If you were going to do a demolition job on your favourite fighter

If you want to beat Marco Antonio Barrera I think you should bring straight shots down the pipe and with considerable hand speed. It wasn't the southpaw stance that caused his downfall in 2003, it was Manny Pacquiao's speed of hand, his intensity, and the straight left hand that was finding it's target every time. He does bring his left hand back low after jabbing to so if you have a counter puncher with a great right hand who can take advantage of that...Barrera is in trouble. During his days at 122lbs he was quite rapid himself...but he always worked most effectively when setting his own pace.

A guy like Salvador Sanchez would probably do a job on Marco at 126lbs.

 

Rocky Marciano did not beat a wide variety of styles. Clarence Henry Bob Baker and Nino Valdes were all out there to fight, all were in there primes, and instead rocky let archie moore do the dirty work for him.

Sonny Liston never won a comeback after 10 rounds where a fighter really took it to him and made liston have to dogfight to win a war.

Jersey Joe Walcott- Did not beat any of the young rising heavyweights of the early 1950s (baker, henry, marciano, lastarza, layne). He also lost to every Ring Magazine rated heavyweight he fought in the 1930s.

Joe Louis- His title reign was very very unfair to black fighters...and there were some good ones out there.

 

Well, in brief; some idiots think that 'a little bit of movement beats Roberto Duran'. I strongly disagree to the point wherein if i were to outline why here, you would all probably see myself as resembling a broken record, so i won't get into that.

Now for the brave part Janitor. I'm not brave enough to go all out and say it's a foregone conclusion, because in the match-up i'll propose, Duran is the more skilled man. Anyway, without further beating around the bush-

many of us feel Duran is very possibly the best inside man of all time, i tend to agree. But Ike Williams could be the man to beat him off. Please forgive me for my downright cheek, but it couold happen. Too much spitfire punching, and with venom and spite. The major factor for me though, is that Williams was fantastic at making space for punches, and they came in bunches. Taking it to Ike Williams is somewhat problematic for the practicioner who wishes to do so, it is fatal to those who only know how to practice pugilism via such methods. At distance, (and Duran fights to take place there for important periods of time) Duran wins clearly, he's too accurate and skilled for Williams at getting off first. But we all know where Duran loves to fight............

 

Teeto, the Ike Williams who I saw demolish Beau Jack July 12,1948, in Philly was a devastating fighter that night.Williams almost killed the powerful Beau Jack...I believe Ike Williams at this peak would have licked
Roberto Duran at 135 pounds, for sure...Ike Williams was "under control"in many of his bouts, but when uncuffed Ike was the best lightweight I have ever seen...Great two handed walloper was Ike....

 

Frazier did not show any great amount of dominance as a champion, and Ali was not exactly primed in the '71 FOTC. It is debatable whether he would have even been champion had Ali not gone into exile. Destroyed by the only other 'great' fighter he fought.

 

His performance in the second fight was pretty definitive.

 

Probably because Ramage was a good fighter and at the time of the first fight Louis only had around 10 pro fights at 20 years of age. It was a learning experience and Louis got his man out of there in the end. The second fight, which exists on film, shows an improved Louis destroying Ramage in just 2 rounds. Not much to make of it.

 

Good post TGA.

 

Yeah Burt, that fight is outright brutal. I can't go as far as to say he would have licked him in a one sided fight but i also understand about Williams being 'cuffed' and therefore who knows? One thing's for certain, these two sharing a ring would see the crowd stand still til the end, whenever that would be.

 

Tyson - a tall jabber like Douglas can move diagonally to the right and circling to the right thus taking away Tyson's left hook, while in this position fast 1-2s and jabs can pick Tyson off from range. When Tyson moves forward stepping to the left, Douglas can smash him with the right on the way in, thus not letting him get off, if Tyson stays to his right and looks to throws jabs/right hands the taller man can lean back and counter. On the inside/mid raneg Mike can usually dominate but if someone like Lewis/Douglas has.

These tactics used by the right man, would always have give mike nightmares, obviously at his best his physical speed can compensate. Still Douglas really need some amazing skills to pull this off and isnt given enough credit - Lennox did not have the same movement/speed in his control of Mike

Other general weaknesses - holding and leaning on Mike on the inside takes away Mikes inside game, as does well timed uppercuts - see Lennox. Putting him on the back foot, by punching him back like Holyfield did, takes away his power, which is the same for most punchers

 

Roy Jones - Jones seems almost unoutboxable to me, but someone with an excellent rangy well timed jab, that knows how to double/trebble that jab, someone with fast straight punches, someone taller/rangier, would always give him problems. This is because the jab takes away his speed/controls him, beats him to the punch.

Southpaws who know how to use the angles may also have always given him problems because his straight right isn't that straight for 1 thing. Tarver managed to put all these things together so needs to be given credit for pulling it off

Because of this Tarver would always of perhaps given him problems but then again, if Roy had been in his prime though the fight may well go like this round:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPP9ffqGYHk[/ame]

 

Easy one for me....


Chuck Wepner could have been a lot easier on poor old Sonny Liston, but instead he decided to brutalize that old man when he shouldn't have... He knew he was facing a highly inexperienced George Foreman, but instead of going soft on the kid, decided to scold him in a way that he did not need to... Ernie Terrell was a clear underdog who had no chance, but Chuck thrashed him...

 

Mayweather - is more than enough under the spotline. The best manner to beat him depends on the style of the opponent and it would take a great fighter. But to neutralsie speed you need a jab, Mayweather always says 'no man without a jab is going to beat me' - refering to Hatton/Mosley and he had an easier time with them because they didn't have this tool, same with Corrales (he didn't use it). Using a jab doesn't guarantee success, as he can slip jabs and counter them, not to mention he has a fast raptor like jab of his own

1 way to neutralise Mayweather is the 'Castillo method', quadrupple jabbing him to the ropes, laying on his chest and working combinations to the head and body. It makes it a phone box fight meaning Mayweather's speed and outside game is neutralised and if hes on the ropes it takes away his leverage. Mayweather is a very underrated in-fighter though, with his shoulder rolling, uppercut, ability to use angles

Mayweather can have some problems with southpaws, these are probably overstated as he hasn't lost to 1. Lets see how he handles Manny, I have a feeling he'll punnish Manny's technical mistakes and white wash him

Mayweather is able to make adjustments though, so whatever tactics his opponents use aren't necessarily going to work, he's not an easy fighter to beat