No Credit - Wins Where Fighters Are...

barrera vs khan shouldnt be considered a win for khan

 

Backus over Napoles

 

good shout mate

 

To some degree Duran-Leonard 1 gets taken away from him with the bull-manure 'Leonard lost, not Duran won' thing, but i think me amongst others have done well to get rid of that thinking, on this board anyway. This has been achieved by either me, Sweet Pea or Robbi regularly jumping all over posts with lengthy explanations of how the bout went down from start to finish........

you only get out what you put in.

 

Which is bollox because in order for SRR to win he had to move and punch 3 times as much as Maxim, which is harder in hot conditions. At the end of the day he won because he was 2 divisions bigger/stronger

 

Kevin McBride-Mike Tyson, kidding

bored now

 

I think Buster Douglas gets no credit from alot of people for beating Mike Tyson. Most people become Tyson apologists and are quick to dismiss Douglas's victory. Granted Tyson wasn't in shape and was unfocused and the 1988 version would have taken care of Douglas, but Douglas fought a great fight that night and overcame alot of adversity too, and should be commended fot what he accomplished that night.

 

I differ, slightly. I'm not one of these people who come to the conclusion that Leonard somewhat fought his normal fight in Montreal. Yes, prior to the rematch in New Orleans he wasn't known to move around the ring like he did that night, but he had the athletcism and the ability to make things easier when he fought Duran the first time. Of course I give Duran credit for the win. I'm not saying he only won simply because Leonard stood and fought. But Leonard clearly had it in him to use his feet and get out of trouble more than he showed.

Leonard was physically bigger, had more natural power at the weight, and was quicker, along with height and reach advantages. This doesn't point to him slugging with Duran as perfectly sensible strategy. I'm not saying this with the benefit of hindsight. Leonard and all his camp knew that Duran's best chance was a war. Everyone had it marked down that Duran would be coming forward and looking to suck Leonard into a ball testing competition.

If you watch the fight, you'll notice that Leonard is flat-footed. Very seldom does he try to move out of harms way and skip away with lateral movement. Centre ring, spurts of foot movement, rarely stepping to the side to avoid Duran's charges. And I really don't care what others say about how he fought prior to the fight, Leonard had the ability to box and move far more than he showed on the night. No, I'm not asking him to have showed a carbon copy like he did in New Orleans and get on his bike. Duran obviously gets credit for taking a grip of the fight and fighting how he planned.

Leonard never listened to his corner by all accounts. And Duran got into his head during the press conferences leading up to the fight. Insulting Leonard's wife and saying he was going to kill him. The whole occasion got to Leonard and he openly admitted afterwards that he was intimidated by Duran.

 

YOU BETRAY ME!!!!!!!!!!!

Nar just kidding, i simply put it down to both men are very great, and d each beat each other on merit, i take nothing from either performance. I do think in the early rounds though of the first bout, Duran got the better of the long range chess match type exchanges and possibly dents Leonard's confidence in that sort of fight on his part, though i can see it is pretty obvious he was flat footed, i don't think it's simply black and white either. I know there is a round i think approaching the middle of the fight, where Leonard moves in and out snapping a cobra like jab, it seems at that point as though a change in the nature of the bout is upon us. Duran then goes about offsetting that and succeeds.

Like i say, both men fought great fights and achieved great wins, regardless of excuses made, again in both fights.

 

Pacquiao-De La Hoya
(it is justifiable that Pacquiao gets less credit for this win because Oscar did indeed look weight-drained, but Pacquiao still deserves credit for the way he performed. He is largely denied this though. It should be remembered that Oscar's last fight was only 3lbs north, and I think Pacquiao's speed would've troubled Oscar at any point from around 2003 onwards once Oscar was noticeably past-prime)

Pacquiao-Morales II
(Again, Pacquiao perhaps does deserve less credit for the third fight where Morales was incapable of fighting at a violent pace till the later rounds, but in the second fight he was not. Morales, back at a weight he was more comfortable at, was past-prime, but he still fought like a lion and would've beaten many good fighters on that night IMO. I think the mental and physical effects of being properly dropped, beaten down and stopped for the first time in his career was a contributing factor in the shadow we saw in the third fight - it surely can't be largely attributed to the Raheem fight)

Duran-Leonard I
(the choice was never Leonard's to make, the most skilled pressure-fighter in history was in rampant form, he dictated the fight and Leonard could do nothing about it except fight for his life)

Mayweather-Corrales and Jones-Toney
(both wins are devalued by those who say the losing fighter was weight-drained, but I can say even as a Toney fan and a bit of a Mayweather critic, the performance by the victor was so good that if Chico and JT were in peak condition or not, the result would not have been much different at all)

 

Nice one.

 

Its a win for Kahn way before its a win for Barrera tho, the cut actually helped MAB, he was clearly in over his head & was on the way to a humiliating defeat, at least he has an excuse now.

 

Thanks, it's getting late now, need to hit the sack but there's a few decent threads going, not good.