Acid Casual

The whole idea of fighting in Manilla (or in Zaire in'74 where the nearest neuroligical unit to conform to reasonable standards was reputed to be in Madrid) was absurd. Don King chasing the money whilst quite prepared to put the fighters' well-being at severe risk. Dodgy dictator? Lamentable medical resource? Crazy fighting conditions? No matter! We're making millions from this!

I think there's absolutely no doubt that Roach's condition is related to boxing on too long. Also, that fight in Manilla... History shows that it was a fight that was just not worth the price paid by both fighters, because Frazier isn't right either.

Been away for ages, but was interested in the subject of Hatton's weight. I was chatting to Kerry Kayes a couple of years back who was Hatton's nutritionist until recently, and he was being quite candid with his anecdotes. He said that one year when Hatton fought 4 times, he had to take 2.5 stone off him each time, so 10 stone in total!!! A bit of simple maths would suggest a slight embelishment on Kerry's part (average training camp being 10-12 weeks x 4 fights = 40-48 weeks total training, which would leave only a few weeks to get so fat) but I guess the point was that his weight fluctuation is extreme. Actually, if this was before his world level days and he was fighting as regularly as 4 times a year, his camps could easily be shorter. Say 6 weeks. However, if he was 2.5 stone overweight, I doubt if he'd shift it all in such a short space of time. Anyway you cut it, it don't look good, does it?

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigel Benn was proper West Ham as far as I recall. > I remember seeing him as an amatuer at the York > Hall Bethnal Green and he wore West Ham colours. Yes. He always said that he and Mark Kaylor were destined to meet. As it happened Benn outgrew Kaylor by quite a margin.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mark Kaylor...propa West Ham You want to hear Errol Christie on the subject of Kaylor! Eeeek! Duck and run for cover!!!

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm very suprised that Ricky Hatton is not in any > of those lists and that Nigel Benn is so lowly > ranked at 16. No Barry Mcguigan either? Reason being that I think many of the names on this list will actually have never been seen by those who complied them, hence they are in there on their legend. Not suggesting for a moment that they were not brilliant, but we just don't know. Legend carries a lot of weight, which is why if I haven't really seen someone fight I tend not to offer an opinion on them. I think there's a bit of that going on in these lists. That said, still no assurance that Hatton would have gotten in. Good fighter, but not sure about a top ten or twenty placing. I think his popularity tends to overshadow his ability.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I usually think its the end of a boxer when he > trains in plush surroundings. I remember when > Hagler was champion he used to lock himself away > in a run down makeshift gym in the middle of > nowhere, away from media and hangers on - to keep > himself hungry. Seemed to work for him. Horses for course I think. No way was Leonard ever going to slum it after he made his first million. I'd imagine Mayweather would not either, but I do know that many keep the hunger alive by living spartan for a while. I remember the Ron Peck documentary called Fighters which centred around The Royal Oak in Canning Town in around 1991. It primarily focused on Mark Kaylor's comeback. Good God, spartan is not the word! The room where he was lodging would drive even those of the sunniest disposition to suicide. After about 2 days I'd have been so depressed I'd have been in no fit mental shape to fight. You can't train all the time. Your body needs time to recover and that means sleep and rest in a relatively comfortable environment. I think you can take this austerity a bit too far personally.

