Toughest Sequence of fights a fighter has had??

First topic message reminder :

Carl Froch got a load of credit for his tough sequence of fights during the peak of his career, where he fought a lot of good fighters back to back. More recently Floyd Mayweather is getting a lot of flak for ‘hand-picking’ his opponents.

My question is simple really – which fighters have put together the most impressive/ toughest (and I mean against hall of fame worthy opponents) sequence of fights back to back? I’m guessing we might have a couple of fighters having 2, 3 or 4 max ‘super-fights’ in a row but then have a gimme thrown in.
What are the best run of (preferably winning) fights that any fighter has had that you guys can think of??

Jones hagler is a tough one for me. There was a period where jones just looked untouchable, but I'm trying to think of a top quality pressure fighter he fought. Marv would keep coming all night. Might be a whittaker Taylor fight. Wouldn't like to call it.

'Wouldn't like to call it'. I find myself saying that a lot on fantasy match ups. That's the thing with most of these dream fights. When you have the best guys of their generations, there are rarely decent benchmarks for comparison. And history tells us that when great fighters do fight each other the results aren't that predictable. Look at the fab 4.

I'm impressed with the forthright confidence that some have in picking the results... Which can never be proved or disproved!

Jones may have a shot at beating Hagler with his blistering handspeed and awkward movement but his devel may care and cavalier style would put him in massive danger.

Hopkins, no chance. Hugely overrated "technician". Hagler miles better altogether.

milkyboy wrote:Jones hagler is a tough one for me. There was a period where jones just looked untouchable, but I'm trying to think of a top quality pressure fighter he fought. Marv would keep coming all night. Might be a whittaker Taylor fight. Wouldn't like to call it.

'Wouldn't like to call it'. I find myself saying that a lot on fantasy match ups. That's the thing with most of these dream fights. When you have the best guys of their generations, there are rarely decent benchmarks for comparison. And history tells us that when great fighters do fight each other the results aren't that predictable. Look at the fab 4.

I'm impressed with the forthright confidence that some have in picking the results... Which can never be proved or disproved!

Jones could hurt 175 pounders though Milky...If he hit Hagler crispy and often...like a rock chinned Tyson against Douglas it registers eventually..

Hagler was human..

If Jones can stop Virgil Hill with a single body punch then he possesses the power to at least hurt Hagler, there are very few chins that don't crack eventually.

Even Gavilan with the most cast iron of chins could be hurt while Chuvalo could be punched to a standstill, Oliver McCall is almost unique in that sense.

Hagler v Jones depends on how good Jones chin was at middle.

Hagler wasn't a big hitter...More of an accumulator..and that's bollox what you wrote anyway..

Depends on whether Hagler can find him..Through the swarm of combinations he'd be taking flush..

Jones way too good...

Just because some of us pick Jones to win easy doesn't detract from Hagler's greatness or his rightful place higher than Jones at 160...

Same with Louis...The fact I'd pick at least twenty heavies to flatten him doesn't mean he shouldn't be ranked 2 at Heavy..

Which middleweight great dominated a particularly strong era (in your view)?

Monzon and Greb i'd say, but then much of Grebs greatness is down to his exploits across middleweight and light heavyweight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Monzon and Greb i'd say, but then much of Grebs greatness is down to his exploits across middleweight and light heavyweight.

I was talking to the organ grinder, not the chimp.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Just because some of us pick Jones to win easy doesn't detract from Hagler's greatness or his rightful place higher than Jones at 160...

Same with Louis...The fact I'd pick at least twenty heavies to flatten him doesn't mean he shouldn't be ranked 2 at Heavy..

Lol. As if Truss and OT picking Roy to win easy could possibly detract from Hagler's greatness!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Jones hagler is a tough one for me. There was a period where jones just looked untouchable, but I'm trying to think of a top quality pressure fighter he fought. Marv would keep coming all night. Might be a whittaker Taylor fight. Wouldn't like to call it.

'Wouldn't like to call it'. I find myself saying that a lot on fantasy match ups. That's the thing with most of these dream fights. When you have the best guys of their generations, there are rarely decent benchmarks for comparison. And history tells us that when great fighters do fight each other the results aren't that predictable. Look at the fab 4.

