What makes a fight classic?

Archie Moore vs Yvonne Durrell doesn't count then?

 

Sorry, I meant that these are two fighters that some of the general public are more familiar with. Apart from hardcore fans who really would have ordered Vasquez-Marquez on PPV? Maybe I am a little more biased towards the bigger weight classes.

 

Lotsa drama + 2 big names or the 2 best in a division = classic imo

 

I agree with Mcgrain. You know one when you see one. It's much easier to provide antecdotes than it is to pin it down to a dictionary type definition. Brilliant match making lies at the root of most classic fights, and a "classic" battle can take place at pretty much any skill level. I'll name a few examples, and in so doing, I'll start at the bottom.

Furious Freddy Curiel vs Ross "The Boss" Minter: Poor Freddy looked like somebody took a brick to his face, but with about 30 seconds left in the fight, he hit Minter so hard with a perfect counter right that Minter was DONE.

Augustus/Ward: Barn burner throughout.

Bika/Codrington: Most of you saw that one!

Arguello/Mancinni: A 20 year old kid with something like 20 pro fights gave a living legend all he could stand for the first 12 rounds. At the end of 12 it still looked like anybody's fight. Then of course Arguello put the hammer down.

Hearns/Lenoard I: No explaination needed.

Hearns/Haglar: Arguably the most exciting 3 rounds in boxing history.

Pavlik/Taylor I: Seven brutal and fast paced rounds that ended with a skinny, pasty faced, white kid from the midwest dethroning an olympic medalist and universally recognized midleweight champion of the world.

Cotto/Margarito: Ya just gotta love a great underdog victory.

Classic fights are something you can describe, but you can't really define the term.

 

high boxing quality, shifts in momentum, the abilty for the fighters to hurt eachother, high stakes, prime fighters, elctric crowd, willful fighters

 

Ali and Frazier were past their primes in Manilla for the third meeting. Surely your not going to tell me that wasn't a classic even though they were past it. It was probably the greatest heavyweight fight of all-time.

In some cases fights are better when two opponents rematch when past their primes. Mainly because they are slower, less mobile, reflexes gone, and generally easier to hit. More punches landed means more entertainment and brutality.

 

Intensity, Pace, and seesaw action. ala Miguel Cotto vs Antonio Margarito.

 

the fights participants have to be of the highest quality. Plenty of ebb and flow you cant have a lopsided contest the fights have to go back and forth both men must dig down deep and impose their wills. Action. There must be offense both guys throwing punches, nonstop action. When two greats engage in the above you have a classic fight.

 

For me its always been the pace of action, the guts shown in the ring, and you hit it on the head with change of momentum. Something about seeing the situation reversed brings a sort of dramatic storyline satisfaction, especially if it happens within a round such as Hagler Hearns first round or my favorite Morales Barrera 1 round 5. Back and forth action is the best. Oh yes, it must be competitive, no blowout or one sidedness. For example, to me Duran/Hearns was not as great as Leonard/Duran 1. Nor was Leonard/Duran 2, though it was clearly dominated by Leonard, as good as the first one.

 

SRL vs Hagler wasn't a classic???

Ali vs Frazier 3 wasn't a classic???

 

A fight could be a classic because of many reasons.


-The importance, relevance or greatness involved.

-The quality of the fighters.

-The action, excitemente, etc.

 

:good

 

Can't believe nobody as mentioned castillo v corrales 1.