03-27-2007, 06:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cochrane did beat Nystrom twice, in 81-82 (in Long Island) was a good fight with Cochrane landing all he solid punches. Then he beat him again 83-84 (in Philly) which was the great toe-to-toe fight where Cochrane lands some serious bombs. The 2nd is the one that is common but Cochrane did beat him cleanly much closer to Nystrom's prime than people usually give him credit for!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
03-27-2007, 07:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Great post by the way just thought I would add something
2001-2002: 1) Donald Brashear, VAN/PHI 2) Georges Laraque, EDM 3) Peter Worrell, FLA 4) Chris McAllister, PHI 5) Scott Parker, COL 6) Jim McKenzie, NJ 7) Eric Cairns, NYI 8) Tie Domi, TOR 9) Stephen Peat, WAS 10) Sandy McCarthy, NYR Notable Fights: * Peter Worrell caps a dominating season with wins over Cairns and McKenzie * Eric Cairns takes a solid decision from Sandy McCarthy in a statement win at MSG * Laraque gets a knockdown win against Craig Berube * Stu Grimson is forced to retire after being beaten solidly be Georges Laraque and then Sandy McCarthy I would have to go with Worrell as champ this year and hear is why. In the 01-02 season Big Pete went an amazing 23-1-8 with his only true loss being to Peat in his rookie year. In that year He beat Brash, Probert, Fridge, Berube, Purinton, Dingman, Cairns, Chara, Quintal, Oliwa, Langdon, McKenzie, Boulton, Richardson, Nazarov and Hatcher. i would call that an impressive feat. Brash also did great going 13-1-2 while beating Probs, Parker x2, Belak, McCarthy, Domi x2 and Low. It is Obvious who's card is better and the fact that he beat Brash should automatically give him the title. 9 more wins, 15 more fights, Better card. Did you notice I did not mention BGL, since Big Pete has double ,+4 the amount of wins and BGL has 3 losses. He Only won 9 times so how can he possibly be in front of Worrell. As usual BGL gets overrated as he always is on this site MCallister 4th with 9 wins...5 came from 2 people. Parker at 8-5-2 with some terrible losses to none HW's in Perrott and Piere. Big Mac with 6 wins and 11 Draws. Cairns should be much Higher with 12 wins and only 2 losses. Domi should also be higher with 12 wins and 3 losses 2 from Brashear. Peat..Ok McCarthy ..Ok. Where is Reed Low with his 11 wins and 1 loss and that was to Brash. Neil has a good year with 10 wins and only 2 losses. Stock with 10 wins and only 3 losses This is how my list would Go 1- Worrell 2- Brashear 3- Cairns 4- Domi 5- Low 6- McAllister 7- Laraque 8- Peat 9- McCarthy 10-Neil HM Parker, McKenzie and Stock I did not really go over the other years but we were just having a discussion on Big Pete on another thread so I looked at this year. Otherwise Most of the years are Good. I see a few more discrepancies that I dissagree with but that is for another day. All in All nice work Merlin.
|
|
03-27-2007, 07:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Your Favorite Band Sucks
|
|
04-03-2007, 10:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay, I found the rare "beating" of Nystrom via Cochrane in 81-82. It was a clean win for Cochrane but more narrow than clear. They threw some early punches, and then hugged for quite a while with a bunch of noogies. Wasn't nearly as impressive as the later fight and not nearly as exciting.
