Michael Watson vs Tony Sibson At MW

Sibson's definitely one of the more genuinely underrated modern day contenders, still.As far as what he was capable of when on form.

i've always thought he was pretty inconsistent and erratic mentally though, which held him back as much as Hagler being in the way.He'd get frustrated and lose form in fights if he hadn't got on top by the mid-rounds and he had a lot of tools but never quite seemed sure of what style to be fighting in.You'd get rounds\fights where he'd be a smooth boxer-puncher with good movement, then a dynamic Olivares approach, then he'd just use his strength and start fighting in a straight line-left hooking manner for a few rounds.

But it looked more llike someone a bit unsure of themselves\ struggling to bring a potentially varied skillset under control, rather than a truly versatile fighter deploying different facets as most needed.

Plus, he had such a short stocky build with tiny reach that it made it quite important he be fighting in a way to minimise such a physical drawback, which he didn't always do and made him vulnerable to the better lanky, rangey straight punching sharpshooters.

The Don lee upset showed that.He wasn't as good a boxer-puncher, but his range and busy workrate with those long straight shots and huge power was too much in the end(though the switchhitting might have been what sealed it).Lee was a bit of a wasted talent himself....inactive after that and never looked nearly as sharp again.Don't really know his story outside of the ring though.

Sibson seemed to lose focus too after that fight.Good wins over Acaries(who was basically Winky Wright with notch less workrate, an underrated good2nd tier fighter) and Kaylor(who was improved and at his best then imo) but inactive and stupid to move up to 175.

Andries might not have been the most talented fighter around and he promised a nice domestic showdown, but Sibson in no way belonged at 175 where Andries wa busy and threw a lot of awkward heavy punches with good range.He was done after that.

This said, i think the early 80s Sibson is a good darkhorse sort of challenger that would make great exciting matchups with numerous more highly regarded middleweight contenders-especially some of the big punchers like hart, Mugabi, Floro Fernandez, Lausse etc and might well destroy a few that would be favoured to stop him.

As far as a fight with Watson.Both unfilfilled talent, though Watson seemed more focused and better able to adapt\be less bothered by losses, though Sibson did learn from a few earlier losses himself and never had a fight where he looked tense like Watson did against Mike.Sibson quicker hands when he commits to his combo's, more fluid with his punches and better legs\footwork...Watson fought with flat JMM feet until he revealed his new pressuring ability at 168.In the early-mid rounds at least, though as previously said tended to get a bit ragged and inconistent with his sharpness.Both technically good defensively without being reflexive beasts, though watson's blocking\parrying seemed better suited to his athetic gifts than Sibson's head slips and upperbody movement.Watson a better counterpuncher, more consistently accurate.Sibson a bigger two-fisted puncher with a killer left-hook(effortlessly doubled and even tripled at times) though didn't use that to it's full potential due to his stylistic confusion at times.Both have very good jabs.

Very close at 160.Sibson could end up not being consistently sharp enough and getting a bit too frustrated at Watson's counters, thus letting Michael take the play away late, but on the other hand Watson was pretty methodical and not blessed with the kind of movement or huge power that could frustrate and contain the short armed Sibbo.Nor quite the sheer technique or finesse to befuddle.He was a good\very good at most things, not great at many\any kind of fighter at the weight.I don't see many surprises for either fighter to contend with.

 

Admittedly, I've only seen Watson fight twice, whereas I've seen Sibson fight many times. The two fights I saw Watson in was the Nigel Benn scrap and the McCallum fight. In the Benn fight he fought a counter-punching masterpiece but I was very disappointed in him in the McCallum bout. He seemed to lack any head movement at all. Didn't duck, bob or slip, just take it on the chin if he couldn't catch it on the arms. That style was perfect against the front-runner Benn but suicide against the pacing of McCallum. Peak Sibson as he was against the tall, rangy Dwight Davison, threw left hooks and body punches all night long. I see the same kind of fight with Sibson taking either a lopsided decision or what I really believe, a late round stoppage.

Scartissue

 

You should check the Watson vs Eubank fights out on youtube, scar.Both well worth a watch, especially the 2nd.

Watson only really added headmovement and solid fluid slipping and countering(as opposed to being mostly limited to pick a shot off then counter, or just lead) after the McCallum fight.That was one of the main things i liked about him, he seemed to learn, improve and incorporate new things after he lost.I don't think he was ever going to be a true great, but he had become a really good\excellent fighter by the Eubank rematch.

 

Great post!! As it happens I've just rewatched the Don Lee fight after MrButt mentioned it. First time I've seen it since the night.
What a bad stylistic matchup Lee was for him, a 6.2, rangy, switch hitter with power. Sibson boxed great the first 2 rounds knocking Lee down with a peach of a left, almost a jab. He walked onto that southpaw left hand of Lee in the 3rd and did well to get up from that knockdown and then the rest of the round. Not a bad round in the 4th considering then he gets cut in the 5th which looked like a headclash. From then on he was playing a dangerous game looking for the KO on Micky Duff's advice and it looked like he might get it until
Lee got him again in the 8th.
On the whole I'd say he boxed very well, how he could of overcome Lee I don't know. I don't know if he could a boxed from the outside against a fella with all those physical advantages.
Watson would be different kind of fight and Benn you'd have to say could go either way, specially in a shootout.

 

Thanks, Lora, I'll check it out.

 

I am not sure why picking watson means Sibson is under appreciated? I like him, I just think Watson at his best would beat him....Perhaps watson of the Mccallum fight w/ the same style plan would lose to Sibson. I don't see this as under appreciating him as much as it is giving props to Watson.

 

I don't think he fought the same type of fight against Benn as he did against McCallum. I have always felt that he pushed to hard in that fight. I have always wondered if he fought a different fight whether he could have made it closer or even pulled it out?

 

No shame losing to Don Lee, by the way, that guy hit as hard, or harder, than Foster, Jackson and Hearns.

 

So Don Lee Was the hardest hitter of all time then?

 

Well they did not call him 'Dangerous' for nothing...

The irony of cause being if Lee ruined Sibson; 'Dangerous' Don made Watson (to the hardcore).

 

So he was the hardest hitter of all time, is that what your saying?

 

I guess you do not get ''...

 

A wink? I must confess i've not seen Lee fight apart from Sibson and Watson, looks like i'll have try and watch some more. But looking at his record, he had a lot of knockouts granted but apart from a past his best Sibson, the majority of them were just bums.

 

No need (unless you want, there are worse than Lee), the wink means I am in on the 'joke'. Clearly Lee was no where near the hardest puncher boxing has seen. But as his nickname was 'Dangerous' I was giving a 'wink' to the poster who suggested he was, like 'you' do, when you communicate what you want, by saying what you do not.