I've been thinking about my own personal P4P list for a while now, and this evening I decided to just get it done. I referred to the Boxrec P4P list, which is at the link below, but I'm shocked at some of the placements on that list:

Boxrec - P4P Top 25

Anyhow, my own list took some thinking about, and some moving and shaking, but I thought I'd put it up for discussion on here, since I've not seen many recent lists from, well, anyone, to be honest. So, here goes:

1. Manny Pacquaio. I'm not sure I need to explain this much, if at all, but suffice it to say that right now Manny seems more like a force of nature than just a guy who beats people up. He's so far ahead of anyone else right now, it's hard to see how anyone can overtake him until he gets beaten or retires. 

2. Nonito Donaire. I'm more and more impressed by this guy every time he fights, and if I'm honest I've gone from non-believer to captivated observer in the space of very few fights. I was a fan of Vic, I thought Vic would beat him, I'd have even picked Vic in a rematch. No more. That was no flash in the pan; he has beaten the fight out of every guy he has fought since, and there are a few really good fighters on that list.

3. Sergio Martinez. I'd have loved to put Sergio higher, since I love his style, I love his tenacity, I think in short that he's a genuinely fantastic fighter in pretty much every way. Questions regarding whether Floyd or Manny could step up and fight/beat Sergio are now looking a little unrealistic from where I'm sitting, and I'm frankly a little embarraassed to have suggested as much, great though they are. Last night's systematic destruction of Dzinziruk was a real master-class from Sergio, and left me feeling a little rueful that he has peaked so late. A very worthy #3, and a definite contender for #2. Martinez vs Donaire was one of the choices that gave me the biggest headache, and I could have just gone for doing the old 2a and 2b thing... but there is something about Donaire right now which makes me think that although Sergio is really damn special, Donaire might just have it in him to be even more damn special. It was a tough choice, and I can more than understand people who have it the other way.

4. Lucian Bute. Say what you like about the technical master-classes and defensive genius that some guys swear by, sometimes it's just nice to know the guy you're rooting for is heading out into that ring with the full intention of stopping his opponent as fast and ruthlessly as possible. In his last fight, Bute allowed Jesse Brinkley to hang with him longer than expected, but before that he knocked out Miranda, Zuniga and Andrade, all within 4 rounds, all viciously and in a no-frills style that I can both admire and appreciate. He's biding his time right now until the Super Six finishes, and this will inevitably have an impact on his calibre of opponent until then, and some could definitely argue that this ranking is too high. The proof will be in the pudding, though, and until his anticipated King-Maker fight with the winner of the Super Six (probably and hopefully Ward), I'm happy that Bute passes the eye test well enough to justify this standing.

5. Juan Manuel Marquez. Marquez is one of the guys I struggle to place. He has a proven track record, but is no longer the fighter he once was. Whether that necessarily drops him down lower than this is subjective, and in my own view Marquez still has enough class and guile to keep his place among the very elite of the sport.

6. Yuriorkis Gamboa. This kid is the single biggest reason Juan Manuel Lopez isn't a global star, in my opinion. Had Gamboa taken up accountancy rather than the sweet science, we'd probably be lauding JML as the second coming or something similar. The fact that there seems to be so much reluctance on the part of the JML camp to force the big fights, especially the one with Gamboa, leaves a slightly bad taste in the mouth, and has convinced me, anyway, that Gamboa is currently the main guy at 126. Gamboa is one of the fastest guys in the sport right now, whether in absolute terms or P4P, and his propensity for controlled but oh-so-effective violence has recently seen him knock out Rogers Mtagwa (the guy who took Lopez life-and-death in 2009) inside two rounds, and then thoroughly outclass Jonathon Victor Barros and Orlando Salido in wide points victories. Right now, I'm not sure there is anyone at 122, 126 or 130 that I'm picking over Gamboa.

7. Andre Ward. In a move that will surely enrage and perplex our friends in Oakland, I have neglected to put Ward as my undisputed King of All Boxers, and instead have him at a lowly #7.... His win over Kessler was a great one, but I was pretty convinced that Ward would have had more trouble fighting that way had he been anywhere but at home, given that he was using his head as a second jab for most of the fight. That said, he put Kessler in harm's way, kept the pressure on, and found a way to win, as all great fighters do. It hasn't always got to be pretty, and what Ward does often isn't, but he has proven that he can really fight. Putting the hurt on Sakio Bika was fun to watch, and like practically everyone in the universe, I'm desperate to see Ward face Bute. If he wins that one, he'll almost certainly jump up to #4 at the very worst.

8. Wladimir Klitschko. I'm not sure this will be popular, but I've changed my tune on Wlad as time has gone by. Okay, he once went down three times to a slow slugger. But you know what? He also won that fight, which should have told us all something about him. And he isn't perfect. Far from it. But he is really damn good. That jab is reminiscent of Holmes or Lewis, his footwork is beautiful to watch at times. He is technically brilliant, even if he isn't exciting, and he has made everybody he has faced in years look like a complete chump by comparison. Consider me a Wlad Klitschko convert.

9. Amir Khan. I don't like him, I don't even respect him very much. I don't like chinny fighters, I don't like guys who run off at the mouth about how great they are, or how great they are going to be. But I have to admit, Amir Khan is one of the most outrageously talented fighters in the sport right now. He has amazing hands, very quick feet, his reflexes are out of this world. Sort of like Roy Jones. And funnily enough, he's sort like how I'd have expected Roy Jones to react had his chin issues (if you swing that way) were found out early in his career, and as such Khan has now gone the Wlad Klitschko route to winning fights. Safe and sure. He dominated Paulie, he destroyed Salita (yeah, I said it) and he out-boxed a really good boxer in Kotelnik. Those were all well and good, but sometimes, like Andre Ward, a guy just needs to learn how to win. Khan showed me against Maidana that he has learnt a little of that. He rode his luck, he needed Maidana to do all the wrong things at that key point in the fight, but he still won, and that counts for a lot in my book. Boxing is not all a bed of roses, but sometimes you have to bleed on the thistles and thorns, admit you're not perfect, and settle for being able to say, "I won".