Bellenden Belle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Acid Casual - you certainly seem to have a great > boxing knowledge (and sparring with Benn is > certainly something special) so I wonder if you > think like me that Naz was always set-up to lose > due to Brendan Ingle.... > > Let me explain....I've read reports that Ingle is > renowned for producing young boxers with super > fast reflexes and practicing the > "hands-down-by-waist get-the-&%$(-out the way > style of defence. Now Naz was no doubt a superb > practitioner of this art. It allowed his powerful > punches to come from unorthodox angles confusing > and hurting opponents. > > BUT....with age all of Ingle's fighters reflexes > begin to wain. Without the basics of good > defensive skills they begin to get hit more and > more creating a vicious cycle. Eventually they > lose. And cannot come back because by then, it's > too late. > > Hamed allowing his family to run his career and > slow up on his training certainly didn't help but > I can't help wonder whether the seeds of defeat > were sown early on in a Sheffield gym.... I dunno about that. Ingle seemed to do OK with Johnny Nelson who is (and this is no disrespect to Johnny) quite limited, yet he was a world champ under Ingle. Bomber Graham I just think was tragically never meant to be a world champ, and of course Hamed. I think that Hamed's problem was his own big head and as you say, his spectacularly stupid and selfish brothers. One minute you are working as a community warden to the Sheffield Yemeni community and working in the family shop, the next you are managing the affairs of one of the most talented sportsmen to have emerged from this country in recent years. Pair of idiots. If they had any care and concern for their brother, they would have left well alone. Instead they are suddenly swanning about in sports cars, wearing too much hair gel with ridiculous chin strap pencil beards. Yeah! Looking good you pair of nobodies! I remember a documentary which followed Hamed in the run up to the Barrera fight and Emmanuel Steward was patently disgusted with Hamed's efforts (or lack of them) when training and sparring in Palm Springs. he was asked if he thought the day had gone well and he immediately replied "No. He'll have to do a lot better than that tomorrow. A lot better" before walking off. Like most trainers, if you can't be arsed, they can't be arsed - and rightly so. Why should they waste their time if you're going to piss about? Steward just had a look or complete bemusement on his face throughout. As if he was thinking "what am I doing here when I could be with Lennox who'll actually train properly?" I think that Hamed was beyond help at that point.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Best british fighter of all time Naseem Haamed? - > thats quite a statement. > > I don't know much about boxing to be honest but if > asked would ahve said Ken Buchanan. > > I then found these lists from KO Magazine and Ring > Magazine: Hamed is not in the top 10 in either but > 11th in one. Buchanen is in the top 10 of both > lists. > > Ko Magazines Top 20 British fighters - > > 1. Lennox Lewis > 2. Jimmy Wilde > 3. Jim Driscoll > 4. Freddy Welsh > 5. Ted "Kid" Lewis > 6. Ken Buchanan > 7. Randolph Turpin > 8. Benny Lynch > 9. Owen Moran > 10. John Conteh > 11. Naseem Hamed > 12. John H. Stracey > 13. Peter Kane > 14. Herol Graham > 15. Chris Eubank > 16. Nigel Benn > 17. Howard Winstone > 18. Alan Minter > 19. Jim Watt > 20. Freddie Mills > ---------------------- > > The Ring Magazines Top 10 of All-time. (Abit more > upto date) > > 1. Jimmy Wilde (137-5-2, 99 KOs; 1910-23): One of > biggest punchers pound-for-pound ever > > 2. Ted ?Kid? Lewis (232-44-24, 80 KOs; 1909-29): > Second greatest Jewish fighter after Benny > Leonard > > 3. Jackie ?Kid? Berg (157-26-9, 61 KOs; 1924-45): > Fought and beat many of America?s best > > 4. Joe Calzghe (46-0, 32 KOs; 1993-present): > Perfect record is impressive but had few > meaningful victories > > 5. Jim Driscoll (63-4-6, 39 KOs; 1901-19): Went > 3-0 against the great George Dixon and beat Abe > Attell > > 6. Benny Lynch (81-12-15, 34 KOs; 1931-3: > Alcoholism curtailed his career and life > > 7. Ken Buchanan (61-8, 27 KOs; 1965-82): Had > misfortune of being a contemporary of Roberto > Duran > > 8. Lennox Lewis (41-2-1, 32 KOs; 1989-2003): > Greatest British heavyweight of all-time > > 9. Owen Moran (65-19-8, 19 KOs; 1900-16): Had wars > with some of the best little men ever > > 10. Randy Turpin (66-8-1, 45 KOs; 1946-64): Only > the second man to beat the great Sugar Ray > Robinson. I didn't say that. What I said was that for an 18 month period, he was THE best. You become the best of all time by sustaining that over a career, which he didn't. My personal choice would be Buchanan, but on reflection I'd say he might have to settle for third place behind Lennox Lewis and Joe Calzaghe. Maybe you could mix the order up, but those would be my top 3. I can't possibly comment on any of the real old time fighters because I have seen very little footage of them, and if I were to go with common wisdom and put Jimmy Wilde at the peak, I would be doing that based only on volume of opinion. Best to go with what I know I think. The case for each, in my opinion, is... Lewis - First British heavyweight champion in over a century, fought and beat all before him, vastly underrated skills. Buchanan - Possibly THE most respected UK fighter in the states. Fought at Madison Square Garden more than any other British fighter fought and beat some true greats - a better calibre of opponent than possibly any other Brit - Carlos Ortiz, Ismael Laguna (twice) and Duran. Calzaghe - Longest reigning super middleweight champ ever. Held the title for over a decade, which is simply amazing. Only thing is that he could have fought in The States earlier and faced some bigger names earlier in their careers. John Conteh too was really, really underrated.

