I was watching some of his am bouts and he seems so much more fluid then when he was as a pro.I mean he still had power in that righthand but he seemed to work his jab more and was better defensivley in the amatuers then he was in the pros.Anybody else feel that way?
he was too frail and weak to last as a pro. Too much head and neck available to hit. Watch the aaron Davis fight-it was a catastrophy.
People talk about how good Breland was an amateur, quoting his stats, but unless you had a kid facing him, you can't imagine how terrfying the prospect was. The chance that you'd draw him sent chills through a gym. He was like a death sentence for any kid that drew him in New York. Every kid and trainer had cringed at his body count. They were stacked up like chordwood in all five boroughs. A single right hand, usually while the opening bell echoed, would decapitate them.
............John, what's your take on his relative failure as a professional(and I stress the word relative; he did have some measure of success as a pro)? I don't buy the "he was too weak, not enough strength" theory. By that summation, Tommy Hearns would never have made it. From the outside looking in, it seemed that first of all he was coddled a bit coming up, and when he had to fight Starling the first time, he came in woefully unprepared for what that day's festivities would bring, and secondly that he just wasn't there mentally and emotionally into it enough.
Mental. I just think the expectation and the big occasion generally got to him. His stamina wasn't great though (or chin, obviously). Mental. He was the opposite of Tommy Hearns when you compare his amateur power to when he turned pro.
You hit the nail on the head IMO bro.. "he just wasn't there mentally and emotionally into it enough" we can talk on & on about the Tommy Hearns comparissons, man to me watching a young Breland there was no doubt he was gonna be a monster as a pro. That apperence on Miami Vice tho was :good one of my all-time fav ep's
In the Ams he beat Cubans,Russians everyone.I think in the pros they tried to make him too much reliant on his power instead of his boxing skills.Don't forget he was beating Starling in there first bout and even managed to break Starling's nose so i don't buy the NOT strong enough excuse.I think it was alot more of a mental issue with Breland.
..........I remember being riveted to the TV watching the '84 Olympics and the announcers easily hyped him the most of all the fighters. He didn't impress as much as some in the games, but at the time he was billed as the second coming of Ray Robinson. Six NY Golden Gloves titles will do that for a guy I guess.
He did even fight anything remotely like Robinson, amatuer or pro. The next Ray robinson thing gets a bit ridiculous at times.It's a helluva cross to carry for any fighter.
Yeah, he was, especially with his footwork. In many ways, I just don't think he ever really expanded beyond the amateur format. With a three round limit, he appeared comfortable going for broke with his mobility, a pace considerably more difficult to sustain over the 12 round distance.
..........It sounds funny, but to me his finest moment as a pro was his second fight with Starling. It was scored a draw of course, though I had Starling winning 8-4. Many other fighters may have caved because of what had happened the first time. Boxing history dictates that typically if a fighter stops another, it will be easier the second time around. Breland flew in the face of convention and staged a spirited if losing effort (assuming one agrees he lost), and such an effort could have springboarded him to a greater measure of respectability. He had more impressive fights in terms wins/losses of course, but the Starling rematch was a huge mental hurdle. Had he been savaged again, I don't know that he'd have continued.
Mark always struck me as being detached from his lethal right, s -- almost watching himself in the ring -- as if in a dream, like Floyd Patterson. As an amateur, he was a basketball center as a '47-pounder, and was able to land the paralyzer before his durability was tested. As a pro, he didn't lack grit, like Howard Davis, Jr., his superstructure, sadly, crumbled easily.
imo the hype he received as an amateur hurt him in the long run. he was one of the best amateurs i have ever seen, but his far from stellar pro career makes one wonder if he got caught up in the press clippings, and simply expected everything to fall his way without doing the required work. in spite of winning a title, with all of the expectations, he was a monumental disapointment as a pro.
Mark just didn't take his aura into the pro's because it takes more than hype to win in the pro's , once he showed flaws he looked easy to figure out.. As an Olympian he was a stone cold killer..
