The Former Champions We Just Love to Watch

A lot of talk on contemporary boxing is (quite rightly) full of cynicism and disillusionment. So let's just get back to basics and think about the former champions of yesteryear who we have spent the most time watching, and whose back-catalogues we raid most frequently.

I've listed twenty of mine below, in alphabetical order.....These aren't necessarily the fighters I've supported most fervently (indeed, as the name of this article suggests, a lot of them were winning world titles long before I was even a twinkle in my old man's eye), and in some cases there's not as much film available of them as we'd like. But what they have in common, is that whatever film is available of them, I've tried to make it my business to see, usually more than once!

Sometimes it's style, sometimes it's the fact they were usually in exciting contests, and sometimes it's for reasons you can't really explain - but these are the guys who I most frequently revisit when I feel like binging on boxing from yesteryear.

Alexis Arguello
Carmen Basilio
Donald Curry
Nonito Donaire
Roberto Duran
Jeff Fenech
Victor Galindez
Fighting Harada
Evander Holyfield
Harold Johnson
Marvin Johnson
Ray Leonard
Mike McCallum
Juan Manuel Marquez
Jose Napoles
Manny Pacquiao
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Salvador Sanchez
James Toney
Pernell Whitaker

Do any of you guys have a group of fighters in particular, whose fights you've re-watched time and again and whose careers you've spent many-an hour enjoying in retrospect? And of the names above, are there any particular great fights which spring to mind for you?

Ta lads.

Good idea for an article, Chris. Not as extensive as your list, but these would be mine:

Sal Sanchez
Erik Morales
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
James Toney
Roy Jones Jnr
Tommy Hearns
Ezzard Charles
Ali (pre-exile)

Cheers, Superfly. Never had any doubts that your boy Erik was going to be in there! And he wouldn't be far off for me either. I think I was probably guilty of slightly underrating him for many years. I binge watched quite a bit of him for the first in a while a couple of years back for my Barrera-Morales comparison article, which was a treat.

Even the couple of names you mention who I wouldn't necessarily watch all that often overall still have individual performances which I could watch over and over again, Monzon's first thrashing of Benvenuti being one of them. Genuine contender for the best performance ever by a fighter making their world title fight debut, alongside Sanchez's frankly absurdly good dissection of Danny Lopez, first time out.

I'll stick to the ones I go back to most often, a lot of crossover with both of you;

Naseem Hamed
Nonito Donaire
Carlos Monzon
Sergio Martinez
Lennox Lewis
Alexis Arguello
Floyd Mayweather (Up until Shane Mosley)
Shane Mosley
Vicente Saldivar

Saldivar's a great shout, Soul. That second fight with Winstone has a serious claim to be the finest world title fight ever seen on British soil, in my opinion. I also enjoy his stoppage beatdown of Seki in their rematch.

Been a while since I watched any Mosley, but I did always love his performance against Golden Johnson. Sure, Johnson was outclassed and Lightweight didn't really have anyone to push Mosley at that time....But damn, Shane was as fast as greased lightning at that stage, absolutely pummelled the body in a way he didn't do at the higher weights and still had all his confidence, too. That first fight with Oscar still speaks for itself, as well.

The body attack seems have gone out of the game somewhat; the old adage still holds true 'kill the body and the head will follow'. Saldivar up until that point was both the finest southpaw and body puncher we'd probably ever seen, he was as tough as a coffin nail and an inexhaustible engine to boot, made him a rough proposition for anyone. From memory Winstone was winning all three fights until the brutal body attack started to slow him down.

There are obvious Balco related issues with Shane but again one of the finest lightweights i've ever seen and had some great performances in the higher weights too; his destruction of Margarito is a personal favourite, the spite of his younger days was back. Oscar may have started in a lower weight class but was the much bigger man when they fought, was interesting to see that Mosley was pushing him back throughout the fight, was incredibly strong for the weight.

Mosley is a good shout and someone whose back catalogue is worth watching.

The fascination for me with Monzon is trying to figure out what made him so great. Apart from being tall at the weight and being supernaturally tough, it's not all that easy to see what he's doing that sets him apart from 99.9% of middleweights and it takes a few viewings before you figure out how much he's doing in the ring.