10. Miguel Cotto. Welcome back, Miguel. This might be weird, but right now, I do not think there are ten better fighters in the sport than Cotto. I think there may be ten guys who can beat him, but somehow in his case that doesn't equate to them being necessarily better than him, or maybe just doesn't equate to them being justifiably superior to him in these rankings. He has had a rough ride, he has beaten some fantastic fighters at 140, 147 and 154, he has been through wars, he has lost a couple, and he has kept his dignity intact and carried on taking on challenge after challenge, and for the most part, ending said challenges in triumph. All the things I don't like about Amir Khan are the reasons I do like Miguel Cotto: he is magnanimous in defeat, he is humble in victory, and yet, as the commentators forlast night's fight with Ricardo Mayorga kept saying: he goes in there and gets the job done. His track record speaks for itself, and he continues to beat *almost* everyone he fights. As of now, he's in. I'm not saying that beating an old Mayorga means anything, but Cotto was immaculate, skilled, and professional. Well worth his place.

Honourable Mentions:

Lopez- Fight Gamboa already. One gets the feeling he is being protected, and great fighters rarely are.

Bradley- I think his lack of power and over-enthusiasic use of the head would combine to get him into trouble against Khan.

Vitali- Solid case for inclusion, there are just some guys I think are a little classier, P4P.

Hopkins- My current #1 at 175, not really busy enough to justify breaking back into the rankings.

Mares- Maybe needs one more really good performance to crack into this list.

Haye- A win over Wlad probably puts him in at around #6.

Lemieux- I've seen nothing about him I don't like.

Froch- Needs to beat Johnson and probably Ward to be a real contender for inclusion.

Pascal/Dawson- Either one needs to triumph over Hopkins and/or the other before re-joining the elite.

Segura- Will probably find his way into serious contention for inclusion whould he beat Calderon again.

Oh yes, and Floyd..... I'm not classing Floyd as an active boxer right now. He's 34, he's threatened retirement too many times, and he hasn't done anything to justify remaining relevant in too long, besides all the stuff we don't want to know about any more already. Goodbye, Floyd.

Feel free to discuss, rip apart, or whatever, really. It was fun writing that out, and it'll be fun watching it get dismantled.... :)

Just watched a really entertaining back-and-forth between Gary Sykes and Carl Johanneson, and I was pleasantly surprised by how good both guys looked in there. Johanneson has been one of my favourite domestic fighters for a few years now, and it was good to see him give a really good account of himself in this fight.

Sykes was coming off the loss to Gary Buckland in Prizefighter, and Johanneson was sure he'd get to him and knock him out. In the ninth round he very nearly did, as a big right hand found serious purchase, and Sykes hit the deck. The rest of the ninth was reminiscent of round ten of Khan/Maidana, and Sykes ran, held, and toward the end of the round even started to take control again as it became evident that Johanneson had punched himself out.

After that scary couple of minutes, Sykes went after Johanneson, using speed and movement to open Johanneson up and make him vulnerable, but there never seemed to be too much danger of Sykes ending Johanneson's resistance early.

Scorecards came back unanimous for Sykes, but a couple of them were disappointingly wide, one having Sykes a winner by 9 rounds. For posterity, my own card was as follows:

Round 1: 10-9 Johanneson

Round 2: 10-9 Sykes

Round 3: 10-9 Sykes

Round 4: 10-9 Johanneson

Round 5: 10-9 Johanneson

Round 6: 10-9 Sykes

Round 7: 10-9 Johanneson

Round 8: 10-9 Sykes

Round 9: 10-8 Johanneson

Round 10: 10-9 Sykes

Round 11: 10-9 Sykes

Round 12: 10-9 Sykes

Ending with a final score of 114-113 for Gary Sykes.

That being said, the cards, while being wide, were at least favouring the right man (and I write as someone who had a small bet on Carl Johanneson).

Baffling moment of the fight: Carl Johanneson's corner effectively telling him not to go after Sykes in the final stanza. On my card he needed that round for a narrow win, and I think the Sky guys had it likewise. Sykes' corner told him that Sky had it level, and told him to go out and win the final round via volume and an ear-muff defense, while Johanneson's had either given up the ghost thinking the fight was only winnable by stoppage (unlikely, as they were telling Carl to counter rather than press) or they thought he was so far ahead that he only had to stay on his feet  through the three minutes. It was kind of weird, and since I thought it was level at that point, I was less than impressed (to put it mildly) when I heard his corner advising him to go backwards.

For those who did not see it, I'd seriously recommend watching a re-run, as this was a really entertaining fight, with swings in momentum, both guys giving really good accounts, and even Glenn McCrory was decent in the box. Full credit to Gary Sykes, he was value for his win, and I for one (and I might be the only one, the way Richie Woodhall was talking) certainly do not write off Carl Johanneson at this point. He gave Sykes a hell of a fight, a hell of a scare, and is not done yet by my reckoning.

As some of you know on this site, I play pool to a pretty high level. I've stuck up some clips on here before, but this time I get to allow people to watch a match live if they so choose.

Money Match TV is a series of pool events promoted by Andy Appleton, and streamed live by CuesportTV from the Vegas Sports Bar in Wakefield. I was invited to come and play a money match on the card (which is set up a little like a boxing card, now I think about it) against one of the retained players from the last event.I don't usually play American pool, but I accepted anyway.

Anyhow, the schedule is in the middle of this page:

Pro9 Forum- Confirmed MMTV Schedule

And the match streaming will be at:

CuesportTV/MMTV Live Stream

There is about £2400 being staked on this match as of now, but this might go higher when I reach the venue.

Anyhow, wish me luck, and I hope you can tune in (it's free!!). Also, please note that the times listed are British time (GMT), so you'll have to adjust by about 5 hours if you're in the United States.

I've been tinkering recently with a few new ideas (or twists on previous themes) in order to entertain and delight, or maybe just alleviate some boredom for a minute or two. This is one of the ideas I had, which was a quiz which relies on getting the answer to any given question before being able to move on to the next.

Now, I stress this is a preliminary effort, a first attempt at something just to see if it works, and I also appreciate that maybe knocking together 5 or maybe even 10 would have been a better idea, or maybe even making it 100 questions long rather than 20...But anyway, for the whole 5 minutes it takes you to wade through it, I hope it's a bit of trivia fun, and I welcome any and all comments.