I'm impressed with the forthright confidence that some have in picking the results... Which can never be proved or disproved!

Jones could hurt 175 pounders though Milky...If he hit Hagler crispy and often...like a rock chinned Tyson against Douglas it registers eventually..

Hagler was human..

If anyone's getting knocked out its Jones. His best work was at 168 and 175. As a middle, he was still learning (and somewhat overprotected). Hagler had one of the best chins in history.

I just think Hagler looks ordinary compared to this guy....

Alright saying he wears Jones down tra-la-la......But getting picked off with shots wears you down.....Ask Tyson against Buster....

For me it's a shut out....

You disagree...and that's fair enough !!...

Hagler struggled with Duran's skill set...

I just see Hagler getting a Boxing lesson....To me he doesn't have the power to knock Jones out with one shot and he doesn't have the skill to get more than one shot in at a time..

But Haz I respect your opinion..............Just don't share it.

Hagler didn't have the luxury of Ripped Fuel!

Hagler wasn't ever worn down, wobbled or buzzed. Jones was KTFO. If anyone's getting hurt in that fight it's Roy.

Not sure what relevance fights at light heavyweight have, a division Hagler of course did not fight at but he's an unstoppable force that no man since would have a chance against.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not sure what relevance fights at light heavyweight have, a division Hagler of course did not fight at but he's an unstoppable force that no man since would have a chance against.

Finally you see the light.

Atila wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not sure what relevance fights at light heavyweight have, a division Hagler of course did not fight at but he's an unstoppable force that no man since would have a chance against.

Finally you see the light.

Took him a while.

milkyboy wrote: I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

To each his own.

catchweight wrote: Hopkins........ Hugely overrated "technician"

That is the most ignorant and ridiculous statement I've heard from anyone who knows anything about boxing (presuming you do)

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote: I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

To each his own.

How dull would that be? Never once being excited. Same with Floyd. Mayweather and Hopkins are winning machines but dull as dishwater. Kinda sad.

I remember watching Hagler-Hearns as a kid and it blew the top of my head off.

I loved the war but I do enjoy watching Hopkins and Mayweather methodically win, it's a bit different.

Atila wrote:

milkyboy wrote: I'm a Hopkins fanboy.

To each his own.

... Coming from marv's fluffer

hazharrison wrote:

I remember watching Hagler-Hearns as a kid and it blew the top of my head off.

Explains a lot

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I loved the war but I do enjoy watching Hopkins and Mayweather methodically win, it's a bit different.

I don't have any problems with Hopkins or Mayweather either. The only thing about them both though, is I cannot remember the last time I re-watched one of their fights.  They're both great, but generally once is more than enough. Hagler, Hearns and even Leonard, I've seen some of their fights multiple times.

.... Norris Leonard, camacho Leonard.

This might surprise you but the Leonard fight that I've watched the most is his fight with Hagler. I remember scoring it and having Leonard ahead. Luckily for me, Hagler came on and won it...at least on my scorecard. Haven't seen it in years mind.

Also, I've never seen the complete Norris v Leonard fight, only highlights.

milkyboy wrote:.... Norris Leonard, camacho Leonard.

Didn't Leonard buy the rights to both and lock them in a vault?

... If he didn't, he should have.

I never took any interest in Leonard post the hagler fight. All a bit of a seniors tour circus.

I thought Leonard would beat both. He was that type of fighter. If he came back now I'd probably still pick him over some of them.

3fingers wrote:

catchweight wrote: Hopkins........ Hugely overrated "technician"

That is the most ignorant and ridiculous statement I've heard from anyone who knows anything about boxing (presuming you do)

I guess that is a compliment of sorts on here.

Hopkins is nowhere near as good a technical boxer as he is painted. Unless you include all the spoiling and fouling as technical genius.

When he has come up against good technical boxers like Dawson and Taylor he lost and he could barely hang with an old, fat winky Wright without resorting to fouling him out of the fight.

Hopkins must be the only man in history who has fights used against him when he was well into his 40's, as for an old Wright well Bhop was significantly older.

