Stink the place out.

Most on here have good boxing knowledge but how good are you.

Pick 2 fighters, put them in a ring and taking into consideration each fighters skill set, create a boring fight.

My pick would be Naz Hamed v Willie Pep featherweight.

This fight goes nowhere. Both ducking and diving and neither landing a decent punch the whole fight. Boooooooring.

Johnny Nelson and Carlos DeLeon.

Er...

There is no fight that can be contrived from all of boxing's history that would "improve"on the fare that those two served up when they met.

If we are talking about matching two greats to create a stinker Burley vs Floyd has potential to be grim. Charley was reguarly involved in dull affairs and with both of them preferring to counter might spend some time waiting for one of them to actually decide to lead.

Yes they must be great fighters.

In that case, how about Whitaker vs Benitez at 147? A masterclass of feinting, defence and judging distance,with punches thrown, let alone landed, at an absolute premium.

captain carrantuohil wrote:In that case, how about Whitaker vs Benitez at 147? A masterclass of feinting, defence and judging distance,with punches thrown, let alone landed, at an absolute premium.

I was going to say Whitaker-Starling, Captain, but I think your pick is even better. Benitez even managed to make fights against attacking, come-forward fighters dull affairs. Benitez-Leonard, for instance, was almost unbearable to watch in some ways, mainly due to the suspense; the amount of times one man would feint, then paw out the jab, then glide back from the exchange without doing any real damage was incredible. Whitaker didn't mind letting his hands go a bit more as a Lightweight, but as he himself said, when he boxed the bigger guys (Hurtado, Vasquez, De la Hoya etc) he basically just aimed to win fights off his jab alone a lot of the time.

For the Middleweights, I'd say Hopkins against Nunn. Again, Hopkins knows how to shut down even the best attackers (even a 1993 version of Roy couldn't find a way to really shine against him) and he won't meet Nunn head on either, ala Tate or Kalambay. Stinker written all over it.

Quite so, Chris. I also think of Benitez-Hearns at 154, when, if it weren't for Tommy, there wouldn't have been a fight at all. I tend to think that people wrongly forget this triumph in assessing Hearns' career. It was the one time during his prime that I can recall him making the best of a situation that he didn't particularly like and deciding that any sort of victory is better than a defeat, however glorious.

88Chris05 wrote:

captain carrantuohil wrote:In that case, how about Whitaker vs Benitez at 147? A masterclass of feinting, defence and judging distance,with punches thrown, let alone landed, at an absolute premium.

I was going to say Whitaker-Starling, Captain, but I think your pick is even better. Benitez even managed to make fights against attacking, come-forward fighters dull affairs. Benitez-Leonard, for instance, was almost unbearable to watch in some ways, mainly due to the suspense; the amount of times one man would feint, then paw out the jab, then glide back from the exchange without doing any real damage was incredible. Whitaker didn't mind letting his hands go a bit more as a Lightweight, but as he himself said, when he boxed the bigger guys (Hurtado, Vasquez, De la Hoya etc) he basically just aimed to win fights off his jab alone a lot of the time.

For the Middleweights, I'd say Hopkins against Nunn. Again, Hopkins knows how to shut down even the best attackers (even a 1993 version of Roy couldn't find a way to really shine against him) and he won't meet Nunn head on either, ala Tate or Kalambay. Stinker written all over it.

At least they were doing something. Nelson/DeLeon and Nelson/Warring was strictly come dancing without dancing but lots of posing. I believe Audley threw more punches in his fight with Hae than Nelson did in both fights which went the distance.

Mayweather vs Witter
Ottke vs DeGale
Wlad vs Akinwande

I think Hagler v Hopkins would be a stinker despite them both probably being top rated middleweights. Espeically if they both went into the fight carrying a high reputation.

It is entirely likely that Hopkins versus any great middleweight would develop into a stinker, manos. Marvellous fighter, but even a contest against Harry Greb and Sugar Ray Robinson rolled into one wouldn't make Hoppy an exciting one.

Hopkins must be one of a very small group of fighers who is reserved 'great' status but who has never really been in a great fight. Plenty of exemplary displays and great career moments, but great fights? The closest I can think of is perhaps his first fight with Pascal, which was very good, but not a classic by any means. Outside of that, what is there? The way he went after Johnson might just qualify at a stretch, but so many of his bouts have been snooze fests.

Greg the flea Richardson vs pat Cowdell................

Two different divisions, Truss, and we need two great fighters, apparently.

What's four pounds between friends.....................

Ward v Hopkins - There would be more holding than a sumo wrestling contest

Wlad v Lennox - Both suspect chins but great defence both would hide behind the jab all night long with Wlad being especially cautious.

Calzaghe v Ottke - Calzaghe would win but Ottke would try to rob the rounds with 20 second flurries of activity with butts thrown in and the remaining 2:40 seconds of the rounds running away. Awful fight.

Jones Jnr v Spinks - Spinks' awkwardness and Jones Jnr unothodox style would lead to a dreadful clash of styles I think.

Wlad v Lennox would see Wlad KO'd between rounds two and five depending on whether or not Lennox wanted to get home sharpish and watch something on TV or if he'd recorded it on Sky+.

Cagey for two rounds then it explodes (on Wlad's chin and then it's all done and dusted)

Witter V Kell Brook

DAVE667 wrote:Wlad v Lennox would see Wlad KO'd between rounds two and five depending on whether or not Lennox wanted to get home sharpish and watch something on TV or if he'd recorded it on Sky+.

Cagey for two rounds then it explodes (on Wlad's chin and then it's all done and dusted)

What unfunny Bullcrap! See the K2 fan club are out again!

