Big Willy

Now I don't really know too much about the fighters of the 40's, 50's and 60's but I was just thinking about fighters who could now be considered one of the greats if circumstances had been different. Here is my list:

1. Salvador Sanchez - Quite an easy one. He was already a star at the time of his death aged just 23 and it was clear to all he would have become one of the greatest of all time.

2. Wilfredo Benitez - Obviously already considered a great but if only he had been a little more dedicated and worked on his unbelievable talents, I firmly believe he could have beaten the Fab 4 of the 1980's.

3. Aaron Pryor - Again someone who is considered a great fighter but never got the big match he was looking for with Leonard or Hearns (who he beat as an amateur). Also his biggest win, over Arguello, is tainted in controversy and he then retired early leaving people to wonder how he in his prime would have got on against Leonard in particular.

4. Meldrick Taylor - Perhaps if he hadn't had to fight Chavez or had fought a more sensible fight, he could have continued his progress. Regardless of his willingness to engage and throw punches, he had all the tools to be great. He was a quick counter puncher and was possessed with lightning speed that I have never seen the likes of.

5. Billy Collins Jr - We will never know how far he could have gone but Top Rank thought a hell of a lot of him and with the right circumstances who knows how far he could have gone.

So that would be 5 that I think. Does anyone have any to add or any comments on the 5 I have chosen?

I am an Englishman and all I have heard this week is how Wales are unstoppable and England have no chance. The fact is that this current Welsh team have played two matches so far in this tournament. Thet beat Ireland with a last minute penalty when the Irish were the better side for massive parts of the game, and they only beat a poor Scotland side by taking advantage of extra men on the pitch. Wales are not unbeatable and I feel they could be in for a massive shock when they do not win the apparently already sealed Grand Slam!

I am not convinced however England are ready to beat them yet. England have an exciting back line and the return of Tuilagi definitely adds a big threat but whether this side is ready to beat the first decent team they have faced I am unsure.

In my opinion Wales will probably still win but I think it will be close and nervy for them and, while the media will no doubt claim it as a brilliant victory, the fact is if Wales are as good as everyone is saying they should be beating this England side by 20 or 30 points. We shall see!

Obviously Meldrick was incredible even by the age of 23 but it does make me wonder whether if he fought the Chavez fight as he should have done, and as he did for most of the evening, and had won a decision and not been beaten up to within an inch of his life, whether he could have become one of the greatest of all time. I know that is a big statement but to me he had the quickest handspeed I have ever seen and that includes Leonard, Mayweather etc to go with good movement, underrated power and he also had a good chin (nobody else could have taken such a beating from Chavez for almost 12 rounds). Without the punishment he took in that fight could he have been one of the best ever?

BQ: Although it has been asked many times before! Should the fight have been stopped? I like to think I am unbiased on the issue not being American or Mexican and being a great fan of both fighters and after a lot of thought I think Steele made a mistake. Ignoring the fact that technically Taylor should have been disqualified for Lou Duva being his usual attention seeking self and climbing onto the apron, Steele should have made sure Chavez was in the neutral corner which he was not and then it seems clear to me that Taylor is responding to Steele's questions with a small but noticeable nod of the head. Taylor got up at 6 and looked as conscious as you can be in that situation. Steele knew due to the flashing red light that Chavez would not have been able to land another shot and Taylor should have finished the fight. (Although this wouldn't change how Taylor's career was essentially ruined by this fight I am interested to know what you think as I feel he should have had his victory)

Local UK time

I have just come to university and there is a girl who I am crazy about. I don't believe in love at first sight at all and I have now known her for 5 days but somehow she has got me in a position I have never been in before. She is a nice looking girl but more than that she is just the most amazing person I have ever met. This might sound soppy but while I have had girlfriends before I wouldn't say I have ever been in love and now this girl comes along and within a week I already love her so much.

The problem is she has a boyfriend, who she has been with for quite a long time, and although he isn't here and I don't know him at all it is obviously stopping me telling her how I feel and even if I did tell her I live next door to her and it would make things very awkward. How do I stop these feelings. I can't have her and it upsets me more than anything else but I don't want to keep feeling like this. Please help me, I can't do anything without thinking of her.

