What was the “cryptonite” to your favorites?

[srehm1]

Looked like a win for Wilson to me. Close-an edge- but a win none the less. i wouldn't argue a draw call there. Look at Barry holding on at the end!

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by bigjack

Hey BBBB as you know, you grow up on Staten Island and you learn to street fight and be a brawler!
My cousin was Irish and had tons of fights with the Italians! It was part of growing up on Staten Island!

Yeah sho nuff - Was around Fotiu a fair amt in his high school days and the dude was a brawler - I thought he had a screw loose back then - thats why when I heard that he and Gaetz had a beef I did not bat an eye because as a young man that is exactly how Fotiu was ....Fotiu fought so much before he even played hockey that I could see that by the time he got to the WHL, NHL he was trying to learn more about the game - the fighting was a gimme.
BS25 gave an excellent description of Fotiu's playin days stating that he did not like him but, nevertheless, he ran everyone in front of all the tough guys and in BS25's words, it was simply a fact that nobody wanted to confront him/fight him - I think that is the way I remember it as well -

[spiderarms]

Srehm#1, I agree with you on alot of things, have many of the same favorite fighters and enjoy your contributions to this site but it is clear to me that how we evaluate the Top 10 Fighter rankings is different. You can find my responses below:

Originally Posted by srehm1

I always thought it odd that he didn't seek a rematch against both fotiu and wensink. Say what you will about whether they were bad losses or not. He lost. Those two fights may be the worst losses of his career-although they were good fights and fairly close-certainly not draws by compubox numbers (that was for you BS25!). Fotiu being a ranger and their rivalry and the bruins being the other toughest team on the block certainly would have lent some creedence to a rematch. Plus the fact that as bigjack and others mention there is fotiu getting in wilson's face and no fight or response from wilson.

IMO, both of these fights vs Wensink & Fotiu were being won by Wilson until the big blows at the ends of each one of the fights. The loses were narrow at best.

Rematch? To me, a rematch is essential when you don't fight up to your potential, lose to a lesser opponent, get embarassed or beaten bad. Neither fight had anyone of these factors. That is why I don't think Wilson needed to "avenge" anything.

They were both very close fights and a foundation of RESPECT, NOT FEAR, was laid between the fighters. I may also note that Wilson was in his ROOKIE year when he fought both John Wensink and Nick Fotiu. In the case with Wensink it was his 4th fight in the NHL. Do you really wonder how the results would have been in a REMATCH with a more seasoned Behn Wilson for both Wensink & Fotiu?

With regards to the comments about Fotiu getting into Wilson's face:

Was anyone here at HF.COM on the ice to hear what was said between the two?

As I'm sure you know, all of us are very much restricted to limited available video on the careers of our favorite fighters over the years. We are missing alot of the pieces of the puzzle. I'm sure over the next few years as more becomes available, we will all have to revise our viewpoints about alot of things!

If Nick Fotiu really wanted to fight with him, all he had to do was shove his glove in his face, which we all know he didn't do. As they say, it takes two to tango.
They didn't fight because neither one wanted too!

By the way, I like Nick Fotiu for alot of reasons, unfortunately he gets hyped so much on here he suffers for it with alot of our posters. My advice is don't take it out on the fighter!

It takes a lot of balls to come back and avenge a loss. to me the ability to avenge a loss or big loss is one of the things that makes a true champion. Wilson never avenged ANY of his losses no matter how big or small they were. Never went after bert wilson again, never went after fotiu, wensink mcclelland snepsts etc. maybe he thought they were capable of beating him again and that's why he didn't avenge them. Maybe he was one of those guys who would let a close loss go in order to keep from losing even bigger in a rematch. Who knows? but to simply walk away from those losses without a hint of avenging them is one of the differences between him and someone like probert or Brown in my eyes.

[b]I disagree. Revenge is the biggest and easiest motivation a fighter can have, the bigger the loss or embarassment, the bigger the drive to avenge it. Whether or not he can carry it out is another question and in the case with Probert he did because he was a great fighter. But as I stated before, it still doesn't erase the original bad loss IMO.

For the record, Behn Wilson did not lose to Bert Wilson or Harold Snepts, they were both draws. McClellan was a close decision.

IMO, the most important measuring stick to being champion is winning and losing, it is not a beauty contest or character evaluation. Your accountable everytime the gloves come off for as long as they do.

A few of the greats from wilson's era also only had a few losses or a handful. Jonathan only lost a few, fotiu, wensink, etc. these guys don't get near the mention as #1 all-time. i think had these guys played in the probert/brown era-they would have lost plenty, just like probert, mcsorley, domi grimson etc. this speaks to how good an era is. saying wilson only had a few losses and no one else can claim that is saying more about how much weaker wilson's era was compared to the probert/brown era.

What stands Wilson apart from Fotiu, Wensink, Jonathan etc is that he did it crossing over eras, had a better fight card, beat who he was supposed to beat, never lost in a demeaning manor and maintained the highest level of skill til the day he retired with his back injury. This is very difficult to say when Stan Jonathan is one of my all-time favorites.

Wilson fought many of the same top guys Probert/Brown fought and in some cases faired better and because he was so sound both offensively and defensively, I can say that no matter what generation he fought in, when you dropped the gloves with Behn Wilson, you got a top flight performance each and everytime and were always in danger to be hurt. His high intellect would make him adaptable to the 90's and beyond.

I agree with you that Wilson and Probert/Brown were all different in their demeaner. Probert/Brown were more intense, nastier and definitely had more of an edge. This is a style I personally prefer. I also liked their enforcing skills and how they protected their smaller teamates. This is why I like Fotiu, Gillies and O'Reilly so much as well.

But if I'm rating them strictly as fighters for the All-Time NO#1 position then I have to take into account their entire career, and BIG LOSES definitely play into my equation no matter what era they fought.

This is why whether I like him or not, I rate Wilson as the best.

[spiderarms]

Originally Posted by battleship25

srehm, why should BW avenge draws But seriously BBBB, BW WAS wired differently...his teammates even mention it. By the time of his CHI days he seemed a loner even as a veteran. Talking to him you could tell he was very different than any other player I'd met... extremely intelligent, but very guarded. You could sense his elitism, an aloofness that he carried on the ice...he was no well liked by the Hawk teammates (unlike Probie who the Wings players loved) . Even while on VCR , talking to Cochrane about BW he doesn't remember him with fondness as much as his great respect of him as a fighter...he thought he was the toughest guy he'd ever seen ..at that point in his career. Fraser , who found out the hard way that BW was as tough as they come seemed to imply that BW was dangerously unpredictable but traveled to the beat of a different drum.

Watching his whole career he was an enigma, at times half asleep ..and then snap !! He spears you ..the Fotiu incident didn't surprise me in the least, I 'd seen that with Behn many times against lesser HW than NF. He never thought of himself as a tough guy that needs to prove anything, I'll tell you one thing ..had NF suckered him the way Baxter did ..there would 've been another part 2 , guaranteed. I still have a ton of BW just playing on tape (gms or just his shifts courtesy of my trader in CHI)... he was almost never overly aggressive..not like Playfair - who always played like he woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Not a huge body checker, that took too much effort..he seemed like he didn't want to look bad..he rarely ever fell..never had snow on his pants.

But had he played later , he'd certainly would've had more losses ..just not the devastating kind that felled Probert ( leaving that chin open was Probie Achilles heel) . BW had a more of a boxing background perhaps ..keeping that chin tucked in. Near impossible to KO. BW was a master at "ring generalship" rarely looking like he was losing..his strength , balance, mean streak, power, technique..he refused to be dominated.

I was laughing at your comment about NF and if it had been like Paul Baxter. That may have been the maddest I've seen BW get. He not only pounded on him once but twice in the same game. Baxter was one crazy dude. Not even turtling could save him. Can you imagine Behn Wilson playing like that all the time? TERROR

[srehm1]

Originally Posted by spiderarms

Srehm#1, I agree with you on alot of things, have many of the same favorite fighters and enjoy your contributions to this site but it is clear to me that how we evaluate the Top 10 Fighter rankings is different. You can find my responses below:




What stands Wilson apart from Fotiu, Wensink, Jonathan etc is that he did it crossing over eras, had a better fight card, beat who he was supposed to beat, never lost in a demeaning manor and maintained the highest level of skill til the day he retired with his back injury. This is very difficult to say when Stan Jonathan is one of my all-time favorites.

Wilson fought many of the same top guys Probert/Brown fought and in some cases faired better and because he was so sound both offensively and defensively, I can say that no matter what generation he fought in, when you dropped the gloves with Behn Wilson, you got a top flight performance each and everytime and were always in danger to be hurt. His high intellect would make him adaptable to the 90's and beyond.

I agree with you that Wilson and Probert/Brown were all different in their demeaner. Probert/Brown were more intense, nastier and definitely had more of an edge. This is a style I personally prefer. I also liked their enforcing skills and how they protected their smaller teamates. This is why I like Fotiu, Gillies and O'Reilly so much as well.

But if I'm rating them strictly as fighters for the All-Time NO#1 position then I have to take into account their entire career, and BIG LOSES definitely play into my equation no matter what era they fought.

This is why whether I like him or not, I rate Wilson as the best.

hey, it's true, wilson may not have felt the need to avenge those fights. he may have been willing to let them slide because they weren't huge beatings. losses sure but very close fights. he might have figured the issue was settled with the one fight. I would have liked to see him avenge them because there have always been some questions there regarding those two fights especially. Were they in his head? was he worried about losing even worse in a rematch-those kinds of things.

I love Wilson. I'm one of his biggest supporters here and I usually come out both guns blazing to defend him when our resident sh!t stirrer is running loose in this forum. So it's not like I have any reason to detract from his great career.

As far as top-10 fighter rankings-It doesn't matter to me who has who at number one and why. It's pretty clear on this site who is the #1 fighter of all time. those who have wilson at #1 are the minority for sure-although i have a great respect for those who i know rank wilson that high like BS25 or 2,5,10. i do think wilson is deserving of his high ranking. I have him in my holy trinity but he has always been sort of the junior partner for me. again his era comes into play. He never suffered a bad loss. some close one's sure but that is part of that era. jonathan wensink fotiu gillies nystrom gassoff etc they lost few fights because the era was weaker. less great fighters fighting much less. lower fight totals, shorter careers. Wilson has the benefit of being ranked according to 9 years in the league. probert had almost twice as long a career and fought in a high volume era. wilson in his 16th season would have been subject to the same break downs and struggles that probert did. people ranking probert on his last few years are missing the point any way. probert's first 9 seasons are very comparable to wilson's-even more so if you consider how much more he fought against some all time comp in that time. plus the fact that he never let a loss go in that time. the first domi loss was slight but because it was domi and the way he threw it in probert's face-the fight became a huge deal and the rematch picked up so much hype. i imagine wilson would have let that kind of loss go-but probert was another animal entirely. probert put together a far greater card than wilson, was the undisputed champ-not just the best fighter for a particular season. he has a few fights that may go down as top-10 fights of all time as well as putting together 2 of the top-5 best seasons ever. i don't think wilson could ever claim anything close to that. Not to mention being considered the gold standard that other fighters are compared to-to this day.

i do agree that wilson and many others from his era would have done fine in probert's era. I don't necessarily count that when i rank a fighter. to me, it's about performance and accomplishment. what did they do? who did they beat? how did they beat them? were they the best? did they beat the best? were they the best for a good stretch of time? these kinds of factors come into play when i try to rate these fighters. wilson might have been able to beat probert in a straight up fight-who knows? but probert's accomplishments far outweigh the accomplishments of mr. wilson in my eyes.

they do have some common opponents but i never saw wilson take out semenko the way probie did. i never saw wilson send mcgill flying backwards from a tko punch the way probert did. wilson never engaged in an all time style fight with mcsorley the way probert did-sh!i i gave probert the win in his only fight with mcclelland-i gave mcclelland an edge win against wilson in their only go.

i've said it before and i'll say it again but wilson fotiu gillies etc would have absolutely had their hands full against fighters from probert's era. obviously this is just my opinion but it's not the size or strength of that later era that makes me think this but the many more pure fighters with so many more versatile styles we would see from toe to toe style guys to machine gun rapid fire punchers to power punchers to technical greats and stamina guys to straight up southpaws-that era had it all in spades and is the reason why those fighters lost more fights in their careers. when you're fighting theses kinds of fighters all the time, night in and night out-you will lose more no doubt. not only that but there was a huge step up in the competitiveness of the second or third tier type fighters as well.

so, to sum up my long winded post-the era they fought in has to come into play when ranking these guys. having few losses is a great accomplishment-but i don't think you jump up stan jonathan ahead of guys like brown or probert. jonathan has maybe 3 losses in his career but he barely finds a spot in my top-25-and I'm a Bruins fan, born and bred in boston! same for wensink with his few losses. It was good they fought when they did because it would have been far different for them had they played into the late 80's or even the 90's. Imagine wilson doing his thing in '93 or '94? we would have been treated to some great fights for sure. more losses, but some great bouts no doubt about that.

[mikebflorida]

Originally Posted by bigjack

He didn't beat Beck at all! Beck snapped his head back with a big short left hand at the end of the fight and Wilson didn't land on Bubba!

Watch this, Wilson never landed a right and Beck landed a nice right at the 1:28 mark and then at the 1:32 mark snaps Wilson's head back with a powerful short great left punch!
Slow it down and watch Wilson's head get blasted!

barry beck vs behn wilson - YouTube

How the hell do you get that from watching that terrible video? I am still waitin g to see where Wilson's head snaps back.

That was a draw in a crap fight. Give me a break, you're such a homer.

[Churla22]

Originally Posted by bigjack

He didn't beat Beck at all! Beck snapped his head back with a big short left hand at the end of the fight and Wilson didn't land on Bubba!

Watch this, Wilson never landed a right and Beck landed a nice right at the 1:28 mark and then at the 1:32 mark snaps Wilson's head back with a powerful short great left punch!
Slow it down and watch Wilson's head get blasted!

barry beck vs behn wilson - YouTube

I also didn't think Wilson won that fight....DRAW.

[spiderarms]

Originally Posted by srehm1

hey, it's true, wilson may not have felt the need to avenge those fights. he may have been willing to let them slide because they weren't huge beatings. losses sure but very close fights. he might have figured the issue was settled with the one fight. I would have liked to see him avenge them because there have always been some questions there regarding those two fights especially. Were they in his head? was he worried about losing even worse in a rematch-those kinds of things.

I love Wilson. I'm one of his biggest supporters here and I usually come out both guns blazing to defend him when our resident sh!t stirrer is running loose in this forum. So it's not like I have any reason to detract from his great career.

As far as top-10 fighter rankings-It doesn't matter to me who has who at number one and why. It's pretty clear on this site who is the #1 fighter of all time. those who have wilson at #1 are the minority for sure-although i have a great respect for those who i know rank wilson that high like BS25 or 2,5,10. i do think wilson is deserving of his high ranking. I have him in my holy trinity but he has always been sort of the junior partner for me. again his era comes into play. He never suffered a bad loss. some close one's sure but that is part of that era. jonathan wensink fotiu gillies nystrom gassoff etc they lost few fights because the era was weaker. less great fighters fighting much less. lower fight totals, shorter careers. Wilson has the benefit of being ranked according to 9 years in the league. probert had almost twice as long a career and fought in a high volume era. wilson in his 16th season would have been subject to the same break downs and struggles that probert did. people ranking probert on his last few years are missing the point any way. probert's first 9 seasons are very comparable to wilson's-even more so if you consider how much more he fought against some all time comp in that time. plus the fact that he never let a loss go in that time. the first domi loss was slight but because it was domi and the way he threw it in probert's face-the fight became a huge deal and the rematch picked up so much hype. i imagine wilson would have let that kind of loss go-but probert was another animal entirely. probert put together a far greater card than wilson, was the undisputed champ-not just the best fighter for a particular season. he has a few fights that may go down as top-10 fights of all time as well as putting together 2 of the top-5 best seasons ever. i don't think wilson could ever claim anything close to that. Not to mention being considered the gold standard that other fighters are compared to-to this day.

i do agree that wilson and many others from his era would have done fine in probert's era. I don't necessarily count that when i rank a fighter. to me, it's about performance and accomplishment. what did they do? who did they beat? how did they beat them? were they the best? did they beat the best? were they the best for a good stretch of time? these kinds of factors come into play when i try to rate these fighters. wilson might have been able to beat probert in a straight up fight-who knows? but probert's accomplishments far outweigh the accomplishments of mr. wilson in my eyes.

they do have some common opponents but i never saw wilson take out semenko the way probie did. i never saw wilson send mcgill flying backwards from a tko punch the way probert did. wilson never engaged in an all time style fight with mcsorley the way probert did-sh!i i gave probert the win in his only fight with mcclelland-i gave mcclelland an edge win against wilson in their only go.

i've said it before and i'll say it again but wilson fotiu gillies etc would have absolutely had their hands full against fighters from probert's era. obviously this is just my opinion but it's not the size or strength of that later era that makes me think this but the many more pure fighters with so many more versatile styles we would see from toe to toe style guys to machine gun rapid fire punchers to power punchers to technical greats and stamina guys to straight up southpaws-that era had it all in spades and is the reason why those fighters lost more fights in their careers. when you're fighting theses kinds of fighters all the time, night in and night out-you will lose more no doubt. not only that but there was a huge step up in the competitiveness of the second or third tier type fighters as well.

so, to sum up my long winded post-the era they fought in has to come into play when ranking these guys. having few losses is a great accomplishment-but i don't think you jump up stan jonathan ahead of guys like brown or probert. jonathan has maybe 3 losses in his career but he barely finds a spot in my top-25-and I'm a Bruins fan, born and bred in boston! same for wensink with his few losses. It was good they fought when they did because it would have been far different for them had they played into the late 80's or even the 90's. Imagine wilson doing his thing in '93 or '94? we would have been treated to some great fights for sure. more losses, but some great bouts no doubt about that.

I respect your opinion regarding Probert and Wilson but I guess we just see things different.

To me, Wilson was a very different dude who had the sweetest right uppercut in the business. He was virtually unbeatable when he dropped the gloves and his power(John Hilworth), chin, defense and technical skills made him an elite fighter and in my opinion the All-Time best fighter in the NHL.

His intelligence and skillset, IMO, would transcend to any ERA. When you bring up common opponents, to me this only proves this out. You mentioned McClellan and Semenko, by the way you failed to mention that Semenko laid a beating on Probert in the first fight, but how about other common foes:

Curt Fraser - A win for Wilson and a Win, Loss and Two Draws for Probert.

Chris Nilan- Three Wins for Wilson (No Video on 2) and a Loss for Probert.

Bob McGill- Two Wins for Wilson and Three Wins for Probert.

Basil McRae - Two Wins for Wilson and a Draw for Probert.

Willi Plett- Two Wins, a Loss & Two Draws for Wilson and a Win & Draw for Probert

Semenko- Win for Wilson and a Win and Loss for Probert

McClelland- A Loss for Wilson and a Win and Draw for Probert.

Gillies- A Win and Draw for Wilson and a Non-Fight for Probert.

McSorley- A Win for Wilson and Three Wins and a Draw for Probert.

Wendel Clark- Two Wins for Wilson and Two Wins and Two Losses for Probert.

If I was choosing a fighter based on popularity, entertainment and as one of my all-time favorites then it would be no contest, its Probert. But that's not what I'm doing here.

When you focused on Wilson's lack of avenging loses as a point to being champion, you also mentioned that this was Probert's forte. For me this is not a factor other than it being something that I would like to see and a characteristic that I would want in my team enforcer. But when I'm evaluating a fighter and his performance,
I rate the actual fights and only the fights.

In the case with Wilson, I believe it was irrelevent to him but in the case with Probert, yes he was motivated to take revenge in avenging loses. The most notable avenging loses were of course Domi, Crowder, Ewen etc. But what has not come up in our conversations, is the loses that were not avenged by Probert.

To mention a few, how about Chris Simon (Bad Loss)? How about Chris Tamer(TKO Loss)? Sandy McCarthy? Tony Twist? Joey Kocur? Darren McCarty? Reed Low? Peter Worrell? Dave Morrisette(TKO Loss)?

Avenging the loses does not effect my opinion in the evaluation process, but the loss itself does.

As you stated, Probert played 16 Seasons in the NHL to 9 for Wilson. Wilson retired with back problems, so at the time of his departure his level of fighting was in peak form.

In the case with Probert, as you mentioned, his first nine years were his best but even in those years, his winning percentage was still not equal to Wilson, though very close.

However it is in the last 7 years of Probert's career where his numbers started to diminish. About 60% of his career losses were incurred during this period.

Over 40% in his last 4 years in the league. Does this factor into my decision to put Wilson at #1? Yes its a factor because Wilson was able to keep his numbers in tack.

Had Behn Wilson continued on and played another 7 years, I might be saying different things right now. But we can't go by "What If's", we all know where that leads!

In summary, these are two great fighters any way you slice it. Recognizing Wilson's great fighting skills should in no way demean the tremendous accomplishments and memories of Bob Probert.

As I've stated many times, Bob Probert is one of my all-time favorites.

I can not say the same for Behn Wilson but that doesn't mean I can't recognize his tremendous fighting ability!

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by spiderarms

I respect your opinion regarding Probert and Wilson but I guess we just see things different.

To me, Wilson was a very different dude who had the sweetest right uppercut in the business. He was virtually unbeatable when he dropped the gloves and his power(John Hilworth), chin, defense and technical skills made him an elite fighter and in my opinion the All-Time best fighter in the NHL.

His intelligence and skillset, IMO, would transcend to any ERA. When you bring up common opponents, to me this only proves this out. You mentioned McClellan and Semenko, by the way you failed to mention that Semenko laid a beating on Probert in the first fight, but how about other common foes:

Curt Fraser - A win for Wilson and a Win, Loss and Two Draws for Probert.

Chris Nilan- Three Wins for Wilson (No Video on 2) and a Loss for Probert.

Bob McGill- Two Wins for Wilson and Three Wins for Probert.

Basil McRae - Two Wins for Wilson and a Draw for Probert.

Willi Plett- Two Wins, a Loss & Two Draws for Wilson and a Win & Draw for Probert

Semenko- Win for Wilson and a Win and Loss for Probert

McClelland- A Loss for Wilson and a Win and Draw for Probert.

Gillies- A Win and Draw for Wilson and a Non-Fight for Probert.

McSorley- A Win for Wilson and Three Wins and a Draw for Probert.

Wendel Clark- Two Wins for Wilson and Two Wins and Two Losses for Probert.

If I was choosing a fighter based on popularity, entertainment and as one of my all-time favorites then it would be no contest, its Probert. But that's not what I'm doing here.

When you focused on Wilson's lack of avenging loses as a point to being champion, you also mentioned that this was Probert's forte. For me this is not a factor other than it being something that I would like to see and a characteristic that I would want in my team enforcer. But when I'm evaluating a fighter and his performance,
I rate the actual fights and only the fights.

In the case with Wilson, I believe it was irrelevent to him but in the case with Probert, yes he was motivated to take revenge in avenging loses. The most notable avenging loses were of course Domi, Crowder, Ewen etc. But what has not come up in our conversations, is the loses that were not avenged by Probert.

To mention a few, how about Chris Simon (Bad Loss)? How about Chris Tamer(TKO Loss)? Sandy McCarthy? Tony Twist? Joey Kocur? Darren McCarty? Reed Low? Peter Worrell? Dave Morrisette(TKO Loss)?

Avenging the loses does not effect my opinion in the evaluation process, but the loss itself does.

As you stated, Probert played 16 Seasons in the NHL to 9 for Wilson. Wilson retired with back problems, so at the time of his departure his level of fighting was in peak form.

In the case with Probert, as you mentioned, his first nine years were his best but even in those years, his winning percentage was still not equal to Wilson, though very close.

However it is in the last 7 years of Probert's career where his numbers started to diminish. About 60% of his career losses were incurred during this period.

Over 40% in his last 4 years in the league. Does this factor into my decision to put Wilson at #1? Yes its a factor because Wilson was able to keep his numbers in tack.

Had Behn Wilson continued on and played another 7 years, I might be saying different things right now. But we can't go by "What If's", we all know where that leads!

In summary, these are two great fighters any way you slice it. Recognizing Wilson's great fighting skills should in no way demean the tremendous accomplishments and memories of Bob Probert.

As I've stated many times, Bob Probert is one of my all-time favorites.

I can not say the same for Behn Wilson but that doesn't mean I can't recognize his tremendous fighting ability!

I would call the Wilson/Semenko affair a non-fight- Obviously Semenko was hurting - you give the same grace to Wilson when he engaged Bob Probert

[battleship25]

Originally Posted by BaddaBing Badda Boom

I would call the Wilson/Semenko affair a non-fight- Obviously Semenko was hurting - you give the same grace to Wilson when he engaged Bob Probert

Big difference BBBB, BW actually FOUGHT Probert !!! Nothing wrong with Sammy at the beginning of the fight where he seemed to land a couple of uppercuts..the problem with Sammy is once his right is tied up he tends to give up ( especially someone as strong as BW). BW could barely skate due to a severe groin pull during that whole series - if someone had an excuse for a poor showing it was BW. I have most of that gm on tape, including the end of the gm when the Hawks were stepping down to the dressing room (CHI Stadium dressing rooms were under the building) . BW was one of the first to step down but was so hobbled that he ended up being one of the last players to get down...as each player stepped by BW they all patted him on the back. That's on VHS.

Semenko's MO ..just like in the Hunter fights ..get loose fast (re; jump) and if the right gets tied up hang on till the refs save you. Just not a warrior like a Marty Mac, or BW, O'Reilly, or Probie. BW was in so much pain from 84- on that it's a marvel that it didn't show that much. Same with Secord, his stomach and leg issues had him in a ton of pain. But most of the tough guys played in various degrees of pain..part of being a pro athlete in a tough sport. Some use it as an excuse..others don't.

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by battleship25

Big difference BBBB, BW actually FOUGHT Probert !!! Nothing wrong with Sammy at the beginning of the fight where he seemed to land a couple of uppercuts..the problem with Sammy is once his right is tied up he tends to give up ( especially someone as strong as BW). BW could barely skate due to a severe groin pull during that whole series - if someone had an excuse for a poor showing it was BW. I have most of that gm on tape, including the end of the gm when the Hawks were stepping down to the dressing room (CHI Stadium dressing rooms were under the building) . BW was one of the first to step down but was so hobbled that he ended up being one of the last players to get down...as each player stepped by BW they all patted him on the back. That's on VHS.

Semenko's MO ..just like in the Hunter fights ..get loose fast (re; jump) and if the right gets tied up hang on till the refs save you. Just not a warrior like a Marty Mac, or BW, O'Reilly, or Probie. BW was in so much pain from 84- on that it's a marvel that it didn't show that much. Same with Secord, his stomach and leg issues had him in a ton of pain. But most of the tough guys played in various degrees of pain..part of being a pro athlete in a tough sport. Some use it as an excuse..others don't.

My reasoning is based on info/anecdotes/re-caps - that it was Semenko who was suffereing from a bad back. On the other hand when Probie and Wilson jostled around I remember clear as day on this site (a thread from long ago) that Wilson was old by then and with a notorius bad back - Did not think that the S and W go was much - Wilson may have been in pain but it appears to me that something is drastically wrong with DS - Whatever the facts are it sure would have been intersting to see Semenko square up with a little confidence and exchange - whatever!

[srehm1]

Semenko gave probert a beating in their first fight?? Sammy mugged probert and was about to get what was coming to him had Gallant not jumped in! Way to spin that one.

Nilan beat probert?? a draw in a sh!t fight!

Wilson beat clark twice?? I had him in a draw in a great fight and an edge to wilson in round two.

I had a huge post all set to go but the site froze on me.

Oh well...

Again spider if you want to downplay how great probert was in his prime-by all means do. If you read my post CORRERCTLY i stated probert avenged his losses in HIS FIRST 9 SEASONS. I was comparing their first 9 years because wilson only played 9 season yet some on this site seem so focused on probert's losses in his 15 or 16th season. So using probert's first 9 seasons, or his entire time with detroit, would level the playing field a bit. probert was obviously past his prime in chicago and you can tell because he would shrug off a loss and at times wouldn't fare well in rematches. he wasn't the SAME fighter, yet some expect him to be this unfailing titan for 16 seasons!

Wilson was a great fighter but like i mentioned before he has always been the junior partner of my holy trinity with the weakest grip on his spot. I think he was a great fighter with a great uppercut although kind of a one armed bandit. I just think his era was weaker or less competitive than probert's. strength of opposition goes a long way with me and probert has wilson beat by far in that regard as well as outdistancing him in other categories as well (in my eyes). He had few losses and this does him credit. again that era was known for having fighters who finshed their careers with few losses as i mentioned before yet you'll never hear jonathan's name as #1 all-time or gillies or fotiu or wensink-all with relatively low fight and loss totals. Both wilson and probert jumped out at me as being geat fighters when i first got into this hobby. they were the first two i really looked at as being the best and i sort of gravitated towards them as favorites. However there was no doubt in my mind who was the better of the two. nice debate. good to hear both sides. what was this thread about again?

[BaddaBing Badda Boom]

Originally Posted by battleship25

Big difference BBBB, BW actually FOUGHT Probert !!! Nothing wrong with Sammy at the beginning of the fight where he seemed to land a couple of uppercuts..the problem with Sammy is once his right is tied up he tends to give up ( especially someone as strong as BW). BW could barely skate due to a severe groin pull during that whole series - if someone had an excuse for a poor showing it was BW. I have most of that gm on tape, including the end of the gm when the Hawks were stepping down to the dressing room (CHI Stadium dressing rooms were under the building) . BW was one of the first to step down but was so hobbled that he ended up being one of the last players to get down...as each player stepped by BW they all patted him on the back. That's on VHS.

Semenko's MO ..just like in the Hunter fights ..get loose fast (re; jump) and if the right gets tied up hang on till the refs save you. Just not a warrior like a Marty Mac, or BW, O'Reilly, or Probie. BW was in so much pain from 84- on that it's a marvel that it didn't show that much. Same with Secord, his stomach and leg issues had him in a ton of pain. But most of the tough guys played in various degrees of pain..part of being a pro athlete in a tough sport. Some use it as an excuse..others don't.

BS25 did some back-checking and found a few anecdotes from folks who read Dave Semenko's book - Here is one and I give the attribution to someone who goes by the moniker: thezill69



"I read Semenko's book (which I got in '92 way before the era of YouTube). He tells the story of this fight saying he had zero interest in fighting because he had separated his shoulder during this game. He paired off with Wilson when the brawl occured and told him his shoulder was "done" Wilson broke the code by starting to fight him anyways (to spark his team for the next game since this was in the playoffs). Semenko missed the rest of the series and didn't dress till game 2 of the finals."
thezill69 1 year ago

My recollection was off as it appeared to be Semenko's shoulder - Hey! am not saying that Semenko takes BW but it would have been interesting if in fact that Semenko's story holds water.

[battleship25]

Originally Posted by srehm1

Semenko gave probert a beating in their first fight?? Sammy mugged probert and was about to get what was coming to him had Gallant not jumped in! Way to spin that one.

Nilan beat probert?? a draw in a sh!t fight!

Wilson beat clark twice?? I had him in a draw in a great fight and an edge to wilson in round two.

I had a huge post all set to go but the site froze on me.

Oh well...

Again spider if you want to downplay how great probert was in his prime-by all means do. If you read my post CORRERCTLY i stated probert avenged his losses in HIS FIRST 9 SEASONS. I was comparing their first 9 years because wilson only played 9 season yet some on this site seem so focused on probert's losses in his 15 or 16th season. So using probert's first 9 seasons, or his entire time with detroit, would level the playing field a bit. probert was obviously past his prime in chicago and you can tell because he would shrug off a loss and at times wouldn't fare well in rematches. he wasn't the SAME fighter, yet some expect him to be this unfailing titan for 16 seasons!

Wilson was a great fighter but like i mentioned before he has always been the junior partner of my holy trinity with the weakest grip on his spot. I think he was a great fighter with a great uppercut although kind of a one armed bandit. I just think his era was weaker or less competitive than probert's. strength of opposition goes a long way with me and probert has wilson beat by far in that regard as well as outdistancing him in other categories as well (in my eyes). He had few losses and this does him credit. again that era was known for having fighters who finshed their careers with few losses as i mentioned before yet you'll never hear jonathan's name as #1 all-time or gillies or fotiu or wensink-all with relatively low fight and loss totals. Both wilson and probert jumped out at me as being geat fighters when i first got into this hobby. they were the first two i really looked at as being the best and i sort of gravitated towards them as favorites. However there was no doubt in my mind who was the better of the two. nice debate. good to hear both sides. what was this thread about again?

Wilson was a one armed bandit ?? Yes. Brown never used his right either ..both one armed bandits . Probert's left was thrown awkwardly and was only used when the right was too busted up or it was tied up.
As far as HW from BW era with few losses...all mentioned had bad losses:

Jonathan TKO/KO to Gillies
Wensink speedbagged by Nystrom, beat up by LP
Playfair with a handful of tko/Ko losses
Fotiu beat up by Jack Mac, shut out by Nystrom, and beat up by Gord Lane
Nystrom dropped by Schoenfeld and badly bloodied by Hutchison
Gillies was beat up by TO(ONCE), and BW , possibly tk'd by Paradise although I 've seen LP and Gillies in people top 5 .

Again these were clear cut losses, some very bad..these didn't happen with Big Behn. Why?? It was his style...he was very strong, very technical, had a great chin, powerful punch, and was a mean warrior. It's a bad combination. It doesn't matter the era , but yes in the tougher era he'd of had more losses but I still think his record would've been slightly better than Probies.

What used to drive me nuts about Probie is how he would jump in and hold onto a guy (Ewen 3 -4, Kevin Mac, Grimson, Crowder,etc) and allow them to pound away( or try) and then open up . Of course this strategy backfired a few times when he couldn't over come the bad start. I asked him point blank about that Ewen 3 fight "Why did you get in close?" He said " I didn't wanna get caught early" . It almost seemed like he had to get mad.. and then start to fight..but clearly the first Ewen fight had an effect on his confidence..but I told him if he didn't put his chin out there ..he'd never been KO'd EVER !! But he loved to use his reach and keep his face away from the other guy..problem with that is chin is wide open .

I agree with Spider' bad losses can't be erased. But had BW had any horrible losses he would've avenged them IMO. It was just near impossible to beat him like that..in any era. BW era was the same era as Playfair and LP had some pretty bad losses

If I was asked who achieved more in their careers fight wise it's obviously Probert, but when asked who the best pure fighter I say Behn Wilson. It's all hypothetical but that's how I see it.

[battleship25]

Originally Posted by BaddaBing Badda Boom

BS25 did some back-checking and found a few anecdotes from folks who read Dave Semenko's book - Here is one and I give the attribution to someone who goes by the moniker: thezill69



"I read Semenko's book (which I got in '92 way before the era of YouTube). He tells the story of this fight saying he had zero interest in fighting because he had separated his shoulder during this game. He paired off with Wilson when the brawl occured and told him his shoulder was "done" Wilson broke the code by starting to fight him anyways (to spark his team for the next game since this was in the playoffs). Semenko missed the rest of the series and didn't dress till game 2 of the finals."
thezill69 1 year ago

My recollection was off as it appeared to be Semenko's shoulder - Hey! am not saying that Semenko takes BW but it would have been interesting if in fact that Semenko's story holds water.

I think I read about his shoulder in the book, but nothing about talking..that's plain BS ...watch the video...BW came into a pile and then Semenko and BW went at it fast -there was no time to comment...Sammy was trying to land on BW with a couple of rights ( nothing wrong with the shoulder there, he was doing his usual "quick start" ) when he felt BW was vulnerable -he was bent over in the beginning. Also , there was no 'code' back then (especially Semenko) .

Again -watch the video. I think any sense of fight in Sammy was snuffed out when BW pulled him back and caught him with a big uppercut...combined with the right tied up ..he was as harmless as a baby kitten.