Could I just ask, please, that spoilers are kept to a minimum, at least in the first few comments, so as not to inadvertantly ruin the chain for others. Obviously those intrepid explorers who scroll down and read the comments risk finding out a tricky answer or two, but hell, it's a bit of fun. :)

Any question refers back to the answer to the previous one... hey, you'll work it out. :) I suppose the 'winner' is the person who first posts the date of birth of the man whose name is the answer to question 20 (I say DOB rather than name simply to prevent his name being the first post in the comments).

Quiz question #1 after the jump.......

Continue reading this post »

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12040_6716857,00.html

First of all, I'm not sure this fight will happen any time really soon. I do think it would be a really good fight to see, but it's probably too hard a fight for too little reward for Khan. I do however think Khan beats Brook, since Khan has been to the top level (albeit in the weight class below) and Brook has little to no top-level experience.

That said, I do think that if the fight happens in two years time, with Brook making the same progress he has been, it could be a pick-'em fight at that point. I'm not sure this fight is the right one for either at this point, but hell, it beats the hell out of McCloskey and Prescott, or even John Murray, who I think deserves the shot at Khan more than most.

I had a chat tonight with a good friend of mine, who really knows his boxing. We were discussing Hagler/Leonard, and we disagree wholeheartedly on who won. We moved swiftly on, and were talking about Leonard/Hearns 1, when my friend asserted that this was the single best fight he has ever seen. He said the whole big-fight atmosphere that preceded it, the relevance both contemporary and historical, the action in the ring, the drama, the qualityof both guys really contributed to what he would have as his #1 fight ever.

This is (maybe) not to be confused with 'favourite' fight ever, or maybe the two are intrinsically linked, but the comment got me wondering: what is the best fight I've ever seen?

Now, because I'm relatively young, I missed out on the historical context of Holmes/Cooney, for example, and I wasn't there for Ali's career, so I have to judge on what I've seen on video. In other words, while my friend has experienced the buildup to a lot of great fights, I only know what I see in documentaries, or read, combined with the video of the in-ring action itself. I threw a couple of other fights at him to see how they fared on his Big Fight Abacus, and he threw them all back as being Quite Simply Not As Good as the first Leonard/Hearns fight.

Some I named were Ali/Frazier 3, Morales/Barrera 1, Hagler/Hearns (which even I, as a massive advocate of this fight as being on the Required Reading list for anybody who wants to watch great fights, have to admit might suffer due to its brevity), and Cotto/Margarito. He said that while all these fights had something, they all lacked an intangible and maybe unquantifiable quality that made Leonard/Hearns 1 his #1.

So I thought I'd ask, because I'm really curious about this and there are loads that I probably should have thrown at him but didn't: What is the best fight you've ever seen? This could be your favourite, but I'm not sure it really means just that; this question (the way I mean it anyway) could possibly be rephrased as something like: if you were trying to convert a casual boxing fan into a hardcore one, and you were going to show them one fight that would best suit the purpose, which would it be? Or, if you like, disregard this meaning, and select your own definition of 'best'. I'm happy either way. I'd just like to canvas opinion, really. It's been bugging me all night.

I saw this ages ago, and I just remembered it. It may even be that I remember it having seen it on this very site, but I thought it would be worth the risk and put it on here for your collective pleasure and stuff. It definitely was on another site too, since I remember one reply in particular from a friend of mine who is not a member of this site, despite my prolonged efforts in that regard.... Anyway, apologies again if I'm replicating a previous post.

Contained at the link below is a quiz in which you have 10 minutes to name as many Heavyweight World Champions (which becomes 'HW World title-holders' pretty quickly) as you can. Post your scores in the comments, and we'll see how we get on!

Name as many heavyweight champions as you can.... starting..... when you click this link. :)

(Very very small spoiler.... the first time I did this I had a massive mental block and forgot Holyfield....)

Quick tip: you don't have to use first names, or anything fancy, you don't even have to press 'Enter'. Just type away, using surnames, and it automatically matches them as you go.

Enjoy!!

Ok, ok, it's a little late. This year it'll have to be the Xmas/New Year awards, since I can't actually get into the DeLorean and go back a few days (plus Goaty and Raquel Welch made one hell of a mess in there. I did say Not On The Seats, Goaty....)

So here they are anyway, a bit of fun at a time of the year when we here are freezing cold and the Aussies are hot, but we get to glean at least some warm from the fact we are currently destroying them at cricket.

Anyhow, with no further ado, I present to you:

2009 awards here:

The BLH Forum "Audley Harrison" Funniest Poster Award;

(Formerly the ‘Jorge Barrios’, 2009 Winner: battleaxeofdoom)

As with last year, this was a really tough subject to decide on. In fact, what with Barrios being a whole lot less funny this year, and Scott’s express sentiment that at Barrios represented a very black humour at best given his exploits over the past year, giving the award a new name was almost more difficult than picking a winner! Audley got the nod for some of the hilarity which lead up to the fight with David Haye, even if he did turn out to be a bigger joke when the bell actually rang than he could have hoped to make beforehand.

Part of the reason this was hard to pick was simply the massive amount of people to choose from. Scott and Brick are both really funny in a dry way, jrok has this thing I can’t either quantify or properly comprehend that just makes me giggle like a helium-filled hyena at times. Other honourable mentions go to sonofapsycho, who is so cutting sometimes that it reminds me of what might happen if Eric Cartman ever grew up (in the best possible way!), and El Destruyo, who has been a fantastic addition to the site and has given us all (I would imagine) many laughs over the past months.

However, after a period of much-reduced posting, our winner has come back and brought back some of the wit and fun that makes this site a laugh-a-minute place to be, at times.

2010 Winner: The Kittias Kid

The BLH Forum "Steve Cunningham" Nice Guy Award;

(Formerly the ‘Peacekeeper’, 2009 Winner: BrianBrock)

Steve Cunningham: nice guy. This has been pointed out lots in recent times. This is why he keeps his name on this award.

BrianBrock: nice guy. This has not received half as much fanfare. Part of this is due to the fact that Brian is not a professional fighter, and also that he quite simply has not been here to defend his belt.

 So he has been stripped of his title (we’ll find a reason, like the WBC, or maybe just name him champion-in-recess and still charge him fees, like the WBA), and we crown a new champion of the Nice-Guy weight class. Honorable mentions must go to Brickhaus, who is definitely in my ‘Must Have A Beer With Top 5’, and Matt Miller, who sadly misses out due to inactivity.

