Im not talking about shocks per se, just results that even in retrospect you can't get your head 'round or explain. Hopkins-Taylor is really the fight that inspires the thread. Even watching it back, it's screamingly obvious that Hopkins is the better fighter in every round. Yet he just can't/won't get off and Taylor steals enough rounds that the result can't possibly be called a robbery. Was Hopkins so tight at the weight he had to fight THAT economically? Was Taylor's athleticism and busyness just enough to throw him off his game? Even in a rematch where he'd worked him out in the 2nd half of the first? WTF? Tito-Whitaker is another. I mean, Tito beating a shot Whitaker is hardly a shock, but the dominant nature of the victory I can't reconcile with any other fight in either man's career. I just tend to write it off because it makes no fucking sense. Was Whitaker really THAT shot? It looks like he might have been from his balance and reactions. Was it just a tactical catastrophe on his part trying to walk Tito down? WTF? Anyone have any fights they feel this way about? anyone wanna try and explain those 2?
Tito Whitaker made perfect sense when it happened. Whitaker had just been whipped by Hurtado except for 30 seconds, clearly beaten by dlh (imo), and struggled with Pestriav (really, this is all you need to know). Of course he was that shot when he met Tito.
Whittaker was Also MID 30's & had Fallen Deeeeeeeeeeeeeep Into DRUG DEPENDENCY by this Point...He was INACTIVE for @ Least a FULL YEAR Just B 4 the Tito Fight...Whittaker No Looooooonger had the LEGS or REFLEXES to Fight as he Customarily did, so he Fought Tito the Only Way he Could... Being a Defensive Specialist, U'll NEVER See Whittakers Name on a "Bravest Fighters" List, but his Bout w/Tito was a BRAVE PERFORMANCE... REED:hammert:
WTF fights are really styles makes fights fights IMO. Ali - Foreman Seeing Ali struggle with Norton and Frazier who were both aggressive bangers that were neither as big strong or powerful as Foreman..yet against George, Ali won most of the rounds in that fight and then knocked his man clean out. I mean...if I were watching that fight live I'd be saying "WHAT.THE.FUCK"!
agREED... & for as GREAT as Bernard Undeniably Is, 2 Losses to Jermain Taylor MUST B Held Against him...Especially Considering how VIOLENTLY Taylor has Been Beaten in Subsequent Bouts... REED:hammert:
Should Ali's arguable three losses to Norton (most people have him losing at least twice) be held against him considering "how VIOLENTLY" Foreman, Shavers and Cooney destroyed Norton in subsequent bouts?
Cooney Shouldn't Count, Since Norton was Roughly 137 when that Fight Took Place...But Foreman & Shavers R 2 of THE Hardest Punchers EVER...KO Losses to those Guys WASN'T a Crime... Would YOU Rather have KO Losses to Foreman/Shavers OR Pavlik/Froch/Abraham???... REED:mj:
I don't really like all this hate on Jermain Taylor. Hopkins only has himself to blame for losing to him twice... he fights an inactive style and uses his range, footspeed and handspeed to win and Taylor had more of all these things. He has competed in all his losses too, no one has really ever annihilated or embarrassed Jermain
Hopkins was 137 years old when he lost twice to Taylor and most observers felt Hopkins won both fights... (I certainly felt Hopkins won the rematch).
Hopkins Went on to DOMINATE Antonio Tarver AND Kelly Pavlik, After Losing to Taylor Twice...While Bernard May have Been Up There in Age, his Maturation Process was CONSIDERABLY More GRACEFUL than Others... Norton was a Step Above a DEAD Man when Cooney Waxed him, Whereas Bernard was STILL a Legit Lb for Lb'der when he Lost TWICE to Taylor... REED:hammert:
Taylor was undefeated at the time Hopkins "lost" twice to him. Taylor was a decent fighter and a huge Middleweight. Pavlik (who was decent before hopkins beat away his confidence) arguably beat the fight out of Taylor and so I don't put as much stock into teh Froch and Abraham fights as you do.
I think in historical context Ali beating Foreman counts more as a shock as a WTF fight. Considering what Young & Lyle did to Foreman etc. George eat up and would always eat up swarmers like Frazier and Norton and I think it makes sense that Ali would pose different problems for him in retrospect. Hopkins-Taylor wasn't stylistically problematic enough to make sense in retrospect for mine. B-Hop gave those fights AWAY in the early rounds with inactivity. And I think Whitaker-Tito must be explained by Pernel declining BIG TIME between the Oscar fight and Tito.
The BEST Guy Taylor had Faced Prior to Hopkins was Probably William Joppy...So Being Undefeated Shouldn't Mean All that Much... Taylor was Decent but VERY Flawed...After Facing Bernard, Lou DiBella PROTECTED Taylor by Lining Up a String of JR. Middles (Ouma, Spinks, the Wink)...They were Basically FORCED into the Pavlik Fight... There's a CHANCE that Pavlik Beat the Fight Out of Taylor, but there's ALSO a Chance that Taylor was Simply NEVER that Good to Begin w/....Nonetheless, Bernard STILL has 2 Losses to him... REED:kidcool:
those guys (Abe, Carl, Kelly) were all active punchers with power. hopkins isn't anything of the sort. say what you will about taylor but he is a very good fighter who doesn't usually lose tactical matches (i think he beat hops both times and drew legitimately with winky). i think jermain deserves some credit for beating hopkins
this might not fit your criteria spot on, but the biggest WTF i can ever think of is Michael Nunn's one punch 1 round KO of Sumbu Kalambay
Riddick Bowe-Elijah Tillery I <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/20jk-0iWna4&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/20jk-0iWna4&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
What is your problem, dude? Seriously. If you don't like boxing/boxing beyond Floyd/boxing before 2001, whatever, why not just stay out of the threads? What is this all about?
He isn't trying to be funny though, mate. He isn't even trying to amuse himself. I seriously don't know what his game is, it's beyond me. I think he's just really, really bored.
He's a 15 Year Old ATTENTION WHORE...@ a Similar Age, REED had 2-3 FEMALES to "Assist" w/that Issue, but Apparently, All this Kid has is the Internet... REED:kidcool:
like REED says, dude is young, best thing to do IMO is ignore the juvenile stuff and reward his decent contributions with a response
Well I wasn't as cool as you, unfortunately, I pretty much just had the internet. But I went on internet sites I was actually interested in. TLC : check out some internet porn. You might find it more fun than shit stirring on a subject you have no interest in.:dunno:
Fat Ray Mercer coming off a loss to Holyfield and a draw to a guy with a losing record vs. Lennox Lewis
didn't know you guys still wasted time on that person. first time i have used my ignore function in 15 years of boxing message boards. most unintelligent poster i ever came across.
