Worst waste of talent in the history of boxing?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by vincepierce, Oct 11, 2010.


  1. El Bujia

    El Bujia Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,744
    78
    Apr 4, 2010
    Why? They were simply early bloomers who were still able to accomplish a lot in a short period of time. I think they did all they performed to the best of their potential (albeit for a short period in Tyson's case) and were bonafide great fighters.
     
  2. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,421
    Aug 22, 2004
    Mando Ramos could be another one. He was good enough to win the lightweight title, but probably should have been more than he was. John Garfield here can attest that there wasn't a hell of a lot he took seriously, and the wages of dissipation were probably to blame for at least part of his fall from grace.
     
  3. Body Head

    Body Head East Side Rape (CEO) Full Member

    2,944
    1
    Nov 15, 2009
    Montell Griffin :deal

    He gave James Toney his first two losses after Roy Jones.

    He also gave Roy Jones his first loss.

    If Montell Griffin stayed with Eddie Futch or if Eddie was younger, who knows how good Montell Griffin could have been.

    RIP Futch.
     
  4. john garfield

    john garfield Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,826
    99
    Aug 5, 2004
    You beat me to posting Mando, s -- such a criminal waste of a GREAT GREAT TALENT -- born to fight.
     
  5. la-califa

    la-califa Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,292
    53
    Jun 12, 2007
    Also Manuel Ortiz & Bobby Chacon. Notorious partyiers!
     
  6. klompton

    klompton Boxing Addict banned

    5,667
    39
    Jul 6, 2005
    Tyson for me. He had everything it takes to be the perfect fighting machine and screwed it all up. Its a pretty impressive statement when a guy who was a two time champ and legit all time great can be considered a waste of talent. As much as he accomplished he still could have accomplished much much more.
     
  7. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,421
    Aug 22, 2004
    I have to disagree with this. Yes, he self-destructed and robbed himself of perhaps a couple more years at the top, but realistically, what would that have meant?

    Tyson's style was designed for speed, aggression, and explosive strength, a combination of which by definition has a short shelf life.

    And he'd never have beaten Holyfield, so as soon as he ran into him he'd have gone under anyway.
     
  8. la-califa

    la-califa Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,292
    53
    Jun 12, 2007
    Not all his fault though... Tyson was a victim as much as anything. A tough kid from the streets, was protected & brought along carefully. When Cus & Jimmy Jacobs passed away. The wolves decended. King all but stole Tyson from Cayton. drove out Rooney. Robin Givins further ruined his head. All of this was too much, & Mike's reign collapsed...
     
  9. Vic-JofreBRASIL

    Vic-JofreBRASIL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,918
    5,269
    Aug 19, 2010
  10. Son of Gaul

    Son of Gaul Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,628
    30
    Feb 16, 2010
    Well, if you compare potential to the actual production...
    Mark Breland...with his physical gifts, he should've been an ATG.

    Ibeabuchi would be another decent example...although not quite as good as Breland.
     
  11. divac

    divac Loyal Member Full Member

    31,154
    2,108
    Jul 24, 2004

    My opinion of Breland is that he just did'nt have the physicality for the pro game.
    Looking at Breland's physique, its not the physique of a fighter.

    Tall and with a reach can only take you so far, when you look at Hearns at least he was wide from shoulder to shoulder.
    Breland was just sickly from chest and shoulder to shoulder.



    Hey, nice to see you're back and posting Sal.:good
     
  12. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    In the end all this were his own decisions. He could have said no to King and Givins. He didn´t.


    Jürgen Brähmer. He was called the century talent. And he looked like it in the beginning. Then he went to prison and was never the same. Still managed to pick up a belt but probably will be in prison in the not too distant future again.
     
  13. john garfield

    john garfield Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,826
    99
    Aug 5, 2004
    [QUOTE=divac;7949446]My opinion of Breland is that he just did'nt have the physicality for the pro game.
    Looking at Breland's physique, its not the physique of a fighter.

    Tall and with a reach can only take you so far, when you look at Hearns at least he was wide from shoulder to shoulder.
    Breland was just sickly from chest and shoulder to shoulder
    .


    Your description of Breland's spot-on, d, but as someone who had amateurs face him, he incurred the same dread as Joe Louis. Might just as well have entered the ring on a pale horse carrying a scythe.
     
  14. jaffay

    jaffay New Orleans Hornets Full Member

    3,980
    18
    Jun 24, 2007
    Sam Langford
    Charley Burley
    Lloyd Marshall
    Andrew Golota
    Harry Wills
    Stanley Ketchell

    Soon Floyd Mayweather

    They all could be on a whole higher level IF...
     
  15. divac

    divac Loyal Member Full Member

    31,154
    2,108
    Jul 24, 2004
    You said it right there, "amatuers" I'm not too familiar with Breland's caliber of opposition at the amatuer level, but how many top caliber, physically strong fighters could he have faced?

    The man had a hell of a reach, and had good snap on his punches, but at the pro level, physical strenghth and know how count for a hell of alot, and as Sal mentioned, Breland lost to the first real caliber fighter he ever faced.

    Breland imo had good enough skill, but not the strenghth or physicality to take it to the next level.