Boxing

[Nutsin]

Fights that would have had a different outcome if both fighters were in their prime.

I’ll go Hagler v Leonard and Tyson v Hollyfield.

Who you got?

[Massive Attack]

On my lunch break and finally been able to get round to watching it..

At least 3 of the first 4 rounds to Calzaghe. Even from the very 1st round Calzaghe had marked Reid on his left cheek needing work on it.

Reid holding on to Calzaghe a lot, even to the point at one stage of grabbing his leg ffs! Also kept twisting his arm up in holds. 5th Round - Reid arguably could have been deducted a point for persistent holding that was followed up by a muggy sucker punch right in front of the Ref who was trying to split them apart giving Reid a right bollocking for it. Reid then bangs him hard on the back of the head in a hold like a dirty cսnt who is showing signs of a frustrated Boxer. Calzaghe smashes him clean at another point then winks at his corner clearly enjoying himself that much in control of the fight as Reid holds on yet again for dear life. 6th Round Calzaghe manages to open up a cut on Reids other cheek now. 

By comparison Calzaghe at this stage is unmarked, whilst Reids got marked up on both sides of his face with Calzaghe clearly on top with Reid fortunate to not get deducted a point with how he's acted in there using dirty tactics trying to unsettle Calzaghe but to no effect.

[southbankbornnbred]

On Hagler/Leonard, when you watch that fight back, Leonard gets given rounds in which he did minimal work and (by his high standards) just flicked jabs, used his superb footwork. It's clever stuff by Leonard and he looks classy doing it. But Hagler's taking the fight to him and landing heavier blows, particularly to the body. But the judges don't value it as much. They score Leonard's late-round flurries every time.

Two great fighters with contrasting styles.

[southbankbornnbred]

That Calzaghe/Reid fight had some bonkers scoring, no question.

It was a tough, close bout. Yet every judge had a winner by five points!

But that's always the issue with boxing, particularly when you've got two well-matched fighters. Different judges value different things. There's no science to boxing scoring. Some judges value aggression more than others, some value precision.

Reid did throw a lot of punches that hit gloves and arms. They made a lot of noise, and got the crowd worked up. And, I think, there is merit in being the more aggressive fighter (because that's what fans want to see). But Calzaghe, like Eubank Snr, was adept at scoring heavily on counters. So, while his opponent might land one big-sounding punch that stops his opponent in his tracks, and gets the crowd on their feet, the likes of Calzaghe will land three "smaller" counter punches in quick succession.

Who do you score/favour in that situation?
(It's a bit of a rhetorical question: let's face it, nobody has ever really resolved this in boxing)

Good fight, that, though. I had Calzaghe as the winner. Not by much, and certainly not by five points. But, then, I'm not a boxing judge. Same as the Hagler/Leonard fight where, personally, I'm convinced Hagler won it narrowly.

[Massive Attack]

Oh no, I'd seen it all those years ago just not recently and wanted to see how 1 sided it was the way you've banged on about it like it was clearly a robbery. Without watching it back yet my memory of it was of a good contest but ultimately it was Calzaghe that proved he was still the winner that night. But maybe my memory is playing tricks on me so cheers for posting it up and I'll give it a watch.

[Council Scum]

1 is more extreme and short term weight loss compared to the other.

You managed to dig out this fight online then so we can all have a butchers at this apparent clear winner robbery of Reid?

Ok great, so one is extreme and banned, the other isn't. 

Here you go, figured you'd not seen it as everyone knows it was a Frank Warren special. You clearly aren't a Calzaghe fan or a boxing fan, or I wouldn't even need to show you this. 

[Massive Attack]

1 is more extreme and short term weight loss compared to the other.

You managed to dig out this fight online then so we can all have a butchers at this apparent clear winner robbery of Reid?

[Council Scum]

Cutting weight is more dangerous than gaining weight for a fight. Thought that was common knowledge.

Cutting weight and dropping weight are two different things. You know how to do a weight cut, right? 

[Council Scum]

I disagree with you about Ruddock, he could fight and he could hit.

I think you’ll find Hearns fought Leonard twice, First fight Leonard caught him late on after Hearns was putting on a show and was ahead on points on all 3 judges scorecards, the second fight Hearns put Leonard on the canvas 3 times and they called it a draw. A complete travesty of a decision. Even Leonard admitted later on that “Tommy won that fight.” 

As for Hagler fighting at middleweight, everyone knows it’s easier for a fighter to go up in weight than it is for a fighter to go down in weight for a fight. Leonard even said he decided to fight Hagler as he had slowed down and wasn’t as quick as he used to to be. 

