Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks

Saw this elsewhere and seemed like a good idea.

Basically you pick someone who you think would be able to upset a superior boxer. The idea is you can justify it based on styles/precedents and you should try and be as controversial as possible.

Good idea if we stick to roughly similar eras I think.

I'll start. I think Forrest gives Mayweather nightmares with his reach, jab and power.

Oliver McCall v the Mike Tyson who fought Bruno second time out.

The Joe Bugner who fought Frazier and Dunn v Wlad Klitschko.

Tony Sibson v Nigel Benn.

Maybe one weight out here, but the Kirkland Laing who fought Roberto Duran vs Amir Kang. Far too unorthodox to box against

Jack Johnson v Ali.

I've said this before, I know - but Johnson counter-jabs well combined with inside fighting. He also has a decent left hook. Reports say he was always on his toes. Catching the jab and counterjabbing was the reason Ali had such trouble with Norton. For me, Johnson does all Norton does and a little bit more - so I'm picking the Galveston Giant over the Louisville Lip.

Agree with your Forrest-Mayweather point as it goes, Scott.

Another one I put forward not long ago which proved pretty unpopular was that Bob Foster would have beaten Ezzard Charles in their respective primes. Charles the better technician and with a better record at 175 lb, but I think that he'd have a world of trouble fighting upclose as he liked to against a man with Foster's style. Charles liked to punch to the body - Foster's unusual shoulder down, hands high but not sky-high style made his body a small target. That left hook could knock out a man even as iron-chinned as Charles, too, and Foster wasn't bad at catching punches on his gloves to counter with a knockout blow himself (see the Mike Quarry knockout), another thing which Charles did but perhaps didn't have to deal with from an opponent.

Tough and close fight, of course, but I think Foster would have won more often than not.

Burley v Robinson at MW.

Not all that controversial I suppose - and rowley would say it is as plain as the nose on your face that Burley was the better man.

For me - Burley does enough to make Robinson's life difficult. He also possessed stunning power. Robinson's jab was a trip-hammer - but so was Burley's. Burley could counter punch too - and it is this that leads me to believe that he could turn over "sugar". Enough offence going forward and backwards.

Aaron Pryor beats Ray Leonard at 147.

Jesus christ this is a perfect thread for azania!!

Leonard liked guys coming to him, even a bigger and better boxer than Pryor in Hagler, how does he win it? Workrate?

Scottrf wrote:Leonard liked guys coming to him, even a bigger and better boxer than Pryor in Hagler, how does he win it? Workrate?

Duran found a way

Herol Graham v Hagler, late 1986 or early 1987.

Atila wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Leonard liked guys coming to him, even a bigger and better boxer than Pryor in Hagler, how does he win it? Workrate?

Duran found a way

Duran was a better technical boxer than Pryor.

Think that Pryor was angry with the Olympians like Leonard taking all the big paydays and the build up would have been immense with Pryor really going to town on Leonard and would have ended up fighting Pryors fight, just think he nicks it against him personally.

I'd back Leonard myself.

Juan Manuel Marquez vs Manny Pacquiao

I would actually back Pryor in a close hard fought fight, weight is the biggest issue but much like Leonard, Arguello also liked having his opponent coming to him and couldn't cope with the ruthless aggression of Pryor.

Fists of Fury wrote:I'd back Leonard myself.

Why it's a bit controversial!! :P

Manny Paquiao vs Floyd Mayweather in 1999

I'd back Tunney to beat Louis. Personally think that more often than not Tunney outpoints Louis and manages to stay away from Louis' more hurtful punches.

I'd back Eubank to beat Hopkins at super-middle. Stinker of a fight but think Chris would have found a way to impress the judges more (Benn would lose comfortably to Hopkins).

I see Pryor as a little too one-dimensional to beat Leonard, though he'd give him problems in the first half of the fight. Realistically, the fight would have had to happen in 1982 at Welterweight. Leonard seemed to have learned the lesson of not standing in front of someone who's brawling in the pocket when you have better movement than them by this point (ie, Duran I & II). We have no idea how effective Pryor would be with an additional 7 lb either, lest we forget. It sound like nothing, but we've seen with men like Zarate, Gomez and Arguello that an extra half a stone or less can considerably lessen a fighter's lustre.

I think Leonard is a little too cute to be stopped by one of Pryor's flurries, and let's be frank, 'The Hawk' isn't got to outbox him on the outside. I see Leonard using his size advantage and better boxing brain to negate Pryor's repetitive attack and take a points win. Over fifteen rounds, something like 145-140.

d260005p wrote:Manny Paquiao vs Floyd Mayweather in 1999

And you are picking who...?

superflyweight wrote:I'd back Tunney to beat Louis. Personally think that more often than not Tunney outpoints Louis and manages to stay away from Louis' more hurtful punches.

