If you could interview any boxers in history...

'Sugar' Ray Robinson.... It was well known he never liked the sport of boxing so I'd just ask him the simple question of what he really thought of the sport? I'd just like to know if he just disliked the sport or truly hated the brutality of it?

 

id have a laugh with Ali

 

atsch

 

Can you elaborate on the Oscar question?
I would ask Naz the same and if he regrets not carrying on and having a go with the other greats such as Morales.

 

Mike Tyson: Would you honestly rather be known as the greatest Heavyweight that ever lived or have your fortune back that you've blown?

Antonio Margarito: Were you aware your gloves were loaded and did you cheat against Cotto?

 

i would ask Naz if he regretted with taking on barrera instead of morales??

 

Dream on, ***.

 

This content is protected

[/IMG]

 

:huh

nah come on mate, he knocked a horse out how hard you gotta be hitting to knock a ****in horse out!
did he used to wank his lion off? i never heard that one :huh

 

Eubank,Benn & Watson all together and ask them after all these years who was the best and wot was your relatonship like out of the ring and also wot they thought of JC of who took the batten on after beating Eubanks and carryed on the tradition of our good British middleweights.

 

In 1987,Hagler fought Leonard in his last fight,which was his 3rd fight in about 4 years. McCallum,even though he had fought at middle a couple of times,was still fighting at 154 against McCrory and Curry. McCallum fought for one of the vacant alphabet middle titles in 1988 and lost a decision to Sumbu Kalambay. Marvin Hagler indeed.Don't ever expect MMH to justify why he didn't fight McCallum.And don't ever imply that Hagler ducked McCallum as scumbag McCallum had the nerve to do in an interview with Setanta.When Marvin retired,McCallum wasn't even a glint in Marvin's eye.I used to be a McCallum fan,but to imply what he implied has demonstrated what an ******* he is.And a prime Hagler easily beats prime McCallum.

 

I would ask Jack Johnson just how he dealt with all the pressure.

 

I want to respond to the McCallum question. It could have to do with this. Fact is Hagler/Hearns/Duran/Leonard were all fighters who had won the titles in 1980. Hagler in Sept. Hearns in August, Duran in June, and Leonard again in November. All the three guys Duran/Hearns/Leonard held the welterweight title in 1980 and Hagler won his title. Just something natural about those guys building up resumes and moving up and seeing who could topple Marvin.It was a natural timing for them all. Mike became champ in 1984 after becoming professional in 1981- he came a little too late for the chemistry and also his personality did not get him reconition. By the way he became well known in 1987 after Curry, the fab four was starting to wind down. Why have 5 guys anyway? If there was a 5th it would have been Benitez and not Mike McCallum. Wilfred really was a factor. He fought Leonard and Duran and Hearns. Beating Duran easily. Fact is that Hagler/Hearns/Duran/Leonard all were champs in 1980 and it was just a natural thing to have them all fight at the same time period. Mike sort of missed the boat. Had he won a title in 1981 and turned pro earlier, I think he would have been in there. The questioning should not be on the fab four. The four guys in the 1980s seem to be popular enough without Mike McCallum in the mix. He is the one who lost out, not them. Why would they be in a rush to fight Mike if they had each other. Mike was not a factor until the late 1980s. By the time he wanted them Hagler had lost to Ray in 1987, Hearns had been beaten by Marvin and was a little slower. Duran had been stopped by Hearns. And Ray was older also.

 

I did hear about Mike complaning to Hagler a few years back at the HOF why he didn't fight him. Marvin never had the opportunity. Mike didn't move up to middleweight until 1988 after Hagler retired. The fact he was fighting Kalambay proved it since Kalambay fought Barkley for the vacant title and beat Barkley. It was vacant after Hagler retired. Then Kalambay beat McCallum. So the fact that Mike was beaten means that he was not champ in 1988-whose fault is it that he lost? Hearns/Leonard/Hagler/Duran?. Then Hearns was beaten by Barkley in June, 1988 and Hearns then moves to supermiddlweight. So Mike was never really in the division with Hearns or Hagler.