Who cares? People have been using the too old excuse for Hopkins since the Taylor fights. Its obvious that Hopkins was far nearer his best than Wright was when they fought at a prepostourous weight for Wright.

It's a relevant excuse that is why, Wright was on probably the best run of form in his career and whilst the catchweight wasn't ideal it got a fight made that had been speculated about for years.

Who cares? Wright was past it and fighting miles above his best weight. Hopkins had to foul him out of the fight to eek a decision. Any more excuses for the technical maestro?

Do you have anything constructive to say or is it going to be the same tired old line, the Wright fight was horrendous to watch but they were both to blame for that but that doesn't fit your argument does it.

No more excuses?

Yes because stating the fact he's old for a boxer is an excuse.

Need to come up with better than that. The Hopkins is old excuse is amateur for an original theorist like yourself.

Isn't that the same excuse you just used for Wright, bravo again.

If you had a clue, you would be able to recognise the Wright fight for what it was. A disgraceful foul riddled performance by Hopkins over a much smaller and more past it boxer (regardless of age).

Instead the best you have come up with is "Hopkins was older than Winky". Bravo. 10 "respected opinion" points for you.

Going into the fight there wasn't much to suggest Wright was that far past it, I do remember the build up to the fight and he was no regarded to be past it but the catchweight might be a problem. It transpired to be a terrible fight but regardless of size Wright was a talented enough fighter to almost overcome those odds.

Wright was a career light middle. Hopkins a career middle. So there's a size difference. Hardly an excessive one though catchy. No arguing that the fight stank... Though neither were ever crowd pleasers.

Nope Im not buying that one. The size differance was substantial. Hopkins was a big middleweight who is not out of place at light heavyweight. Wright was really pushing it at middleweight. This fight took place at a 170 catchweight which was a major advantage to Hopkins. I doubt Hopkins could have made middleweight at all at that stage. Wright had a fat ass and t1ts for the fight. He was well beyond his limit.

And Hopkins was was fouling ridiculously in the fight. Not Wright. He must have been warned 5 or 6 times for fouling without any points deduction and opened a horrific cut on Wright early doors with the head. Wright wasnt easy on the eye but he didnt resort to Hopkins level of spoiling when he fought. If Hopkins was as technically brilliant as he is credited with, he wouldnt have had to rely on cheating to beat a clearly blown up Wright.

Wright was no light heavyweight. His ass was so fat that night he looked like Winky Kardashian.

Hopkins has proven an effective light heavy.

This was a good example of Golden Boy's strategy of just matching names - regardless of weight - costing the little guy dear.

No one has ever looked good against Winky Wright.

If Hopkins hasn't got good technique what's winning him fights? because it's certainly not speed, power or work rate.

Who said he hadnt got good technique?

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:No one has ever looked good against Winky Wright.

If Hopkins hasn't got good technique what's winning him fights? because it's certainly not speed, power or work rate.

His old-school mastery of boxing (and the rough side in particular).

Fighters these days aren't as well schooled, as battle-hardened as they once were. Hopkins knows way too much for the likes of Cloud, Pascal and Pavlik - fighters with only a rudimentary grasp on footwork and inside fighting.

Old-time fighters aren't given the lickings of a dog on 606 - OT suggested Fritzie Zivic was a journeyman last week (another asked who on earth Sam Angott was) - yet these are the fighters Hopkins has modelled himself on.

He pecks, throws a right followed by his head, clinches and rests. It's highly effective stuff. Dreadful to watch (as were Zivic and Angott) but clever.

catchweight wrote:Who said he hadnt got good technique?

Oh right, perhaps you meant he was a hugely underrated "technician."

Yes. One whos excessive spoiling and fouling is often mis-labeled as technical brilliance.

Hold on a minute? Hopkins is an old time fighter? Yeah, he's from the last generation of fighters...but oldtime? Comeon.

He's a once in a life time fighter with a wealth of experience. He' brilliant not because he's oldtime, hes brilliant because hes taken time to learn and polish the finer intricacies. Thats why he beat Pavlik and Cloud....not because he is akin to fighters of a long gone era.