Who are your most misunderstood fighters?

HEy Bodhi I dont think you really know what he originally wrote:verysad It was pretty disturbing, he edited itl. Was talking about doing things to Chavez and Canizales like if they were Winona Ryder, Addie you owe me one for not quoting your original post:yep

 

I can smell your fear

I don't wanna know this actually :rofl

 

Monzon. No, he doesn't feint the head off his opponents or use magical angles. Sorry.

 

Gabriel Ruelas was pretty awesome for a short period of time, the Jimmy Garcia tragedy changed him. Even in his first fight with Azumah he hadnt quite peaked but still gave him a very close fight.

When he beat Leija(also underrated) he looked awesom like the next Duran,also in his blowout win over Fred libertore,then Garcia. I think he would have been great. Gatti is very lucky he didnt fight that version of Ruelas who had it all except he didnt have big one punch power but all his shots were thrown hard,good boxing skills,pretty fast, and aggressive in the way that Duran was.

 

Nothing really, really annoys me as I only really talk boxing on here.

Afew being.

Monzon isnt that good and looks shite.

Duran was a pure brawler.

Robinson wasnt a great boxer, I also hate the opposite when people paint him as a pure boxer.

Willie Pep couldnt hit at all.

 

Tell me honestly, did you throw your toys out of the pram when your parents bought you a colour TV for christmas?

 

Why do you think I am a pretentious little spoilt twat? Honestly I am the opposite of that, I am easy to please and no the most refined, I also have a fairly broad scottish accent, nothing posh about me.

And to answer the question NO. Just because some of the greatest/my favrouit fighters are filmed in black and white dosent make me a complete 'boxing was better in them days' guy. I like to think I'm pretty fair when evaluating guys and watch a wide variety of eras and weights.

 

Erik Morales gets his props for sure, but i think labeling his defense as **** poor is a tad over exaggerated. There was definatley method in his madness, so to speak, when on the offensive defense.

 

......I was kiddin'. :?

 

I was kinda kidding too, I knew you was kidding but I thought I would answer it proper to throw you a bit.

 

george foreman. he wasn't angry when he was younger, he just wanted to sell grills and mufflers but no one would take him seriously

 

foreman aside, a general beef is when people selectively look at certain fighters latter careers to bash them and not others.

"roy jones is **** cause he got knocked out by johnson"
"oscar never had heart cause he was knocked out by manny"
"matthew saad was crude brawler...he was destroyed by (insert name"

then in the next breath

"joe louis' loss to rocky doesn't count, he was shot!"
"ali's loss to holmes doesn't count he was shot!"
"moore's loss doesn't count, he was ****ing 100 years old"

you can't pick and choose if post prime careers are relevant based on whether or not you happen to like the fighter. personally, i take latter careers with a grain of salt as 90% of fighters stay past their best before dates

 

This is far more succinct and poignant than my bit on Foreman.

 

I agree on the posts regarding Mayorga, he's much better skilled than people think, just a little (or a lot) hotheaded. It annoys me when people say Calzaghe couldn't punch, he could dig fairly well before he had chronic hand problems. I also get frustrated when people call fighters like Mayweather or RJJ all time greats. They are both very, very good but are they buggery all time greats. You have to take chances and risk your neck against top class opponents to be an all time great.