This year’s winner is a newcomer who rarely provokes controversy, and despite being a Scouser is actually a nice bloke. It’s a pleasure to engage in any thread of which he is a part, and two-way conversation with him rarely, if ever, leaves one feeling like ejecting one’s computer from one’s window.

2010 Winner: Phill

The BLH Forum "James DeGale" Newcomer Award;

(Formerly the ‘Beibut Shumenov’, 2009 Winner: Drunken Cutman)

Purely for comedy value, I was mulling over re-naming this award the ‘Garth Wood’, but then, it has never been made clear just how much JC40 and Goatsnake like Anthony Mundine, so to prevent the possibility of WWIII, which it has been prophesied will be fought with cans of Fosters and laser-guided surfboards, it seemed like a less risky option to just go for DeGale.

Unlike DeGale, however, none of the posters shortlisted for this award are arrogant, smug or particularly harmful to one’s eardrums. They do however possess a fair degree of talent, and have all made fantastic contributions in their respective first years as participants on Bad Left Hook.

Pakinpower’s late charge fell just short, Apprentice has engaged in some great conversation, El Destruyo just misses out due to the high calibre of the competition, and while Phill has already won an award, he’d have needed some serious home-cooking to steal a judge’s decision away from this year’s winner, who can do humour, intellect, historical knowledge, humanity and wisdom, all with ease and all in spades.

2010 Winner: BoxAnne

The BLH Forum "Bernard Hopkins" Encyclopaedic Knowledge Award;

(2009 Winner: Brickhaus)

I see no reason at all to change the name of this award for this year’s list: if there be any doubters, make haste to the house of Jean Pascal, where ye shall be enlightened. One day, Hopkins will grow old, and then maybe this award will change its name. Maybe.

One of the major reasons for this site’s overwhelming popularity among its users is the arbitrary dispensation of knowledge. Posters of all ages and backgrounds come together, and it is fun to look back on all the threads and see references to things that happened before my father was a twinkle in his father’s eye, to see diverse and obscure details discussed in a way that simply can not and does not happen on other sites. Brickhaus’ posts regarding fights I had no idea were happening, bringing up names of fighters I would have no idea regarding the existence of, baffles me every time. How can one man know this much about so many guys from this many areas and divisions and still find time to sleep?

Other honorable mentions go deservedly to JC40, who showed that if we had turned the quiz threads competitive then he would have been a ‘bludger’ to beat (his word, not mine, and I’m still not entirely sure what he meant by it!), Goatsnake, who provided a large share of the questions, and made me want to tear out my hair (if I had any) with some of the really obscure ones, and lcollins1, who is the only poster I’ve ever seen argue jrok down on anything, ever.

However I’m sure it’s safe to assume that not many people will want to take on this year’s winner in a trivia contest (and if they do I’ll host it, I’ve actually got a format in mind!), and there won’t be any debate as to the fact that he is a worthy winner of this award.

2010 Winner: Kid Blast

The BLH Forum "Roy Jones Jr" Flashy Poster Award; (2009 Winner: jrok)

This year has been fun. There have been some crazy debates, academic debates, circular debates, crazy debates.... (See what I did there?)

The influx of new posters has led to an increased amount of widespread perspectives on the sport as a whole, fighters in particular, and Bob Arum specifically. Debating is part and parcel of this culture, and some guys have it, and some just.... don’t. I shortlisted the guys who do this well, who make reading debates fun, who can cut an argument dead in approximately 7.3752727 words. The Kittias Kid, sonofapsycho, battleaxeofdoom and lcollins1 are fantastic at it. Seriously unreal.  

But... sometimes guys just retain. Sturm did it for years, Chris John did it, some people just take a belt hostage and hide it away for ages. Then on the other hand, you have guys willing to take on the world, anywhere in the world, like, say, Mike Tyson. Unlike Mike, however, last year’s winner of this award did not get sparked out by a supposedly unworthy challenger. I described last year what I was looking for with regard to this award, and despite the fact that last year’s winner went on an unauthorized hiatus for the first part of this year, he still wins this award hands-down.

2010 Winner: jrok

The BLH Forum "Barrera/Morales" Best Two-way Debate/FOTY Award;

(Formerly the ‘Eubank/Benn’, 2009 winner jrok vs Brickhaus)

Maybe not the best thing to celebrate on a civilized website, but hell, its a boxing site and we all like seeing a good fight. I’m changing the focus of this award slightly this year, and rather than going for a rivalry, I’m going to give this award to the Fight-of-the-Year style exchange. It made me laugh, it made me shout at the screen. But it was all kinds of awesome, and the images it conjured up were nothing short of epic. The winner is at the link below.

I’d throw in a few honorable mentions, as is the custom, but these are all debates that are memorable to me, and therefore I won’t expect that you’ll all remember them the same way. I do have most of the great exchanges that I’ve read on here book-marked, so could provide a few links if requested.

2010 Winner: jrok vs lcollins1- the debate surrounding “jrok’s rules of chivalry”.

The BLH Forum "Fres Oquendo" Fighter Favouritism Award;

(Formerly the ‘Sven Ottke’, 2009 winner: jdoro63, a.k.a The Golota Guy)

Yes, that is an ironic award title, and yes, that is actually Fres Oquendo’s name in bold. However, there will be little ironic about this subject, because to all concerned it’s a very serious matter. I suppose I should just get the HM’sout of the way, and get on to throwing this award the way of the titanic fandom personified by this year’s winner, but I want to have a little fun first....

Here’s a list. See if you can name the guy they have a man-crush on bad enough to make this award shortlist:

·         Craigman

·         Goatsnake

·         Option27

·         pakinpower

·         JC40

·         battleaxeofdoom

·         rgb

·         Haans Bishop

·         BrianBrock

I was tempted to throw in Scott’s love of Jones (Y'ALL MUSTA FORGOT him picking Jones over Hopkins) and Kid Blast’s obvious love of Kelly Pavlik, which he hides via reverse psychology and misdirection (I keed, I keed), but I think this guessing game works fine for this award. Please copy the list and insert your answers in the replies.

Now to our winner. Well, what can we say, that isn’t already expressed by his sig? I’ll stop there, since this is genuinely meant to be a light-hearted bit of banter, and I feel that any further elaboration might not be taken as such. So, well done to our winner on his award!  

