Ask Treeduck boxing questions !

[Tick]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 20 2008, 09:45 PM)

QUOTE (Slacker @ Apr 20 2008, 09:22 PM) Chew on this question. Where would you put Tyson among the greats? I've sort of answered this already but don't hold me to this list it's really hard to rank these guys from different eras , I could well be totally wrong and it's all subjective anyway Bob as we all know...   1 Muhammad Ali 2 Joe Louis 3 Larry Holmes 4 George Foreman 5 Rocky Marciano 6 Evander Holyfield 7 Jack Dempsey 8 Joe Frazier 9 Mike Tyson 10 Jack Johnson 11 Lennox Lewis 12 Sonny Liston 13 Floyd Patterson 14 Archie Moore 15 Gene Tunney Holmes ahead of Smokin Joe ? I dont know about that ?     by the way, are you enjoying your thread ?

[nimagraven]

Hey.

 

Me and my Dad both considered Chris Eubank back in the day a real lazy boxer.

 

What are your thoughts on Eubank back in the day??

[liquidcrystalcompass]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 20 2008, 09:45 PM)

QUOTE (Slacker @ Apr 20 2008, 09:22 PM) Chew on this question. Where would you put Tyson among the greats? I've sort of answered this already but don't hold me to this list it's really hard to rank these guys from different eras , I could well be totally wrong and it's all subjective anyway Bob as we all know...   1 Muhammad Ali 2 Joe Louis 3 Larry Holmes 4 George Foreman 5 Rocky Marciano 6 Evander Holyfield 7 Jack Dempsey 8 Joe Frazier 9 Mike Tyson 10 Jack Johnson 11 Lennox Lewis 12 Sonny Liston 13 Floyd Patterson 14 Archie Moore 15 Gene Tunney Larry Holmes at 3? Tunney at 15? If not mistaken, Tunney never lost a fight.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (tick @ Apr 21 2008, 05:55 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 20 2008, 09:45 PM) QUOTE (Slacker @ Apr 20 2008, 09:22 PM) Chew on this question. Where would you put Tyson among the greats? I've sort of answered this already but don't hold me to this list it's really hard to rank these guys from different eras , I could well be totally wrong and it's all subjective anyway Bob as we all know...   1 Muhammad Ali 2 Joe Louis 3 Larry Holmes 4 George Foreman 5 Rocky Marciano 6 Evander Holyfield 7 Jack Dempsey 8 Joe Frazier 9 Mike Tyson 10 Jack Johnson 11 Lennox Lewis 12 Sonny Liston 13 Floyd Patterson 14 Archie Moore 15 Gene Tunney Holmes ahead of Smokin Joe ? I dont know about that ?     by the way, are you enjoying your thread ? Well Holmes was always vastly underrated Tick probably because he came after Ali and was compared to him and some people never forgave him for beating up a washed-up and sick-looking Ali in 1980. I remember the fight too and it was hard to watch.   To compare him to Joe, well he defended the title about 20 times, fought some really good opposition, Norton, Cooney, Witherspoon, Evangelista, Snipes, Shavers, Weaver. Only Mike Tyson stopped him when he was 38, when 38 was OLD for a boxer and he was still giving hell to great fighters like Holyfield in his 40s. He even beat Ray Mercer when he was 40 odd. So overall as Champion he was better than Joe and he lasted way longer. He had a really great jab, great chin, was really difficult to beat, decent right hand and he was an expert ring general. So there you go...   Yes my thread is cool thanks, I always enjoy talking boxing...

[treeduck]

QUOTE (nimagraven @ Apr 21 2008, 07:36 AM)

Hey. Me and my Dad both considered Chris Eubank back in the day a real lazy boxer. What are your thoughts on Eubank back in the day??

I think he was pretty good,, decent puncher, concrete chin, good skills, but he didn't fight some of the best Americans of the day, Roy Jones, James Toney, Michael Nunn and Jamaican Mike McCallum.