__________________
Your Favorite Band Sucks
|
|
04-03-2007, 04:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
First of all,McKenzie was much better than Neil.Neil was a rookie,even Guerin beat him.He didnt have a fight against HW fighters,except Simon and Odjick.McKenzie even had a win against Laraque and had some good wins against Belak,Vandenbussche and had some impressive bouts. Domi is a little bit higher,i probably put him in the 7th or 8th place.Laraque should be higher,he was the champ season before.The main reason,why Worrell is not the champ.because his fights were usually boring.He didnt win against Brashear,it was a crap fight like Laraque vs Brashear this season.He had a good card,but not many decisive wins.So here is my list of Top 10: 1.Brashear 2.Laraque 3.Worrell 4.Cairns 5.McKenzie 6.Low 7.Peat 8.McCarthy 9.Domi 10.McAllister
|
|
04-03-2007, 06:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just Plain Wrong
Quote:
Because his fights are boring Worrell is not the champ? What sense does that make at all, that means BGL should never, ever be champ, thats just dopey. Just incase you forgot here is the list of guys that Worrell beat that year while going.....23-1-7...thats...... 23-1-7. Brash, Probert, Fridge, Berube, Purinton, Dingman, Cairns, Chara, Quintal, Oliwa, Langdon, McKenzie, Boulton, Richardson, Nazarov and Hatcher. It may have been boring but I and many others give Big Pete the win over Brash. Even if he did not beat him he still has 10 more wins than him with the same amount of losses.....1. Neil in his rookie year had 10 wins, lost only twice and fought Simon 2x, Odjick, Mellenby, Peat, Stock and Johnson, so much for your not fighting HW fighters since half were against HW's, and his others were against tough guys Including MW/LHW's that fight HW's when they need to in Tamer, Mair, Marshall, Witt, Corson, Warrener and LaCourture. He also Fought Quintal, Domi and Laus in Preseason. For a rookie thats not to bad. I really just need someone, anyone to explain how BGL always gets the #2 spot when clearly he does not deserve it. 9-3-5 How is that better than 23-1-7 with a card thats not even comparable. With 5 wins over Sawyer 2x and Nazarov 2x each and Downey, that is better than Worrell's? Cmon lets be real here. That should not even be in the discussion. And as far as Being champ the year before maybe you think so but I dont with a 10-3-3 record and Big Pete Being 15-1-3, that would be 38-2-10 from 00-02 but somehow he is not the champ in either year. Explain the thinking behind it because I want to know
|
|
04-04-2007, 03:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I dont know,how many DVDs or clips you have from this season.If you go accordind dyg.com,Worrell has a very good results in paper.But i have ALL clips with Worrell in 01-02.So how many fights Worrell had against Top 10 fighters?He didnt went against Laraque and Low,but not that is the main problem.His first three fights were crap:he did beat Fedoruk and Richardson once.He had a good win against Berube,he beat Cairns and Dingman in a crap fights.Peat was the only guy,who had a win against Worrell in a good fight.His win against an old Probert is not a huge win,but for a champ he must beat Chara and mainly Bonvie.I think the 3rd place is fair,Worrell didnt have a huge win.He need to beat decisively fighters,like Laraque did year before. Why Laraque is higher than Worrell? First of all,its true,that Laraque hadnt got as many wins as Worrell.But: -he ended Grimson career -TKOed Berube -beat Nazarov decisively,Worrell even had a loss against him according dyg.com -his only losses were against Shelley,which was i think a lucky punch,that put him down,in the first round Laraque beat him easily I dont know,where did you saw a boring Laraque fight from 01-02.Yes,nowadays he has pretty boring fights,but his fights were better then Worrells.He had some pretty long fights against Probert,his short fights were the ones,where he TKOed Berube,which is not his fault. And lets see Worrell highlights: -cut Berube,but not a clear or decisive win -win against McKenzie The fact is,that Worrell had several wins against non-fighters like White or Quintal.Purinton and Fedoruk were dissapointment this season. And for McKenzie: I dont know why,but i think you wiew the results on dyg.com,compare the fighters,and you make a decision.First of all,McKenzie won that fight against Laraque.Unfortunetly,he had some wrong choices,example to want to fight against McKenna,we all know his fights are not exciting.Domi turtled against him.Worrell beat him,but the Domi fight was pretty even and i think he deserve to be there rather than Neil. I must say,that i dont like Neil.But this is not the reason,why i dont put him there.He had a much better season in 03-04,and you cand find his name in Top 10 list for 03-04.Neil was nothing special,Peat and Stock were much better.Stock had some unbeliavable fights in 01-02,and you put Neil ahead of him?Yes,the 10-2-6 is pretty impressive,but he didnt have a single fight against Top 10 fighter!!Yes,one against Peat,but thats all.Laraque would beat him easily. If you have a Tape or clips about this season,please,compare the fighters for performance,and not for results according dyg.com.I dont think anybody except you will put Neil on Top 10 for 01-02. P.S Btw,i noticed that you have the win-loss-draw results from dyg.com.It is completely the same,so i dont think it is an objective post.I dont think you have the exactly the same opinion as members. Last edited by zoli; 04-04-2007 at 03:57 PM.