Someone I forgot to include on my list is Tino's favourite fighter, Ricardo Lopez. Couldn't tell you how many times I've watched his fight with Vilamor (which features one of my favourite knockouts) but I've also watched some of his other fights more than once.

With regards to Monzon, I've said it before, but the best way I can try to make sense of what made him so consistent and successful was that he didn't necessarily have all that many skills, but he had an insane amount of 'attributes'. Not even sure if that makes perfect sense to myself, never mind to anyone else, but hey ho! Cross-sport comparisons are often a fool's errand, but maybe he was to boxing what Glenn McGrath was to cricket?

Monzon didn't have speed, didn't have chilling or lights-out power (albeit he was naturally heavy-handed), didn't have the biggest array of punches, didn't have all that much variation or adaptation in his style, didn't possess any obvious athleticism....But he had unbelievable focus, application and consistency which he matched with that toughness, brute strength, limitless stamina and unerring accuracy.

I think it's that application and calmness which was key to his success as much as anything else. Mentally he was as resolute as they come - knew what he wanted to do, had complete confidence in it and just set about implementing the plan even if he encountered a few difficulties along the way. And once he did find that rhythm, that slow beat down from a steady stream of heavy jabs and right crosses was devastatingly effective.

No one seems to be too keen on modern fighters..Even more surprising is no Mike Tyson on any list ...

First point...Not surprising as we hark back to the innocent days when Titles meant something and politics was a thing that was alien to the young and naive....

I have two periods I tend to focus on.........Love the pioneers of the game and i've always loved outside fights....The romanticism of the greatest prize in sports being fought for under the setting sun is great..

Corbett v Fitz......Johnson v Jeffries and Dempsey v Carpentier are go to moments...

Larry Holmes.........Spent my years from 8 - 16 with Holmes as champ or trying to get the title back from Spinks which endears him to me as a permanent fixture in my life in my formative years..Was sad when he lost to Spinks.....Even sadder when he got robbed a little later..

Don Curry - Was special to me......Just loved his counterpunching style...

But rather than go to champions I go to fights....That meant something..

Watched Pryor v Arguello 2 the other night...Love the first fight more...What a rivalry.......Both outside fights too.

Sanchez v Gomez I never tire of watching.....The immovable object vs the powerhouse.

Chavez v Rosario.......Pazienza v Haugen.......and Hagler v Hearns....

Boxing meant something then and it has never been the same since...

Nice to see you back Chris.....

Howdy Truss.

Obviously my love for Curry will never rival yours, as your affection for Don was legendary back in the day. But during that brief peak he was the definition of a classy fighter.

The speed of his development from the safety-first, back foot technician who coasted to a decision against Hwang, to the absolute master who ripped Jones to pieces and then absolutely brained McCrory, was amazing.

He was so, so complete by 1985 and incredibly easy on the eye. His balance, accuracy and economy of movement were all phenomenal. The way he could apply subtle pressure and carry the fight to even big punchers such as Jones, without taking punishment or having to back peddle, really was something.

Have said it before, but he's very similar to another favourite of mine in that respect - Napoles. So smooth with everything in sync, subtly slipping shots and making angles while countering and putting together withering combinations. Both very good punchers as well.

And then came the Ragamuffin Man.....

88Chris05 wrote:Howdy Truss.

Obviously my love for Curry will never rival yours, as your affection for Don was legendary back in the day. But during that brief peak he was the definition of a classy fighter.

The speed of his development from the safety-first, back foot technician who coasted to a decision against Hwang, to the absolute master who ripped Jones to pieces and then absolutely brained McCrory, was amazing.

He was so, so complete by 1985 and incredibly easy on the eye. His balance, accuracy and economy of movement were all phenomenal. The way he could apply subtle pressure and carry the fight to even big punchers such as Jones, without taking punishment or having to back peddle, really was something.

Have said it before, but he's very similar to another favourite of mine in that respect - Napoles. So smooth with everything in sync, subtly slipping shots and making angles while countering and putting together withering combinations. Both very good punchers as well.

And then came the Ragamuffin Man.....

My feelings on Honey are known on here........I saw an interview with Curry a few years ago (looked old) and he didn't have a lot of respect for Honey...Said he couldn't make the weight but thought the guy was an easy night and he wasn't....Led to a split with Gorman.

