Fighters you just never took a fancy to...

Usually its slick boxers with skills coming out their arses but no KO punch, I find it hard to bother watching fights they take part in, Ian Napa and Ivan Calderon spring to mind at the moment. Dont dislike them, just dont find their styles interesting to me to watch

 

Ray Leonard, Trinidad and Winky. For some reason I have never wanted to watch their fights.

 

Only time I can address that one, Popkins.

In regards to the Diaz fight, I wasn't overly impressed with Manny, It was the same feeling I got when I watched The Dark Knight for the first time. Nolan's film is great, but I couldn't help but come away slightly underwhelmed given all of the hype surrounding it's release. Pacquiao is built up to epic proportions at times, and not even in the Diaz fight did I find myself in awe with the ability of Manny Pacquiao. Sure, it's possible I may come round - it happened with Duran didn't it - but only time will tell.

My favorite Barrera performance is against Enrique Sanchez. :good

 

The Diaz fight is the one I would direct non Pac fans to simply because I do think he looks fantastic, but my personal favourite Pac performance is Morales II. Obviously Barrera I, Hatton and De La Hoya can all be argued to have been bigger and/or better, but the first two Pacquiao-Morales fights are two of my very. very favourite fights ever. Two of the bravest and most brilliant fighters trying to decapitate each other for 22 rounds - pure pleasure. Some people believe that Morales became shot in the year between his first fight with Pac and his second, and I'm not interested in arguing with anyone about it, but it's not a view I subscribe to at all, based on the evidence of the fight. It was that fight which convinced me that Pacquiao was more than just the relentless windmilling physical beast who torched MAB and fought a thrilling draw with JMM. Pacquiao's development has been apparent, Barrera I (a raw beast), Morales II (more calculated aggression), Diaz/Oscar/Hatton (genius). Maybe you will share that opinion in time, maybe you won't, it's all about opinions.

At least we can share an appreciation for the Baby-Faced Assassin. My favourite performances are (obviously) Morales I (a clear win for Barrera IMO), Hamed (****ing glorious), McKinney (what a fight) and Kevin Kelley (OK, it wasn't a great fight or a big win, but is there any better sight than a cocky ******* getting his liver torpedo'd by a stony-faced Mexican??). :good

 

You guys are a bunch of haters

I like most guys styles and like most guys.

But theres some i dont take too.

One is Lennox Lewis i just dont like the big heavys but i havent watched him in ages and i hve come to appreciate lad and Vit more since then so maybe i will like Lennox.

Mcvey said the Ingle stable i agree, i hate when you see a guy who could be a good boxer fight that style it ruins them.

A fighter i cant take too is Carl Froch theres something about him i dont like but ccant put my finger on.

 

Holmes always came across as a whiner to me

 

Riddick Bowe - trash talking, pie eating overrated blob

Hamed - believed his own hype and failed when he met a top rated fighter

Frank Bruno - not sure why peeople loved this perrenial loser

 

also joe bugner

 

Your dubious about how good Tommy Hearns was ?? For any Boxing fan its quite clear how good Hearns was .. Naseem you have a point but if you dont see how good Hearns was your either very young or very nuts .. Ray Leonard and Hagler were better thats all and thats no disgrace in a stellar era like that .. Tarver was always average but Foreman was brilliant before Ali brought him down ..... It sounds to me like you dont judge fighters on what you see, your a revisionary boxing fan that bases solely on results ..
For the record Mayweather and Dempsey were brilliant fighters too, Calzaghe is in the Naz and Lewis list for me as guys who have great records but there are still legacy questions based on opposition and how they beat them .. Too many over the hill fighters on each of these 3 guys records .. Lewis made his name by beating a past prime Holyfield and Tyson but when you weigh that up with him being knocked out against average guys like McCall and Rahman then his record doesnt look that great to me ..

I've never liked Hopkins to be honest but i cant put my finger on what it is about him ive never liked, i know hes a great fighter but i just dont like him ..

 

I dont like either Klitschko either based on the fact that they are so obviously ****, but stand out in a division populated with absolute bums ..

 

+1

I don't really care if an athlete is an ******* and ultimately I am just a fan of talent. Mayweather has tons of talent, but for some reason he doesn't strike the right balance with me. I think you said it well in that he "coasts". You can be an *******, but you better be giving your all to your efforts.

 

I thought this thread was to list fighters who you never took to, and briefly say why. I didn't realize you would be picked apart and judged by some random for participating.

I'm sorry if I have offended you, but I do have fighters I don't think purely positively about. Unlike you ("I can't put my finger on it" - why bring it up then? Pointless), I tried to say what my feelings were.

I don't judge fighters on what I see and am a revisionist, because I don't think the exact same as you? Trust me, that says more about you than it does about me.

Since I have been called upon to explain myself, I will do so briefly.

Tommy Hearns was a great fighter, but I think many people think of him as being on par with SRL, Hagler and Duran. I do not think he was, as his chin was not merely decent or OK, in my opinion it was weak, and this means I often have trouble tipping Tommy to win hypothetical h2h's that everyone else seems to take as red he will cruise because of his admittedly superb offensive arsenal. That's my honest feeling on Tommy from watching his fights. If you disagree, good for you, it's all about opinions, but don't pass judgement on me when you don't know me, that's stupid.

Foreman was brilliant before Ali?? I couldn't disagree more. He was an awesome physical specimen, but not a great boxer by any standard. I disliked his clubbing punches, I did not rate his actual boxing ability at all. The Ron Lyle fight epitomized what I thought of the young Foreman - exciting, powerful, but very, very flawed. Big George actually picked up some decent skill in his older days, but he fought a generally poor standard of opposition then, I did not rate his second coming very highly at all, and I think he is often grossly overrated now because of his fame and celebrity. And he was one of the worse co-commentators in HBO history, the man talked more **** than anyone I've ever heard.

Mayweather and Dempsey were brilliant fighters too? Show me where I said they weren't.

I agree with you about Calzaghe, but not Lewis. Lewis KO'd Razor Ruddock in 2, Golota in 1 when Golota was dangerous, he almost shut out prime David Tua, forced a stoppage on prime Vitali Klitschko, avenged both of his defeats, and basically cleaned out the heavyweight division over the best part of a decade. Bowe never wanted a piece of him, he beat a past-prime but still decent version of Holyfield, though I agree the win over Tyson was meaningless, merely symbolic. I still think he proved to be above the level of Hamed and Calzaghe resume-wise.

OK, I have elaborated on my post, and if you disagree then fine, but I'm not interested in continuing to debate it with you as I believe what I believe from watching fights, as you do, so no-one is changing anyone's mind.

Care to elaborate on your Hopkins feeling, or will we just chalk it up to mystery?

 

Offhand, Chavez. I think his record was padded with lots of weak opposition to make him look invincible. Yes, a solid fighter, but got his share of gift decisions, namely Whitaker and the second Randall fight.

 

Ditto.

He was a good fighter, with heart, no doubt. But the overhype turned me off.