Fighters you just never took a fancy to...

I don't like dirty fighters. Specifically the rabbit punch guys. It's by far the best punch Chuck Wepner ever threw. He fought like he was in a hockey fight but somehow--like Ruiz--always seemed to turn things into ugly fights where he could do his thing.

2 other big rabbit punchers were Bowe and Benn. I know it's due to their wide looping right hands and that arc of the punch. I guess nobody taught them a straight from the shoulder shot. Bowe also threw tons of low blows & hit late and lots of other things. That Coetzer fight shows some terrific combos by Bowe; low blow followed by a rabbit punch.

 

Ivan Calderon

 

The `more versatile` one could be debated but its certainly not blasphemy but EM is without doubt better to watch than MAB & has better balance, his feet were a lot smoother, Barrera could be a bit herky jerky, Morales glided, you must know this, especially after you went on your little `Morales trip`

:good

 

I feel the same with Pacman, he doesnt excite me the way he excites most people, I still feel he is in line for some sort of decisive ass whippin, I dont know why, perhaps because he has flaws which can be exploited & his last 3 fights have been a bit too easy for him, maybe Cotto, who knows ?

Ps. how did you rate Barrera`s effort vs Jesus Salud ?
I thought he was flawless, probably right at his peak in that one.

 

You have to ask yourself, why was the Hatton fight easy for him? Hatton had not proved that easy for Floyd Mayweather at a weight that Hatton was not effective at. Hatton had re-proven himself as the number 1 in his natural division by completely dominating Paulie Malignaggi (who then also re-proved himself by performing very well against the more celebrated Juan Diaz). Hatton wasn't easy for Pacquiao because Hatton was a weak fighter, the evidence just doesn't support that at all. The Hatton fight was easy for Pacquiao (of course it must be kept in mind that Pacquiao is a former flyweight, former superbantamweight etc etc, which only heightens the achievement) because Pacquiao and Roach had trained and studied like crazy, and because Pacquiao then came out in outstanding physical shape, picked his punches perfectly, and had the natural power to end it.

It would be interesting to see what your pre-fight prediction for Pac-Hatton was, considering you are now effectively writing it off like many people also do with the Oscar fight (with some justification - there is no justification for it with the Hatton fight).

I find it bizarre how people cream themselves over dull and over-cautious defensive single-punch pot-shotting UD's like Mayweather-Marquez, "the skill, the skill!", but then write off Pacquiao's win over Hatton as either (a) Hatton being **** or (b) Pacquiao winning purely on aggression and physical potency. Please explain how Pacquiao's first and third knockdowns of Hatton were not superb examples of highly skilled punching? Pacquiao was not flailing around, winging it, swinging for Hatton's head in a rage, it was clear as day that he knew Hatton's patterns and weaknesses, and was aiming specifically to deliver a certain punch. Not only that, but for both knockdowns Pacquiao landed a perfectly placed shot while slipping a shot from Hatton at the same time!!

If Floyd had done the same against Marquez there would have been pandemonium on here as people hailed the second coming of Christ.

 

Joe Calzaghe, cant take anything away from him, he was good but not great.

 

Julio Cesar Chaves - Sure he was a great/elite fighter but not to the proportions that his fans and boxing media make him out to be, especially Ring magazine who rated him the #18th greatest fighter of all time which is very laughable given that Chavez never beat one ATG fighter and had two major gift decisions in the Whitaker draw and Frankie Randall fight. I actually could see myself rating him #4 greatest Mexican fighter of all time if I were to reach for it.

Wilfred Benitez - Again great/elite fighter but boring to watch and I don't give much credit to him going a full 15 rounds with Tommy Hearns because I felt he fought in a way to make it to a decision rather than to try and win the fight.

Kosta Tszyu - For some reason never got into him as a fighter but I should have his DVD career set in the mail by Monday so maybe my perception of him will change. But I do think he can get overrated in the head to head department at 140.

 

Barrera was absolutely flawless against Enrique Sanchez and Jesus Salud. I thought he showed against Salud at just how awesome of an offensive fighter he really was, throwing every shot in the book with frightening handspeed and accuracy. Salud was a good fighter, had been round the block, but he never stood a chance against that Marco Antonio Barrera.

In contrast, Barrera would counter every silly mistake Sanchez would make, including the beautiful first knockdown in the third round. His right hand was working over time in that fight, whereas before he'd have been overworking the left hand. He was just showing how far he had come on as a fighter, and again, Sanchez was good, but Barrera was great.

It's blasphemy. Morales occasionally showed some boxing tools, but as consistently as Marco Antonio Barrera - who was both better on the offense and defense in my estimation.

Where did all of this better balance crap come from? They both had great balance, and because Morales clipped Barrera's foot with his before landing a body shot doesn't change that. Marco always positioned himself to counter after manevuoring away from punches. Remember that last 5 seconds of round 9 of their fight? Morales didn't have the capacity to do something like that. Barrera's combination's were beautiful and fluid, whereas Morales kind of looked to be forcing his work.

I went on my Morales trip, and it only confirmed what I had already thought. Barrera was the better technician, the better combination puncher, the better disciplined, and the better defensive fighter of the two.

 

Bad, not to get off the subject but may I ask who that is in your avatar? he looks very familiar

 

\

Actually, I have a lot of Leonard fights on tape both amatuer and pro. He has a good style and some versatility.

Is he as good as Norris? No, but it isnt his fault he couldnt stand up to such blazing hand speed. Few could.

Even so, he was defintely worth spending the money on for some of his fights with the exception of uno mas. Despite some minor drawbacks, his style is more entertaining than many others I see mentioned here

 

Most of the boxers today really, but when it comes to really great boxers that I've never liked:

- Julio Cesar Chavez
- Evander Holyfield
- Lennox Lewis
- Felix Trinidad
- Gene Tunney
- Oscar De La Hoya
- Sugar Ray Leonard
- Sandy Saddler

 

Juan Manuel Marquez...to me he just lacked that special "whatever" quality..or spark that the greatest performers had, or are supposed to have. He beat MAB, but MAB was not at his best, and would have beated Juan a few years earlier.

 

Do some more research. Rags to riches was exactly what Tunney's story was about.