Anatomy Of A Superfight
Written by Andrew Harrison   
Sunday, 31 January 2010 14:11

In a Boxing Monthly preview piece from 1999, Steve Farhood carried out an analysis of boxing "superfights" over a 20-year period. In order to determine just how many of the sport’s biggest nights were what they had been purported to be, the writer used a three-point criteria, which was as follows: Are both fighters in their primes? Are both at their best weights? Are both legitimately great fighters?

The piece is worth a second look because of the recent maneuvering of Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.

Mr. Farhood whittled down 33 bouts considered from 1979-1999 to just the following eight bonafide, classic match-ups:

1. Ray Leonard-Wilfred Benitez (1979)

2. Salvador Sanchez-Wilfredo Gomez (1981)

3. Ray Leonard-Thomas Hearns (1981)

4. Marvin Hagler-Thomas Hearns (1985)

5. Julio Cesar Chavez-Meldrick Taylor (1990)

6. Riddick Bowe-Evander Holyfield (1992)

7. Michael Carbajal-Chiquita Gonzalez (1993)

8. Roy Jones-James Toney (1994)

A quick flick through the history books would suggest that since his list was published, the following bouts have squeezed between the superfight goalposts:

9. Felix Trinidad-Oscar De la Hoya (1999)

10. Erik Morales-Marco Antonio Barrera (2000)

11. Shane Mosley-Oscar De la Hoya (2000)

12. Marco Antonio Barrera-Erik Morales II (2002)

13. Manny Pacquiao-Marco Antonio Barrera (2003)

14. Manny Pacquiao-Juan Manuel Marquez (2004)

Selecting those that made the grade is of course tricky. It’s difficult to bestow greatness on men who are still throwing leather for money. Time and perspective help to assist in the measurement process, hence the Hall of Fame’s induction criteria (a fighter must have been retired five years before receiving consideration).

The selections above along with omissions made are sure to fire debate; should any of the Israel Vazquez-Rafael Marquez fights qualify, for example? Aside from this, what does the list tell us about what we have lost in the aftermath of the Pacquiao-Mayweather farce and what we may have gained with the announcement of Mosley-Mayweather?

Firstly, are either of the two fights above eligible for superfight status?

All three men are undoubtedly great fighters. There’s no real argument there, which puts a tick in the box for each.

As for primes and best weights, here’s where it gets problematic. There are those who will argue that Floyd was at his best as a junior lightweight circa 2001 and Mosley as a lightweight circa 2000; that’s quite a while ago.

Pacquiao is a different beast again. As a fighter, he just keeps on improving, yet thanks to the weight stipulations he’s insisted on in two of his last three bouts, he has wound up fighting at all manner of odd poundages. Indeed Manny has yet to fight at the full welterweight limit (although he’s scheduled to do just that next up against Josh Clottey).

Mosley is 8-3 up at 147 lbs, with big wins over Oscar De la Hoya and Antonio Margarito offset against defeats to Vernon Forrest (twice) and Miguel Cotto. He currently rates second behind Pacquiao at welterweight.

Mayweather meanwhile is 5-0 at welter, yet it can be argued that his only victory over a fully blown 147-pounder came against the limited Carlos Baldomir. He currently rates third at the weight behind Pacquiao and Mosley.

Despite this, Ring magazine lists all three at the top of its pound for pound ratings, albeit it in a different order to the way they rank at welter (Mayweather is rated second above Mosley). This indicates that Mayweather’s previous exploits away from his current division weigh heavily in his favour and would seem to dispute that he’s currently fighting in his best weight class.

I would contend that Mosley-Mayweather does not qualify for superfight status on two counts, these being:

1. Mosley is 38 years of age and 10 years removed from the lightweight phenom who dominated the 135lb division with a startling blend of speed and power. Only his most ardent supporters would contend that he remains in his prime years, although if he can beat Mayweather, conventional logic goes out of the window.