 

Two reasons why he looked lazy, one he was a counter-puncher, two he had that fight with Watson where he ended up putting him in a wheelchair and I think that made him hold back a little, he really didn't want to have that happen again and was never quite the same after.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (liquidcrystalcompass @ Apr 21 2008, 10:45 AM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 20 2008, 09:45 PM) QUOTE (Slacker @ Apr 20 2008, 09:22 PM) Chew on this question. Where would you put Tyson among the greats? I've sort of answered this already but don't hold me to this list it's really hard to rank these guys from different eras , I could well be totally wrong and it's all subjective anyway Bob as we all know...   1 Muhammad Ali 2 Joe Louis 3 Larry Holmes 4 George Foreman 5 Rocky Marciano 6 Evander Holyfield 7 Jack Dempsey 8 Joe Frazier 9 Mike Tyson 10 Jack Johnson 11 Lennox Lewis 12 Sonny Liston 13 Floyd Patterson 14 Archie Moore 15 Gene Tunney Larry Holmes at 3? Tunney at 15? If not mistaken, Tunney never lost a fight. See my other post about Holmes...   Tunney's nemesis was the great Harry Greb a middleweight who gave him hell, he gave everyone hell actually but he really used to mess up Gene. Gene was an excellent fgihter for his era but can you really imagine him beating Ali, Louis, Big George, Sonny Liston, Mike Tyson, Holmes, Frazier, Lennox Lewis, or Marciano? Also he didn't have long reign ala Louis, Homes and Ali...

[nimagraven]

Did you ever wish that Prince Naseem Hamed would fall flat on his face (not to injure) when he done his special party flip getting into the ring?

 

I can't remember much of him now (I was pretty young), but I seem to remember no one liked him much and he was a bit of a joke . Well, especially now, anyway.

 

I still need to see some Muhammad Ali on ESPN classic.

 

Does boxing have a history of fixing and general dodgyness? (Besides the well documented obvious stuff).

[treeduck]

QUOTE (nimagraven @ Apr 21 2008, 04:16 PM)

Did you ever wish that Prince Naseem Hamed would fall flat on his face (not to injure) when he done his special party flip getting into the ring? I can't remember much of him now (I was pretty young), but I seem to remember no one liked him much and he was a bit of a joke . Well, especially now, anyway. I still need to see some Muhammad Ali on ESPN classic. Does boxing have a history of fixing and general dodgyness? (Besides the well documented obvious stuff).

People do think of him as a joke now, but if his ego hadn't gone into overdrive and he'd not cut so many corners he could have been a great fighter. His decline was a like Mike Tyson's in that at a certain point he got progressively worse with each fight. When he won the WBO featherweight title in 1995 he was at his peak, elusive, fast, unorthodox, strong and hammer-fisted, but he seemed to get lost in a whirlpool of celebrity mediocrity, stopped training properly, then split with Brendan Ingle, hired a posse of yes men and his brothers and although you can only see it in retrospect went into a slow decline.

 

He did make 15 defences of the title though and held IBF and WBC versions as well plus he beat the WBA champion Wilfredo Vazquez by KO but didn't get to hold that title because the WBA stripped Vazquez before the fight. And if you look at his record he had some good wins: Tom Johnson KO8, Kevin Kelly KO4, Vasquez KO8, Bungu KO 4, Soto W12, McCulloch W12, Medina KO11, Steve Robinson KO8 and he only lost once on points to the hall of fame bound Marco Antonio Barrera, so he never got knocked out. He may not have been the best featherweight of all time but he may have been the hardest puncher.

 

Did I want to see him fall over? Naaa I used to laugh at Naz's antics, some of the crap he spouted made me cringe at times but I was never a Naz hater...

[treeduck]

QUOTE (nimagraven @ Apr 21 2008, 04:16 PM)

I still need to see some Muhammad Ali on ESPN classic. Does boxing have a history of fixing and general dodgyness? (Besides the well documented obvious stuff).

Yes watch Ali, not only was he a great boxer, he was a funny and intelligent guy. He existed in an era of hugely talented heavyweights too so he was involved in many classic fights, most of which he won.

