The **BOXING** thread

[StuTheGrouch]

SR7492 said:

9mm doesn't agree!

I don't give a st.

[Yiliterate]

9mm said:

Gerradi said:

9mm you do seem a bit OTT towards Khan & Naz? TBH they are amongst our best boxers , they deservedly get our respect!

Naz had ONE top class opponent fighting at his best in his entire career. He got absolutely, embarrassingly outclassed, so I wouldn't put him anywhere near the top of the best British boxers.

If we're crossing divisions, Khan has acquitted himself at a higher level far better than Naz did but I still maintain he falls short of the highest class. Top of the tree at his weight in the UK for sure, but to claim the status he believes he already has I'd need to see him avenge the Garcia defeat and beat Canelo and Cotto or equivalents. All would beat him up. Losing to Floyd wouldn't be a disgrace - everyone loses to Floyd. That's why he's so keen to fight Floyd next - a Cotto, Canelo or Garcia would derail any chance.

FWIW,I rate Brook above Khan (and streets ahead of Naz).

I respect all fighters but that should not be confused with slavish adulation. What other word would you use to describe Naz than gobste? I'm hardly an exception in holding that opinion. Khan is nowhere near as obnoxious but I don't like his communication style and that of his entourage combined with what I believe to be a laughably inflated sense of self-importance and boxing status. I admired Eubank as a boxer but that didn't stop me regarding the man as a total pillock.

I was meaning to come back on this but didn’t get much chance over the weekend (I’ll also try to keep this objective as you have expressed a preference for that)…

Hamed - Britain's youngest post-war world champion - competed in 17 world title fights, winning 16 of them. In amongst those wins were 9 against other world champions (past, ‘current’, future). By way of comparison, Carl Froch is (quite rightly) lauded for his recent run of contests; if he were to retire tomorrow, he would have competed in 12 world title fights, winning 10 including beating 6 other world champions (though that could rise if Groves and/or Dirrell were to pick up titles at some stage).

Also, while he clearly lost against a prime Barrera, have you considered that Hamed may no longer have been in his prime at that stage, being his 17th successive world title fight in the space of – give or take – 5 1/2 years?

Edited by Yiliterate on Monday 1st June 16:42

[dirty boy]

Naz is one of the greatest fighters to come out of Britain.

Not to mention his build up to MAB was shall we say, not exactly good.

But he was a gobste, just better at it than Khan!

[FredClogs]

Not many people gave Naz much of a chance against Kevin Kelley, especially in the states, the bookies had him a big under dog, he flew to new York to box in madison square gardens, he was on the floor 3 times in that fight and got back up, it's one of the greatest sporting achievements of any UK sportsman, let alone boxing. He was a great.

[Amirhussain]

Can't forget the ring entrances too

[9mm]

SR7492 said:

9mm said:

I'm not interested in a childish slanging match - so let's keep the discussion to fact based discussion please.

Edited by 9mm on Sunday 31st May 22:11

Really . . . So do you want to start first?

All you are doing is coming out with opinions that are not credible in a discussion and showing clear hate for a british boxer who is very well established on the world stage.

Just because I think your posts are inaccurate and wrong, doesn't mean it is a slanging match. If you are not prepared to have people question your logic/thoughts on your posts, probably best not to comment.

Inaccurate and wrong represents adult language. Some of the content of your previous post did not.

I'm very happy to have my logic/thoughts questioned but I won't engage in slanging matches where opinions can't be expressed without personal digs, ad hominem insults or swearing.

Regarding Khan's abilities versus Brook's, I suggest we see what happens in the ring. I assume you think Khan would win. I think he'd be stopped. We will have to wait and see.

[9mm]

Yiliterate said:

9mm said:

Gerradi said:

9mm you do seem a bit OTT towards Khan & Naz? TBH they are amongst our best boxers , they deservedly get our respect!

Naz had ONE top class opponent fighting at his best in his entire career. He got absolutely, embarrassingly outclassed, so I wouldn't put him anywhere near the top of the best British boxers.