2010 Winner: Ryan Tical

The BLH Forum "Lucian Bute" We Want To See More From You Next Year Award;

(Formerly the ‘David Haye’, 2009 Winner: tichbou)

Well, didn’t this award work out well? Last year’s winner became a bit more active for a little while, then became a once a month poster. Damn you, Yuri Foreman’s knee, for bringing this period of inactivity upon us! In all fairness, the only reason someone wins this award is because we want to hear what they have to say, but they don’t say it enough!

There are many people whose voices (maybe a stretched metaphor in this case) we want to hear more often, and those who have departed to the barren lands are missed. But the potential is there for improved performance, and this is to be encouraged. Drunken Cutman is one such poster, winning as he did the Newcomer of the Year award in 2009, but becoming more sporadic and distant in 2010. His body of work was much appreciated in 2009, and we can only hope he ups his level of input in the New Year.

Others that are not nearly as active on the site as we would (I’m sure) all prefer: Zocalo, Matt Miller (who broke a vow he made in this thread last year to be more active both in posting and by way of published features...), and the unfortunately vanished misterjonez, whose opinions were perceptive and fun.

But this year’s winner, despite coming from a veritable hot-house of formerly great posters, is my choice for this year’s ‘Bute’ award. The quality is there, the quantity is never enough. You need to up your game, sir!!

2010 Winner: taco pal

The BLH Forum "Marvelous Marvin Hagler" Best ‘Sig’ Award;

(2009 Winner: BrianBrock’s Bernard Hopkins quote)

There isn’t really much to say on this, apart from: last year’s winner was a really hard act to follow, and I have been noting down some decent candidates for this year’s award throughout the year. So I’ll list these here, and just stick a winner at the bottom. This might be something we vote on in future years, since it’s such a subjective thing.

Thebitb: "After this, I'm gonna kick Bob Arum's ass." (George Lopez)

JC40: "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." (Hunter S Thompson)

angelofdeath: "Marriage is the leading cause of divorce"

Goatsnake: "Anytime you go thirty rounds with a guy, try to kill each other, and have the utmost respect for each other, no one understands that, but guys who have been to war understand it." (Micky Ward on Arturo Gatti)

2010 Winner: Blood Meridian: "Mug an old lady, and if you have the right connections the WBO will rank you seventh." (Steve Farhood)

The BLH Forum 'Sergio Martinez' Poster of the Year Award;

(Formerly the 'Manny Pacquaio', 2009 Winner: Scott Christ)

And for the grand finale: a little change. I've selected a fine few posters, and we'll have to elect out own 'Maravilla' based on the outcome of the vote. No site staff are included (it was the only way I could stop that pesky Scott from strolling away with it again), but I've included the guys I think are most worthy from the rest.

Sorry if I missed anyone or anything (it's almost impossible that I didn't, to be honest), and Happy Xmas and New Year to all.

Boxing fans have had the great pleasure across the decades of seeing some amazing fights, with great fighters leaving it all in the ring. However, some guys do this more than once, and we even end up with a trilogy of great fights in some special cases. I was thinking earlier today about which of the best trilogies I have seen would get my vote, and just decided to put it to a more general audience.

I'll apologize now for a few of things:

1. I'm almost certain to forget at least one trilogy I should include, and this is something I regret in advance, if such a thing can even really happen.

2. I'm not counting Vasquez/Marquez IV as part of their saga. I'm just not.

3. I'm far too lazy to put up links to all of the fights included. I'm sure that most are on Youtube, and if not the others can be found elsewhere.

4. I'm not discounting fight series that went more than 3 fights, such as Robinson/LaMotta. They include trilogies, and therefore deserve consideration as fight series.

5. I'm not including Jones/Tarver. No way, no how, is Antonio Tarver getting on my list....

Right: to the poll. I suppose there are many ways to view this question, and you could answer based on cultural context, relevance to the sport, historical nostalgia, quality of fights/fighters, which one you personally just like more, which you'd be most likely to put on for a beer/boxing night, or even just which one you've watched the most. It's your call, because all of those things add up to making something 'great'.

Enjoy!

In another BLH Fanpost I made the following comment, which ended up a whole lot longer than I meant it to be. It's something I've wanted to give vent to for some time now, and thought that rather than simply leave it as an off-topic post in another thread, I'd re-post it myself. Here goes:

I think the idea that the ref is there to protect the fighters is being warped: they are there to prevent a fight becoming a street brawl; they are there to make sure the rules are being upheld, and they are there to protect a fighter from his opponent. I do NOT agree with the idea that the ref is there to protect the fighter from himself. Otherwise, why not just agree that the first knockdown wins the fight? That way, hardly any fighters would get really ‘hurt’, and the PC brigade would be happy!!

I always refer back to Eubank being in all sorts of trouble in the Watson fight as the proof, in my eyes, that the ref has no business stopping fighters who want to carry on, and are mentally unimpaired. If the guy cannot respond, or is clearly gone in the head, then fine, stop it. Eubank was really hurting, but he would in all likelihood have killed that ref if he’d stopped it. He was still there mentally (well, as much as you can ever use that term in relation to Chris Eubank, anyway…) and as such was capable of making his own damn decision about whether he could carry on.

Physically hurt is another thing, but the ref has no idea how badly a fighter is hurt; at least, not as much as the fighter does. He also has no idea about that particular fighter’s own pain threshold, or resilience, and if all fighters are going to be judged by the same generic standard then how are we supposed to celebrate one particular fighter’s heart, or balls, or courage, over any other guy’s?

I think the ability to make one’s own decision is the clincher for me. Eubank could make his own decision about how much pain he could take, how tired/hurt he was, etc. Once a fighter does not have the capability to make the decision, then the ref has the right to stop it. NOT before.

I suppose my feeling on the matter is thus: A fighter has the right to decide on whether he is physically fit to continue, and the ref has the responsibility to decide if the fighter has the mental capability to make that decision.

I tried a while ago to organize a meeting of British BLH members for the Frank Warren Night of Champions card at Wembley on February 13th. While that didn't go the way I was hoping, with a smaller turn-out than I expected, I did meet Bazzlad for the first time, and myself and BrianBrock had some right fun and games; wherever I was, he wasn't, and when he came to where we were, we'd gone...

Anyhow, a great night was had, and I'm hoping to put together more meetings for British Bad Left Hookers. Obviously the ideal option is to meet up at fights (and I'm going to Abraham/Froch in Helsinki later this month if anyone wants to tag along!!) but sometimes this is obviously not feasible. This weekend is unfortunately one that I have prior engagements for, and as such cannot get to the Haye/Harrison fight, as much as I would have liked to.