 

There was a problem with fight fixing in the 40s and 50s because the Mob was invloved in boxing. Nowadays people talk of the judges being bought and whatnot but that's usually sour grapes (a little like Bernard Hopkins moaning about a robbery in the Calzaghe fight) or hometown bias.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 21 2008, 04:43 PM)

QUOTE (nimagraven @ Apr 21 2008, 04:16 PM) I still need to see some Muhammad Ali on ESPN classic. Does boxing have a history of fixing and general dodgyness? (Besides the well documented obvious stuff). Yes watch Ali, not only was he a great boxer, he was a funny and intelligent guy. He existed in an era of hugely talented heavyweights too so he was involved in many classic fights, most of which he won.   There was a problem with fight fixing in the 40s and 50s because the Mob was invloved in boxing. Nowadays people talk of the judges being bought and whatnot but that's usually sour grapes (a little like Bernard Hopkins moaning about a robbery in the Calzaghe fight) or hometown bias. Some have argued that the corruption has remained since then. One fight I remember watching was Chavez vs. Taylor and Richard Steele stopped the fight near the end of the final round. I remember thinking it was one of the best I had ever watched at the time, but I do wonder if Steele was right to stop it, and if it is fair to suggest that Steele was partial to Don King's fighters.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (anagramking @ Apr 21 2008, 04:56 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 21 2008, 04:43 PM) QUOTE (nimagraven @ Apr 21 2008, 04:16 PM) I still need to see some Muhammad Ali on ESPN classic. Does boxing have a history of fixing and general dodgyness? (Besides the well documented obvious stuff). Yes watch Ali, not only was he a great boxer, he was a funny and intelligent guy. He existed in an era of hugely talented heavyweights too so he was involved in many classic fights, most of which he won.   There was a problem with fight fixing in the 40s and 50s because the Mob was invloved in boxing. Nowadays people talk of the judges being bought and whatnot but that's usually sour grapes (a little like Bernard Hopkins moaning about a robbery in the Calzaghe fight) or hometown bias. Some have argued that the corruption has remained since then. One fight I remember watching was Chavez vs. Taylor and Richard Steele stopped the fight near the end of the final round. I remember thinking it was one of the best I had ever watched at the time, but I do wonder if Steele was right to stop it, and if it is fair to suggest that Steele was partial to Don King's fighters. I know that we could all see that there was only a few seconds to go in the Chavez-Taylor fight, so it looked like a rigged stoppage but the much maligned Steele didn't know that and Taylor was "gone" and his injuries after the fight back that up, ie: broken eye-socket.   I think there are dodgy descisions, like Chavez-Whitaker and Lewis-Holyfield I but I think it's more to do with biased judges than a pre-fixed fight. I mean if taylor was fixed to lose and he knew it, do you think he'd fight so hard right to end to the point of getting his eyesocket smashed and be ruined for the rest of his career, which he was? I don't think so...

[anagramking]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 21 2008, 05:18 PM)

QUOTE (anagramking @ Apr 21 2008, 04:56 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 21 2008, 04:43 PM) QUOTE (nimagraven @ Apr 21 2008, 04:16 PM) I still need to see some Muhammad Ali on ESPN classic. Does boxing have a history of fixing and general dodgyness? (Besides the well documented obvious stuff). Yes watch Ali, not only was he a great boxer, he was a funny and intelligent guy. He existed in an era of hugely talented heavyweights too so he was involved in many classic fights, most of which he won.   There was a problem with fight fixing in the 40s and 50s because the Mob was invloved in boxing. Nowadays people talk of the judges being bought and whatnot but that's usually sour grapes (a little like Bernard Hopkins moaning about a robbery in the Calzaghe fight) or hometown bias. Some have argued that the corruption has remained since then. One fight I remember watching was Chavez vs. Taylor and Richard Steele stopped the fight near the end of the final round. I remember thinking it was one of the best I had ever watched at the time, but I do wonder if Steele was right to stop it, and if it is fair to suggest that Steele was partial to Don King's fighters. I know that we could all see that there was only a few seconds to go in the Chavez-Taylor fight, so it looked like a rigged stoppage but the much maligned Steele didn't know that and Taylor was "gone" and his injuries after the fight back that up, ie: broken eye-socket.   I think there are dodgy descisions, like Chavez-Whitaker and Lewis-Holyfield I but I think it's more to do with biased judges than a pre-fixed fight. I mean if taylor was fixed to lose and he knew it, do you think he'd fight so hard right to end to the point of getting his eyesocket smashed and be ruined for the rest of his career, which he was? I don't think so... I wasn't suggesting that Taylor was in on the fix, only that Steele would have been. But you make good points. I didn't realize Taylor had the broken eye socket.   Also, wasn't Liston supposedly paid off against Ali (at the time Cassius Clay)?