|
|
04-04-2007, 03:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And i forget the last thing:Mellanby is a Heavyweight? And you have another pretty wrong call:you say Domi beat McKenzie,but it means,that he was better?You cant judge only one fight and i dont think it is automatic,that he must be higher then McKenzie.
You made some good calls,like Parker out for Top 10,but that Neil thing is completely wrong imo.Just ask Merlin,i think he will agree with me.Maybe Worrell can be higher then Laraque,i say maybe.But Brashear was better then both Laraque and Worrell,beat many Top 10 fighters,like McCarthy,Peat,Low,Domi and many others.
|
|
04-04-2007, 05:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
McKenzie: Definitely deserves a spot. Tough, tough card and he lost very seldom with some good wins. Neil: No way. Best win was who? Mellanby? Stock? Stock: Not close. Great heart but he would not be able to beat top 10 guys with any regularity at all. Amazing that he could stand with 11-20 type guys like he did. Amazing. Low: Deserves consideration. Didn't really beat anyone in the top 10 though in his career so far. The argument of who he could replace would have to be Stephen Peat who wasn't in the NHL from early January onward, had some great wins against better competition than Low but also took some tough losses. Cairns: Good year but was just starting to come into his own. Probably should be switched with Parker though. I'll do that... Last edited by Merlin401; 04-04-2007 at 05:26 PM.
|
|
04-04-2007, 08:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Round 2
Merlin401;986394]First off, thanks and thanks for the feedback and thoughts. Now i'll comment on some of these points:[/b]
Like zoli alluded too, I think you're looking at a guy's record/fight card and making decisions based on that. Worrell was tough to beat because of his size but he was often looked at as a hugger and a pillow puncher and his fights were very often disappointing. Brashear and Laraque had a track record of being champions and unless they sucked or someone did something unreal, they were not going to be dislodged. On your first point You must look at record, How can anyone put a guy with 9-3 record ahead of someone that was 23-1, with that type of difference almost 3-1 it really does not matter what BGL did in the past does it? They fought the same HW's Merlin. 4 of BGL's wins were against 2 people, not very good guys either in Nazarov and Sawyer. Other wins Downey...lol. A washed up Grimson, Probs and Berube. And TKO'd by Shelley who got crushed by everyone that year. Sorry I don't give Titles on reputation, if that was the case then Probert would have been champion every year until he retired. Worrell Beat those same washed up guys and 14 more people than BGL. And how did BGL have a track record of being champion when he certainly was not champ in 99-00 or 01-02. Since in 98-99 he had 9 fights. In 01-02 Big Pete went 14-1... BGL 11-3....Brash at 9-2.... More fights, more wins, against the same HW's....hmmmm. Lets give it to the guy with the rep. I am pretty positive that there were a hell of alot more people scared of Worrell than BGL. If he beat Brash and has a better record than him then how is he not the champ. Just look at his card Well apparently it is not just this site that overrates him but the players and fighters in the NHL. He routinely gets voted as the best fighter among them (with more consistency than HF votes him top fighter). So is it your contention that the players dont know what they are talking about? He was a force The Players today rank him the best.....and. By the way who is he fighting these days I can think of maybe 1-2 people that will be remembered from this era (Simon, Brash and others that started from 92-94 and are still fighting are not todays era) todays era being I would say from 97 on 10 years ago to today and those two are Worrell and BGL. Maybe Boogey and Orr have a shot because of the damage factor so far but they have a way to go. Parker: Parker didn't have a great year in retrospect. But remember this list takes into account past history. People were very fearful of his right hand which was hyped up very highly (and that hype had some validity with a bunch of TKOs his rookie year). The Perrott fight was