Right on, this fight showed just what a protected "TV Hero" fighter Mancini was. His management knew his shortcomings and had him fighting fringe contenders suited to his swarming style, but they made a big mistake by taking Bramble lightly.

@@Thermopylae Exactly!

Bramble is now way a Hagler

@Bruins-vq5ey I'm not comparing the 3 to each other, but they were all brawlers, and I should probably add Mike Maccalum to the group

@@PopO51968 mike McCallum was anything but a "brawler".. And neither was Hagler.. And Bramble wasn't all time anything

@Bruins-vq5ey Go watch McCallum vs James Toney Lol, and besides, THIS IS MY OPINION!!!!, it may not be yours. You're saying; Mike """"THE BODY SNATCHER""" McCallum was not a brawler??????? Hagler was not a brawler????? Go watch Hagler vs John "The Beast" Mugabi or vs Thomas "The Hitman" Hearnes or vs Alan Minter, 🤔 😀 😄 😉

@@PopO51968 your opinion is wrong.. Please study boxing before entering discussions

You saw a different fight cuz this was in Buffalo NY

@@Bruins-vq5ey Yes you are correct the fight I shot was May of 1985 very close fight

Why not? He was a top ranked opponent

Yeah no he wouldn’t he would be a cruiser weight, he was a light heavyweight as a pro before moving up to heavyweight and winning the title.

The big left hook was irrelevant in the Tyson fight.

@@angeloiodice9304 He was years older, hadn't fought in over two years and took the fight on short notice. He had a 6-week training camp. Those things were the reason he didn't give a better showing.

@@emirramos990 Agreed, totally. He just couldn’t resist the King money opportunity, grabbing the quick notice fight with a lousy six weeks to prepare. But, even at his very peak, with his stinging jab, and footwork, and ring intelligence, and all his other assets that made him a great boxer, he would never come close to surviving the relentless onslaught of young Mike Tyson constantly closing the distance. Michael Spinks had the perfect game plan against Larry, and he was no Tyson by any stretch of the imagination. Larry had those magnificent long strong arms, and those guns kept you away, and they were known to sting, but not knock really floor a good heavyweight. But, if you didn’t allow him to take full advantage of his best asset, he became disrupted. Taking nothing away from Larry. Hey, he learned much from the Great Muhammad Ali. But, Tyson, for that short scintillating burst of time, in the 80’s was an absolute phenomenon, a shooting star. Unfortunately, there was extremely early self-destruction.

I think that would’ve been such a cool matchup though, would’ve loved to see the early round brawls.

Just like you?

Nah they’re good now

His dad was very hard on him growing up. those were just lingering issues that needed to to be solved & they did!!

He's alive but not doing so good anymore,. He won this damn fight.. Paterson got a Hometown decision

Dude was never knocked down in 93 fights, including Ali, Frazier, Forman and Patterson. How is that possible? What an absolute beast, combined with great skills. Should get much more recognition.

@@clinicaltranscription1190 hi, and thanks

Not even editing the part where the actual owner of it is mentioned..

Shavers admitted he wasn't good because he relied to much on power and he got tired by round 5. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with height!!!

Con mayor estatura , él hubiese aumentado su poder porque habría recibido menos golpes y su estatura hubiera tenido mucho que ver, por supuesto, sin discusión!!!

This SOFT GENERATION OF BOXERS WOULD BE ROASTED LIKE "T-BONE 🥩S!!!!!"

What made them terrible?