[treeduck]

QUOTE (anagramking @ Apr 21 2008, 05:24 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 21 2008, 05:18 PM) QUOTE (anagramking @ Apr 21 2008, 04:56 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 21 2008, 04:43 PM) QUOTE (nimagraven @ Apr 21 2008, 04:16 PM) I still need to see some Muhammad Ali on ESPN classic. Does boxing have a history of fixing and general dodgyness? (Besides the well documented obvious stuff). Yes watch Ali, not only was he a great boxer, he was a funny and intelligent guy. He existed in an era of hugely talented heavyweights too so he was involved in many classic fights, most of which he won.   There was a problem with fight fixing in the 40s and 50s because the Mob was invloved in boxing. Nowadays people talk of the judges being bought and whatnot but that's usually sour grapes (a little like Bernard Hopkins moaning about a robbery in the Calzaghe fight) or hometown bias. Some have argued that the corruption has remained since then. One fight I remember watching was Chavez vs. Taylor and Richard Steele stopped the fight near the end of the final round. I remember thinking it was one of the best I had ever watched at the time, but I do wonder if Steele was right to stop it, and if it is fair to suggest that Steele was partial to Don King's fighters. I know that we could all see that there was only a few seconds to go in the Chavez-Taylor fight, so it looked like a rigged stoppage but the much maligned Steele didn't know that and Taylor was "gone" and his injuries after the fight back that up, ie: broken eye-socket.   I think there are dodgy descisions, like Chavez-Whitaker and Lewis-Holyfield I but I think it's more to do with biased judges than a pre-fixed fight. I mean if taylor was fixed to lose and he knew it, do you think he'd fight so hard right to end to the point of getting his eyesocket smashed and be ruined for the rest of his career, which he was? I don't think so... I wasn't suggesting that Taylor was in on the fix, only that Steele would have been. But you make good points. I didn't realize Taylor had the broken eye socket.   Also, wasn't Liston supposedly paid off against Ali (at the time Cassius Clay)? Boxing is always linked to dodgy deals as it attracts dodgy characters, probably because a lot of boxers come from dodgy backgrounds and the lure of big money is strong but also it's past mob connections and let's face it all sports that people make bets on are prone to accusations, I mean look at tennis with Davydenko accused of match-fixing recently.   In my experience the fights aren't rigged but sometimes when it goes the full twelve or ten rounds, the wrong guy wins and sometimes you get a hometown ref who is rough on the away fighter to the point that the result is affected, but not as often as people might think.   As for Don King, he's a crook for sure but he doesn't need to fix fights, if you notice when one of his fighters gets beat he just ends up somehow taking over as the winning boxer's promoter, if he doesn't promote them already. This uncanny ability kept him "controlling" the heavyweight division for nearly two decades, so Don didn't need match-fixing. Also he was too busy robbing money from his hapless fighters.

[Tick]

Put the following boxers in order, and tell me why you rate them as such.

The great Italian bleeders trio !

Vinny Pazienza, Arturo Gatti, Ray Mancini

Am I forgetting someone ?

[Gompers]

I'm trying to ship a computer to my brother in California. It's a standard ATX case. He doesn't need the monitor. I'm thinking I should use a 36"x36"x24" thick cardboard box with bubblewrap, not popcorn, to cushion the PC.

