Comments for Anatomy Of A Superfight at http://queensberry-rules.com , comment 1 to 37 out of 20 comments http://queensberry-rules.com Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:26:58 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2468 Andrew - Yeah, I would have to agree with you on that one. Scratch that! - JB Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:28:57 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2411 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!! - Andrew Harrison Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:55:55 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2410 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. - JB Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:38:37 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2407 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. - Andrew Harrison Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:41:37 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2405 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. - JB Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:11:07 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2401 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. - Andrew Harrison Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:13:06 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2398 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. - JB Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:17:49 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2397 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. - Tim Starks Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:29:38 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2395 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) - JB Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:21:54 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2394 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. - JB Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:24:55 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2392 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? - Scott Kraus Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:35:46 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2391 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. - edub Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:36:03 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2390 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 - cesar montano Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:17:36 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2389 Well explained, Andrew. Keep writing here. - Hit Dog Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:20:57 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2388 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. - Andrew Harrison Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:48:25 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2387 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. - The Truth Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:31:48 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2386 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. - Ganryu Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:19:55 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2385 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? - bbtroy Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:19:52 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2384 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. - bolo punch Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:14:45 +0100 http://queensberry-rules.com/2010-articles/january/anatomy-of-a-superfight.html#comment-2383 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. - lebron Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:11:20 +0100