One for the Boxing fans!

[Jeremy]

Yep, Tyson was 5'11.

Roy Jones Jr is also 5'11, remember he won the WBA belt from Ruiz.

David Tua is 5'10, I'm pretty sure he held one of the major titles at some point.

Still... it's a valid point, Tyson was certainly short for a heavyweight.

[jimmy two times]

I actually met him once in a New York nightclub not long before the first fight with Bruno. He was an approachable bloke and seemed friendly enough.

[Acid Casual]

Had James Toney's win over John Ruiz for the WBA title been upheld, he'd have been the shortest in recent years at 5ft 9ins.

If you go back in time, there are plenty shorter. The most notable being Tommy Burns (apparently a truly horrible man) who held the title from 1906 to 1908 until he was well and truly starched by Jack Johnson. This was of course in the days well before the cruiserweight division, which Burns would have fought in if he were around today, as he frequently weighed well under 200lbs and was known to be as low as 167, putting him somewhere between Middle and super middleweights (which was also not around in 1908.

As an aside, I loved James Toney as a fighter. In the early 90's he was in a class of one man. An even better exponent of the philly shell than Floyd Mayweather, although the latter's speed of foot makes him a better all round defensive exponent.

But Toney was truly brilliant up until about '93 or so. Even since his renaissance he's been pretty excellent. Watch his sparring session with Danny Green on YouTube to see his mastery at close quarters (albeit, Green is several levels below him and Toney is letting him get some work in)

[jimmy two times]

Thomas 'The Hitman' Hearns was also a great exponent of the Philly Shell.

[Jeremy]

Toney would still be a major force in boxing if he could stay away from McDonalds.

[Acid Casual]

I love Hearns. Another of my top 5 fighters, but I'm afraid he never used the philly shell at all.

It is primarily a defensive manouvre, with a key opportunity to set up counter right hands over the top - especially good at negating southpaws and countering on the inside. Not really a Hearns type of manouvre though.

Carrying your left low and shooting from the hip is not the same thing.

[Acid Casual]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Toney would still be a major force in boxing if he

> could stay away from McDonalds.

Partly.

He is 41 now, and I think that it is inevitable that a fighter declines at that age. Hopkins is the obvious exception to the rule at roughly 106 years of age. Yes, he eats and trains exceptionally carefully but his style of fighting makes for a long career too. He tends to ruin fighters psychologically too - win or lose. Taylor, Pavlik and a whole host of others have never been the same after facing him - and Jermaine Taylor beat him twice!

[jimmy two times]

Ok Acid Casual I'll take your word for it as you seem pretty knowledgable. I just remember reading it somewhere..but as you say it doesn't sound particularly Hearns like as he was quite an offensive fighter. Who can forget that fight against Marvin Hagler !!

[Acid Casual]

What's also interesting is how the result totally alters people's perceptions of that fight too.

It seems to have been totally forgotten that Hearns was considered the puncher in the fight and was a slight betting favourite, rising to a clearer favourite as the fight approached.

It is also forgotten that Hagler was seconds away from being stopped on cuts after I think two time outs to visit the ring doctor to have his especially nasty cuts looked at, before he rallied in such spectacular style, but yes. What a fight.

It is a shame that instead of being mentioned as at the same level as Hagler and Leonard, Hearns is often considered a level beneath them. Not by me I hasten to add.

This fight seems to have built Hagler into a one punch knockout merchant in some people's eyes, and whilst I'm not for one second diminishing his legendary status, he was not that fighter. He tended to wear people down by dismantling them systematically. A bit like knocking a building down in stages with a wreaking ball, whereas Hearns was dynamite beneath in the foundations. Very different styles, but the same end result. Few of either man's opponents heard the final bell.

Hearns also broke his right hand on Hagler's head in round one, which he ignored for a further round before electing to box and move. One only wonders how different the outcome might have been if he could have continued to through his right properly...

Incidentally, I've had the good fortune to meet Hagler, and a nicer man and fighter you could not meet. He has really seemed to mellow since his malevolent, brooding fighting peak. I've met hundreds of fighters over the years and dozens of top class ones, and I can't think of a more pleasant one than Hagler.

[jimmy two times]

I remember when Hagler came over here and routed Alan Minter in his own backyard. And Minter was a good fighter. Hagler, Hearns and Leaonard were all great fighters with contrasting styles. I think all the fights between them were epics. Duran was also around at that time, and there were many other very good fighters in the welterweight to middle weight category.Carlos Palomino, Don Curry, Wilfredo Benitez. I even fondly remember Dave Boy Green.Having said that Duran was beaten by Kirkland Laing in the states and Honeyghan done Curry over there too if I remember rightly. Kirkland Laing could have been a legend, however I think his life may have been a bit chaotic. Oh and you're right about Hagler.He always strkes me as a class act....a real champ.