 

Do you think his is the best way to box it up?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[treeduck]

QUOTE (tick @ Apr 22 2008, 12:07 PM)

Put the following boxers in order, and tell me why you rate them as such. The great Italian bleeders trio ! Vinny Pazienza, Arturo Gatti, Ray Mancini Am I forgetting someone ?

Yes well I remember Vinnie Pazienza when he was still a lightweight and had that big rivalry with Greg Haugan. If someone had told me at that time that he'd be allowed in the same ring with Roy Jones I'd have told him that murder isn't allowed in boxing! Somehow though after a car accident Vinnie rebuilt himself and became this sturdy little powerhouse guy who started again at 154 but even then no one in their right mind would have matched him Terrible Terry Norris (junior middleweight king of the day). Still, gradually Vinnie built himself a new reputation as a skilled boxer-brawler who would weigh as high as 168 and with wins over the likes of washed up veteran champs like Lloyd Honeyghan, Hector Camacho and the great Roberto Duran. Still I was surprised when they did put him in with Jones jnr. Jones won easily in 6 not getting hit by a single punch in one round which has never happened before or since. Vinnie did well to last 6 with the then "superman" Jones, but was finished off with virtuoso leaping lead uppercuts with alternate hands, amazing stuff. Jones did shake his head a few times during the fight as if to say, what the HELL are you doing in here with me?

 

All in all I like Vinnie and you have to admire a guy who went from 135 to compete reasonably at 168 after a horrendous car accident too.

 

Gatti? What can you say about him? An excellent entertainer on a certain level. I loved his fights with Irish Mickey Ward and Ivan Robinson among others. When he stepped in with the best though he always came up short, Oscar De La Hoya, Mayweather and even Baldomir and Angel Manfredi beat him up. I like the guy though for sure, a great warrior.

 

Ray Boom Boom Mancini was a good little fighter, who unfortunately suffered the fate of killing one of his opponents. I always think this affects a fighter if it happens to him. I'm still angry of course as the guy was a duck, Duk Koo Kim! Ray was good though and he was a true bleeder I think he had about 70 stitches after one fight with Livingstone Bramble. He was robbed in the fight against "Not so Macho" Camacho I reckon.

 

Another Italian American bleeder is former middleweight champ Vito Antuofermo, who beat Emile Griffith and got a draw with Marvin Hagler in 1979, although Marvin was robbed. He then lost the title to Alan Minter who then got crushed by Hagler who then ruled the division for 7 years with an iron fist, literally...

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Gompers @ Apr 22 2008, 12:37 PM)

I'm trying to ship a computer to my brother in California. It's a standard ATX case. He doesn't need the monitor. I'm thinking I should use a 36"x36"x24" thick cardboard box with bubblewrap, not popcorn, to cushion the PC. Do you think his is the best way to box it up?

I think those popcorn things are the way to go but with a bigger box...

 

[Tony R]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 20 2008, 09:06 PM)

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Apr 20 2008, 10:34 AM) What is the vaseline for?  Is that so the blows slide off the face?  To protect the skin from the leather?  Did i just answer my own question?  Sorry.    Okay... here's another.  What is on those Q-tips they put in the boxer's cuts that make the boxer wince in pain so much?  Is it superglue.  I heard that once, but i would think that would be illegal. Yes you're correct about the vaseline, it also forms a temporary protective layer over scar tissue, which is why you see guys laying it on a fighters brow even when he's not cut. Ref's generally wipe it off if they notice.   The Q-tips are usually used to soak up blood from a cut inside the nose, it's got to hurt so I think that wakes them up. They may have something like alcohol on there to clear their head but to be honest I'm not completely sure on that one Necro. It's adrenaline they put on the q-tips isnt it?