I'd back Eubank to beat Hopkins at super-middle. Stinker of a fight but think Chris would have found a way to impress the judges more (Benn would lose comfortably to Hopkins).

Really? I used to think the opposite with Eubank. He seemed to go out of his way not to impress the judges at times.

88Chris05 wrote:I see Pryor as a little too one-dimensional to beat Leonard, though he'd give him problems in the first half of the fight. Realistically, the fight would have had to happen in 1982 at Welterweight. Leonard seemed to have learned the lesson of not standing in front of someone who's brawling in the pocket when you have better movement than them by this point (ie, Duran I & II). We have no idea how effective Pryor would be with an additional 7 lb either, lest we forget. It sound like nothing, but we've seen with men like Zarate, Gomez and Arguello that an extra half a stone or less can considerably lessen a fighter's lustre.

I think Leonard is a little too cute to be stopped by one of Pryor's flurries, and let's be frank, 'The Hawk' isn't got to outbox him on the outside. I see Leonard using his size advantage and better boxing brain to negate Pryor's repetitive attack and take a points win. Over fifteen rounds, something like 145-140.

Very good points as always Chris...

Not quite so sure, think that it does like Ghosty said come down to weight and whether Pryor could handle the weight and still be as effective at 147, for me if he is he will be able to push Leonard back at times and outwork him to win certain rounds. Think that Pryor would seriously get under Leonards skin as well during the build up and there would end up being genuine animosity between the two, it wasn't much of a secret that Pryor didn't like any of the Olympians that overshadowed him in terms of the limelight and would unleash a full scale attack on Leonard in the war of the words. Perhaps Leonard learns from the experience he had with Duran perhaps he doesn't see him as big a threat as he isn't as big a name however for me, Pryor just nicks it over him with workrate and sustained forceful attacks.

Im not sure really what counts as controversiol, but off the top of my head:

Klitschkos to beat guys like Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Marciano based on size and style.

I think at Welter Winky Wright and Paul Williams give Mayweather a really torrid night for diferent reasons and would have the potential to upset the apple cart.

Hopkins to beat Hagler is another that Ive always felt based on the styles.

Yeah, Manos I know that Chris could be a little bit lazy at times and rely on the fact that he was champion to gain him deciisons but against Hopkins at super-middle I don't see him doing that.

I just think that, on form, he takes away a lot of Hopkins' advantages and makes Bernard chase the fight more than he would like and takes him out of his comfort zone. As I said, it woudl be a stinker and it would also be close but I can see Eubank winning a fight he probably (on paper) has no right to win.

Fair enough Alex. Certainly wouldn't put Pryor beating Leonard as an impossibility by any means as Pryor was, for a short period in the early to mid eighties, genuinely great. But I don't really see any areas in which he's superior to Leonard aside from workrate, and perhaps body punching. I have a hard time imagining a fighter as complete as Leonard, having gained such valuable experience against Duran and Hearns, being undone simply by virtue of someone throwing more punches than them.

His harshest critics probably won't agree with this, but Leonard did prove more than once that he was a rock-hard fighting man when he needed to be. Pryor's defence wasn't the best and even if it did become something of a war, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see Leonard pull it out of the bag.

Most certainly there is a million ifs and buts surrounding it, but just one of those fights where I can just see everything coming together for Pryor in around that time and genuinely think he would have toppled Leonard, think it was around 83 and 84 he was regarded as P4P number 2 fighter, so maybe he wasn't just at his prime although, I'm not the greatest with dates but I think he was regarded so high at that point due to the Arguello fights.

Yeah got to agree with Manos on Eubank. Eubank was very very lazy and never liked to chase a fight. His punch output was woeful in some of his fights. Hopkins would be the busier and I think he would take a decision over Chris. This board is probably one of the most pro-Eubank sites on the net. I do like him and his ability was unquestionable but i think more balance needs to be shown. His numerous lethargic performances against average opposition and the lucky decisons he has had seem to be easily forgotten on here in favour of only remembering his good traits.

oxring wrote:Jack Johnson v Ali.

I've said this before, I know - but Johnson counter-jabs well combined with inside fighting. He also has a decent left hook. Reports say he was always on his toes. Catching the jab and counterjabbing was the reason Ali had such trouble with Norton. For me, Johnson does all Norton does and a little bit more - so I'm picking the Galveston Giant over the Louisville Lip.