88Chris05 wrote:Hopkins must be one of a very small group of fighers who is reserved 'great' status but who has never really been in a great fight. Plenty of exemplary displays and great career moments, but great fights? The closest I can think of is perhaps his first fight with Pascal, which was very good, but not a classic by any means. Outside of that, what is there? The way he went after Johnson might just qualify at a stretch, but so many of his bouts have been snooze fests.

I think there are probably a few chris, but not many have stunk as badly as bhop as consistently as him. cant remember if Whittaker was ever in a great fight? Controversial ones, great victories, great robberies but great fights?

Well, I thought Whitaker-McGirt I was absolutely brilliant personally, Milky. Along with Toney-McCallum I it was one of the best fights of the nineties for me from a technical, skills perspective (as in, nigh-on perfect, high-quality boxing from both men throughout). Whitaker against Uncle Roger wasn't bad, either. But you're right, not many dramatic, wild barnstormers on Pea's ledger. Maybe Hurtado at a stretch, if only for the late turnaround.

For me Hopkins was never exciting, but he was interesting to watch around his best purely from a technical/purist perspective because of the way he was able to nullify top fighters. His fights with Trinidad, Tarver, Pavlik and Holmes I actually enjoyed. But my god those Taylor fights were frustratingly boring and lately he has become almost a pure spoiler.I have a feeling that against someone like Hagler a similar scenario would play out. I grudgingly give him props for his ability even now to still reduce top fighters to being pretty inneffective and being able to remain competive with a half full engine but he has become awful to watch. He seems to go into a fight now with the intention of making it as ugly and scrappy as possible so that the judges dont know how to score it and he might nick a decision. At his best he was never beautiful but there was much more to him than what there is today.

Super D Boon wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Wlad v Lennox would see Wlad KO'd between rounds two and five depending on whether or not Lennox wanted to get home sharpish and watch something on TV or if he'd recorded it on Sky+.

Cagey for two rounds then it explodes (on Wlad's chin and then it's all done and dusted)

What unfunny Bullcrap! See the K2 fan club are out again!

Don't see how that's bull at all. Wlad's brilliantly tuned defence relies on his ability to man-handle and lean on his opponents and keep them at distance with the jab. With Lennox he'd have someone the same weight that he couldn't push, the same height that he couldn't lean on and a 3" reach disadvantage. I'd back Lennox to get to him eventually and land an uppercut, finishing it there and then. It wouldn't be a blow out a la Grant, Botha or Rahman II but 6-8 rounds would be enough I'd wager.

yeh chris, for some reason (anno domini) i'd forgotten the mcgirt fights and the hurtado fight was certainly a strange one if not a great one.

On a side note, when you think that an all time great like whittaker (all be it above his best weight) had his hands full with mcgirt... serves as a reminder as to what a talent meldrick taylor (who beat him pretty comfortably) was until chavez got to him.

mcgirt himself a very fine fighter hampered by injuries

Ward v Hopkins

milkyboy wrote:yeh chris, for some reason (anno domini) i'd forgotten the mcgirt fights and the hurtado fight was certainly a strange one if not a great one.

On a side note, when you think that an all time great like whittaker (all be it above his best weight) had his hands full with mcgirt... serves as a reminder as to what a talent meldrick taylor (who beat him pretty comfortably) was until chavez got to him.

mcgirt himself a very fine fighter hampered by injuries

Aye, I love that Taylor-McGirt fight as well, as it goes. Such clean, free-flowing boxing; I honestly don't recall the referee having to break them once during the whole fight and as you say, a great demonstration of what Taylor could do before his world fell apart in those final seconds against Chavez. I gave McGirt the first two, from memory, but probably only one more after that.

But McGirt was a damn good operator, as you say. Put on a masterclass against Brown to win the title and gave Pea his toughest fight up until that point. I like him as a trainer, too, and hope he can find a bit more success there.

Mcgirt said he had a ear infection when he fought Taylor and blamed that as I recall for the loss.....

Also there was a bit of needle before the fight....as much was made of taylor's golden boy status and Mcgirt was basically overlooked even though he was quality with a good record...

As I recall reference was made to the fact "A gold medal couldn't buy a ride on the subway" and "The last gold medallist I faced got a good trashing" (Howard Davis)....

Just thought I'd drop that in........

Wasn't aware of any bad blood between Buddy and Meldrick, Truss. Thanks for sharing. Inevitable, I suppose, that Taylor was going to get the adulation and fast-tracked to a world title in comparison to McGirt, who built up a seriously long and very tough apprenticeship before fighting for world honours; Taylor was spectacular to watch, whereas McGirt, excellent fighter though he was, just didn't get the pulse racing as much.

Obviously, being managed by Al Certo didn't help Buddy's cause, either, whereas Taylor had the Main Events team behind him.

Mcgirt spent his early days fighting in the felt forum in New york...A real mean sulky type as I recall...remember on several occasions a guy accidentally going low..trying ...to apologise and Mcgirt ignoring his glove.......

Bit of an angry young man...

He was a good compact fighter who was unlucky and underrated...

has every reason to hate the 84 olympics..

That USA 1984 Olympic team was ridiculous! Meldrick Taylor, Virgil Hill, Breland, Whitaker, Tate, Holyfield, Biggs, and probably one or two other notable ones that I've forgotten. Probably even better than that '76 team which had Ray Leonard, the Spinks brothers and Howard Davis Jr. Incredible that so much quality could be grouped so closely together at similar ages and all under the same flag.

No but they were lucky the Cubans boycotted in fairness.....Don't get me wrong it's great the golds we attained..

But in fairness Sullivan was robbed by Tate.....The cuban heavy at the time had a win over Biggs............

So the nine golds were a bit over the top...but you're right great team..

When boxing is hot...it attracts talent..