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Tony R @ Apr 22 2008, 12:58 PM)

QUOTE (treeduck @ Apr 20 2008, 09:06 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Apr 20 2008, 10:34 AM) What is the vaseline for?  Is that so the blows slide off the face?  To protect the skin from the leather?  Did i just answer my own question?  Sorry.    Okay... here's another.  What is on those Q-tips they put in the boxer's cuts that make the boxer wince in pain so much?  Is it superglue.  I heard that once, but i would think that would be illegal. Yes you're correct about the vaseline, it also forms a temporary protective layer over scar tissue, which is why you see guys laying it on a fighters brow even when he's not cut. Ref's generally wipe it off if they notice.   The Q-tips are usually used to soak up blood from a cut inside the nose, it's got to hurt so I think that wakes them up. They may have something like alcohol on there to clear their head but to be honest I'm not completely sure on that one Necro. It's adrenaline they put on the q-tips isnt it? That's right, I forgot about that, they may use something else now too, but I've not heard anyone mention much about this recently.

[Alsgalpal]

Shouldn't this be called as Treeduck a wanking question?

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Alsgalpal @ Apr 22 2008, 01:54 PM)

Shouldn't this be called as Treeduck a wanking question?

No you can PM me for a webcam show later...

 

[Tony R]

As a Boltonian, I am a big Amir Khan fan. However I dont feel he is anywhere near challenging the very best of his weight. What's your opinion?

 

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Tony R @ Apr 22 2008, 03:22 PM)

As a Boltonian, I am a big Amir Khan fan. However I dont feel he is anywhere near challenging the very best of his weight. What's your opinion?

Well I saw him at the Olympics and he's a great talent, winning a silver medal at just 17, Oscar De La Hoya was 19 when he struck gold. I think there's a question mark over his chin but even the aforementioned Oscar was floored by a nobody early in his career and his chin has never let him down against the best punchers of his era - Trinidad, Quartey, Vargas, Mosley, Hopkins only stopped him with a body shot, so it's hard to tell. I remember Mike McCallum got hit with a good shot by sharpshooting but average power puncher ex-welter champ Don Curry in their fight in 1987 and his knees buckled so far his arse almost brushed the canvas and even though he got the spectacular KO three rounds later in the 5th I was under the impression for years after that he was chinny, but he proved me wrong fight after fight, taking shots from everyone from James Toney to Roy Jones. So it's sometimes hard to gauge a fighter's chin in my experience.

 

What I do think is that he's trying to rush, there's no way he'll beat Naz's record for youngest world champ unless he beats Nate Campbell in his next fight. I'm surprised Warren hasn't been able to talk him out of this, since he's the ultimate over-protector.

 

Anyway Amir is like 17-0 and it's clear he needs about 4 or 5 more fights before he's ready, perhaps three this year and two more early next so by this time next year he should be ready. And he might as well do it this way, no one's gonna care if he's 21 or 22 if and when he's champ so that would be my advice. if they really wanted to be sure he could have 10 more fights and no one would complain.

 

He should fight someone like Julio Diaz, Jesus Chavez but to be honest Warren didn't even want to put him in with Jon Thaxton who's over the hill and now that he got beat they have the excuse not to bother with him. They should fight Romanov, but I think Warren is looking to team up with old nemesis Bob Arum to put Amir on the David Diaz-Manny Pacquiao bill in June, therefore introducing him to the Amricans before matching Khan against the winner, which Bob and Warren hope is the Pac Man. Arum and Freddie Roach (Pac's trainer) want to fight Hatton, De La Hoya or Mayweather, so who knows, there's allsorts of rumours flying around at 135, like Juan Diaz against Casamayor and kasditis v Jesus Chavez. Really Amir doesn't fit in with this lot yet, he needs to go through a few more decent tough guy types and veterans.

 

I think he should at least win a belt or two also he's big enough to move up and that's one advantage he has over most of these guys, he's a wide-shouldered 5'10 and most 135 pounders are a chunky 5'6 or 5'7, plus he's faster than all of them. His punching power seems ok but it's hard to judge really. Remember also he's only 21, most fighters are still wearing a vest at 21 so he can still develop a great deal. We'll soon see though.

[Tick]

Fictional fights...

pick the winner. (all fighters at there best)

 

Hagler vs. Roy Jones jr.