However, every cloud has a silver lining, and I have been in conversations with BrianBrock over the last couple of days in order to arrange a meeting this weekend at a venue which will be showing the fight. My other business takes me London way, and Brian is based there at present, in between various stops in his jetset lifestyle. We have decided upon the City Pride Bar in Faringdon, London, as they will have both the Haye/Harrison fight and the Pacquaio/Margarito fight showing live on big screens. Obviously there is some gap between these two fights, and copious amounts of "beer/cider/spirit/girly drink" will be consumed at  this time, for experimental reasons. I'm not sure yet what the experiment is, or what it seeks to achieve, but we can decide as a group when the time comes.

So, all British BLH members (or any others who are willing to make the journey!!), consider this your invite to come along and have a beer, talk random crap about all things boxing, watch a few fights and meet some of the guys you've bantered with on these threads for so long. I'm expecting that myself and Brian will be meeting at around 7 or 8, in order to make sure we're well oiled by the time the Haye/Harrison debacle sorry, 'fight', begins. I'd love to meet some of you, and have a beer or two. First round is on me when we get there (just don't tell BrianBrock I said that!!) and if anyone needs to get hold of me, just leave comments in this thread and I'll email you.The more the merrier.

Hopefully we get a good turnout, and I look forward to a good night of beer, boxing and banter.

Rich

Ok, since the last thread inspired a fantastic response, and was inundated by some amazing questions and some encyclopaedic answers, we've decided to go for another one. Rather than simply keep the other thread open, we've gone for a new one, to keep things fresh and also for a few other technical reasons far too boring and irrelevant to go into now.

The rules remain the same, and they're really simple:

Post any questions as the start of a new reply chain, not as a reply to another post. This helps to keep the questions separate and distinguishable.

Answers or responses to questions should be posted as replies. Any 'first post' comments that are not questions will be deleted, since they could feasibly be an answer to ANY question asked prior to posting.

Ask as many questions as you like, but keep them to one per post, otherwise the replies/answers could get quite complex.

If multiple answers are given, in case of any doubt as to who is right, the person posing the question will decide, but may be over-ruled if factually wrong by any member of site team.

If a question is too difficult or obscure, and no-one can answer it for a reasonable period of time, the user posting the question should post the answer as a reply, and then bask in the glory of being a boxing quiz/trivia God.

Using Google/Boxrec is not permitted. There is no way to govern this, but this is a bit of fun and using online research tools is not really in the spirit of the game.

Original BLH Quiz Thread is HERE!!!

Have fun and get your thinking caps on!!

I was considering chucking together a massive list of quiz questions,and publishing them as a one-off quiz for a bit of fun. However, there are many other people out there with many more random, trivial and fun bits of knowledge than me, and as such I thought this would work better.

THE RULES:

Questions must not be posted as replies, they must start a new reply chain.

Answers to any question should be posted as replies to the question in er... question. :)

In case of any doubt as to who is right, the person posing the question will decide, but may be over-ruled if factually wrong by any member of site team.

If a question is too difficult or obscure, and no-one can answer it for a period of time, the user posting the question should post the answer as a reply, and then bask in the glory of being a boxing quiz/trivia God. (Only after a reasonable period of time has passed, though, give us a chance!!)

Any answers posted without hitting 'reply' will be deleted; likewise for questions posted as replies.

Using Google/Boxrec is not permitted. There is no way to govern this, but this is a bit of fun and using online research tools is not in the spirit of the game. It would also make you, y'know... kind of a loser.

Since I got quite a good reception for my first ever Classic RBR (Hagler/Roldan), I thought I would put this post up.

Classic Round-By-Round- Hagler vs Roldan

That RBR was a labour of love: I love Hagler, I love writing about boxing, and I wanted to see how well I could pull it off after reading some really great work from Brickhaus and SC on the live RBR's. I chose that specific fight for the following reason, which is quite contrived, but absolutely true.

I watched, years back, a tennis match between Andre Agassi and Mark Phillipoussis (I never spell that name right. How annoying is that?). After the first few service games each, I simply couldn't and wouldn't believe that Agassi could win the match; the big Aussie was smashing that serve down so fast and so accurately that I couldn't see a way for Agassi to beat him. Agassi won the first set 6-4 (I think) and even then, I simply refused to accept that Agassi could win the match, that serve was SO big. From memory (this was about 10 years ago, I'd guess) Agassi won in straight sets, breaking serve at least once in each set, returning from about 20 yards behind the baseline. The refusal to allow that massive weapon to demoralise him, to consign him to defeat, was amazing, and I remember feeling an awe during that match that I've rarely felt about any sport. There was simply no way he could win, and he won. Unreal. I'll explain the slightly dodgy parallel after the jump....

Continue reading this post »

Reports suggest that Pacquiao has agreed to testing up to 14 days before a potential fight with Floyd Mayweather.

Since the Mayweather camp say they offered the 14 day deal before, there should be no reason why this fight does not now happen.

"He [Mayweather] will no longer have a reason [not to fight]," said Pacquiao. "Let's see if that is really the reason."

The BBC also reported this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/8698753.stm

Pacquiao still seems dubious about the amount of blood that will be drawn. "I have agreed to it, but they should not draw much blood," he stipulated.

Anyhow, the biggest fight in boxing could now be back on. Until the next thing arises, that is.

I had a debate recently with bazzlad about the possible outcome of a fantasy fight between Roy Jones Jr, circa 2002-2003, and David Haye, the current incarnation.

I take Jones via decision, I think Jones was the best fighter in the world at that point, and it was only after the Ruiz fight we saw him fall from grace.

Bazzlad takes Haye by knockout. He said Haye's power would be too much, and Jones would fall quickly and unceremoniously.

I've spoken to one other poster about this (he can identify himself if he so wishes), and he said he'd take Jones. I said I'd set up a poll on here to gauge opinion, because I'm genuinely interested. I'll only include the winner of the fight, not the method, because I don't want to dilute results too much. Obviously there is no right or wrong, I'm just interested.

For the sake of simplicity, I'll include the Ruiz factor in the question, since those are the two periods of the respective fighters careers I'd like  to compare, and Ruiz is a convenient common opponent. He also represents both guys' best win at heavyweight, for whatever that's worth.