I'll have some of what you've been smoking hombre.

Clean living azania - means my wits are clear enough to see the outcome of this one.

Besides - I thought you'd censured yourself

AlexHuckerby wrote:Think that Pryor was angry with the Olympians like Leonard taking all the big paydays and the build up would have been immense with Pryor really going to town on Leonard and would have ended up fighting Pryors fight, just think he nicks it against him personally.

If Alexis can give Pryor a serious argument, then I fear for Pryor's safety against a far superior boxer in SRL.

Would never say Leonard was far superior to Arguello not by any stretch of the imagination, never been a better straight puncher than Alexis.

Ghosty's right, Azania; Arguello was very close to boxing perfection, to the point where many speculated that he may just have been, pound for pound, the most picture-perfect fighter in the world in the late seventies / early eighties.

Solid chin, beautiful jab, incredible right cross, had stamina, could box going both backwards and forwards. The only slight (and I do mean slight) weakness he had was similar to Louis', and that is that he was occasionally a little slow in moving his feet, sometimes shuffling rather than gliding. Not the best at chasing an opponent as a result.

But that aside, he was as skilled as they come. Blow him up to Leonard's size, or shrink Leonard down to Arguello's, and it's a very close fight.

Scott did ask for controversial picks, Haito. I don't necessarily dispute anything you've said but I just have a sneaky feeling for Chris in this match up.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Would never say Leonard was far superior to Arguello not by any stretch of the imagination, never been a better straight puncher than Alexis.

Along with Hearns, agreed.

Arguello was a superb boxer. But he was a FW. Plus his biggest downfall which is SRL biggest attribute is his footwork. SRL had superb gootwark and that will allow him the space and thus time to throw his lightning fast punches.

Had they fought I would have been chearing for Pryor. But for me, facts are SRL is the most complete boxer in my lifetime and that includes Ali.

I've always thought Hearns would win a rematch with Hagler, given the way each man looked in their very next fight.

Can see the reasoning behind you picking Chris superfly. I just personally struggle to see past Eubank's lack of work ethic when discussing how he gets on against top tier opponets. His ability was great but wouldhe done enough would always be on my mind.

Marquez to beat Naz at either FW or SFW.

Marquez to climb off the canvas a couple of times a still put on a clinic against Hamed who struggles with Marquez's counterpunching

No room for Peter Jackson beating the snot out of Ali, Dave?

Pryor to decision Duran at LWW.

88Chris05 wrote:No room for Peter Jackson beating the snot out of Ali, Dave?

He was good, just not THAT good. However, I'd pick him to beat Johnson and Langford. More than held his own against Corbett despite being hampered by a damaged ankle (hey, it's no broken toe but bad enough I suppose)I'd also pick him to beat Frazier (just) and take a decision against Spinks.

Jackson V Dempsey...Boxer vs Brawler. Jackson picking off Dempsey whilst evading his attacks. Jackson vs Tunney...close call but I'll go for Peter with his super footwork and reflexes and a lovely jab/straight right combo.

Michsel Spinks to beat Rocky.

Richie to KO Benn inside two rounds

Richie to KO Benn inside two rounds

The theme is controversial picks, Dave. That one is a given!

Dempsey to stop Foreman based on movement and the fact that Foreman coming forward with his wide swings could allow Dempsey more than enough room to get in with those short power punches.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Dempsey to stop Foreman based on movement and the fact that Foreman coming forward with his wide swings could allow Dempsey more than enough room to get in with those short power punches.

I would see it the almost opposite! Similar enough to the Frazier fights where Dempseys come forward style plays right into Big Georges fists.

Yeah come on Dave your better than that, picking Richie to dispatch of Benn inside 2 isn't controversial. Its a certainty.

azania wrote:Michsel Spinks to beat Rocky.

Which Rocky - the Rocky of Spider Rico (brawler), Rocky of Creed II (lots of heart, good chin) or Rocky of Lang (speed and skills)?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Dempsey to stop Foreman based on movement and the fact that Foreman coming forward with his wide swings could allow Dempsey more than enough room to get in with those short power punches.

Now that's what I call controversial. I like.

Not sure where I stand. Certainly - Dempsey's head movement was excellent and he was quick enough to evade some of Big George's shots. Furthermore, if Dempsey gets inside - he would certainly rip George with uppercuts.

However - and here's the major however - as Cus D'Amato once said - no swarmer in the history of boxing beats Foreman. Dempsey - for all his power, was a come forward swarming type fighter - and if Foreman caught him - and I find it hard to believe he wouldn't - it would be lights out IMO.