Obviously Tommy is a legend of the Sport but his legacy is largely in losing two of the biggest and best fights I have ever seen against Leonard and Hagler. I wonder if Hearns had lived in a different generation whether he might be known as one of the top 5 ever because he had great power and tremendous boxing skill and may well have gone unbeaten in different eras.

Or is his reputation enhanced by the massive fights with Hagler and Leonard, not to mention he did what no other man could do and flatten Roberto Duran inside two rounds and outboxed the genius Wilfred Benitez despite having a seriously broken hand. I wonder whether fighting the best 4 boxers in his generation and going 2-2 is better than fighting the best 4 in a different era and going 4-0?

With the news today that Froch has split with the promoter who failed to get him on TV even in the UK, I wondered what people think of him as a fighter and as a personality. I personally believe that he is a very talented fighter who doesn't get the credit he deserves. In his last 5 fights he has beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham as well as putting up an excellent show in falling short against Kessler. I really do think he is the only super middleweight in the world who has the potential to beat Andre Ward and I wondered what everyone thought?

I know this question has been asked a hundred times but I thought I would give you my reading of the fight. The first thing to say is that the official criteria to score a boxing match are 4 categories: Clean Punching, Defence, Effective Aggression and Ring Generalship. That being said I will break the fight down.

Rounds 1 and 2: Clearly both for Leonard. Hagler made the biggest mistake of his career coming out and fighting orthodox when he was a destructive southpaw.

Rounds 3 and 4: Hagler's skills already looked diminished over the years but he landed the cleaner shots and begun to find his range in the 3rd and although it was close, Marvin's cleaner hitting won that round. In the 4th Ray was at his frustrating best and there were worrying signs for Marvin that he was missing by a long way. Leonard's round

Rounds 5,6,7 and 8: To me this was the point Marvin took over the fight. He visibly hurt Leonard in the 5th and although I gave the 6th to Ray, in the 7th and 8th Marvin was the aggressor and was the one landing more cleanly and more powerfully. I had the fight even after 8 rounds.

Round 9: This was an important round and was one of the best in middleweight history. Lots of people give this round to Leonard because of his remarkable recovery. However it was probably Marvin's best round of the fight. He hurt Leonard and landed a lot of good clean shots whereas Leonard's punches, although flashy, did not land cleanly.

Rounds 10 and 11: Two pretty close rounds and I had to watch round 10 twice before I could decide who to score it for but once again like the middle rounds it was Marvin who was aggressive and was controlling the ring. Ray was taking long range potshots with the occassional flashy combination but Marvin was the more effective.

Round 12: An obvious Leonard round although too late on my card. The more effective flurries of punches should have been used earlier.

Result: Hagler 115 Leonard 113 (this is exactly the same score as Lou Filippo had it on the night)

When you look at the 4 categories this is what you get:

Defence: This one would have to go to Ray. Marvin was never difficult to hit and even less so in this fight whereas Ray did show some good defence.

Clean Punching: After the first few rounds when neither landed much clean, all the clean shots were landed by Hagler. Ray's punches looked better than they actually were and if you take the emotion out of the fight and particularly the 9th round then that is obvious.

Ring Generalship: This is a contested one because it could be argued that Ray was the one controlling the tempo of the fight and he probably was but he was never in control of the ring. Hagler has the centre of the ring and Ray was simply dancing around him. Marvin got to Ray many more times than Ray got to Marvin. Whichever way you see this it is very close.

Effective Aggression: This is the deciding factor for me. With the exception of the first 4 rounds, Marvin was on the front foot for the whole fight and as he said afterwards he stayed aggressive even in the face of Leonard's tactics. There is obviously a question of how effective Marvin's aggression was but the fact of the matter is Ray showed no aggression at all, effective or otherwise. His punches never once looked like they had Marvin in any trouble at all whereas at least twice Marvin visibly hurt Ray.

To me it is obvious watching that fight that Marvin Hagler was a shadow of the man who had dominated boxing for 7 years and had utterly destroyed Thomas Hearns. I give great credit to Leonard for getting in the ring against a man who had over 50 KO's and was undefeated in 11 years but the fact of the matter is whatever way you look at it, Marvin Hagler should have won the fight he had been craving his whole career. That night the judges were more impressed by the miracle performance of Leonard with his flashy but largely ineffective offence than they were by Hagler's effective aggression and clean hitting.

