Did Malik Scott have good potential ?

He could fight, but was in the wrong era. He had nothing for the K bros. He would’ve done better in the 50s.

 

Malik Scott was fine. He beat Sultan Ibragimov as an amateur. But he just wasn't consistent enough as an amateur to make the US Olympic team. As a pro, he never really lost his amateur style.

In some eras, he may have been a bigger deal. I don't think he was good enough to ever win a title or anything. But he was good enough as a pro to draw with Czar Glazkov. They were probably about the same level.

I wouldn't say Scott was as good as Larry Donald, but Scott was better than a lot of guys considered contenders in other eras. (Some eras were pretty bad.) He'd have beaten guys like Chuck Wepner and Manuel Ramos and those types, like he beat Tony Thompson and Alex Leapai (all of whom got title shots).

Just a decent pro. Nothing wrong with that.

 

He was undoubtedly something.

Glazkov and Lepai were relevant men in the division when he met them.

When Wilder KO'd him in 1, many on the General Forum thought that he must have taken a dive, but in hindsight he was just fighting Wilder.

The point is that he was well regarded enough, that many saw the outcome as being implausible.

 

Glazkov was a total robbery.

Scott would beat late 70s Ali.

 

Hard to say, he didn´t seem too ambitious with his career... when he lost he never seemed to care too much..... seem like he enjoys more being a coach....

 

I thought Scott won against Glazkov. But I didn't care for how the Chisora fight ended. Scott was around and undefeated for a very long time without going anywhere, and then he got his chances and didn't dominate or anything. I kind of gave up on him after the Chisora fight, even though he got some good wins later.

Those guys who jump up at "10" and then "kinda" complain ... always annoy me. You don't wait for the ref to yell NINE in your face before you decide to get up. Just get your ass up.

Like I said, I think Larry Donald was probably better than Malik Scott, if we're comparing US heavyweights who didn't win anything.

 

Right. I agree.

I don't want to bash him too much, because he was fine. Not at all the best, but he was a solid pro who could handle the top 20 guys with zero problem.

Once you got higher than that, it got a little iffy.

 

Skilled for sure. Had very good fundamentals and a good brain for boxing. I interviewed him several times during his career, a very nice man.

 

His big fight was actually supposed to be Kevin Johnson, but Scott switched to professional sparring partner for a few years and Johnson lost every second to Vitali. Both of those guys could’ve done more.

 

I agree. Every time you saw him he was still undefeated. But he was always buried on some undercard.

When he finally stepped up a decade or more into his career, he didn't dominate anyone really.

But everyone liked him. He sparred with every name. Just a good pro.

The sport can always use good pros.

Everyone isn't a champ or a journeyman or a bum. He was a good top 20 heavyweight.

 

Just on Boxrec and happened upon Scott's fight with Luis Ortiz and this gem:

'Scott counted knock down in rounds 4, 5 and 9; 4 other attempts at jumping on the canvas not counted'

 

He was honestly better than most of Wilders title opponents. He easily beat Leapai right after Leapai had challenged for the title. His 3-3-1 against HW notables leaves the impression he was an elite fighter with a vulnerable chin.

He could have outpointed Chisora and Chisoras good enough to take rounds off Kabayel and Usyk. So he was not far removed from the top flight.