Starling said the same thing about Honey v Curry...........That Honey was nothing special as did Breland.......Guess they were right.

Shout out to the lightweights of the 80s...Another great time....Arguello...Mancini.....Bramble...Rosario....Paul...Chavez...Whittaker...Paz..even Davis jr..

Camacho v Rosario....
Paul v Arroyo..
Rosario v Davis jr...(Davis got knocked down with seconds to go and it cost him the fight)
Rosario v Ramirez 2
Haugen v Pazienza...
Bramble v Mancini 1 and 2.
Mancini v Frias 1 round tear up...All classics.....Overflowing with interesting characters..

NB My brother is on Facebook and has Pazienza as a friend......Still hates Haugen today..

As I understand it  Curry was vulnerable to a shot right down the middle, and Mickey Duff picked up on this. (Perhaps then,not *quite* the complete boxer?)  No, Honeyghan was not in Curry’s league, but he was a two time champ so he can’t simply be dismissed by the Don- that just sounds like sour grapes.
There’s a nice grab bag of fighters, above,for me to watch on t’ Tube.
I tend to revisit Ray Robinson it’s true, but mainly nostalgia re-watches of Eighties UK fighters.
Just a thought, is it me or does Pedroza not get much of a shout-out these days. Iron Mike followed his career and that’s no small accolade.

Derek Smalls wrote:As I understand it  Curry was vulnerable to a shot right down the middle, and Mickey Duff picked up on this. (Perhaps then,not *quite* the complete boxer?)  No, Honeyghan was not in Curry’s league, but he was a two time champ so he can’t simply be dismissed by the Don- that just sounds like sour grapes.
There’s a nice grab bag of fighters, above,for me to watch on t’ Tube.
I tend to revisit Ray Robinson it’s true, but mainly nostalgia re-watches of Eighties UK fighters.
Just a thought, is it me or does Pedroza  not get much of a shout-out these days. Iron Mike followed his career and that’s no small accolade.

Darrin Van horn was a two time champion.....Punch down the middle hey........I'm sure Starling before he caved Honey's head in never thought of that in 27 rounds with Donny...

Duff wasn't so good at spotting Starling's weak spots...

From what I've read, a lot of Haugen's opponents weren't too keen on him, Truss. Bit of a rough and ready character who seems to have an ability to fall out with almost everyone close to him (I seem to remember an interview with him where he was saying he'd become estranged from his daughter, but don't quote me on that). Also very prickly and defensive about his defeats, quick to make excuses for them and tended not to give much credit to his vanquishers, Whitaker aside.

Very decent fighter, mind you. Not watched him for a while but his performances against Paul and Jacobsen were pretty impressive, as he was in patches against Camacho, although at times it seemed like neither man wanted to win that one.

Very light footwork, technically tidy, pretty good engine and purposeful with the shots he did throw, albeit not a heavy hitter. But just one of those fighters with no special effects. Got served two emphatic reminders (humiliating and painful respectively) of the difference between good and truly great against Whitaker and Chavez.

A classic case of a cherry pick gone wrong, as Manny Steward apparently admitted to Haugen years later that he'd never even heard of him or watched him fight when he selected him as a voluntary title defence for Paul, and that the camp just considered Haugen a safe bet to help grow Paul's profile as they primed him for the big fights against the likes of Rosario, Chavez, Camacho, Bramble etc.

Understandable that Haugen felt a bit miffed at that, of course, and like he wasn't being afforded the respect he deserved, but from interviews I've seen with him, and articles I've read, I don't think he ever quite let go of that resentment and it always irked him that he didn't become a major name. He just didn't have the personality or style to be very marketable, really.

Ok, Honeyghan was rubbish.

Terry Norris only missed my twenty above by a slither, and might have featured on another day. Great talent who was totally off his rocker, a fighter whose old fights I still watch fairly regularly.

But seeing as Truss has mentioned Honeyghan getting Curry at the right time, it has to be noted that Norris, top fighter though he was, might just have benefited from opportunistic timing and feasting on great but faded (or smaller) fighters more than anyone else in his era.

