I do But, Camacho was way past his best by then. And it was really close, with Camacho getting a point penalty for failing to touch gloves being the difference. And Haughen was past it as well. I consider the Paul win for a legitimate World Title (IBF) when Paul was prime. to be much more significant than the Camacho win for a bogus (WBO) title when both guys were well past their best. Sure, Camacho had the big name - But the significance of the win was much lower than the Paul win.
Very good and underrated, not great. And oddly, I don't think he lived up to his potential. I don't think his lifestyle was optimal to longevity in the sport.
Haugen had a similar party habit than Camacho, lots of hard core drugs and booze plus plenty chicks of the "Escort" variety, he was just smart enough to put the brakes on because he wanted to live his life out vs Macho man who was hell bend not to die of old age.
80's era lightweight, who along with a lot of other fighters, gave us the best they could. Might beat a top rated fighter on their off night. Beating Camacho, is a real accomplishment.
Yeah probably. Greb's style was often described as windmilling punches. I was just thinking MEAN. Haugen fought MEAN and ANGRY and I suppose so did Greb. At least that's the impression I got from reading about him. He wasn't a cerebral boxer, like Tunney.
WOW! SOMEWHERE IN HEAVEN THE WILDEST TIGER IS WAITING FOR YOU TWO TO ARRIVE TO BE ABLE TO THUMB YOU LACE YOU HIT YA IN THE NUTS AND USE HIS TEN HANDS TO KICK YOUR ASSRS. WHAT A DOUBLEEDGED INSULT. HAUGEN AND CALZAGE=The Pittsburgh Windmill. FOR SH AS ME. FOR SHAME
Haugen was very slick/sneaky boxer. He had a lot of good wins he doesn't get credit for- Chris Calvin he beat up when Calvin was knocking everybody out. He beat up Freddie Roach. Took out Charlie Brown in one. And the Paul win was impressive because at the time Paul was very dangerous.
Haugen was certainly tough and had old school subtle skills. He also had a strange vulnerability even in his prime that was hard to explain. How mediocre Miguel Santana did what he did to him in their largely forgotten title fight- and I think Santana was the rightful champion btw- doesn't jibe with his overall career. Myself, I thought he was a throwback and very enjoyable to watch and root for. Got screwed in the first Pazienza fight IMO.
After reading some perspective here....I decided to re-watch some Haugen fights and must say that he is better than I gave him credit for.....he did have alot of subtle skills that were hard to pick up without watching him....not flashy but gritty tough and mean and sneaky.