[Acid Casual]

Yes, Wilfred Benitez is another of my top 5 I'd say. Sublime defensive skills.

I don't think I've ever seen a better defensive boxer with his back to the ropes. Pernell Whittaker might come close, but Benitez was special. His current situation is all too common with fighters who stay in too long, but particularly surprising given his elusive mastery.

One of my favourite fights of all time is his fight with Sugar Ray Leonard. It is a craftsman's fight. Most people (even a lot of younger fighters) sadly don't appreciate it because they just want crash, bang, wallop, and for the large part of this contest it is a blueprint for strategic excellence.

It's a bit like Madison Square Garden in the 60's and 70's versus Vegas in the 80's & 90's. I have Ken Buchanan's second fight with Ismael Laguna in 1971 on DVD, and at one point when his left eye is rapidly closing, but he is protecting a decent lead, Buchanan elects to go to the ropes and defend.

In a 30-40 second period he barely lands a punch, but all of Laguna's efforts go swiftly either side of Buchanan's head or are parried, slipped or blocked. You hear a small crackle of applause from the distance in the hall, which grows over the 30 seconds into a roar of appreciation at Buchanan's elusive skills. Nowadays if it was in Vegas Buchanan would have been booed by idiots who have most likely never laced a pair of gloves in their lives.

Kirkland Laing is the biggest waste of talent ever. No-one really knows how good he might have been, because by all accounts he never trained. The people who have told me that should know, and are not prone to wild exaggerations.

[jimmy two times]

So who are your top 5 Acid Casual?

I'll tell you mine,and they are from fighters I have seen so I don't include obvious legends such as Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Louis as I never saw them: So here they are in no particular order:

1.Larry Holmes

2.Sugar Ray Leonard

3.Ali

4.Nigel Benn

5.Mike Tyson

I know Nigel Benn was not technically as good as the other 4,and probably many others such as Hearns, Mayweather and Lennox Lewis, but my god what heart and balls that man had and he could fight ! a real fighter.

Tyson ended up being disgraced , but in his prime he was awesome. I see him the way I see Maradona in football. A flawed genius but a genius nonetheless.

[Acid Casual]

My top five, in an order that frequently changes and not based on being the best but purely on my own personal like or admiration, would probably be...

1. Thomas Hearns

2. James Toney

3. Ken Buchanan

4. Wilfred Benitez

5. Julio Cesar-Chavez

Honourable mentions for Aaron Pryor, Roberto Duran, Felix Trinidad, Barry McGuigan (another absolute gent), Larry Holmes, Nigel Benn, Marco-Antonio Barrera, and a good few more.

I also liked watching stylists like Edwin Viruet, but Viruet's lack of an overall package (couldn't crack and egg with a hammer in his hand) means that he'd never get anywhere near my favourites. His first fight with Duran is comedy though.

In terms of a best of all time from the fighters that I have seen decent amounts of and were pretty active in my lifetime, I'd say...

1. Sugar Ray Leonard

2. Roy Jones Junior

3. Roberto Duran

4. Larry Holmes (my only real memories of Ali were him getting beaten by Holmes and Berbick)

5. Julio-Cesar Chavez. Possibly Mike Tyson between 1985 and 1988.

I've actually sparred Nigel Benn. It was a thoroughly traumatic experience although the years mellowed him between occasions. The pain was utterly surreal. It seemed to start in the very centre of your body and come to the surface of your skin over a period of a week. Never been hit like that before.

Tyson, his sociopathic nature aside, was treated abominably by boxing and Don King in particular.

I feel quite sorry for him. I'm not saying he was a good guy, and I am not going to speculate as to whether he was guilty or not, but he sure as hell would not have gone off the rails in such a big way had Cus D'Amato and Jimmy Jacobs stayed in charge of his career and life. Swap the two of them, Teddy Atlas, Jose Torres and Kevin Rooney for Don King, Carl King, Richie Giachetti, John Hornweather, later on Panama Lewis, and you have the makings of a human disaster. Unsurprisingly that is exactly what occurred.

[Keef]

Good to see this thread being used.

[jimmy two times]

Great stuff Acid casual. I love reading your posts. You are a real student of the game. A bit like Tyson in fact, who studied boxing and boxing history with a real passion and certainly knew his stuff. I note you don't mention Mayweather junior in any of your lists or honorouble mentions. How highly do you rate him?

[KidKruger]

I second that emotion JTT, I'm learning loads just following this !!

[Atila Reincarnate]

Hagler was spectaculary robbed of the decision when he fought Leonard. Hagler was a top top fighter.