Let me know what you think and whether you agree or disagree with what I have said.

This article perfectly sums up what I am thinking.

http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/article/a-br...

To summarise the article quickly, Miz continues to hold his own with two of the best on the microphone that there has been but yet there is still that horrible feeling that Wrestlemania will end with a Cena/Rock handshake. I am praying that doesn't happen.

Orton Vs Punk has the potential to steal the show if it is done properly and Punk's heel character is really starting to grow on me.

To me Triple H Vs Undertaker has been saved by their segment Monday night and more specifically by Shawn Michaels. Nobody gave HHH a chance and likely he will still lose but the way they built it up just hints that all might not be as it seems. Obviously I am still expecting to see a Taker victory but the Raw segment made me wonder. The article puts it better than me but that is the main point.

Vince seems to have placed a lot of his faith in youth leading into this years event as the top 3 matches appear likely to be

The Miz Vs John Cena

Edge Vs Alberto Del Rio

Undertaker Vs Wade Barrett

I like the idea of having youth in big matches particularly when mixed with stars like Cena and Edge but this Wrestlemania lacks a star attraction like Taker Vs HBK the last 2 years. It appears that Orton Vs Punk and possibly Sheamus Vs Triple H (which we saw last year) are the only matches involving 2 proven stars and neither Punk nor Sheamus is hugely experienced in big Wrestlemania matches. Also it appears as though Cody Rhodes, The Corre and the New Nexus will play a big role as well. My question is are you happy with the booking of youth headlining Wrestlemania? I think The Miz and Barrett will do a fine job although I have yet to be convinced by Del Rio. Are you at all excited about this years card?

Many people have criticised Haye for the breakdown of this fight but in reality he is just doing what the Klitschko's have done for the past 8 years or so and play the business side of the game. Haye pulled out of a fight with Wladimir to take on Valuev which was an understandable choice in just his second fight as an out and out heavyweight. Now Haye is ready for the fights and seems serious about retiring by the end of October. Klitschko has chosen to take on Chisora instead and that just stinks of cowardice and it will now be interesting to see if Vitali decides to man up and take the fight that is offered to him. Wladimir Klitschko is a nice guy out of the ring generally but he has done a real job of making Haye look like the villain in the breakdown of this fight and I don't like it. Haye is ready, the world is ready, so take the only fight that can give Wladimir a truly great legacy.

Before you dismiss my suggestion and say how stupid I am let me explain my reasoning behind this.

Outside of Pacquiao it is generally accepted that Khan is the only fighter of comparable weight to be on a par with Mayweather's speed. He is also a naturally big 140 fighter so coming up in weight would not be a major problem. Now that Khan has proved his chin against Maidana (something that although I have massive respect for Floyd, he has yet to do) I do not believe Mayweather could hurt Khan. Speed would be a problem for Floyd as his defence relies on shoulder rolling rather than high hands and therefore he would have less time to react to Khan's shots. Amir also has a very good jab which has caused problems for Floyd in the past. He also has the Roach factor and Freddie has already taken a fighter in Oscar close to beating Floyd when really he had no right to get that close. So there you have it. I am not saying it would be easy for Khan as Mayweather presents problems that Khan wont have dealt with before just as that works the other way round. I just feel that Khan is too fresh and talented and has all the tools to become the man to remove the 0 from Floyd. Of course it look unlikely this fight will ever happen so we will probably never know.

I know it is a long way off but lets see what people think. I personally believe there are a lot of teams with a chance of making it to the Superbowl. I have heard a lot of people saying that Green Bay are potential winners with Rodgers having an outstanding season. Personally I find it difficult to look past the Colts. There is only one Peyton Manning and he has so many options with Wayne, Collie, Garcon, Clark and the returning Gonzalez. I think they could well be irresistable so I will back them. Let me know what you all think.

Regardless of what you think of Ray's in ring career he has become a success outside the ropes. I recently read an article talking about the other boxers from the glorious era of the 1980's.

Thomas Hearns is now broke and in trouble with the IRS and slurs his words terribly. Indeed if the price was right he would probably get the gloves on again even now.