If we're crossing divisions, Khan has acquitted himself at a higher level far better than Naz did but I still maintain he falls short of the highest class. Top of the tree at his weight in the UK for sure, but to claim the status he believes he already has I'd need to see him avenge the Garcia defeat and beat Canelo and Cotto or equivalents. All would beat him up. Losing to Floyd wouldn't be a disgrace - everyone loses to Floyd. That's why he's so keen to fight Floyd next - a Cotto, Canelo or Garcia would derail any chance.

FWIW,I rate Brook above Khan (and streets ahead of Naz).

I respect all fighters but that should not be confused with slavish adulation. What other word would you use to describe Naz than gobste? I'm hardly an exception in holding that opinion. Khan is nowhere near as obnoxious but I don't like his communication style and that of his entourage combined with what I believe to be a laughably inflated sense of self-importance and boxing status. I admired Eubank as a boxer but that didn't stop me regarding the man as a total pillock.

I was meaning to come back on this but didn’t get much chance over the weekend (I’ll also try to keep this objective as you have expressed a preference for that)…

Hamed - Britain's youngest post-war world champion - competed in 17 world title fights, winning 16 of them. In amongst those wins were 9 against other world champions (past, ‘current’, future). By way of comparison, Carl Froch is (quite rightly) lauded for his recent run of contests; if he were to retire tomorrow, he would have competed in 12 world title fights, winning 10 including beating 6 other world champions (though that could rise if Groves and/or Dirrell were to pick up titles at some stage).

Also, while he clearly lost against a prime Barrera, have you considered that Hamed may no longer have been in his prime at that stage, being his 17th successive world title fight in the space of – give or take – 5 1/2 years?

Edited by Yiliterate on Monday 1st June 16:42

I stand by my assertion that the only time Hamed fought a world class opponent at the top of his game, he was completely outclassed. He may well have been on the downslope himself but that only suggests to me that he must have peaked at a much lower level. Very good fighter, not great.

[Amirhussain]

9mm said:

SR7492 said:

9mm said:

I'm not interested in a childish slanging match - so let's keep the discussion to fact based discussion please.

Edited by 9mm on Sunday 31st May 22:11

Really . . . So do you want to start first?

All you are doing is coming out with opinions that are not credible in a discussion and showing clear hate for a british boxer who is very well established on the world stage.

Just because I think your posts are inaccurate and wrong, doesn't mean it is a slanging match. If you are not prepared to have people question your logic/thoughts on your posts, probably best not to comment.

Inaccurate and wrong represents adult language. Some of the content of your previous post did not.

I'm very happy to have my logic/thoughts questioned but I won't engage in slanging matches where opinions can't be expressed without personal digs, ad hominem insults or swearing.

Regarding Khan's abilities versus Brook's, I suggest we see what happens in the ring. I assume you think Khan would win. I think he'd be stopped. We will have to wait and see.

There were people doubting Khan when he fought Devon Alexander, a very good fighter, and they were pretty evenly matched. He was outclassed by Khan that night.

Does make me laugh Eddie Hearn saying 'who has Khan fought', when his own man Brook has fought nobody major.

Says it all really, when Brook, the champion, is chasing ex champ Khan...

Khan even without a belt brings more to the table. More money and more excitement. Deep down Eddie Hearn knows this.

[lord trumpton]

If Khan was great, he would have made it years ago.

He just an 'almost' boxer - A Jimmy White of the boxing world - flashes of brilliance but when it counts it's not there.

Amir Khan't

[Yiliterate]

9mm said:

Yiliterate said:

9mm said:

Gerradi said:

9mm you do seem a bit OTT towards Khan & Naz? TBH they are amongst our best boxers , they deservedly get our respect!

Naz had ONE top class opponent fighting at his best in his entire career. He got absolutely, embarrassingly outclassed, so I wouldn't put him anywhere near the top of the best British boxers.

