Name 1 thing about your favorite fighter that dissapointed you

Good list.

 

Well I hated the fact that ONE of my favorite fighters Israel Vasquez gave that crybaby Rafa Marquez a fourth fight.... Totally ****ed up a great trilogy...:verysad

 

Yes!

 

There is more to that then meets the eye. Toney had been diagnosed with some sort of medical dysfunction in 2003. He had way below normal testosterone levels, a big reason to his massive weight gain.

 

Hatton's comeback and performance against Senchenko. At least up until that point he could say he had only been beaten by the very best in the world at their peaks. That was an ill advised comeback.

 

Tim whitherspoon against Smith 2.....Didn,t want that fight , should have fought Tyson ( if motivated ofcourse )

 

Fighters not training hard enough and cruising by on talent alone

 

That he took Márquez IV. :sad2

Co-favorite: turned down Cobra rubber-match.

 

Oh, for the record I'm not talking about Pacquiao on that first line. I realized immediately after posting that could be confusing. Referring to a different Márquez bro.

 

My favorite fighters down the years have been Eubank, Froch, Hatton, Naseem, pacquiao and Lennox Lewis.

Eubank = No dissapointments
Froch = None
Hatton = Came back when he knew he was finished.

Naseem = retired in his twenties, still had a few years left. Left his trainer, lied about Eubank influence on him. Started saying "Allah Akbar" nonsense and bringing religion into his fights. Dito with Tyson Fury.

Lennox Lewis = Became lazy, didn't train hard enough, could have took boxers out a few rounds earlier. But to be fair, he beat everyon in his era and proved he was the best.

Pacquiao = None

 

Don't think Eubank cracked on too long? (didn't really need to gift Calzaghe the big name on his résumé on the cheap, did he?)

..or that Pac's focus got a bit spotty with the politics and celebrity?

...or that Froch left a tad soon? (really ought to have met DeGale, IMO...bad look there)

 

Frank Bruno: he was ****.

 

Eubank was 31 years old when he got beat by Joe Calzaghe. So no. He was retired before his 32nd birthday.

Pac achieved a hell of a lot in boxing, so no.

Froch, too soon? He was 37 years old when he retired. Not too soon IMO.

 

GGG: for letting Sanchez talk too much

Adamek: for moving up to HW and continuing fighting after getting beatdown vs Klitschko

Ali: for not retiring soon enough

Lewis: never faced a southpaw as a pro

 

31 but on the slide and I can't imagine, being a Eubank fan, that you're satisfied with how it went being indicative of how a Calzaghe vs. nearer-prime Eubank would've.

Pac accomplished loads, sure, but his performances began to stagnate a bit when his concentration became fractured, wouldn't you say?

Froch was 37 but the manner in which he departed was a bit of diva nonsense IMO, not befitting the warrior status Carl had worked so hard to leave as his legacy. Demanding a payday with middling Chavez Jr. and yet balking at very talented countryman DeGale calling him out desperately in what could have been a third consecutive important and big-money domestic showdown after Groves I & II? Eh...not his shining moment.