2. Mayweather hasn’t fought enough quality opposition at welterweight. A win over Mosley however would help to right this significantly and would help to earn any subsequent Pacquiao-Mayweather bout true superfight status as per the Farhood equation (a cause helped also if Pacquiao can score a legitimate welterweight win over Clottey). Should the pair struggle significantly in their next bouts, however, questions will arise as to whether their peak years and their best weights have been left behind.

If Mosley-Mayweather is a near miss, it joins the ranks of modern era bouts such as Pernell Whitaker-Julio Cesar Chavez, Ray Leonard-Roberto Duran, Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield and Erik Morales-Manny Pacquiao, among others. So can we still expect to see a great fight?

As I explained earlier, 25 of the bouts originally examined missed the cut. Of these, only Leonard-Duran, Aaron Pryor-Alexis Arguello and Wilfredo Gomez-Lupe Pintor resulted in great fights (although arguments can be made for Marvin Hagler’s brace of bouts against Leonard and Duran).

Leonard-Duran and Pryor-Arguello failed the three-point test due to Duran and Arguello being matched above their best weights. In each case, the smaller guy overcame this handicap in order to be competitive (and in Duran’s case, to win). Gomez-Pintor, on the other hand, fell down due to the writer not having perceived Pintor as having been a great fighter, which only serves to highlight his remarkable performance in pushing Gomez to the wire.

In all other instances, as one would expect, the great fighter in their prime and at their best weight had far too much for the opponent who couldn’t hit all three markers (an example being Mike Tyson-Michael Spinks). This inevitably resulted in disappointment with punters being left to mutter, “Spinks was no heavyweight” or “Chavez was too old” (against De la Hoya) etc.

For Mosley-Mayweather to be a great fight, we’ll require Mosley to demonstrate that he can still fight close to how he did in his prime, which is the unknown quantity here.

Of course, not every fight from the 14 selected resulted in classic action.

Roy Jones-James Toney fell short due to the problems "Lights Out" had making weight. Unable to be competitive, James was dominated by Jones in a virtuoso performance from the Floridian.

Oscar De la Hoya-Felix Trinidad was perhaps the biggest disappointment of them all. With the stakes sky high, neither man seemed prepared to reach for greatness in a dissatisfying bout which left many questioning both men’s true worth.

The only other encounter from the crop which failed to measure up was the 2003 battle between Manny Pacquiao and Marco Antonio Barrera, a fight Pacquiao surprisingly dominated. Barrera mitigated his disastrous showing with claims that his mental state had been affected due to leaked medical records (detailing that he’d undergone brain surgery) and a tumultuous training camp. Whatever the reasoning, he clearly underperformed.

With a true superfight being made on average once every couple of years, there are some who have poured scorn on observers lamenting the "death of the sport" after the collapse of Pacquiao-Mayweather. Whilst the regularity of classic match-ups is surprising, one would argue that there have been only three from the last 30 years which held true cross-over appeal to the masses; Leonard-Hearns, Hagler-Hearns and De la Hoya-Trinidad, with the last of those coming 11 years ago.

It’s the reason fans should probably be pulling for two guys they don’t feel like showing much love for right now in upcoming bouts with Messrs Mosley and Clottey.



Digg! Reddit! Facebook! Technorati! StumbleUpon! BallHype: hype it up!
Comments (37)Add Comment
Tim Starks
...
written by Tim Starks, January 31, 2010
I'm surprised Jones-Toney made the list, under the circumstances.

