Mate trying to pick a fight with me is pointless. Why not just enjoy a debate about the sport we all clearly love?
Just trying to get a grasp on your criteria when rating fighters, Will, so maybe I can make sense of it all.
Unfortunately the right fights rarely happen at the right time in boxing so us fans are left to wonder 'who would have won had the fight taken place'. I watch fighters, I study their past fights and then I form an opinion as to who I whink would have won. Will this differ to other people? Of course it will. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Clearly from the way you asked the question about by Fav fighter we could talk for ten years and still not agree so there is no point getting into it.
Beating Barrera was well within Hamed, well within him. He won enough rounds to suggest he could have taken him.
I gave Hamed three rounds...and that was just because Marco didn't throw enough. He was well and truly spanked.
I rank fighters on resume, longevity and ability. Calzaghe only rates highly in one of those criteria's for me so I probably don't hold him in as high regard as you do. No problem.
I don't think there are that many people that doubt his ability. Some obviously question the way he threw punches but movement etc were top notch. Longevity is a no-brainer. Ok yeah his resume has been called into question and it could be stronger.
Going back to the original post... I think Johnny Nelson is excellent. Always enjoy watching his analysis and thoughts before and after fights. I'm also a big big fan of Ed Robinson and Adam Smith.:good
lol. Yah got well off topic! I don't mind Nelson. I do actually quite like Nicky Piper and I find usually he calls the fights right except for the last few he's been off. You gotta remember these guys get influenced by the guys they watch the fight with just as we do.
1. Nelson 2. McCrory 3. Piper Nelson is clearly better than the others, and it has been mentioned before that he is very passionate about the sport - more so than the others it would seem.
I offered SKY a great idea for a show - they never even came back to tell me to get stuffed! This is the idea...after 2/3 hours of the gang on a Friday or Saturday night the action switches to a studio in London (ie a long way from their established boys) and I'm there with emails, texts and calls...me and Woodhall. It follows the boxing and lasts for one hour after each and every fight screened by SKY. Remember that during the Primetime broadcast I had nearly 500 emails. This idea for SKY, working with their website, is a no brainer in my opinion. But, not a word. By the way I'm in Dublin to record Setanta's Boxing Review of 2009! It's a mad, mad world. Adios.
Like that football phone-in show that happens on a Tuesday/Wednesday after mid-week/Champions League games? That would have been very good, I mean surely Sky can see the popularity of the Bunce Show - imagine it on a place where it could be viewed by many more people.
Thats a good idea. Would sooner see it on the BBC but we know thats not gonna happen. I'm a big fan of richie Woodhall, I think he makes an excellent pundit and tells it like it is. I don't understand why Sky don't want to know when the boxing hour was clearly successful on the late great Setanta. Your radio show seems to be doing well (cheers for the shout out) which proves people want to listen to you. I think a lot of broadcasters are missing a trick here. Some really marketable fights about with exciting fighters like Froch. Hennessy has got a decent stable with no coverage. If the BBC went for it all guns blazing they could bring back the glory days for brittish boxing. Instead we have to suffer with the crap they put on, on friday/Saturday nights.
Sky's gambit is just terrible. I'm not even going to bother ranting because I could write a 5000 word essay on why their coverage is poor - how it could be improved with a few minor tweaks - and basically why Adam Smith should be shot at dawn. :hey