Michael Watson was one of my favorite fighters ever, but Mike Mccallum who fought on basically even terms with JT, although I don't think all three were at middle, toyed with Watson. Anyway, Mccallum and JT where on even terms in 36 rounds. Mccallum won every second of his fight with Watson and then stopped him. .He outclassed him. Toney is fairly labelled an inconsistent fighter at almost all his weights, but JT is a level above him in terms of class. JT by UD.
Watson was a good fighter, but Toney was just on a higher level than him in every way. He would have broken Watson down, and stopped him.
To be fair to Watson he had been out injured for a year and was pretty green when he fought McCallum. He had improved a lot by the time of the two Eubank fights. Toney still beats him though.
All posts in this thread are correct. Watson was much better after the McCallum fight, which he took after a year out, but though Watson was a very good fighter, Toney was better and wins. MTF
Yeah Toney wins. They're good friends now, weirdly enough. Toney spent last Christmas with the Watson's apparently.
Nonsense. The first fight was barely one year afterward. There's not much of a difference, if any, between these 2 versions of Watson. And since when a year out of the ring is much of a deal (11 months in fact)??? That's pretty much a regular layoff for a top fighter
Yeah, I don't buy that McCallum fight excuse. McCallum was simply several levels better than Eubank and Benn, so Watson got his ass chewed up.
Watson was good but he wasn't a top tier middleweight. He beat Benn, sure, but Benn was a puncher and nothing else. Watson simply let Benn punch himself out against his gloves and then took him out. He gave Eubank hell, twice, but Eubank while being very gifted, physically...had major holes in his game. Watson would have never been able to hang with teh upper echelon of Middleweights. The McCallum fight is a testament to what other top Middleweights woul dhave done to him (Hagler, Jones, Hopkins, GGG, Toney etc). He wasn't in that league.
Yup. It was nothing like that at all - Watson was averaging 4/5 fights a year until he got injured and took a year off. He was clearly ring rusty when he came back. Not that it matters. McCallum was better and beats him 10 out of 10 times. As does Toney. MTF
Seriously, if you cannot see that this is the worst period for middleweight boxing in history, you need to get a new pair of eyes. It is an absolute deadzone. GGG's list of victims makes Hopkins' MW resume look like a reign of terror. Who is GGG's best win? Kell Brook? Jacobs? Daniel Geale?? MTF
MTF.... Hagler's list looks great NOW, but at the time I remember reading an article in KO magazine ('cause back then that was the only way to stay up to date with boxing news) that HEAVILY criticized Hagler's resume after he lost to Leonard. IN that article Hearns was considered his only good win, Duran was relegated to a blown up, past prime lightweight...who still gave him problems, and the rest were seen as mediocre at best. NOW...we look back and all those names have gone into history and as such their status has been elevated. Mugabi,Minter, Watts, Monroe, Hamsho and Antuofermo are suddenly LEGENDS, but from the beginning it was not so. Holmes' opposition at the time of his peak was "shit upon", but now Cooney, Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon are legends. So contemporary opposition is usually denigrated. In addition to that you can't dismiss a talent just because he didn't have the classic dance partner. You have to evaluate the talent based on what he brings to the table and how he beats his opponents. If GGG is fighting mediocre fighters then he must dominate them. Guess what...he HAS been dominant. His only two competitive fights have been Jacobs and Canelo...and Canelo, drug cheat or not, has proven to be a very capable fighter and is in his prime. Was Louis a bum just because most of his reign consisted of Two Ton Galento, Carnera, Sharkey, Buddy Baer and other cunts?
I didn't read any of that after the first two sentences because it's the same repeatedly destroyed crap Sly has hit out with 700 times Seriously, you do a search for "Hagler" and the poster "destruction and mayhem" and get someone (usually me) raking him over the coals on this exact topic probably 10 times
Look man, GGG's best win is Daniel Jacobs. I'd be absolutely fucking astonished if Daniel Jacobs ends up, with the benefit of hindsight, to be a LEGEND. The rest of his resume is absolute trash. There is nothing on there that is even at the level of Joppy or Holmes, two of Hopkins signature wins at 160. I think Joppy is unbelievably average at world level yet I would pick him with confidence to beat every man on GGG's resume. This is an ABYSMAL era for middleweight fighters. No amount of nonsense about how 'Hagler's resume isn't very good' or whatever can change that. MTF
Hagler's resume is actually outstanding but Sly knows fuck all about the Middleweight division 1975-1985 as he's proven ad infinitum
I'm looking forward to fifteen years from now when Daniel Geale and Matt Macklin are rightly elevated from the status of absolute fodder to LEGEND. MTF
Dude...I have never said that Hagler's resume is bad...I'm saying that at the time, it wasn't this ATG resume that everyone is pushing today. My point is that contemporary resumes are always denigrated.
At the time it was being compared to Monzon, Griffith, Fullmer, Tiger, etc None of those writers and pundits could've envisioned that the sport was going to be a fringe interest within 20 years
Exactly. His second best win is David Lemieux for fuck sake. A puncher that was comprehensively beaten by a past prime, papier mache chinned Alcine