I think Mosley is past his prime. But then, so is Hopkins. It's one of those things where maybe that's not that big a detraction for the fight, but it leaves it something short of where it might be. It should have happened sooner, really.
Mayweather/Mosely 1st Superfight of 2010, Low-rated comment [Show]
Tim Starks
@prosperity is king
written by Tim Starks, January 31, 2010
Clottey's African. Does that make him on par with "Latino Warriors?" Are African-American fighters better than African fighters? Why does any of that matter, exactly?
0
...
written by david jones, January 31, 2010
dude what the fu*k are you talking about man??? is that some race sh*t or what hahaha mexican latino brother lmao your talking wierd stuff man hahaha where all human!smilies/cheesy.gif
0
...
written by Andrew Harrison, January 31, 2010
Toney was something like 44-0-2 whilst Jones was unbeaten in 26 going in, with both probably at the weight they did their best work. It's a shame it didn't come a year or two earlier for Toney, we may have seen something special. Jones was white hot on the night though.
0
...
written by ysrael, January 31, 2010
Prosperity, you didn't admit it but u r a racist. Where did u get that Pacquiao-Clottey is a joke. Cotto win a controversial decision against him. Clottey never beeen knock-out. Mosley and Mayweather will not win againts Pacquiao why? because he's fighter not a runner.
0
pac
written by juan pedro, January 31, 2010
if the mayweather-mosley gig is bigger than pac-clottey fight, then how come it's not happening on 13th march for the world to see which bout will prevail in gate receipts & ppv?

Pacman agreed to be blood tested 3x including 1 in his locker room immediately after the fight, if he's on steroid it will still show. He's not afraid of needles or blood testing. The mayweather camp discovered pacman's kryptonite months before they challenged him, that is blood drawn close to the fight just like what happened in pacman's first bout with morales which he lost. Watch "pacquiao interview by dong puno 2005" on you tube to know better the issue on blood testing.

Pacman has been knocking down his opponents even before he reached the U.S. Watch teenager pacquiao vs mendones on you tube & see for yourself that pacman has always been fast & powerful inside the ring.

The steroid accusation is baseless as it was started by the mayweather & golden boy camps out of jealousy to pacman's success & popularity in global boxing.
0
...
written by abtik, January 31, 2010
Mosley has signed the contract for the Mayweather bout but Floyd has not. Floyd should sign it now to avoid accusation that he is delaying and scheming up excuses to duck Mosley.
0
superfight?
written by joebentvice, January 31, 2010
i don't think mosley-mayweather is a superfight, nor will a pacquaio-mayweather be a superfight, too. i vividly remember dela-hoya mayweather, that was a super-snoozer. anybody here disappointed with that fight?

mayweather can talk up a storm, like how he was going to whup dela hoya, but in the ring he does his talking with the pat-pitty-pat of his gloves and the rat-tat-tat of his running shoes.

now add up mosley whose main style is punch and clinch, what do you get? super-duper-snoozer. but in fairness to shane, i hope the shane that whupped margarito shows up for the fight.

well, for the sake of boxing, let's hope i'm wrong.

superfights? Thrilla in Manila, Hagler-Hearns, Leonard-Hearns, baby, those were superfights.
0
...
written by ALEXMAC, January 31, 2010
Good post AH. I'm not really all that keen on the criteria though. Shouldn't you judge a superfight going out, not coming in. IE: Why shouldn't Leonard/Duran 1 be a superfight, when the guy who wasn't theoretically 'at his best' won?

Likewise for Mayweather/Mosley. Will we really know if it should qualify until we see Mosley in the ring on the night? I like his chances. Nazim 'the necromancer' Richardson seems pretty good at bringing fighters back from the dead...
0
...
written by yohan, January 31, 2010
A fighter doesn't start off like MANNY PACQUIAO, just ordinary, and then once he gets over the age of 25, he becomes an EXTRAORDINARY FIGHTER!!!!! -FLOYD "MONEY" MAYWEATHER


the truth will set you free... its a shame a lot of fans and media where so gullible.. the mayweathers doesnt want the pacquiao fight and in an expense of someones reputation.. just to save some face..

kinda disappointing boxing peeps are so gullible.. this is why boxing will be outside of mainstream in our lifetime
0
...
written by Hit Dog, January 31, 2010
Man, for some reason this post really brought out the illiteracy.