As for Hagler v Leonard there are plenty of fight fans who think Hagler won that fight but as per the decision went Leonard’s way in Vegas. 

 

You claimed Hearns beat Leonard in his prime, he didn't. He lost. and this is from Boxrec just to clear up how that fight went
"The scoring was controversial. Many felt that rounds six and seven should have been scored 10-8 for Leonard. Pat Putnam of Sports Illustrated opined:Leonard dominated the fight and dictated the pace. The only excitement and action were produced by Leonard. There were only three lopsided rounds, the sixth, seventh and 13th, and Leonard won them all. And the only fighter really hurt was Hearns. But each of the three judges for the WBC-WBA title unification bout had Leonard behind—by four, three and two points—at the end. All of them inexplicably equated a slap on the wrist with a mugging.Leonard had Hearns reeling in the sixth and seventh rounds; was within a couple of punches of knocking him out in the 13th; and finally bullied him so brutally in the 14th that Pearl had to stop it. However, if the fight had run its 15-round course, Hearns no doubt would have won because of the judges' distorted scoring."

You think it's easier to go up in weight? You ever fought someone whose naturally bigger at their weight? I think you don't know the first clue about what you are talking about.

It's obvious you didn't even know bout the second fight between Leonard and Hearns, which is surprising seeing as you are such as self proclaimed expert.

I said Hearns won the fight but don't take my word for it, Here's a clip of Sugar Ray Leonard saying it himself, unless of course you know more about the fight than Sugar Ray?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... blSJE,st:0

And just in case you don't believe the clip here is another one


https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... gScbA,st:0



As for a fighter losing weight s opposed to gaining weight for a fight here is what AI says.

AI Overview
It is generally easier for a boxer to gain weight for a fight than it is to lose it, especially in the short term. Gaining weight is a matter of eating more calories and protein, and can be done through a strategic diet and weightlifting program. Losing weight is a more complex and often dangerous process involving extreme methods like dehydration to shed water weight quickly, which can negatively impact a fighter's strength and performance if not managed properly. 

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about.

As you were.

The second bout between Hearns and Leonard was in 1989 and was at Supermiddleweight, it was a draw, how the hell is that Hearn beating a prime Leonard. Have a day off, that's embarrassing. 

The first fight was for the undisputed Welterweight title, not light middle like you claim, you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. 

All fighters lose weight in a training camp to fight at their naturally weight, but that;'s not what you are talking about, you claim it's easier to put muscle on and fight a naturally bigger guy at his own weight, you are talking complete and utter bollocks (I've done both)  and if AI is the best you can come up with, you really can't claim to know shit about boxing. 

[Far Cough UKunt]

Arm span or reach (sometimes referred to as wingspan, or spelled armspan) is the physical measurement of the length from one end of an individual's arms (measured at the fingertips) to the other when raised parallel to the ground at shoulder height at a 90° angle. The arm span measurement is usually very close to the person's height.

Wiki

[Lee Trundle]

[Gank]

So his reach was as long as he was tall? That's cheating.

[Far Cough UKunt]

Rocky Marciano at 5' 10" only had a 67" reach he had a few fights in his 30s and the bloke never lost, but there were a few bums in there to be honest apart from Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Louis and Archie Moore.

Don Cockell was one of his fights.

[Pshyco scored all 4]

Tyson was a scumbag no question.  But comparing the fighter that 1st won the title . To the post prison version is a joke . January 1988 Larry Holmes beats him quicker than both holyfield and Lewis.  And that is a fact  .

[Pshyco scored all 4]

Prison finished mike tyson . Wasn't even 50% the fighter that 1st won the title . His Footspeed was gone.  Which the likes of council scum overlook . He was 5,11 and with a mere 71 inch reach . Even mayweather had a longer reach . Find a heavyweight that short that peaked beyond 30 and il give you every penny in my bank account.  

[Nutsin]

Nutsin, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Nobody is talking about how difficult it is to change weight, the discussion is about how difficult it is to actually fight at an unnatural weight and the fact is, fighting up is a lot more difficult than fighting down.

If you thought we were arguing that it is more difficult to MAKE the weight when fighting lower than higher, you're absolutely correct. But that's obvious.

Sorry Gank, It is you who does not know what they are talking about.

I was responding to this comment from Council Scum about Leonard v Hagler.

"You think it's easier to go up in weight? You ever fought someone whose naturally bigger at their weight? I think you don't know the first clue about what you are talking about."

Here is my comment that Council scum was responding to.

'as for Hagler fighting at Middleweight everyone knows it's easier for a fighter to go up in weight than it is for a fighter to go down in weight FOR A FIGHT.'

It's on the thread, not difficult to find.