If we're crossing divisions, Khan has acquitted himself at a higher level far better than Naz did but I still maintain he falls short of the highest class. Top of the tree at his weight in the UK for sure, but to claim the status he believes he already has I'd need to see him avenge the Garcia defeat and beat Canelo and Cotto or equivalents. All would beat him up. Losing to Floyd wouldn't be a disgrace - everyone loses to Floyd. That's why he's so keen to fight Floyd next - a Cotto, Canelo or Garcia would derail any chance.

FWIW,I rate Brook above Khan (and streets ahead of Naz).

I respect all fighters but that should not be confused with slavish adulation. What other word would you use to describe Naz than gobste? I'm hardly an exception in holding that opinion. Khan is nowhere near as obnoxious but I don't like his communication style and that of his entourage combined with what I believe to be a laughably inflated sense of self-importance and boxing status. I admired Eubank as a boxer but that didn't stop me regarding the man as a total pillock.

I was meaning to come back on this but didn’t get much chance over the weekend (I’ll also try to keep this objective as you have expressed a preference for that)…

Hamed - Britain's youngest post-war world champion - competed in 17 world title fights, winning 16 of them. In amongst those wins were 9 against other world champions (past, ‘current’, future). By way of comparison, Carl Froch is (quite rightly) lauded for his recent run of contests; if he were to retire tomorrow, he would have competed in 12 world title fights, winning 10 including beating 6 other world champions (though that could rise if Groves and/or Dirrell were to pick up titles at some stage).

Also, while he clearly lost against a prime Barrera, have you considered that Hamed may no longer have been in his prime at that stage, being his 17th successive world title fight in the space of – give or take – 5 1/2 years?

Edited by Yiliterate on Monday 1st June 16:42

I stand by my assertion that the only time Hamed fought a world class opponent at the top of his game, he was completely outclassed. He may well have been on the downslope himself but that only suggests to me that he must have peaked at a much lower level. Very good fighter, not great.

Unless I've misunderstood that, what you're saying is that because he lost to a (probable) future boxing Hall of Fame member in his prime (when Hamed was almost certainly past his best), that makes you think that when Naz was at his prime, it can't have been at a particularly high level??? Surely the most you can conclude from that is that you don't really know just how good Naz was because you never got to see him fighting another 'HoF'er when he was at his peak...

Also, without wishing to labour the point, despite all Hamed's achievements, you've stated that Khan has acquitted himself far better at the top level than him (despite losing to Peterson and Garcia, both of whom have some considerable way to go before they can be considered HoF material) and that Khan in turn is below Brook in the pecking order (with only three world title fights on his CV); hence putting Kell 'streets ahead' of Naz!!! As the latter two are still fighting - and are two brilliant fighters - then just just possibly one day, maybe...but as of now?! No, not for me...

Let's put it this way - there are only four 'modern' UK fighters that have been inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame; Lewis, Calzaghe, McGuigan and Hamed. I have no qualms with that list and I'm certain those doing the selecting are far more knowledgeable than I am.

Edited by Yiliterate on Monday 1st June 22:07

[Yiliterate]

lord trumpton said:

If Khan was great, he would have made it years ago.

He just an 'almost' boxer - A Jimmy White of the boxing world - flashes of brilliance but when it counts it's not there.

Amir Khan't

Khan is a two-belt world champion, one of the biggest draws in the sport, and a millionaire many many times over! 'Almost' my ae!!!!!

[Gerradi]

Plus an Olympic silver medalist.

[ofcorsa]

Come on guys just stick to the facts!

[FredClogs]

The boxrec world rankings algorithm is great for wasting hours of your life creating time machine match ups. They rank (don't ask me how the points algorithm works but I trust it if you really look through the weight divisions) Naseem hamed as the 14th best featherweight in professional boxing history, he's the highest ranked fighter post 1960ish which to me means he's the best ever because if you look through the records of the guys fighting in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s they have like 200 pro fights in 10 years - a lot must have been nothing more than exhibitions (not to take away from their talents).

http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=&sex=m&a...

To me he's the greatest featherweight of all time.

Incidentally they rank Khan at 6 in the current welterweight scene, Brook 4. On an all time list neither are anywhere but that's no surprise in that division, Mayweather isn't top 10 all time either.