No one knows what a really amazing fight will come of (no one but the truly hardcore gave a damn about Gatti-Ward I, for example), so I'm not really sure what all Farhood's qualifications mean or matter, let alone why we should even try to extend them. Mayweather-Mosley is coming too late, and is coming in place of the fight the world really seems to want, but the point is, it's a desirable match-up, and I'll be happy to plunk down for it.

But Tyson-Douglas, Lewis-Rahman (and Lewis-Rahman II, with its concussive conclusion), Mosley-Forrest, and Forrest-Mayorga all ended up being pretty amazing too because, hey, boxing isn't all that predictable.

"Superfights" are made. Great fights have a way of sometimes just happening.
0
...
written by Hit Dog, January 31, 2010
Naazim "The Necromancer" Richardson is the greatest new nickname I've heard coined in some time, by the way. Bring out your dead.
0
...
written by Arinolang_Butas, January 31, 2010
FLOYD CHICKENWEATHER, PLEASE STOP the loudMouth Talking!!! ...Concentrate, get on the Business and SIGN the Contract to Fight Shane Mosley.!!! ....No Alibis, No Bullshit Whatsoever.!!! ACT, THINK & FIGHT Like the PACMAN, UNDERSTOOD????? ... Or you're SCARED again???????!!!???????
0
...
written by KULANGOT, January 31, 2010
Pacman agreed to be blood tested 3x including 1 in his locker room immediately after the fight, if he's on steroid it will still show. He's not afraid of needles or blood testing. The mayweather camp discovered pacman's kryptonite months before they challenged him, that is blood drawn close to the fight just like what happened in pacman's first bout with morales which he lost. Watch "pacquiao interview by dong puno 2005" on you tube to know better the issue on blood testing.

Pacman has been knocking down his opponents even before he reached the U.S. Watch teenager pacquiao vs mendones on you tube & see for yourself that pacman has always been fast & powerful inside the ring.

The steroid accusation is baseless as it was started by the mayweather & golden boy camps out of jealousy to pacman's success & popularity in global boxing.
0
SHAM
written by delpilar, January 31, 2010
floydie-shane is a sham.
0
...
written by JB, January 31, 2010
Interesting criteria. Why would it be so important that the fighters be at their optimal weight and in their primes? I would throw out those criteria and add another - that the fight had to be significantly hyped and had to live up to that hype.

Based on those criteria, you would have to take a couple fights off your list and add a few more. Tyson-Holyfield I, Pacquiao-Morales I&II, Pryor-Arguello, Leonard-Hagler, Leonard-Duran I&II. You could argue that most of the fights involving the Four Kings belong on the list.
0
Mosely vs. Mayweather
written by lebron, January 31, 2010
If this fight will going to happen for sure this will give mayweather the biggest challenge in his career even Mosley is almost 40 years old, He still have the power and speed to beat mayweather.
0
...
written by bolo punch, January 31, 2010
a superfight then could be defined as fighting the best when they are at their best. pacquiao took on fights against opposition who were still considered to be at their prime. while mayweather jr. always had some advantage to himself in many of his fights.
0
Floyd the great ploy!
written by bbtroy, February 01, 2010
Floyd believes he is the greatest. Anybody who outdo him is on PED!

As always, Floyd is going to use every inch of the the ring against Mosley. He'll just coast along for a UD or SD if he is able to tag Sugar early on. I hope Shane does'nt run out of gas chasing him!

BTW, did Floyd sign the contract yet?
0
What the Fuck..
written by Ganryu, February 01, 2010
what the fuck are you filipinos talking about? Im a filipino too but if cant even understand the context of someone's point or opinion..pls. think twice before accusing them of such easy things as racism, stupidity, homosexuality..the only
people you are embarrassing are yourselves. Paqcuiao would be ashamed of your manners. You make me cringe..ignorant motherfuckers. there , im one of you now. go support Floyd & hnag out with his dad & roger. thats where some of you belong. Putang ina nyo.
0
...
written by The Truth, February 01, 2010
Mosley is old and washed-up. I know that he knows this hence his desperation in fighting Mayweather and Pacquiao. He just wants to have his biggest retirement payday.