A natural progression for any fighter is to fight heavier as we all tend to gain weight as we age. Leonard fought at 154 LBS in 1981 and became a world champion at light middleweight, He then fought Hagler in 1987 at Middleweight (160 lbs). 
He then fought Hearns in the 2nd fight in 1989 at Super Middleweight (160-168 LBS) Proving my point.

It might be obvious to you, it was not so obvious to Council Scum.

[Gank]

Nutsin, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Nobody is talking about how difficult it is to change weight, the discussion is about how difficult it is to actually fight at an unnatural weight and the fact is, fighting up is a lot more difficult than fighting down.

If you thought we were arguing that it is more difficult to MAKE the weight when fighting lower than higher, you're absolutely correct. But that's obvious.

[Nutsin]

Cutting weight is more dangerous than gaining weight for a fight. Thought that was common knowledge.

It is common knowledge to those who know what they are talking about.

[Nutsin]

If you're resorting to AI, then you've lost the fight.

A TKO win for Scum, here.

 

 

Boring Child.

[Trilby55]

Fights that would have had a different outcome if both fighters were in their prime.

I’ll go Hagler v Leonard and Tyson v Hollyfield.

Who you got?

Has there been any mention for Charlie Magri on here ? 

[Nutsin]

It's obvious you didn't even know bout the second fight between Leonard and Hearns, which is surprising seeing as you are such as self proclaimed expert.

I said Hearns won the fight but don't take my word for it, Here's a clip of Sugar Ray Leonard saying it himself, unless of course you know more about the fight than Sugar Ray?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... blSJE,st:0

And just in case you don't believe the clip here is another one


https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... gScbA,st:0



As for a fighter losing weight s opposed to gaining weight for a fight here is what AI says.

AI Overview
It is generally easier for a boxer to gain weight for a fight than it is to lose it, especially in the short term. Gaining weight is a matter of eating more calories and protein, and can be done through a strategic diet and weightlifting program. Losing weight is a more complex and often dangerous process involving extreme methods like dehydration to shed water weight quickly, which can negatively impact a fighter's strength and performance if not managed properly. 

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about.

As you were.

 

Nutsin, what you and AI are saying is that it is physically easier to put on weight than to lose it. Of course that's true, it's easy to eat kebabs and drink beer all day but hard to exercise and diet.

What Council Scum is saying is that it's much MUCH harder to fight at a heavier weight against someone who is naturally that weight than it is to take your superior strength to a faster but ultimately weaker naturally smaller opponent.

And he's right.

No, what Council scum is saying is that I was wrong about it being harder to lose weight for a fight than go up in weight for a fight. We are not talking about going from welTerweight to heavyweight ffs.

Leonard fought Hearns at light middleweight in 1981 (154 lbs)  and Hagler at Middleweight in 1987 up to (160 lbs) 2 BIG MACS FFS. 

You're both wrong.

 

 

correction he fought Hearns at welterweight in 1981 (147 LBS), his second fight with Hearns was at super middleweight at 168 lbs.

Leonard's first fight at light middleweight(super welterweight) was in 1981 (154 lbs) he won by knockout against Kalule and became WBA champ, he also fought Terry Norris at this weight class.

[Lee Trundle]

If you're resorting to AI, then you've lost the fight.

A TKO win for Scum, here.

[Big head]

Nutsin thinks he's Dave fucking Caldwell.

 

[Nutsin]

 

You claimed Hearns beat Leonard in his prime, he didn't. He lost. and this is from Boxrec just to clear up how that fight went
"The scoring was controversial. Many felt that rounds six and seven should have been scored 10-8 for Leonard. Pat Putnam of Sports Illustrated opined:Leonard dominated the fight and dictated the pace. The only excitement and action were produced by Leonard. There were only three lopsided rounds, the sixth, seventh and 13th, and Leonard won them all. And the only fighter really hurt was Hearns. But each of the three judges for the WBC-WBA title unification bout had Leonard behind—by four, three and two points—at the end. All of them inexplicably equated a slap on the wrist with a mugging.Leonard had Hearns reeling in the sixth and seventh rounds; was within a couple of punches of knocking him out in the 13th; and finally bullied him so brutally in the 14th that Pearl had to stop it. However, if the fight had run its 15-round course, Hearns no doubt would have won because of the judges' distorted scoring."

You think it's easier to go up in weight? You ever fought someone whose naturally bigger at their weight? I think you don't know the first clue about what you are talking about.

It's obvious you didn't even know bout the second fight between Leonard and Hearns, which is surprising seeing as you are such as self proclaimed expert.

