[ScouseLeader]

The main one for me is Marvin Hagler vs Roberto Duran. Now, I'm not entirely sure how you guys see it, but before I watched this fight I was under the impression that a) It was a VERY close fight in which Hagler won by a slight margin, and b) That is was open until the championship rounds it was most definitely anybody's contest, but Hagler pulled it out the bag.

When I watched it I was kind of surprised at what I saw. For me the fight wasn't 'close' in the sense that I had it 11-4 Hagler and even felt I was maybe a little generous giving Duran the rounds I did. I thought going into the championship rounds, Hagler could have been knocked down a few times and still wouldn't lose, such was the lead he had on my scorecard. Maybe my card is a bit of an anomaly, but I saw Hagler largely dominating aside from a couple of rounds where he fought a bit sloppily and Duran stepped on the gas.

As a series I view Torres/Tiger slighltly different from the consensus. For one, I feel that the first fight could easily go either way and that there was no definitive winner. And that the second fight was most definitely not a controversial decision as that too could have gone either way. I scored it one apiece, but it was closer than what I'd heard it would be on both occasions.

 

[GazOC]

Hagler-Hearns. People see "9 minutes of mayhem", I see 90 seconds of competitive fighting before Hagler walks down Hearns over the next 2 1/2 rounds.

 

[ScouseLeader]

Hagler-Hearns. People see "9 minutes of mayhem", I see 90 seconds of competitive fighting before Hagler walks down Hearns over the next 2 1/2 rounds.

Yeah, that's a good shout :good

Best fight even my arse.

 

[Michael]

Holmes vs Norton is one that always gets me. I made a thread on it back on the old website a good while back and all.

Before I saw the fight, I was under the impression that it was a razor close fight, and Larry pulled it out with a great effort in the last round.

When I actually watched it, I saw two things:

1: Holmes outboxed Norton and dominated the first 10 rounds and had the fight all sown up on the scorecards. I think I gave Norton 6 rounds at the most based on his championship rounds surge.

2:Norton battered Larry for the majority of the 12th round, I actually scored it a 10-8 round for him. Dont see any way Holmes could have stolen that round.

 

[Michael]

Hagler-Hearns. People see "9 minutes of mayhem", I see 90 seconds of competitive fighting before Hagler walks down Hearns over the next 2 1/2 rounds.

Fact:yep

De La Hoya-Quartey is another fight which I think has been given a false image of being some back and forth brawl, based largely on two rounds. It seemed a very tentaive affair for me when I watched it. And one I think Ike shaded it 114-112, largely based on him out jabbing De La Hoya.

 

[ScouseLeader]

Holmes vs Norton is one that always gets me. I made a thread on it back on the old website a good while back and all.

Before I saw the fight, I was under the impression that it was a razor close fight, and Larry pulled it out with a great effort in the last round.

When I actually watched it, I saw two things:

1: Holmes outboxed Norton and dominated the first 10 rounds and had the fight all sown up on the scorecards. I think I gave Norton 6 rounds at the most based on his championship rounds surge.

2:Norton battered Larry for the majority of the 12th round, I actually scored it a 10-8 round for him. Dont see any way Holmes could have stolen that round.

I agree, yeah. Thought Holmes won pretty clearly and I don't see how it can be scored for Norton. I scoffed at the SD to be honest.

 

[Chatty]

The main one for me is Marvin Hagler vs Roberto Duran. Now, I'm not entirely sure how you guys see it, but before I watched this fight I was under the impression that a) It was a VERY close fight in which Hagler won by a slight margin, and b) That is was open until the championship rounds it was most definitely anybody's contest, but Hagler pulled it out the bag.

When I watched it I was kind of surprised at what I saw. For me the fight wasn't 'close' in the sense that I had it 11-4 Hagler and even felt I was maybe a little generous giving Duran the rounds I did. I thought going into the championship rounds, Hagler could have been knocked down a few times and still wouldn't lose, such was the lead he had on my scorecard. Maybe my card is a bit of an anomaly, but I saw Hagler largely dominating aside from a couple of rounds where he fought a bit sloppily and Duran stepped on the gas.

As a series I view Torres/Tiger slighltly different from the consensus. For one, I feel that the first fight could easily go either way and that there was no definitive winner. And that the second fight was most definitely not a controversial decision as that too could have gone either way. I scored it one apiece, but it was closer than what I'd heard it would be on both occasions.