It's one thing being a former P4P, but being this desperate? It's just sad.
0
...
written by Andrew Harrison, February 01, 2010
Cheers AM, I kinda like the criteria myself, for me, it indicates just what a superb performance it was by Duran, a great lightweight defeating a great welterweight.

@Hit Dog, I agree, two fighters who aren’t great (like Gatti and Ward) can still make for a great fight, I probably didn’t explain this sufficiently in my post.

I think what Farhood was getting at was the number of times we’re sold a bout as being a ‘superfight’ (namely, two great fighters at the same weight meeting in their primes) when in fact it falls short. I’m thinking where one fighter is past their prime (Foreman against Holyfield, Chavez against De la Hoya), too small (Chavez against Whitaker, Duran against Benitez, Nelson against Whitaker) or their greatness is in dispute (Cooney against Holmes, Quartey against De la Hoya, Taylor against Hopkins).

In the fights you list, I’d argue that Douglas was great for one night only, Rahman never was, Forrest’s greatness is up for debate whilst Mayorga’s isn’t.

Thankfully for us, a ‘superfight’ isn’t the only method for making great fights, if it was, we’d really be stuffed.

@ JB –Those selections would probably be discounted using the three point check for the following reasons: Tyson’s prime was the late 80’s, he wasn’t the same guy when he fought Holyfield. Morales was a little heavy against Pacquiao (despite winning the first), he didn’t get much done at super feather. Arguello was no light welter, Leonard was no middleweight and Hagler was past his best. As mentioned earlier, Duran was a lightweight, any work he got done afterwards (I’m thinking Leonard, Hagler and Moore) was a bonus and shouldn’t reflect too heavily on his legacy.
0
...
written by Hit Dog, February 01, 2010
Well explained, Andrew. Keep writing here.
0
hagler vs duran
written by cesar montano, February 01, 2010
hagler vs duran was another great fight...duran actually would have won if it was a 12 round fight

http://www.sportzhypeboxing.com/2010/02/business-as-usual-for-pacman-and.html
0
"How in the hell"
written by edub, February 01, 2010
How in the world did this turn into a steroid argument?

Everybody do some research. Blood testing is really the only way that can catch the steroids designed to get around testing, as well as EPO's. Being tested 24 days before the fight and the locker room after would really not help that much.

Pacqiaou has never been linked to steroids, and has shown speed and power at ever weightclass he's won a title in. He has also improved his technical boxing skills tenfold over the past 5-6 years.

That should be all there is to say.

0
@ah
written by Scott Kraus, February 01, 2010
I think that, arguably, Mayweather-Corrales and/or Mayweather-Castillo could be contenders for the list post-1999. I still argue that Mayweather is a top 3 130-pounder all-time and both he and Corrales were undefeated at the time of that fight. Diego wound up having a nice little career after being dismantled by Mayweather. You could arguably watch Castillo hitting his prime in the middle rounds of his first fight with Floyd. I guess Castillo and Corrales may lose out on the "legitimately great fighters" argument but not by a lot in my book. Was Meldrick Taylor really that much better than Castillo or Corrales?

0
...
written by JB, February 01, 2010
Andrew - I think you missed my point. I think the three point check is way too restrictive to begin with. I mean, if you are drawing up a list of superfights over the last 30 years based on a certain criteria, and Leonard-Hagler does not make the list, it's time to revisit your criteria! That fight is one of the top-5 biggest fights over the past three decades, and arguably was THE biggest.