The guy beat 16 world title holders, which is comfortably more than double the amount guys such as Mike McCallum or Azumah Nelson beat in that same era. Yet nobody, but nobody, would even think for a second that Norris belongs in the same class as either of those two guys when we're talking about true greats.

Leonard, Curry and Meldrick Taylor would be the three most eye-catching names on his record, and in all three cases those opponents were either shot to bits and / or giving away other advantages to Norris. Off the top of my head I'm struggling to think of any other top-drawer fighter (let's not forget that fans, publications and pundits alike were putting him in the mix along with Chavez, Whitaker and later Toney for the pound for pound title in the early nineties) who could have that caveat so rightly applied to all three of their best victories. Drayton was pretty washed by the time Norris got his hands on him, too.

He beat a decent number of guys who went on to collect titles after losing to him, which is all well and good - unfortunately a lot of those guys, such as Quincy Taylor, Little and Daniels, are amongst the more forgettable titlists of their day. Other belt holders he had to beat, for instance Vaca, Jacquot and Santana, were outright trash by world titlist standards.

Mugabi (at a push), Castro, Blocker and the Brown rematch are all creditable and impressive wins, especially that Brown rematch given what had happened in their first fight, and how brilliantly and stylishly Norris took him apart in that return. And make no mistake, Norris was very, very gifted from a skills and athleticism point of view. Quick as they come, good power, fantastic and smooth combination puncher, excellent stamina, fluidity etc. etc.....Married with a dodgy chin and a shocking lack of ring smarts. Meant he was usually a great fighter to watch either way, one who could flitter between the sublime and the ridiculous.

But dang! He really did get a lot of credit for beating compromised opponents in very favourable circumstances during his pomp. We're all wise after the fact, but it was nigh-on criminal that he was in that mix with Chavez, Toney and Whitaker.

Norris was a top fighter....Doesn't get enough credit for outclassing an unbeaten for 8 years Leonard and I mean outclassing....

Taylor was a superb win.....Nullifying his fast hands....Mugabi was also a top win...Too quick...Too accurate.....The schooling he gave Brown in the 2nd fight was delicious.

Yes Norris got some faded greats past their best but he beat them easily....Unbeaten Quincy Taylor was an underrated win..

Norris should have been a great but his chin let him down......

Who did Honey beat ??......Brown...Breland and Starling were avoided in his first term...(Duff admitted Breland was avoided)....140 pound Hatcher and Bumphus with journeyman Blocker before Vaca beat him....and that was it...Curry apart everyone decent beat him.

Norris was worlds better......

I'm not disputing that Norris was better than Honeyghan, Truss. My post wasn't suggesting that. More just a reflection on Norris which was prompted by your comments on Honeyghan re: good timing and / or wins not being as impressive as they sometimes appear on paper.

Leonard might have been unbeaten in more than a decade, but how many times had he fought during that time? Mid-thirties in age and inactive for over a year previously is no preparation for facing someone like Norris. It's not as if Leonard had been setting the world alight in any of his post-Hagler fights either. Who knows, maybe Norris would always have been a nightmare for Leonard, but I don't read too much into that fight.

As for the Taylor win, I'm not saying it's a meaningless victory, but Taylor was a little on the wee side as a Welter, never mind a Light-Middle (I know, I know, catch weight and all that, but even so). Meldrick certainly didn't look too clever and had displayed a lot of fragility in his fight just before facing Norris, when Glenwood Brown had him down twice and teetering on the edge of defeat before he just about eeked out a decision on heart and guts alone. The less said about how Taylor looked in his next right against Espana, the better.

Norris would always have been too big and powerful for Taylor, regardless of circumstances, but I'm loathe too laud that win too much as Taylor had definitely lost something by then.

I'll give him Mugabi, great statement win but Mugabi was never elite and his greatest achievement was a fight he ultimately lost. Fully agree that Norris' dissection of Brown was fantastic though, especially the first six or seven rounds. Very fun to watch and a great array or Norris' skills and talents on show.

88Chris05 wrote:I'm not disputing that Norris was better than Honeyghan, Truss. My post wasn't suggesting that. More just a reflection on Norris which was prompted by your comments on Honeyghan re: good timing and / or wins not being as impressive as they sometimes appear on paper.

