Out of the big names mentioned the one i think he'd do the best against would have been Morales, not sure why i just think Scotts style would have made a good fight with the Mexican. Not trying to say Morales was the worst, infact he is my favourite out of the top guys but stylistically the fight would have been close in my opinion.
I'd have loved to see him in with pac. Pac had so style to speak of and his idea of defence is popping in his gumshield and both guys liked to slug it out. Great fight for sure but too hard to pick a winner. As for the Polo fight its not too fair to use that as an example of Scotts skill considering he has cut in the 1st and by the 2nd or 3rd he only had 1 eye he could see from.
What did he say that was remotely incorrect? Once again people decide to blow up someone's mediocre talent into something seriously disproportionate.....
If you genuinely agree that Scott Harrison was a skill less plodder, you've either never seen him fight or you don't have a ****ing clue about boxing. Go watch the THP, Boom Boom, Chacon, McCulloch or Medina rematch. If you still think he's a skill less plodder, go watch cricket or something. Scott had a tremendous jab, super footwork, tremendous body puncher, and excellent judge of distance. You don't have to like him, but to say he's a skill less plodder shows astounding lack of boxing knowledge.
Why do people get on their high horse when people respect a talented fighter who they may not like personality wise? I think it has been made quite clear that he isn't on the same level as the likes of Barrera and Morales but he isn't a 'bum' like most fat **** boxing know-it-alls like to label very good fighters with like its going out of fashion. I stand by what i said, i think he would have done ok against Morales (and probably the rest too) probably wouldn't have won but **** it, thats why i'm a boxing fan, i want to see interesting fights being made with the fighters i like. Harrison was a good fighter and would have came to fight all those guys.
I didn't say he was without skill, I'm saying that his skillset on a world level was lacking. His footwork was good, not excellent. His jab, again was good, not excellent. I've seen all the fights mentioned, there's nothing there after the Boom Boom fight to suggest he's up to Broner's level. And believe me, I much prefer Harrison to Broner - I've never praised Broner on the General Forum before, and it's only now I've stated anything positive about him.
Harrison may have done well against Morales in a shootout, Morales went toe to toe with McCullough and got caught a lot, Harrison was better than McCullough and ****ing HELL of a lot stronger
Yeah McCullough Wasn't the strongest i'm sure he was actually a Bantamweight is that right? One thing i did notice is he had a hell of a chin. Ok, out of interest how would Broner do against the fab four?
Sorry I'm just re-reading through this thread and must have missed this the first time, that made me chuckle.
Broner is overated, never been in with a top fighter. Alsdo people should remember when Harrison first won world title the top 5 ranked fighters for his belt were Scott(champion) morales, barrera, marquez, hamed. Not a bad top 5 i am sure you would agree, scott would have fought any of them it was them that wopuld not fight him. He was and i think we will see a special natural talent with a fantastic boxing brain.