This is all depends on your definition of a "superfight" of course, but you cannot convince me that Carbajal-Gonzalez belongs on a list of superfights, while the "No Mas" fight does not just because Duran was better at lightweight or the first Tyson-Holyfield does not just because Tyson was past his prime. That's splitting hairs to the point of historical silliness.
0
...
written by JB, February 02, 2010
Just to get a little discussion/debate going (since I like the topic), I put together what I thought were the most significant fights by decade. I tried to pick just 5 for each decade, but that proved way too hard! My criteria was pretty loose - the fight just needed to have significant impact, both at the time and historically, in the sport and in p4p superiority. Thoughts?

80s
Leonard-Duran I - 1980
Leonard-Hearns I - 1981
Pryor-Arguello - 1982
Spinks-Holmes - 1985
Hagler-Hearns - 1985
Leonard-Hagler - 1987

90s
Chavez-Taylor I - 1990
Tyson-Douglas - 1990
Bowe-Holyfield I - 1992
Chavez-Whitaker - 1993
Tyson-Holyfield I - 1996
ODLH-Trinidad - 1999
Lewis-Holyfield II - 1999

00s
Barrera-Morales (trilogy)
Mosley-ODLH (I&II)
Pacquiao-Morales II - 2006
Mayweather-ODLH - 2007
Pacquiao-ODLH - 2008
Vazquez-Marquez (trilogy)
Jones Jr.-Ruiz - 2003 (not sure this belongs)
Tim Starks
@jb
written by Tim Starks, February 02, 2010
I don't have many quibbles with your list. I might be inclined to take out Jones-Ruiz and put in Lewis-Tyson. I know, Tyson was faded, but it was a HUGE fight, a HUGE event, with a HUGE knockout... and Tyson was still ranked #2 at heavy at the time.
0
...
written by JB, February 02, 2010
Yeah Tim, I agree. I might also sneak in ODLH-Whitaker. You gotta give it to Oscar, he was in a ton of meaningful fights. And if I'm going to include Vazquez-Marquez, I would need to include Sanchez-Gomez and the Carbajal-Gonzalez trilogy. Hard to know which fights to include for Pac - perhaps his bouts with Barrera and Marquez deserve the cut as well.

In terms of significance, I see Mayweather-Mosely up there with Chavez-Taylor I, although I am sure it won't be nearly as entertaining. Pac-Mayweather would be the biggest fight since Leonard-Hagler. No fight since has carried so much importance in determining the best over a decade.
0
...
written by Andrew Harrison, February 02, 2010
Hi Scott, good calls on those two, you could be right with Mayweather-Corrales however I’m not as sure about describing Castillo as a great fighter, he’d just miss for me personally. Corrales great? Hmmm, it's up for argument. Mind you Farhood has Riddick Bowe pegged as a great fighter which is up for debate also and for me, Corrales and Castillo were better fighters than both Gonzalez and Carbajal.

It’d be hard for me to comment on Taylor, he’s one of my all time favourites!!

Hi JB, I guess ‘superfight’ can have different meanings, it’s probably a bit too general a term. In the main, we see it used in conjunction with huge ‘event’ fights, bouts which create huge interest across the world. I think Farhood tried to drill down into that and question which of these huge events actually involved the best fighting the best at their best. Basically, did they do what they said on the tin? You ust about nailed all the significant fights with your list but how many of them featured a loser who had the disclaimer of not being at their very best?

Obviously Leonard-Hagler was huge, yet when defining both men’s legacies, I’d dispute that this was a defining fight for each. In terms of impact and the sheer hugeness of it however, then it was the closest thing to Ali-Frazier. Tyson-Holyfield was massive yet it didn’t feature both men at their best, nor did ‘The Thrilla in Manilla’, Leonard-Hearns 2 (great fight between two men who were no longer great fighters).

A fight’s significance is something else. Louis-Schmeling for instance was hugely important yet did'nt pit two greats together at their peak. Same with Dempsey-Carpentier, Mayweather-De la Hoya and Hopkins-Calzaghe among others (although I’m not sure Calzaghe was ever great).

