I ask the Classic this b/c I know it will get a well reasoned response. I say its unique in the sense that, unlike many of his contemporaries, his resume is littered w/ soooo many top names. However, he lost to many of them. BUT, beating Hopkins twice, however close those wins were, is really saying something. Wright, Spinks, Ouma, Pavlik x2, Froch, Abraham, Lacy, Hopkins x2. What do you guys think when you think of Jermain Taylor?? He has to be respected b/c of the way he carried himself. Always respectful before, during and after fights. Always tipped his hat when he lost and lose he did. But those Hopkins wins are still there. So its kind of an interesting question. Thoughts, guys??
Decent all-rounder, though no truly stand-out attributes. I thought he lost to Hopkins both times, but nobody really has much right to complain about those wins given the way Hopkins fought. Very solid Middleweight who has the jab and athleticism to give a bit of interest to the vast majority of 160-pounders in history. Underwhelming reign underlined by his tendency to sit back on victories and lack of killer instinct. Always had stamina issues which could have ended his career before it began with less generous judges, and which became more pronounced once he went up in weight. Relied too much on athleticism and had some technical issues with punch execution, form and defence, which got him in trouble at 168. I thought he faded badly post-Pavlik and even more post-Froch. Overall: Decent champion, but probably a better athlete and person than a boxer.
:good indeed many people saw both hopkins fights differently than the judges. however, giving the old fox such a tough fight both times is still quite an accomplishment. he had so many flaws but he also did a lot of things very well. when he timed his overhand right over a jab it was a thing of beauty. could he have been more? or was he what he was? everyone points to training and stamina...and i agree he got by on athleticism a lot but could he really have done more?
I'd actually say his jab-right was one of his main technical flaws, to be honest. He pulls his right back while throwing his jab which both telegraphs the shot and chronically reduces power. The irony is that technical genius Hopkins had more fun countering his jab and leading on him than taking advantage of that, so perhaps it wasn't so bad after all. I think he could have been better with better technical skills, but then so could most fighters. He did have the benefit of somebody who knows quite a lot about those sorts of skills - Steward - and it didn't work out. Apparently he's not a great listener and learner, so perhaps his mentality would always have held him back. I think also he always lacked the natural stamina (even vs. Hopkins) and the will to win of some of his contemporaries, which is a fairly fundamental defect for a fighter that is difficult to root out and get rid of. He's definitely not one of the ring greats, but he can look back on the two Hopkins wins and his status as former lineal champ with some pride. Hopefully he's been sensible with his money and he doesn't bother trying to make a comeback, he has a family to worry about and I don't think boxing's his game any more.
That said, I think I heard somewhere he was only doing 5k's worth of roadwork a day and it was taking him the best part of 45 minutes, which does NOT sound good for a professional athlete. (Even I do better than that, and I run most days.) Maybe some more intense training in that department would have been in order? Though he was a sprinter in High School. Just not cut out for the game.
this is a perfect example of him doing his "bow and arrow" with his right which was a terrible habit. This content is protected BUT, when he would toss it over a jab it was very effective. he dropped froch with it and he began his 2nd round ounslaught of kelly with it. but you are right, he had a bad habit of telegraphing the heck out of it when he wasnt countering with it.