crap; if anything it shows how Perrott was concerned about opening up with him. The Grand-Pierre loss was bad and if you want to knock him down a few spots for that, that's fair. But his reputation earns him a spot on this list this year. Parker...I wont argue him... I stand by My point Terrible year you dont get it on rep with fighting. Losses to Pierre, Sutton, Perrott, a young Boulton. Wins over Flinn, White twice, Jovanoski. His big win was BGL. Thats not very good at all. Him but not Low who beat the same equivalent guys in Strudwick, Lambert, Manson, Fridge and Stock McKenzie: Definitely deserves a spot. Tough, tough card and he lost very seldom with some good wins. McKenzie was as tough as they come but with 6 wins and what 11-12 draws. Again you are going on Reputation. Wins against Jillson, Norton, Vandy, Nazarov....OK...yeah. His signifigant wins were Shelley & Belak, pick one. When you draw with Mckenna, Thompson, Sawyer and Oliwa thats not a great year. Again by your own logic since he did not beat a top ten guy and has ONLY 6 wins why would he be up there But Low would not Neil: No way. Best win was who? Mellanby? Stock? Stock: Not close. Great heart but he would not be able to beat top 10 guys with any regularity at all. Amazing that he could stand with 11-20 type guys like he did. Amazing. Low: Deserves consideration. Didn't really beat anyone in the top 10 though in his career so far. The argument of who he could replace would have to be Stephen Peat who wasn't in the NHL from early January onward, had some great wins against better competition than Low but also took some tough losses. Cairns: Good year but was just starting to come into his own. Probably should be switched with Parker though. I'll do that Cairns should there and so should Low Domi without a doubt just look at who he beat that year with 3 losses 2 to Brash With Neil I could defer to you See now this is Fun , Merlin, a nice intelligent conversation
|
|
04-05-2007, 03:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I want to react for some points:
First of all,i disagree with you Merlin about Parker.He had a huge rep before the 00-01 season and he was far better that year then in 01-02.He had too many bad losses,but he didnt loss against Boulton,like Plateworker said.But the rep mean nothing,because many non-fighters like Sutton or White tried to go with Parker.For me it dont mean,that he was a feared fighter in 2002.But that just my opinion. And for Worrell-i dont think he was feared fighter like Laraque,just look at his fighcard.I dont think Quintal or even White will challange or fight against Laraque.Once again,he dont have decisive or huge wins.And dont go with the record,that he has more wins etc,if you have their fights,re-watch it.Probert,Brown,Playfair and many other champs were dominating,maybe Nilan or Jay Miller had more wins then Brown one year,but still Brown was the champ.The record means absolutely nothing,if the fights are boring and the fight was won with helmet punches or noogies like Worrell did.Yeah,he won many fights,but he need to have a dominating win. Low deserves to be there.He had a huge win against Fedoruk,had a draw against Brashear and Laraque,and had some important wins.He did more then Parker. Neil-McKenzie-like i said earlier,you cant make decision with the records.If Low dont deserve Top 10,then Neil is far from Top 10.His opponents were weak compare to other Top 10 fighters,he even lost to Guerin! While McKenzie had a good fightcard,lost very rarely,his schools Belak,Vandenbussche and held his own against everybody.Neil was capable against guys like Domi,Worrell or even against Rocky Thompson?The following year Domi bloodied Neil pretty well,so year before i dont think he had a chance against Domi. The Top 10 list is almost great,but McAllister and Parker are too high,Parker ut for Low and McAllister behind Domi. But i agree,Domi can be higher then Peat and maybe higher then McCarthy,Low ahead Domi. Plateworker,if you have all fights from HW in 01-02,just re-watch it again and make the decision.And please,i dont think you have the same opinion like dyg.com,so be objective.I have completely different results then in dyg.com,not completely,but some of them are different. Last edited by zoli; 04-05-2007 at 03:12 AM.