Wilfred Benitez can't even recognise his own brother any more and has essentially lost his mind.

Roberto Duran is massively overweight and still blows a lot of his money on partying.

Marvin Hagler lives comfortably but lives in Europe and is basically a recluse to the American public.

Ray has looked after his money well, has no health problems from boxing and is still an ambassador to the sport and to the country. To me he is a great example to follow for any boxers at the end of their career.

The rematch was scheduled to take place in 1987 and Pat Petronelli even said as much after the Hagler Vs Mugabi fight and I wonder whether the result would have been any different. Remember Hearns was 4 years younger than Hagler and Marvin showed signs in the Mugabi fight he was past his best whereas Hearns was beating the likes of Dennis Andries who was a good fighter. Surely Hearns would have tried to box with Hagler and not go toe to toe as he did in the first fight so I wonder whether Hearns would have been able to beat Hagler had there been a rematch. Of course Leonard's return meant there would never be one but I wonder what it would have done to the legacies of Hagler and Hearns if Hearns had won a rematch.

Everyone now says that he quit because he did not want to deal with Leonard's taunting style and realised he could not lay a glove on him but at the time it was put down to stomach cramps and at the end of the 7th round there was ice applied to Duran's stomach. Roberto surely lost that fight in training but I was just interested to know what you think as I am fascinated by the Leonard, Hagler, Hearns and Duran era as you may notice from my questions! Also do you think that because Duran gave Leonard a rematch, Leonard should have given Duran one as soon as possible instead of facing Thomas Hearns. Although money undoubtedly had something to do with it, I think it would have been right to give Duran a 3rd match in 1981.

I personally think that Hagler was a fantastic fighter who is under rated in history. He was unbeaten for 11 years before he fought Leonard and it wasn't as though he ducked anyone in that time. His chin was fantastic as shown by the war with Hearns and he only went down once in his career and even that was a slip. Also only Duran went the distance with him in his successful title defences. For all the flash of Leonard and the aura of Hearns and Duran I believe that Hagler dominated boxing in the 1980's and, regardless of whether you thought he beat Leonard or not, ( I have it 115-113 but I wont say who I thought won until I give BA) he was the outstanding figher of the decade and yet Leonard, Hearns, Duran and even in some cases Benitez all appear to be ranked higher. Should Marvelous Marvin be ranked higher than he tends to be?

BQ1: Who won Hagler Vs Leonard?

BQ2: Who would have won if Hagler in his prime fought Carlos Monzon in his prime?

So it was 20 years ago today that Julio Cesar Chavez famously defeated Meldrick Taylor with just two seconds to go. I have always thought this was the best fight of the 90's and probably better than anything else we have seen in the past 20 years. Having read an article on eastside boxing this morning it makes you realise just what a fantastic fighter Taylor was. He could have outboxed Chavez and kept moving and he would have been p4p number 1 and probably a future Hall of Famer but he chose to take on Chavez at his own game and he beat him for 11 rounds at it. To put that into context it would be like Mayweather going in for a brawl with Pacquiao. Taylor was special and I think what happened to him afterwards was made even more tragic by the fantastic skills he showed in the ring. However the heart that Chavez showed and the will to win late on should be recognised. If anyone has not seen the fight go and see it now or watch the Legendary Nights Documentary because the fight was brilliant. Of course everyone is going to debate whether it was a good stoppage or a bad stoppage. I personally feel it was a bad stoppage and Taylor should have been allowed to continue for those final 2 seconds. Your views are welcome

A: Sugar Ray Leonard Vs Thomas Hearns 1

B: Aaron Pryor Vs Alexis Arguello 1

C: Marvin Hagler Vs Thomas Hearns

D: Julio Cesar Chavez Vs Meldrick Taylor 1

E: Evander Holyfield Vs Riddick Bowe 1

F: Antonio Margarito Vs Miguel Cotto

G: Other

Best explanation gets BA.

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/exclusive-...

It seems as though Sheamus is going to be the next big heel in the company. This is remarkable considering he hasn't even been in WWE for a year yet. Also It is interesting to see that the locker room has a tremendous amount of respect for Randy Orton and his in ring ability. I personally think that is right but I would be interested to know what you think.