Matchups that looked great on paper that produced duds when they happened

I see what Pat's saying though. You get it in your head how the fight is going to unfold. You envision a certain flow and when the tide doesn't go in the direction you had envisioned, it can be a disappointment to one, but possible a revelation in another. For me, it would be the unification match between Michael Spinks and Dwight Qawi. Everyone was imagining bombs being thrown and in my select group of fight fans at the time, we all pictured it the same way. To all of our surprise, Spinks followed a precise Eddie Futch plan, which negated Qawi's attacks by way of a hard jab by Spinks and not engaging. I enjoyed it for its science, but not for the lack of fireworks.

 

Hagler - Leonard: it was supposed to be a battle for the ages, but Hagler was in his night off and Leonard was happy to just fluff and hype his way to the win.

 

Mike Spinks--Qawi has not been mentioned yet. And there was a huge interest in the bout at the time.

Arguello---Pyror 2. A lot of folks thought there was going to be zero deterioration w/ Arguello and figured he would land that big right hand again against this guy and get the 1 punch ko. Attributed Pryor's win in bout #1 strictly to the bottle. But he was never in it and looked like he was fighting underwater.

Holyfield--Qawi #2. Lots of folks that Dwight would get the nod in the rematch and some thought he won the first fight. But he came out stale or worse and it was an easy fight for Evander--who was 100% prepared for that rematch.

 

He got hood winked .

 

Lewis v. Tyson. It was very good for a round.

 

Bonecrusher Smith vs Micheal Moorer I tried to forget this fight but anyway not long before that fight Moorer had just recently left behind his attitude… so there was no chance of forcing Smith who was this giant, strong, puncher to fight which was unfortunate.

 

Tyson vs Holyfield I was never all that for me with Holyfield foul shenanigans being really too over the top

 

@scartissue mentioned two posts before you. It’s a good mention. A consummate performance from Spinks but not the thriller people hoped for.

 

Donaire vs. Narvaez was the other way around. Narvaez was undefeated, this was his big chance in the US on HBO and he was almost revered in Argentina, judging by his telecasts on Telefe. I expected it to be a good fight and it was a dud.

I expected Mancini-Chacon to be a long war because both Mancini and Chacon were known for long, action-packed fights, in Boom Boom's case versus Arguello, the tragic Kim and Romero, and in Chacon's case versus Limon and Boza Edwards. Also, I was 11. It was a war, but one that was dominated quickly by Mancini and it ended quickly. The same goes for Hearns-Duran later in the year.

And Tyson-Smith sucked.

 

I'm thinking this may be where my bias comes into play. I enjoy the sweet science for the sake of the sweet science, I'd much rather see a chess match than bombs away. I get what you're both saying though, I guess if you're expecting the 4th of July and get sparklers.............that is a let down.

 

He did land it...in round two towards the end, That was the closest he came to beat Pryor and was pretty close actually. just not close enough..

 

Was really looking forward to Leonard V Duran 3.
After seeing him in the Barkley fight and Leonard s Hearns fight, I gave Duran a decent shot.
What a let down!

 

It was a huge let down and a lousy fight. In Duran's later career you never knew which version was going to show up. Interestingly the only two real punches Duran landed busted up Leonard. I will say that although there was a massive size difference in the Barkley fight, he had the perfect style for Duran to look good against.

 

That cut looked bad, bet Duran wished it had happened in the first.

 

Whew!!! Leonard Duran III was a stinker, and I remember having such high hopes for that fight.