If we imagine that Martians landed tomorrow and then requested an example of boxing at its very best, I wouldn’t show them Tyson-Lewis because it made money and featured two big names, or Gatti-Ward because it was one of the best ever slugfests, I’d give them Leonard-Hearns or Ali-Frazier just as a tennis buff might select Bjorg-McEnroe or Federer-Nadal.

Top comments though fellas.
0
...
written by JB, February 02, 2010
Andrew - I get your general point, although I guess I would ease up on the criteria a bit more than you (and Farhood).

Your comments on Leonard-Hagler surprise me though. You dispute that is was a defining fight for each!!?? Wow. I could not disagree with you more. The fight essentially settled who was the best boxer of the 80s. If Hagler had gotten the nod, he would be considered a Top 15 P4Per of all-time, not Leonard. There has not been a fight since that carried so much significance in that regard. The closest since was Chavez-Whitaker for dominance in the early 90s.

I also disagree somewhat about the fight not meeting the criteria. Hagler was not THAT far off his peak, and Leonard was as much of a middleweight as Hearns was in his fight against Hagler.
0
...
written by Andrew Harrison, February 02, 2010
JB, yeah, maybe I've been a bit too straight down the line but it's only out of respect for the few that hit those ultra high standards.
I'd probably argue that Leonard's defining fight came against Hearns and ditto for Hagler.
Leonard only had the single fight up at middle whereas Hearns made waves all the way up to light heavy, beating good men like Schuler, Roldan and Hill.
Hagler really laboured against Mugabi, a fight Leonard watched from ringside, which was the reason SRL unretired-he saw a weakness in Marvin which had not previously been there-he was shrewd guy. I think it'd have been harsh to base their overall historical ranking on that fight when both weren't at their very best (despite Leonard's miracle). If the decision had gone Hagler's way, I'd still rate Leonard the better fighter, just as I do Holyfield over Bowe and Lewis, Arguello over Pryor and Pep over Saddler.
0
...
written by JB, February 02, 2010
It's hard to tell how that decision impacted each man's final ranking among the ATGs. I happen to think a lot. I somewhat agree that Hearns was the signature fight for both, but their fight against each other was essentially for best of the era honors. There are a handful of fights like that and rarely are they for best of the DECADE. In the 90s, Whitaker and Chavez gave way to ODLH and Trinidad, who gave way to Mosley and Hopkins. Noone carried the torch that long. Back then, Leonard-Hagler was for all the marbles! Also, Hagler labored against Mugabi mainly because Mugabi was a tough, undefeated SOB! But yeah, I know there was talk that Hagler had slipped some.

Anyway, thanks much for the interesting discussion. Oh, and I forgot one big fight - Hopkins vs. Trinidad. That's gotta be on both of our lists.
0
...
written by Andrew Harrison, February 02, 2010
Yeah cheers JB, it's been really cool talking this one through. I don't really want to disagree with you anymore but....gulp....was Trinidad really a middleweight? Mind you, tell that to William Joppy I guess!!
0
...
written by JB, February 03, 2010
Andrew - Yeah, I would have to agree with you on that one. Scratch that!

Write comment

busy
 

About Bloguin

Bloguin is the revolutionary blog network specifically focused on helping bloggers get the most out of their websites. We're currently working on building a large network of online communities and hope to expand our blogging coverage to include a wide range of topics.

Advertisers

The Bloguin Network allows advertisers to promote their products and services to our ever-growing number of visitors. We offer both site-specific ad placements as well as the ability to run a network-wide campaign. If you're interested in working with Bloguin to meet your advertising needs, please contact us.

Bloggers Wanted

The Bloguin Network is always looking to expand. We're specifically looking for blogs in the sports, entertainment, and video games field, but are open to adding any type of quality site. If you're a blogger and interested in joining our network, please fill out our application form.

The Bloguin Login

The Bloguin Login gives you full access to everything our network has to offer. Your name and password will work for each and every one of our sites. Signing up is simple, and will allow you to post in all our forums, create member blogs, and access other cool features! What are you waiting for? Create an Account!