In a thread that has alas now moved closer toward the oblivion that is "Off The BLH Main Page", a debate has arisen as to whether or not Shane Mosley has an advantage over Floyd Mayweather in terms of their respective trainers for their upcoming bout. Since I sat and attempted Tolstoy-esque garrulousness on the subject, I thought it would be a waste to simply leave it down there in the depths of purgatory, forever to be forgotten and disregarded by the mists of time... blah blah blah.

Anyway, I have a ferocious ego, and as writers write to be read (paraphrasing George Orwell), I thought I'd post my quasi-essay here:

Let’s talk about what Cotto and Mosley did differently against Margarito. Both outsped him, both hit him with some really nasty stuff, both looked like they couldn’t lose against the bigger but slower Margarito.

The difference? Cotto went first. Had Shane been in there with Toni that night I firmly believe Toni beats him too, and then that Cotto dismantles Toni straight after. Why? Because of the gameplan laid out in the first fight.

Cotto punched straight down the tubes, landing over and over again on the chin of Toni. Some of those shots made ME wince watching them. HE was unloading on Toni, knocking the fucking hell out of him, but it still couldn’t deter him.

So what did Mosley do differently? He listened to Nazim Richardson, who told him not to punch straight, not to hit Toni on the chin. Move sideways rather than backward and forward, and punch round corners. Mosley didn’t hit Toni on the chin until the 8th round, I think it was, and by then Toni’s head had been snapped round so many times he thought he was watching Wimbledon. Punching him to the temple was disorienting him, making him dizzy, and affecting his balance.

I wrote on here before about the difference between punch resistance and great ‘chin’, and this was a prime example. (Another was Andrade, who Bute could have whacked with a crowbar and it wouldn’t have bothered him until the fight was taken out of him elsewhere.) Nazim Richardson saw a way of proving this distinction, of giving Mosley a target to aim for that made Margarito human again despite that fucking granite chin.

The gameplan was flawless, and that was Nazim Richardson. He took a deservedly heavy underdog, and made him the welterweight champion.

Now, let’s have a quick look at Bernard Hopkins and his last legitimate fight. Remember that again, Bernard was a 4/1 underdog vs Pavlik, and the question seemed to be when Kelly would win, not whether or not he would.

So, how did we all see the fight going? I know that all the people I spoke to saw it as a chase-fest, with Pavlik going after Hopkins and Nard running backward until Kelly could land that big right hand…..

Instead, Nazim told Bernard not to take a backward step, to rely on superior head movement and hand-speed to hit without getting hit while going forward rather than backward. Within the first three rounds Pavlik knew this fight wasn’t going to go the way he’d envisioned, he was disillusioned, disheartened and practically beaten already. I say all this as a Kelly Pavlik fan, too.

Bernard put on the masterclass, there can be no doubt of that. However, there is no way in the blue fuck that Hopkins decided to do that on his own. That was a Nazim Richardson gameplan all over: Use the biggest strength/weakness disparity between you and your opponent in your favor. With Mosley it was lateral movement and speed combined with punching to one specific target area, and with Bernard it was hand-speed and elusive forward movement (because although we all suspected Pavlik doesn’t fight well going backwards, Hopkins proved it for us) combined with the element of surprise.

Both guys took the fight to a guy they were expected to be chased down by, both guys were heavy underdogs, given little to no chance by most of us on here and by boxing in general. Both guys were given a gameplan by Nazim Richardson, and both of them thoroughly dominated their opponents on the way to handing out some serious lessons in how to win boxing matches.

On the other hand, Roger has to work with Floyd, who has made it his business to not go in with a guy we don’t already know he’s going to beat. All Floyd has had to do in recent fights is be Floyd, and I think even Jack Loew couldn’t have fucked that training job up.

When Roger Mayweather takes a prohibitive underdog and shows them a way to win a fight that they shouldn’t by rights be able to win, then I’ll start to give him some more respect. Guiding Floyd to a boring points win over JMM doesn’t quite cut it.

Stuff.co.nz report that David Tua won a wide points decision in New Zealand today.

It's not exactly a massively relevant or meaningful fight, but it's good to see Tua is getting active again and getting rounds in the ring.

I take no credit for  any of the following, just bringing it to your attention.

Friday Ahunanya thinks the decision was a robbery.....

Tua, predictably, disagrees....

Tua/Ahunanya slideshow.

According to Boxrec, Tua weighed in at just over 239lbs, while Ahunanya was around 10lbs lighter. It's nice to see Tua still holding his weight under 240lbs, but I'd ideally like to see him down at about 225.

Official scores:
120-108, 117-111, 119-109
David Tua by Unanimous Decision.

I hope I'm not over-stepping any boundaries here, but I thought it might be a cool idea to have a get-together of BLH posters sometime in 2010, maybe meet and go to a big fight sometime in the middle of the year?

I know Brian Brock is based in the UK, as is FCF, Drunken Cutman, and others.

Maybe if the Haye/Ruiz fight goes ahead in Britain, we could go and watch that? Have a night of boxing and beer, and a right laugh too? Otherwise, any large(ish) fight would do, but a Heavyweight Title fight would be awesome.

Anyone else interested? (I would suggest a larger scale gathering, but since we are spread across the globe...)

Anyone I haven't named who is from the UK, feel free to put your names forward, the fact I haven't mentioned you is down to forgetfulness, not a lack of willing on my part!!

This could be a really good way of getting to know each other better, putting some names to faces, etc. Plus we'd be able to guarantee a crazy RBR!! :)

I think, considering the calibre of the community on here, it is fitting to have our own little awards for each other. 2009 has been a year of drastic improvement in my boxing knowledge, a year of increased familiarity with the proponents of our beloved sport, and a year of conversing with some people that I now class as 'mates', even over thousands of miles and zero meetings.

I am continually surprised by the level of analysis, the detail of some of the arguments, and the humour which which most people on this site put forward their opinions. It is rare indeed that so many people can cover so many contentious points without there being a degeneration into a condition I like to refer to as "Youtubecommentitis".

It is in this spirit I am going to give out ten awards. Ten categories, which will be as widespread as I can manage in my current inebriated state. Please feel free to comment, but for the sake of my sanity, please only suggest new recipients for the awards, not completely new categories. I may re-post the awards at New Year, if there is an overwhelming feeling that I've got them wrong. (Always open to friendly criticism, me!!)

