Fighters you consider "controversial" greats

Don Curry beat Colin Jones more impressively than Witherspoon beating Bruno while he had so much more flab than when he tested an ageing Holmes! Jones beat Kirkland Laing who beat Duran at light middle, Bruno wouldn`t stand a chance against a heavyweight who had a skill set like Duran no matter what form he was on!

 

Calzaghe was a far better fighter than Eubank, a 43 year old Hopkins would have toyed with Eubank like he did Pavlik a while after he lost to Joe.

 

He said in an interview he was naturally quicker than Bolt!

 

He ha great attributes though, like amazing hand speed, the ability to slip punches while coming forward, high work rate punched in combo`s adjusted to different styles etc.

 

it is an overall feeling after a while. When you say their name does that name mean the best and have iconic wins which would be great in any era. When you think Holmes you think great. Norton, Cooney, defenses etc. When you think Curry? you think more his great wins a welt, but you also mostly think that disastrous Honeyghan and Mccallum year, and blaming Leonard for that was ridiculous. If he could not beat Honeyghan and McCallum in that one year 86-87, I doubt moving up in the summer of 1986 means he beats McCallum. He would have still lost, but probably had no loss to Honeyghan, but eventually lost to others the way he did.Witherspoon. I don't think a guy who loses the way he did vs. Bonecrush in the rematch should be a great.

 

I'm sure he would say that, but the reality is he was famous for winning the race in the first 10 metres and that was because of explosiveness. Merely doping for recovery isn't going to make you more explosive. Having more muscle mass is. Carl Lewis had much better speed endurance, which is why nearly every race between them ended with Lewis looking like he was gaining ground but usually not quite enough.

I don't judge him, nearly everyone was doing it, but his bitterness at being scapegoated has made him hold onto this idea that, all thing being equal, everyone being clean, he would have been the fair winner. There's nothing to suggest that would be true. He wasn't the top young talent in the world as a youth, he wasn't getting great results early on (at a time when a few rare instances of athletes generally thought to be clean like Calvin Smith were winning and breaking records). He was a good young runner being soundly whipped by better young runners. He became a winner when he started taking steroids and bulked up, because his freakishly quick reaction times out of the blocks became an unbeaten weapon once his legs were like turbo-charged pistons.