Great for the Sport but not great at it

Following on from Valero's Conscience's article re Gatti proposed inclusion into the Hall of Fame and a boxing writer's refusal to vote for Gatti on the grounds as mentioned in the title of the thread, which other fighters could be considered, "Great for the sport but not great at it"?

I'm mindful of not wishing to insult any fighter as their decision to step through the ropes at whatever level puts them significantly higher than me on the "He's got balls" ladder and I'm sure there's bound to be much derison at my suggestions (par for the course I suppose) but outside of Gatti, I'd plump for the recently returned Ricky Hatton.

I've got a lot of time and respect for Ricky. The only occasion when I've really felt let down by him was his approach to the Pacquiao fight where I felt he almost cheated the fans by adopting such a reckless and suicidal approach. Hatton's given us some of British boxing's best night...certainly in the last decade...and it would be unfair to say that, at his peak, he was arguably the best LWW in the World.

However, as a boxer, Hatton could never truly be considered "great", (very good indeed, but never great). His style could occasionally be deemed "crude but effective" and he long ago abandoned any pretence at sophisticated boxing in favour of the all out crowd pleasing style which made him such a fan favourite. There were occasions when he showed an excellent boxing brain (in the fight with Ben Tackie when he was controlled and methodical) but there were other occasions when lower tier fighters (such as Carlos Maussa) made him look very ordinary. However, on his best night when he beat Kostya, his manner of victory isn't one I'd put forward as an example of "great" boxing.

Again, I'm not "dissing" Ricky per se but if I was to pick someone who epitomised the phrase "great for the sport but not great at it"...I think I'd go for the Hitman.

Katsidis was not top drawer but always gave the fans a good fight. Trying to think of people who might have introduced or had a major impact on the sport in some of the more remote areas of the world but right now I got nothing.

Nigel Benn

Journeymen like Miguel Matthews and Peter Buckley. Genuine hard men with not the greatest skillsets, they regularly turned out for the sport often at short notice to face the up-and-comers.

Their losses column is usually far more stacked than their wins but they seldom get knocked out, allowing the prospects to get the rounds in the bank - it's invaluable experience.

They are hardly ever mentioned yet do more for the sport than most realise.

Glen Johnson, not the best but very good for sport. Good name, prepared to travel etc.

I'd also throw in Micky Ward along with Gatti.

Maybe slightly controversial and premature but I would imagine Amir Khan could well fall into this category when his career is up. Obviously he has picked up titles but has been pancaked twice already and I wouldnt rule out a couple more of those losses in the next few years.

Victor Ortiz is another one of these as well.

Canelo.

Michael Watson

Just to be a wum you decide to throw a nasty cheap shot at a great guy who given his current condition is probably twice the man you will ever be.

But imo Watson is a bad advert for the sport given what happened to him.

Carl Froch? Not technically the best, but due to having a granite chin and always in want of a scrap, he is very exciting to watch without being "P4P CLASS".

azania wrote:Just to be a wum you decide to throw a nasty cheap shot at a great guy who given his current condition is probably twice the man you will ever be.

But imo Watson is a bad advert for the sport given what happened to him.

Keep your hair on.

He wasn't a great, but the safety of the sport has improved greatly since his injuries. He also does great charity work getting children out of gangs and in to sport (boxing amongst others).

Think before you speak nutjob.

seanmichaels wrote:

azania wrote:Just to be a wum you decide to throw a nasty cheap shot at a great guy who given his current condition is probably twice the man you will ever be.

But imo Watson is a bad advert for the sport given what happened to him.

Keep your hair on.

He wasn't a great, but the safety of the sport has improved greatly since his injuries. He also does great charity work getting children out of gangs and in to sport (boxing amongst others).

Think before you speak nutjob.

Of course. At least have the grapefruits to man up and admit it was a cheap shot.

unlike you i don't trawl the boards looking for attention. have a good day sir

It really scrapes what's left after scraping the bottom of the barrel when someone uses a boxer who got seriously injured during a fight, just to try and wind me up. And then scurry on trying to defend their comment. That is a new low. Well done sean.

seanmichaels wrote:

azania wrote:Just to be a wum you decide to throw a nasty cheap shot at a great guy who given his current condition is probably twice the man you will ever be.

But imo Watson is a bad advert for the sport given what happened to him.

Keep your hair on.

He wasn't a great, but the safety of the sport has improved greatly since his injuries. He also does great charity work getting children out of gangs and in to sport (boxing amongst others).

Think before you speak nutjob.

So, in other words, a perfect answer to the question posed: Name a fighter who was great for the sport but not great at it.

Of course it was TopHat. No sly dig intended there. Sean knows what he meant but doesn't possess the grapefruits to man up.

Michael Watson has been fantastic for the sport, after what happened its superb that what happened to him had a positive impact - that new safety measures were implemented, and that he himself has gone on to live a fulfilled life, showing the world that although tragedies happen in every sport - there was a real feeling of sympathy and reform.

He wasn't great at the sport - that much is a given.

Point is, I see that Seanmichaels put it, and if genuine then I feel correct, but if it was a joke, it was a bit bad taste.

Whether it was meant as a bad joke or not, a brain damaged fighter is never "great" for the sport. It only gives those who want to see boxing banned more ammunition.

Back on topic, Bruno was great for the sport in Britain. I didn't like his image but there's no question he got people interested in the sport when he was around.

stallone

It highlighted health concerns that in the long run have been avoided on the most part - Like when when there was the Mancini - Kim tragedy, boxing cut from 15 to 12 rounds, great for the sport in the long run to avoid serious injury so I see your point, and I do agree to a degree, but it needed changing on the whole and tragedies like that helped improve it.

I'm not saying the tragedies were great, far from it, but they are making the sport safer in the long run.

'great' for the sport is maybe the wrong word then, 'martyr' (or something less ominous) may be more appropriate.

I believe there wasn't a doctor ringside at WHL that night.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:It highlighted health concerns that in the long run have been avoided on the most part - Like when when there was the Mancini - Kim tragedy, boxing cut from 15 to 12 rounds, great for the sport in the long run to avoid serious injury so I see your point, and I do agree to a degree, but it needed changing on the whole and tragedies like that helped improve it.

I'm not saying the tragedies were great, far from it, but they are making the sport safer in the long run.

There's a belief that I've heard on TV and read, is that fights were cut from 15 to 12 not for the safety of fighters, but because American TV wanted title fights that fitted into a one hour time slot.

That's something TRUSS puts forward as often as Tubbs having the fastest hands on a HW

Lance wrote:stallone

Great shout and very true also.