Awards after the jump!!

Continue reading this post »

My fellow Badlefthookers, I feel it necessary to bring to your attention a conversation I had yesterday. Not for any momentous reason, in fact not for any good reason other than the fact you all like to talk boxing, and so do I.

The conversation I was having, with a good friend of mine, was about the boxing decision that rankles with us the most, even given a certain amount of time. We covered refereeing decisions, judging decisions, trainer's decisions, even fighters' decisions in certain circumstances, both in and out of the ring. An example of an "in the ring decision" would be Victor Ortiz's decision quit when the going got tough, an "out of the ring decision" would be Joe Calzaghe shamelessly and flagrantly ducking Glen Johnson, Ike Ibeabuchi's decision to go and kidnap someone, or even James Kirkland's decision to stick a gun in his glovebox.

In order to distinguish between them, I suppose it might be best to put them into those categories, and pick one (or more, since this is a discussion, not a dictatorship!!) from each list, with maybe THE most annoying one highlighted too.

I'll start (after the jump!!);

Continue reading this post »

Would you keep with the fighters that are there?

Or would you replace some?

Would there be room for Kelly Pavlik?

Would it be better or worse at a different weight?

My personal choices for the SMW Super Six would be;

Mikkel Kessler

Lucian Bute

Carl Froch

Librado Andrade

Arthur Abraham/Sakio Bika

And.... I'll throw this one in for the hell of it;

Bernard Hopkins (since he made 170 for his last fight, I think he could make 168, and he's a better choice than Pavlik, for obvious reasons.)

The question has been brought up, in an article from SC, and the resulting comments, about who would be the more liekly victor in a match-up between Bernard Hopkins and Chad Dawson. Who is the dominant force at 175lbs, right now?

SC commented that, "Dawson is almost 20 years younger and has a far brighter future, but I think most everyone would pick the savvy Hopkins to beat him one-on-one still." (http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/8/10/983892/living-in-america-the-best-the-u-s#comments)...

In the article comments, BrianBrock refuted this claim, by speculating that Dawson would now beat Hopkins, possibly by UD.

This isn't about right or wrong, but I would like to canvas opinion on this, for curiosity's sake more than anything.

I was just trawling the net, reading up on this and that, and came across one of the forgotten 'really really good' fights of the decade, namely Acelino Freitas vs Jorge Barrios. These are not really to be confused with 'great fights', but are worthwhile viewing in their own right, I feel. It made me think that, considering I watched the fight at the time and absolutely loved it, it is a shame we don't always remember these fights.

(I also think Freitas is one of the all-time under-rated fighters, since he never gets any fan-fare, in fact hardly a mention anywhere really... another subject, perhaps.)

All I would ask, is that people add, in the comments, some other really under-rated scraps that they have seen. There must be thousands of them, and some of them deserve some adulation, even if only sporadically.

I've started with Freitas/Barrios, I'll also add more when I think of them (the problem being that they have, by nature being under-rated and therefore not really talked about, slipped my mind).

I'm sure most have seen Hamed/Robinson, so not really sure if that counts (a slightly dodgy second selection on my part!), but I welcome as much feedback as possible.

I have mentioned this in a thread on the second page, in discussion regarding Antonio Margarito.

http://www.badlefthook.com/2009/5/29/892870/what-june-fight-is-most#comments

I will stress now that I am not trying to protest the outright innocence of Margarito, but the more I think about the whole thing, the less it makes sense. I'd like just copy and paste my other post onto here, so it is in plainer view.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{...} when I used to fight, there was no way in the world that I would want anything hard in my wraps. It would have completely f***ed up my hands if I had anything harder than wraps inside the glove. Especially if those ‘pieces’ or ‘fragments’ or whatever they were, were irregular in shape, as I’d expect plaster to be. I’d fully expect my hands to be irreparably screwed if I went 12 rounds with anything in my wraps, even the slightest digging in would carve you up beyond belief over any kind of distance, especially in the case of a man (like Margarito) who throws over 1000 punches a fight. I’ve seen Margarito’s hands (footage, anyway) since the Cotto and Mosley fights, and there is no scarring that would indicate the sort of stuff people are talking about.

The whole thing doesn’t make sense to me. When people discuss forensics, to state that there are ‘traces’ of something indicates very small,almost infinitesimal amounts. “Traces of semen”, “traces of blood”, etc etc. It’s never a bucketful, or even close. All the talk was that ‘traces’ of two different chemicals were found on Margarito’s hand-wraps, and that these two chemicals can be used in the making of plaster of paris. You need other stuff too, though, and the other stuff wasn’t present.

Also, you have the timing issue. If you fought yourself, you know that timing on the punch, ie- when the arm tenses on contact, and the angle and speed that goes with that, is everything. Punching with a glove on kills a lot of people’s timing. To effect it by 5% would be more than enough to make sure you would never catch a world class fighter properly, or at least not in the same way. So the theory goes, Toni just sticks some plaster in his gloves for the fights. It can’t happen that way. If you are used to throwing shots a certain way, and timing them a certain way, then the adding of another factor for a one-off occasion would be a really bad move, as it would throw you off and make you less effective, not more so. And Toni can’t be training full-time with rocks in his gloves, he would have ground down his bones in his hands to dust by now, and the scarring would be incredible AND clearly visible.

The other interesting thing for me was that there was apparently some plaster inside his hand- ie- on the palm. This was never illegal in any fight I had, in fact I used to hold a little tube of 12 or so pipe cleaners in my hands, as gripping something made my wrists more tense (try it yourself!!) , and I felt I got more power that way. It wasn’t illegal in my fights, so is it safe to assume that it isn’t at that level either? I’m not sure on this one, but I do know that having plaster inside your palm will not cause any damage to your opponent, any more than a fist will without it.

I know that this post will not go down well, and that a lot of people will probably raise merry hell with me for suggesting that there is more to this than one man cheating. The truth is, I do think there is more to this than one man cheating. There are too many irregularities, and too many things that don’t make sense in my mind.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I welcome other people's thoughts on this, as maybe some other perspectives will help to clear up some of the things that don't add up for me. I only ask that we keep it constructive, simply hating on the guy gets us nowhere, and I think we all already know in what light he is regarded by most.

Thanks.

Chaos100.