I think thats pretty much right, I think the problem with this one is everyone expected Duran to get battered and he actually hung in there but on points its pretty clearly Haglers most of the way as he is in complete control. Thing is its no drubbing so the fight looks closer than it should be on the cards. A lot of people took too much notice of the judges who had duran ahead with 3 to go.

Hagler-Hearns. People see "9 minutes of mayhem", I see 90 seconds of competitive fighting before Hagler walks down Hearns over the next 2 1/2 rounds.

Without a doubt, the fight is only competitive for half a round when Hearns hurts him early, once Hagler takes control in the 2nd half of that round he dominates the rest of the fight.

 

[Chatty]

I think I had Duran-Leonard 1 to Duran by about 5-6 rounds and whilst it was a close fight on rounds Duran dominated for me.

 

[ScouseLeader]

I think I had Duran-Leonard 1 to Duran by about 5-6 rounds and whilst it was a close fight on rounds Duran dominated for me.

I agree, yeah. Rounds were tight but the tide of the fight was only going one way.

 

[doug.ie]

Hagler-Hearns. People see "9 minutes of mayhem", I see 90 seconds of competitive fighting before Hagler walks down Hearns over the next 2 1/2 rounds.

i've always being afraid to publicly admit to feeling exactly that too.....thought i was the only one

 

[ScouseLeader]

i've always being afraid to publicly admit to feeling exactly that too.....thought i was the only one

It's okay doug, you're with friends here.

 

[Libertarian]

I think that Hagler vs Hearns was a great fight, but I ALWAYS get shit for saying that Leonard vs Hearns I is the better fight. By some distance the best fight I've ever seen.

Slightly controversial (or probably not) I think that Hearns turning Duran into 154lbs of pancake batter inside two rounds is pretty overrated, regardless of the fact that nobody had done that to Duran before, or since.

Trying to think of other examples...

 

[O59]

I've often read of the complete pasting that Marciano got at the hands of Walcott and how he saved the day with a good right hand, but when I watched it was far from a schooling. It was a close as hell action packed war. Not one-sided at all, although Walcott was up at the time of the KO.

 

[ScouseLeader]

I think that Hagler vs Hearns was a great fight, but I ALWAYS get shit for saying that Leonard vs Hearns I is the better fight. By some distance the best fight I've ever seen.

Slightly controversial (or probably not) I think that Hearns turning Duran into 154lbs of pancake batter inside two rounds is pretty overrated, regardless of the fact that nobody had done that to Duran before, or since.

Trying to think of other examples...

Leonard/Hearns one is a great fight, has a bit of everything, give me that over Hagler/Hearns any day.

 

[Michael]

I think that Hagler vs Hearns was a great fight, but I ALWAYS get shit for saying that Leonard vs Hearns I is the better fight. By some distance the best fight I've ever seen.

Slightly controversial (or probably not) I think that Hearns turning Duran into 154lbs of pancake batter inside two rounds is pretty overrated, regardless of the fact that nobody had done that to Duran before, or since.

Trying to think of other examples...

Why do you think overrated though?

 

[Libertarian]

Why do you think overrated though?

It was impressive, but in all honesty it's not far off what ought to happen.

A 6'1'' fighter at his absolute best vs a 33 y/o man who could barely be arsed training....

It's not on a par with the Cuevas and Hill wins, when assessing Hearns' career, IMHO of course.

 

[Vano-irons]

1) Kevin Mitchell vs John Murray. I saw Kevin lad the solid effect blows while dodging and weaving pretty much all of Murray's attacks. I had it 5-2 Mitchell going into the 8th.

2) Duran - Leonard 1. I had it 10-5 Duran. :conf

3) Duran - Leonard 2. Again, I had it close. I watched it think Duran was dominated and humiliated. Think I had it 4-3 in rounds.

4) leonard - Hearns 1. I saw tommy dominate the first 6 with the jab, Ray winning rounds 7, 8 and 9 big, before Leonard was made to look abolsutely clueless, marching forward and getting picked off in rounds 10, 11 and 12. Leonard just didn't know what to do in these rounds.

 

[doug.ie]

max baer and tony galento.

i honestly think it was a horrible display of boxing...like two old drunks outside a pub shouting insults at each other and swinging wildly off balance.
boxing books refer to it as a decent fight.

 

[Flea Man]

I don't see the genius operator a lot of peeps see in any Floyd Mayweather fights.

 

[doug.ie]

I don't see the genius operator a lot of peeps see in any Floyd Mayweather fights.

sorry flea...but i do