 

Sugar ray Leonard vs. Floyd Mayweather jr.

 

Mike Tyson vs. George Forman

 

Roberto Duran vs. Marco antonio Barrera

[treeduck]

QUOTE (tick @ Apr 22 2008, 06:01 PM)

Fictional fights... pick the winner. (all fighters at there best) Hagler vs. Roy Jones jr. Sugar ray Leonard vs. Floyd Mayweather jr. Mike Tyson vs. George Forman Roberto Duran vs. Marco antonio Barrera

Hagler vs Jones - At middleweight Hagler would have the best chance but I think what we'd get is Leonard-Hagler all over again, Roy was as fast if not faster than Ray at 160 and he's bigger and in those days hit harder. As strong and as tough and as ruthless as Hagler was Jones was strong enough to go in against and a heavyweight and beat him easily, even if it was only John Ruiz. It doesn't really matter what weight they fought at really the result would be the same. Jones wouldn't be able to hurt Hagler but like Sugar Ray he'd outsmart him and outspeed him. A close and maybe disputed UD12 for Roy Jones jnr.

 

Leonard-Mayweather - This would have to take place at 147 or 154 (mayweather has gone from 130-154, leonard went from 147-175). This is a difficult one, you have the fantastic speedy combination punching and dazzling footwork with decent power from Ray against the slippery defensive precision punching of Floyd. Ray has a more proven chin, absorbing the bombs of Duran, Hagler, Hearns, but Mayweather's chin would probably stand up to the shots Ray would land, Oscar couldn't hurt him seriously nor Judah, still there's still a slight element of doubt about Mayweather's chin simply because he's so hard to hit, so he hasn't really had it tested to the max even now. Anyway what I'm getting at is this will be distance fight here. Personally I think their skills would create something of a stalemate, what would win it would be Ray's greater warrior spirit and proven toughness. Ray Leonard W12 Floyd Mayweather, again maybe a desputed split decision.

 

IRON Mike Tyson v Big George

 

I think it depends which version of George you think is the best, I mean he was very good as an oldie, his chin seemed improved for instance and he jabbed a lot better, but for this purpose we'll pit the 1973 version of Foreman vs the 1988 version of Tyson. So the size advantage is with George he was about 15 pounds heavier and about 5 inches taller, but this never seemed to bother a peak Tyson really, especially if the other guy was being aggressive, he only had trouble with big guys when they turned human octopus like Bonehugger Smith in March 1987. The Big George of old would have attacked Tyson and it would have been the fight of the century. Sheer brute force against vicious speed, power and accuracy in one package. It might be a case of who lands first, both guys had a decent beard. Tyson was more fluid less crude than George who clubbed his victims into the canvas wheras Mike put amazing combinations together creating highlight reel knockouts. His speed and accuracy coupled with his very good head movement ala Joe frazier would probably mean that Tyson would land his punches first and lots of them and get hit less. Frazier was crushed by George but Tyson was more powerful and faster and shorter yet a bigger man overall. One thing about Mike he had a way of using his short stature against his opponets who had trouble hitting such a low target.

 

It's hard to decide but I go for Tyson in a brutal all out war...

 

Mike Tyson KO 6 Big George.

 

NB: This doesn't mean I rate Tyson above George in my rankings, because those rankings are based on each fighters whole career and also, as the cliche goes, styles make fights.

 

Oh this is an easy one Tick, very easy. As much as I like Barrera, the Baby Faced Assassin, he would have no chance against Duran. Duran was one of the best lightweights in history reigning for 7 years and KOing most of his oppoents, he then jumped right up to 147 and beat Leonard, beat up and ruined the much bigger Davey Moore at 154 and gave Hagler hell at 160 and even whupped the dangerous 6'1" Iran barkley as an old man. Barrera has never even fought at light weight, he's a 122,126,130 pounder, that's super bantamweight, feather weight and super featherweight. Still it might be fun for a round or two, but even if the fight was at 135 it would be a blow-out though.

 

Roberto Duran KO2 Marco antonio Barrera.

 

Good questions Tick!