|
|
04-05-2007, 06:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Round and Round we Go
Quote:
Zoli I actually do have about 18 fight from that year of Worrells and in respect some were pretty boring but I also have 10 fights from BGL and really they are not much different. I think you have to take record into consideration. I looked at the DYG.com record and they have him at 23-3-5 which is different than mine, I really have him with only 1 loss and thats to Peat, he has a great fight win over the Chief, Ragdolls the hell out of Richardson, Pummells Fridge, An absolutely Funny merry go round draw with Domi, Crushes Nazarov, Destroys Hatcher, Beats up on Quintal. Watch those fights again and count how many guys go in close and basically hold on for dear life as Big Pete Pounds them in the helmet and head, what do you want him to do there? I count at least 8 of his wins that way. To be fair a good 1/3 of his fights were boring. If you want to say he had 20 wins instead of 23 with 10 draws instead of 7 you would probably get no argument from me. But he still only has one loss out of 31 fights. Now Just take a look at BGL's card in is not as good my friend. A Loss to a terrible Parker, a bad Erskine and gets tko'd by shelley who had what 13-14 losses that year. Right there it does not matter how entertaining his fights were thats 3 losses to guys having crap years. Four wins over Nazarov and Sawyer..who cares... a win Over Downey...cmon now. He does tha same thing he does now throw 3-4 to the side of the head and takes the guy down, out of all his fights... maybe 7 were entertaining. They both fight and beat Berube and Probert, they both beat Nazarov thats 3, add the 4 wins with Sawyer2x, Nazarov again and Downey. Whats left? a clear win against an overdone Grimson who did not win a fight that year and Shelley who latter Tko's him. On the other hand Worrell fights and beats Brash, Cairns, Langdon, Fridge, Oliwa, Quintal, Boulton, Dingman, Purinton and Richardson with draws against Domi and McKenzie. Cmon thats a much, much better card. We are not talking about 2 guys who throw with abandon ala Berube or McSorley, we are talking about the 2 great huggers of all time they make Brash look like a free swinger. And I clearly remember people being afraid of Worrell. When we talked about big and Scary fighters BGL was never ever mentioned in my circles....never he was still young back then and the legends like Probs, Grim, Ray, Domi, Mcsorley were still around. Big Pete stood out. Just by the way Quintal would have no problem going with BGL as this is some of the guys he has fought Twist, Vukota, Probert, Ray, Grimson, Antoski and Odgick. He is 6'3 230 not a small Man Big Mac just does not do enough for me this year. He beats up on Vandy and Belak....yeah and who has not at one point in their career. Belak and Vandy were just OK that year. As they are every year If you want to give out championships on the entertainment of the fight than you and I know that we would never watch any other fight except PJ Stock fights....LOL. By the way he had what 3-4 classics that year huh Your working me on Neil and I might relent I was just impressed with him being pretty much a rookie and doing so well against some real tough customers.
