heavyweight depending how you rate guys, which does mean he was great. But almost nobody is happy to just leave it at that...he's either "the best ever in his prime" or a "total fraud".
 
Warchant folks have heard my Tyson rant a dozen times, but here's my take:

85% of people WAY overrate Tyson as a fighter, including most casual fans.

The other 15% (mostly boxing junkies) underrate him significantly.

Most of the hyperbole of Tyson being the best ever, would have beaten any heavyweight, never would have lost if Cus didn't die, etc...is totally bogus. The guy doesn't have anything in his resume to back that up. He never beat, nor even was competitive with another elite or near-elite heavyweight...he lost non-competitively to the two he faced (Holyfield and Lewis), and didn't face the others he could have (Foreman v2, Bowe). He lost to a generously non-elite heavyweight while he was considered in his prime, and was only "washed up" in retrospect after he lost. The resumes and styles of many former heavyweight greats, put against Tyson's, would strongly suggest they should be favored.

HOWEVER...Tyson was no joke. He was WAY more technically skilled than most people gave/give him credit for, with hand speed and footwork among all time elite, and underrated defense. Do not underestimate his wipeout of Holmes. At the time, that win was considered a joke, but Holmes went on to being a credible heavyweight gatekeeper for many years. Holmes went the distance with Holy, and was never knocked down again (other than being "knocked down" off balance by Butterbean when he was 52 years old). And nobody ever gave that Tyson win the appropriate revisionist treatment.

Tyson would not be an easy out for any heavyweight in history. There are several historical heavyweights I favor to beat him, but I think he carries a significant chance against pretty much all of them. That's saying a whole lot.

Mike Tyson is probably just outside the top ten all-time at heavyweight depending how you rate guys, which does mean he was great. But almost nobody is happy to just leave it at that...he's either "the best ever in his prime" or a "total fraud".
I wonder what he would have done to people if he was born 30 to 40 or years or so later and was in UFC. His ability to turn the lights out while wearing those pillows on his hands would be absolutely frightening wearing the UFC fight gloves.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT