Prime Scott Harrison vs Ricky Burns

Maybe a bit off topic,but look at Hameds opponents,and the same could possibly said about him. IMO his best opponent,bar one was Kelley,and he wasn't quite the fighter he was. But this is what Im getting at:We will never know how good,or otherwise,Harrison could have been.He went off in his prime.I personally think he would have lost to the likes of Morales but well never know for sure.I expected Walsh to stop him but his showing after such a lay off was amazing.I still think he can be good at domestic level but hope its soon.

 

I was only really picking holes in Harrison's record to prove it can be done with near damn every fighter at that level. Burns, Harrison, Hamed it doesn't matter. Especially FW fighters.
I'm basing my opinion on Harrison falling short vs elite fighters based on the eye test. I have no doubt he would have no answer to MAB or Morales. They were as tough as Scott but more skilled and athletic. He would never have beat those guy's imo. His only advantage vs those guy's would be size and strength.

I wasn't surprised Scott performed well vs Walsh. He was much better than Walsh in his prime. He just didn't have the power to hurt Walsh with the clean hooks he landed. Walsh smiled at every bomb Scott landed. Scott was buzzed a few times near the end by Walsh's sneaky uppercuts. He obviously tired as well. The old man did well though.

 

Pacman had to wait years for those fights, as the Mexicans were keeping it between themselves, and I remember Pacman saying they were all dodging him and Scott, who he thought were best two in division. Marquez got made Scotts mandatory and never took fight. Yes they were great fighters but so was Scott, achieved a lot more than Marquez at that point and was much younger, and Scott would have been a multi weight champion if he never had his troubles

 

Better athletes your having a laugh surely, Scott was the supreme athlete. Remember AAA saying that he was shocked when training with Pacman and top guys in US to realise Scott could do thinks athletically they couldn't do, and he was best athlete he had seen.

 

Your right it was years later for Pacman and Scott sure did **** things up for himself. FW is a major hold back as well. He milks every champ he has in shitty, safe title defences.

Come on man, you cant seriously think Scotts on the level of Marquez, MAB, Pac, or Morales. I don't want to come across as a Harrison hater. He's one of my boxing hero's and I honestly think he could have done Naz on his best night. He was a serious force at world level but fell short of the kind of quality needed to be elite. I think he would've been competitive vs Morales, Mab and Pac but he just lacks in that extra bit quality to beat those guy's. Speed especially. He loses to them all via competitive UD imo.
Scott reigned as champ in and around weight class's stacked with future greats but never fought even one of them. It really annoy's me that we never even had one super fight out of Scott Harrison.

 

Scott was huge at the weight and genetically cut out to be able to do it. Scott was as strong as an ox. McCullough described Scotts strength as phenomenal.
This does not equate to Scott being athletically better than Pac, etc. Scott was slower of hand and foot and didn't crack as hard as any of them so is not better athletically in terms of all round athletic ability.
Alex Arthur I wouldn't take seriously. He also said he personally had the best Jab in Freddie Roaches gym and Roach even rounded up all the boxers in his gym to watch Arthur display his jab Arthur talks complete **** and is a known Walter Mitty/wind up merchant.

 

Would have beat those guys more often than other way round. (remember this is then not what guys went on to achieve later when Scott was not fighting) Pacman - was a great offensive fighter then too, but had a very poor defence then 2) Barrerra - Scott was not as quick dancing at range, but up close had slightly better footwork, was more powerful and would have edged a points decision imo. 3) Marquez - I believe style wise he would have been hardest, as technically was gr8 in defence (I thought he was best of Mexicans - MAB EM both dodged him for a while too), I think Scott was slightly better all round, not quite as good defence wise, but much better on front foot, though if they fought 3 times would have expected Marquez to win one of them 4) EM Would have struggled with Scotts relentless up close body punching, Scott would have beat him the best, I would have went for a late stoppage.

People forget Scotts punches were really fast, not flamboyant or wasteful like Nazs but with real intent and great fought out shots. The biggest mistakes Scott's opponents made was that he was a come forward powerful brawler, as he had the art of doing it with great boxing brains, with great up close footwork, and they missed those qualities so he took them by surprise

 

I respect your opinion but I think your deluded mate

Scott wasn't fast but he was very accurate and his combo's were top notch. He wasn't fleet of foot or elegant like a Buchanan, his footwork was employed to corner and close down opponents and he was brilliant at it vs certain fighters. He had a steely determination to get close and **** **** up which is why I love him.

 

His footwork was as smart as you will see, no how to take one or two steps in be in a position it would take other boxers 5-6 steps, and would have worked against any boxer. Just wish he went to SF as I have a gut feeling making 9st contributed to his problems away from ring. at 9st 4 he would have added even more boxing skills to his skill set (skills were there hence 1st Brit to get a medal at world amateurs)

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

I do agree that scotty would have beaten pacquiao, easily mab but marquez is a hard fight, scotty on points

 

So Scott's footwork would have worked against any boxer :rofl What about Willie Pep? The greatest featherweight of all time who possessed the most elusive footwork in the history of boxing. Do you think Scotty boy could close Pep down and **** him up? :hey

 

Harrison was just another FW WBO paper champ who followed the formula of staying at home defending his meaningless trinket against average to poor opponents, with absolutely no intention of fighting the best. Still, there are enough morons out there who get fooled by this and believe such fighters are actually elite

 

Cant say I ever seen him fight, but Scotts footwork always got him into range. Scotts 3 best performances were when people wrote him off, and he was up against it, Chachon, Mendina 2 and Abelyn as he went up a level on such occasions, so I can honestly say v the greats of his own era he would have had great success. When u fight the MABs of this world you need a really good all round game, Scott had that Naz for an example never

 

In saying so you are suggesting top fighters were not interested in such a belt, how when Scott was champion was Barrera, Naz and Marquez in top 5 of its rankings? I will tell you as they choose to go down the WBO FW route. People like McCullough, Brodie, Mendina Chachon would all be world champions at FW today if there careers were now, as the standards at FW then was so much better than now. Look how many guys from that era at FW went up through weights winning titles