|
|
04-06-2007, 01:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yesterday i received the McKenzie Vol.2. DVD,that contains ALL his fights from 98 to 04.I had 70 percent of it before,but i find out an interesting fact.When Devils lead,and the fighter from other team wanted to spark his team with fighting against McKenzie,he always earned a draw or victory. His fight against Domi was nothing,his only big loss was against Worrell.It is not bad for 20 fights.You probably say,that he dont have enough wins.I give him the win against Laraque,against Sawyer he controlled the whole fight,at then end it looked like Sawyer gets a big punch in.It was near the end,i give McKenzie the edge here.The Oliwa fight was pretty interesting:for me it looked like McKenzie stunned Oliwa one time,but it was nothing,they lock each other pretty good.He absolutely deserve to be in the Top 10.Top 5 fighter for sure.If you have their fights from 02-03,it is a different story.Lessard gave him 2 times,and you can see McKenzie is not a Top fighter anymore.The two fights were T2T,Lessard much faster and pretty much overpowered the veteran.Godard beat him in a good bout,and McKenzie had some awful fights.Not a dissapointment,but not Top 10 anymore. I think there is no need to talk about Worrell once again.You have your opinion,i have my opinion.But if you compare the three fighters,Brashear and Laraque did better then Worrell.You said,that Brashear and Worrell are huggers.But Brashear had a fast hand,when he started to throw,he pretty much overpowered his opponents.Same Laraque.But what did Worrell?When they were tight,he didnt do nothing to break free.He had long arms,but not as good punching power.He gets the win many times for landing more noogies,or his opponents dont want to fight him because of the long reach. So lets see Brashear:he beat Probert pretty badly,absolutely great win against Belak,beat Domi twice,McCarthy,where he was faster.These were highlight reels,but how about Worrell.Beat an old Berube,beat McKenzie.Thats it?He had several other wins,but nothing special.Beating Oliwa and Purinton twice is nothing,beat twice a much smaller Bonvie,beat non-fighters like Quintal,Reirden,Hatcher.I am positive,that Laraque would do the same against these guys.Maybe we can swich Laraque with Worrell,but Brashear was better,and he had some very good seasons before. Last edited by zoli; 04-06-2007 at 01:59 AM.
|
|
04-08-2007, 10:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good Conversation
Quote:
Just to use your own words Beating Oliwa and Purinton twice is nothing,beat twice a much smaller Bonvie To me is just the same as beating Nazarov who has caught a beating by just about everyone and Sawyer who was never really good anyway. Beating them twice each and Downey thats 5 of his 9 wins, Berube whom you said yourself was Old and an ancient, ready to retire Grimson so thats 7 wins the other 2 Shelley who TKO's him later in the season and Probert who retired that year also. That is NOT impressive at all, not even close. He lost to Big Mac whom Worrell beat Also beat Berube and Probert. Beat Brash, Fridge, Boulton and Langdon who are better than anyone the BGL beat. The reason you say about beating them badly I wont take that into any consideration unless their records were close and they are no way near each other not at with BGL at 9-3 and Worrell at 23-1, for one Worrell was not TKO'd from Shelley also. If they were say BGL at 9-3 at Big Pete at 12-2 then you may have an argument but they are miles apart. Listen if it was the case of being impressive BGL has fought 28 times in the last three years and of those maybe 4-5 have been impressive yet everyone considers him champ like this year with his amazing 8 fights. What I will say about Brash is 2 wins against Pusher and Berry , your definition of non fighters since you think Quintal is so they must be. Barnaby who, well do I have to say that he is not in his league. Good wins over McCarthy, Domi 2x (as always), Low, Peat, Parker. Thats pretty good 13 wins and 1 loss, real good in fact. But there is one little blemish, that loss was to Worrell. So if we apply simple logic, Both fought mostly heavies, both won almost all their fights, both lost only once. What do we have left? Record and head to head. Record Worrell 23-1 Brash 13-1, Worrell winner. Worrell vs. Brash Worrell winner. But yet you and Merlin still want to give Brash the belt. Even more crazy and unfathomable is you want to actually put BGL who belongs no where near this conversation ahead of Big Pete. And if you take into account seasons before that Worrell was like 40-9 since coming into the league. Brash in that time was like 43-10 something like that, they are about the same and fought the exact same guys. BGL being 28-9 around there somewhere.
|
|
04-08-2007, 11:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Your Favorite Band Sucks
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 PM.
More Community
FAQ | RSS feeds | Link to us | Privacy policy | Contact
Any information taken from this site and used on another website or other media must credit hockeyfights.com.
© 2009 hockeyfights.com. All rights reserved.
site by SingerNet
Any information taken from this site and used on another website or other media must credit hockeyfights.com.
© 2009 hockeyfights.com. All rights reserved.
site by SingerNet
