Let's say the ring is 6' by 6'. In such a tiny ring, some skills like footwork and speed would not be a factor. To make it even more interesting, there are no rounds or time limits. The winner is the one who ko's the loser for a 10 count or until a fighter can't continue. Things like brute power, chin, endurance would come to the forefront. A boxer's overall skill would not likely be the determing factor in these wars of attrition. Mano a mano, who wins the following fights? We'll assume each figher is at their peak. 1. Dempsey-Marciano. 2. Duran-Julio CC. 3. Cuevas-Leonard. 4 Hagler-Monzon. 5. M. Spinks-Saad Muhammad. 6. Ali-Holmes. 7. Olivares-Zarate. 8. D. Lopez-W. Gomez.
A 6' ring is extremely small... Literally no room to move. I have a 12' ring in my garage gym and it's real easy to stay on top of someone... On that note, 1. Dempsey-Marciano. Too tough to call. Better keep medics on site, though. 2. Duran-Julio CC. Again, too tough for me to call. 3. Cuevas-Leonard. Leonard. He's faster, better defense, smarter in there. 4 Hagler-Monzon. Hagler. No jabbing and stepping out of range for Monzon here. Monzon is out of his element on the inside with Hagler. 5. M. Spinks-Saad Muhammad. Spinks. Better defense, better overall. Tough, though. 6. Ali-Holmes. Holmes showed more willingness and propensity for banging it out. Holmes. 7. Olivares-Zarate. Ouch. My first reaction is Zarate. Very interesting. 8. D. Lopez-W. Gomez. Gomez. Way better defense and he gets there faster and can't miss with his right.
1. Dempsey-Marciano: pick´em. If I ad to pick I think I may put my money on Jack. 2. Duran-Julio CC: Duran. 3. Cuevas-Leonard: Leonard 4 Hagler-Monzon: Hagler 5. M. Spinks-Saad Muhammad. 6. Ali-Holmes: Ali 7. Olivares-Zarate: Olivares? 8. D. Lopez-W. Gomez: Gomez