[Yiliterate]

FredClogs said:

The boxrec world rankings algorithm is great for wasting hours of your life creating time machine match ups. They rank (don't ask me how the points algorithm works but I trust it if you really look through the weight divisions) Naseem hamed as the 14th best featherweight in professional boxing history, he's the highest ranked fighter post 1960ish which to me means he's the best ever because if you look through the records of the guys fighting in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s they have like 200 pro fights in 10 years - a lot must have been nothing more than exhibitions (not to take away from their talents).

http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=&sex=m&a...

To me he's the greatest featherweight of all time.

Incidentally they rank Khan at 6 in the current welterweight scene, Brook 4. On an all time list neither are anywhere but that's no surprise in that division, Mayweather isn't top 10 all time either.

Super-Middleweight: Calzaghe #1, Froch #3, Collins #4, Eubank #6, Benn #7....that's OUR bloody division!!!!!!!

[StuTheGrouch]

Yiliterate said:

Super-Middleweight: Calzaghe #1, Froch #3, Collins #4, Eubank #6, Benn #7....that's OUR bloody division!!!!!!!

Ward at number 2.

Now, would a prime Calzaghe beat the Ward who demolished Froch?

[FredClogs]

StuTheGrouch said:

Yiliterate said:

Super-Middleweight: Calzaghe #1, Froch #3, Collins #4, Eubank #6, Benn #7....that's OUR bloody division!!!!!!!

Ward at number 2.

Now, would a prime Calzaghe beat the Ward who demolished Froch?

I'm going to say yes, because I can and nobody can prove me wrong. Ben beats Ward for me aswell. Neither of them would let Ward settle and dictate the pace like Froch did. Calzaghe was an unreal talent.

[Robatr0n]

StuTheGrouch said:

Ward at number 2.

Now, would a prime Calzaghe beat the Ward who demolished Froch?

Now we're talking!

I think that Calzaghe is criminally underrated but it's all if his own doing for not pushing for the big fights and happily taking easier defences. That said, both Hopkins and Jones Jr have both pretty much admitted that Joe represented far too much risk for very little reward so they weren't really bothered about fighting him.

But anyway, back to this matchup. I think it'll be a closely contested bout from the first bell until the last bell. Ward has phenomenal ring craft , a great inside game and beautiful boxing fundamentals. Calzaghe wasn't as refined but he was brilliant at adjusting on the fly, probably has the fastest hands I've ever seen at SMW and had stamina like no other.

In my opinion Ward would have a slight lead going into the second part of the fight but Calzaghe would be constantly adjusting and turning up the heat late in the fight. I think Ward's stamina would let him down late in the fight and Calzaghe would sweep the championship rounds taking a UD.

As it happens, the only guy I see beating Calzaghe would be Jones Jr when he was in his prime. I just think he had too much but it most certainly wouldn't have been a one sided beatdown!

[9mm]

FredClogs said:

The boxrec world rankings algorithm is great for wasting hours of your life creating time machine match ups. They rank (don't ask me how the points algorithm works but I trust it if you really look through the weight divisions) Naseem hamed as the 14th best featherweight in professional boxing history, he's the highest ranked fighter post 1960ish which to me means he's the best ever because if you look through the records of the guys fighting in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s they have like 200 pro fights in 10 years - a lot must have been nothing more than exhibitions (not to take away from their talents).

http://boxrec.com/ratings.php?country=&sex=m&a...

To me he's the greatest featherweight of all time.

Incidentally they rank Khan at 6 in the current welterweight scene, Brook 4. On an all time list neither are anywhere but that's no surprise in that division, Mayweather isn't top 10 all time either.

Those boys didn't accrue those stats through exhibition matches, they just had more fights with shorter intervals between. My ancestor's record is an example, posted earlier in this thread.

I doubt many people will agree with Naz being the greatest featherweight of all time - unless their surname is Hamed.

Edited by 9mm on Wednesday 3rd June 19:36

[lord trumpton]

Is there anywhere I can watch the Maypac fight again?