I said Hearns won the fight but don't take my word for it, Here's a clip of Sugar Ray Leonard saying it himself, unless of course you know more about the fight than Sugar Ray?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... blSJE,st:0

And just in case you don't believe the clip here is another one


https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... gScbA,st:0



As for a fighter losing weight s opposed to gaining weight for a fight here is what AI says.

AI Overview
It is generally easier for a boxer to gain weight for a fight than it is to lose it, especially in the short term. Gaining weight is a matter of eating more calories and protein, and can be done through a strategic diet and weightlifting program. Losing weight is a more complex and often dangerous process involving extreme methods like dehydration to shed water weight quickly, which can negatively impact a fighter's strength and performance if not managed properly. 

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about.

As you were.

 

Nutsin, what you and AI are saying is that it is physically easier to put on weight than to lose it. Of course that's true, it's easy to eat kebabs and drink beer all day but hard to exercise and diet.

What Council Scum is saying is that it's much MUCH harder to fight at a heavier weight against someone who is naturally that weight than it is to take your superior strength to a faster but ultimately weaker naturally smaller opponent.

And he's right.

No, what Council scum is saying is that I was wrong about it being harder to lose weight for a fight than go up in weight for a fight. We are not talking about going from welTerweight to heavyweight ffs.

Leonard fought Hearns at light middleweight in 1981 (154 lbs)  and Hagler at Middleweight in 1987 up to (160 lbs) 2 BIG MACS FFS. 

You're both wrong.

[Gank]

I disagree with you about Ruddock, he could fight and he could hit.

I think you’ll find Hearns fought Leonard twice, First fight Leonard caught him late on after Hearns was putting on a show and was ahead on points on all 3 judges scorecards, the second fight Hearns put Leonard on the canvas 3 times and they called it a draw. A complete travesty of a decision. Even Leonard admitted later on that “Tommy won that fight.” 

As for Hagler fighting at middleweight, everyone knows it’s easier for a fighter to go up in weight than it is for a fighter to go down in weight for a fight. Leonard even said he decided to fight Hagler as he had slowed down and wasn’t as quick as he used to to be. 

As for Hagler v Leonard there are plenty of fight fans who think Hagler won that fight but as per the decision went Leonard’s way in Vegas. 

 

You claimed Hearns beat Leonard in his prime, he didn't. He lost. and this is from Boxrec just to clear up how that fight went
"The scoring was controversial. Many felt that rounds six and seven should have been scored 10-8 for Leonard. Pat Putnam of Sports Illustrated opined:Leonard dominated the fight and dictated the pace. The only excitement and action were produced by Leonard. There were only three lopsided rounds, the sixth, seventh and 13th, and Leonard won them all. And the only fighter really hurt was Hearns. But each of the three judges for the WBC-WBA title unification bout had Leonard behind—by four, three and two points—at the end. All of them inexplicably equated a slap on the wrist with a mugging.Leonard had Hearns reeling in the sixth and seventh rounds; was within a couple of punches of knocking him out in the 13th; and finally bullied him so brutally in the 14th that Pearl had to stop it. However, if the fight had run its 15-round course, Hearns no doubt would have won because of the judges' distorted scoring."

You think it's easier to go up in weight? You ever fought someone whose naturally bigger at their weight? I think you don't know the first clue about what you are talking about.

It's obvious you didn't even know bout the second fight between Leonard and Hearns, which is surprising seeing as you are such as self proclaimed expert.

I said Hearns won the fight but don't take my word for it, Here's a clip of Sugar Ray Leonard saying it himself, unless of course you know more about the fight than Sugar Ray?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... blSJE,st:0

And just in case you don't believe the clip here is another one


https://www.google.com/search?q=sugar+r ... gScbA,st:0



As for a fighter losing weight s opposed to gaining weight for a fight here is what AI says.

AI Overview
It is generally easier for a boxer to gain weight for a fight than it is to lose it, especially in the short term. Gaining weight is a matter of eating more calories and protein, and can be done through a strategic diet and weightlifting program. Losing weight is a more complex and often dangerous process involving extreme methods like dehydration to shed water weight quickly, which can negatively impact a fighter's strength and performance if not managed properly. 

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about.

As you were.

 

 

Nutsin, what you and AI are saying is that it is physically easier to put on weight than to lose it. Of course that's true, it's easy to eat kebabs and drink beer all day but hard to exercise and diet.

What Council Scum is saying is that it's much MUCH harder to fight at a heavier weight against someone who is naturally that weight than it is to take your superior strength to a faster but ultimately weaker naturally smaller opponent.

And he's right.

[Massive Attack]

Cutting weight is more dangerous than gaining weight for a fight. Thought that was common knowledge.