Leonard might have been unbeaten in more than a decade, but how many times had he fought during that time? Mid-thirties in age and inactive for over a year previously is no preparation for facing someone like Norris. It's not as if Leonard had been setting the world alight in any of his post-Hagler fights either. Who knows, maybe Norris would always have been a nightmare for Leonard, but I don't read too much into that fight.

As for the Taylor win, I'm not saying it's a meaningless victory, but Taylor was a little on the wee side as a Welter, never mind a Light-Middle (I know, I know, catch weight and all that, but even so). Meldrick certainly didn't look too clever and had displayed a lot of fragility in his fight just before facing Norris, when Glenwood Brown had him down twice and teetering on the edge of defeat before he just about eeked out a decision on heart and guts alone. The less said about how Taylor looked in his next right against Espana, the better.

Norris would always have been too big and powerful for Taylor, regardless of circumstances, but I'm loathe too laud that win too much as Taylor had definitely lost something by then.

I'll give him Mugabi, great statement win but Mugabi was never elite and his greatest achievement was a fight he ultimately lost. Fully agree that Norris' dissection of Brown was fantastic though, especially the first six or seven rounds. Very fun to watch and a great array or Norris' skills and talents on show.

Glass half full arguments can be used to smear any great of the game......if we didn't have majority draws Hagler loses to Antuofermo (Vito did have a case as Hagler switched off).......Hearns was a welter that fought the wrong fight.....Leonard hadn't fought in three years and had looked terrible against Howard....

Hagler didn't have the bottle to catchweight Spinks...(Spinks wins and was interested as he weighed in at 171 regularly)..Chuck in Cyclone Hart.....and his reign was full of average middles..Hamsho twice ?? Obel twice ???...

Is Hagler a great fighter....Yes and I love Marv......But you see the game we can play.......

Taylor was outboxed by Terry.....The strength and weight made little difference.

88Chris05 wrote:I'm not disputing that Norris was better than Honeyghan, Truss. My post wasn't suggesting that. More just a reflection on Norris which was prompted by your comments on Honeyghan re: good timing and / or wins not being as impressive as they sometimes appear on paper.

This shoehorning of put downs of Honeyghan is getting a bit unnecessary. He beat Curry fair and square, no amount of excuses changes the fact.

One from left field.....

Always liked Acelini Freitas......Straight hard punching style...Guilty pleasure.

Believe he is a politician now.

Chris, thanks for this thread. I used to banter with some of you guys back in the beebs days under another username, but I got banned after my ex-GF's brother posted ill comments using my account about Chernobyl, Hiroshima and mutation. And when my favourite contributor (no offence to you guys), Windy passed away, I chose to quit rather than posting with other usernames. It really has been yonks since I am with you guys, and it feels great to be back.

Truss, it is great to see that you are still active. While I do not always agree with what you write (I agree with 70% of your views, like Curry,but disagree with 20% and strongly disagree with 10%, the provocative ones), your knowledge far exceeds mine for sure, and most posters'. By the way, are Captain, etc still with us?

Back to the topic. My top pick is Nigel. My favourite boxer of all time bar none. The most exciting. I am not saying that he was the greatest. He would have been beaten comfortably by Calzaghe, Ward, RJJ, probably by Kessler, I hate to admit it, but probably by Froch too. Canelo depends on juiced or not... But if we are talking about excitement, he was FAR ahead of the aforementioned guys, Froch comes second in SMW.

I am slightly surprised by the lack of Barrera and Morales' names being mentioned, as well as Cotto's and Mosley's. The next will probably raise at least some eyebrows, but I want to add Sweet Pea and Winky too to the list.

Onetwo, I did banter with you on bbc606! Goes back well over a decade now, doesn’t it? I too remember when Benn was spoken of as the British Tyson, black shorts, no socks, just going for it and laying it all on the line.
I remember  him having a very tough fight with Dan Sherry and it was the ‘walk through fire’ fight he needed as a rite of passage.
If you would have made your re-entrance a few months ago you would have heard Truss say that he didn’t have a great record…go figure….But like death and taxes he’s always here…I got no beef for The Beefster I give his comments thumbs -up when he’s taking the proper meds and making sense…

Stalwarts like The Captain and John Bloomin Wayne went awol years ago…