I’ve only got highlights of it: I’d say that it’s one of ‘those’ fights like Froch-Dirrell: one fighter more accurate but not active, the other more aggressive but not very accurate.
Oh, well that's disappointing. I was hoping for a second rendition of Mamby/Watkins. But yeah, I read the article. Good work as always!
Every Mamby fight is controversial, haha. Watching the Hearns fight I don’t see the hype. He did something amazing in his third fight but the champ he beat wasn’t all that. And his record overall speaks of his limitations.
What would you hope to see in the Hearns fight? Already a shot fighter, blind in one eye, above his best weight, fighting a monster like Hearns? His record overall shows 10 successful title fights in three years. He fought some good fighters and he beat some good fighters. He was limited in terms of his all-round skillset, but no one is saying he’s anything other than an enjoyable caveman type! Whether you see the hype or not: he won the WBC in three fights in the two-belt era. That is very impressive.
I acknowledged what he did in his third boxing match (not his third ‘fight’ but still). I saw zero skill against Hearns. I saw zero game plan. I saw a guy who came to take a beating and did a very good job of catching that beating. I can show you dozens upon dozens of post-prime fighters against up-and-coming killers where you can at least see some shade and flashes of skill that give you an idea of what they used to be. I don’t see anything of the sort here. And this is less than a year after he lost his title, right? Must have gone downhill pretty fast.
Your reading comprehension ain’t all that great, is it? I’ll jusr ignore you as it’s clear your have nothing to offer me in terms of intelligent conversation.
Translation: I don’t agree with you and you don’t want to discuss it. When the first reflex is to go to personal insults it means you don’t have anything of substance to add. Have a nice day.
I really question that "record" though. Boxrec does not list many fights for non-American fighters (as well as early American fighters), and this may be an example par excellence. For instance, Boxrec shows that Chitalada had 4 fights for his 1st bout with Chang, but if you watch the telecast then it shows he's had 18. I'd tend to believe live telecast than Boxrec.
Canto vs Vibonchai too, research (from Flea iirc) shows he clearly has had other fights, and just on film it's blatant to see he clearly wasn't a two fight novice.
By the way, the earliest title fight I know of after turning pro that I know for sure is Kwang-sun Kim (after 5 bouts). But Kim is arguably the most decorated Korean amateur ever, and he was extremely advanced when he turned pro. He had also turned pro very late, so his management were hellbent on getting him to a title match before his expiration date. I know some folks here think only Latin America had great fighters at lower weights, but the talent level in South Korea at junior flyweight/flyweight was insane in the 80s. And not just the pros. It says volumes that Kim couldn't even make the national team until Huh Young-mo (maybe the best Korean amateur to never go pro) moved up - where he would have legendary amateur bouts with Moon Sung-kil.
@FighterInTheWind I really enjoy reading your posts and insights with regard to Asian (especially Korean) boxing.
By the time he faced Hearns he was apparently blind in one eye and suffering a number of other health issues