[jimmy two times]

I don't agree with that. Leonard was superb in that fight, moving up to middleweight to tackle Hagler and coming back from retirement with his eye injuries. He trained very hard for that fight and Hagler was over confident. He deserved the win.

[Atila Reincarnate]

No way the only reason he got th decision was because it was in Leonards "backyard"

[Acid Casual]

I'd rate Mayweather very highly indeed if he faced a few live opponents.

His career highlights are Diego Corrales who he utterly starched, Arturo Gatti (same result) Ricky Hatton (same result) Zab Juddah. All who were either on the cusp of being over the hill (and to be fair he called the timing brilliantly) or in the case of Juddah, a six round fighter. Corrales was the only one I'd consider a live opponent. Jose-Luis Castillo gave him all sorts of trouble too.

The rest is padded out by the likes of Shambra Mitchell, Jesus Chavez, Lovemore N'Dou, Demarcus Corley and a very faded Oscar De La Hoya.

I'm not saying for a minute that he isn't brilliant, because his skills are sublime and the check-hook which did the damage to Hatton was executed as perfectly as I have ever seen it done, but your legacy is decided by who you face and he doesn't want any part of Shane Mosley, didn't want to face Antonio Margarito or Miguel Cotto before the latter two began to slide a bit (alarmingly so in Cotto's case)

He may eventually fight Manny Pac because despite the fact that Manny will get up in weight, the natural size difference will still be a factor at this level of fighter.

Basically, he picks his fights. If he were to fight a couple of bigger men who have good names like Mosley, win or lose, I'd probably place him in my top 5 at the expense of Chavez.

In summary, brilliant fighter. Potential all time great in anyone's book, but seems to be try to convince the world otherwise.

[jimmy two times]

I think he'll beat Pacquaio for the reasons you've stated. He is very cocky (not a problem in boxing) but I don't like the way he bangs on about money all the time. Lacks a bit of class.

[Acid Casual]

Atila Reincarnate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No way the only reason he got th decision was

> because it was in Leonards "backyard"

About 3 times a year, I pull that fight out and watch it to see if the furore is deserved. I try to score it round by round in the way that the judges would and I have variously scored it to either fighter and once or twice a draw, but I have never scored it by any bigger margin than 115-113, so I would not consider it a robbery.

The sometimes unfortunate thing about boxing is that the scoring is totally subjective and therefore open to individual interpretation. Not always Ideal, but better than the current daft amateur electronic version which is a nightmare. It reduces a sport where the idea to showcase your skills, hit and not be hit, so a quantitative exercise. Totally nuts!

Plus it also has people throwing silly punches in an effort to clearly land with the white part of the glove. I remember being chastised by a referee for throwing a hook which 9 times out of 10 would have rendered an opponent prone because he thought that it was not correctly landed.

back to the point. II do agree that Leonard was very adept at stealing rounds with 2-3 flourishes and a big rally at the end, but whether we think he won or lost, I think he fought brilliantly against Hagler and due to the subjective nature of fight scoring, could well have won it.

[Acid Casual]

jimmy two times Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think he'll beat Pacquaio for the reasons you've

> stated. He is very cocky (not a problem in boxing)

> but I don't like the way he bangs on about money

> all the time. Lacks a bit of class.

I think he'd beat Pacquiao too.

There is one man in the world good enough to punish the almost microscopic mistakes that Pacquiao makes, and that is Mayweather.

[jimmy two times]

Great analysis of Leonard/ Hagler fight and possible outcome of Mayweather/ Pacquaio fight Acid. If I remember correctly Hagler didn't fight much in the year prior to that fight, whereas Leonard's training camp was very intense. Perhaps Hagler underestimated Leonard because of the lay off and move up in weight? It was close and Hagler threw the bigger punches. I always loved Hagler from the moment I saw him beat up Minter, but there is a special place in my heart for Leonard. He was so dashing and so skilful and his pretty boy looks belied a true fighter's heart.

It's also a great point about Pacquaio. He does make tiny mistakes and it's those tiny margins that Mayweather will exploit.

[Keef]

He does lack class in talking about money, and some of the things he's said about people. However, he is an awesome fighter, and I really hope him and pac-man get it on. Although pac-man has new announced he'll fight Ghana's Joshua Clottey in March, so it won't be happening for a while.

I am too young to have enjoyed the golen age of boxing so missed lots of the greats, and have had to watch them in replays. My list, based simply on the fact I've enjoyed watching them, would be (in no particular order);

Nigel Benn

Chris Eubank

Evander Holyfield (although please quit now, you were great in the 90s)

Tyson

Mayweather