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Naz was good value, but the fact he just > disappeared after losing his title, and never went > and got it back, means he was not a great. Barrera > had him totally and utterly worked out, and Naz > had no answer, and couldn't change his style. For about 18 months - say between Steve Robinson and Tom Johnson, Naz was THE best British fighter of perhaps all time. Not having really seen the likes of Jimmy Wilde or Jim Driscoll I have to just go from the last 50 years or so) If he had kept up this standard I think there's no doubt he'd have been our greatest ever fighter. His fight with Kevin Kelley was brilliant, but by then he'd already begun to decline. Not to the degree where most people would notice it, and being honest I don't think I quite did at the time either. My view was that this was a step up to meet quite a special fighter on his home turf, which he came through in thrilling fashion. With the benefit of hindsight it seems he was beginning to unravel a little bit.

The fighters that Leonard has his behind closed doors fights (actually 10 rounders with Leonard wearing 16oz gloves whereas his opponents were very likely wearing 10oz) were... Quincy Taylor who became a world champion himself in 1995, Robert Boo Boo Sawyer and Dwayne Cooper. The latter two were not to amount to much, but QT was a very decent fighter. Teofilo Stevenson was a great fighter. As was Felix Savon.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great analysis of Leonard/ Hagler fight and > possible outcome of Mayweather/ Pacquaio fight > Acid. If I remember correctly Hagler didn't fight > much in the year prior to that fight, whereas > Leonard's training camp was very intense. Perhaps > Hagler underestimated Leonard because of the lay > off and move up in weight? It was close and Hagler > threw the bigger punches. I always loved Hagler > from the moment I saw him beat up Minter, but > there is a special place in my heart for Leonard. > He was so dashing and so skilful and his pretty > boy looks belied a true fighter's heart. > It's also a great point about Pacquaio. He does > make tiny mistakes and it's those tiny margins > that Mayweather will exploit. Again, what people fail to recall is that between knocking out Hearns and being beaten by Leonard, Hagler only fought John Mugabi. I think he was seriously beginning to lose his appetite for boxing. After you've unified your division and dispatched your most fearsome opponent in 3 rounds, where else do you go? The thing I admire most about Hagler is his total single-mindedness in everything he did. He was a middleweight and always was a middleweight. He didn't jump around between divisions. Having held the title for 7 years solid and added the IBF version in 1983 to unify, where do you go?... Leonard also jerked him around for the best part of 5 years with his "will I? Won't I fight you?" routine. Hagler let it be known that Leonard was the only fight he could get up for. I don't think he ever expected it to happen and when it did I think he was a bit taken aback. Leonard is certainly not daft. he would have been preparing quietly well in advance. Apparently he had two "fights" behind closed doors to prepare for it. Can't remember who the two fighters were, but young hungry up and coming boxers were handsomely paid to do a full 12 rounds, sans headgear, no quarter asked or given, alone in the gym with only Angelo Dundee, Janks Morton, Mike Traynor and Roger Leonard witnessing. A usual training camp is between 10-12 weeks for a fight of this magnitude. I think we can safely concur that Leonard was preparing well in advance of that. I'd agree on Leonard's skill too. Easily the most naturally talented fighter of my lifetime. Were it not for Tommy Hearns I'd have been a massive Leonard fan.

jimmy two times Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think he'll beat Pacquaio for the reasons you've > stated. He is very cocky (not a problem in boxing) > but I don't like the way he bangs on about money > all the time. Lacks a bit of class. I think he'd beat Pacquiao too. There is one man in the world good enough to punish the almost microscopic mistakes that Pacquiao makes, and that is Mayweather.

Atila Reincarnate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No way the only reason he got th decision was > because it was in Leonards "backyard" About 3 times a year, I pull that fight out and watch it to see if the furore is deserved. I try to score it round by round in the way that the judges would and I have variously scored it to either fighter and once or twice a draw, but I have never scored it by any bigger margin than 115-113, so I would not consider it a robbery. The sometimes unfortunate thing about boxing is that the scoring is totally subjective and therefore open to individual interpretation. Not always Ideal, but better than the current daft amateur electronic version which is a nightmare. It reduces a sport where the idea to showcase your skills, hit and not be hit, so a quantitative exercise. Totally nuts! Plus it also has people throwing silly punches in an effort to clearly land with the white part of the glove. I remember being chastised by a referee for throwing a hook which 9 times out of 10 would have rendered an opponent prone because he thought that it was not correctly landed. back to the point. II do agree that Leonard was very adept at stealing rounds with 2-3 flourishes and a big rally at the end, but whether we think he won or lost, I think he fought brilliantly against Hagler and due to the subjective nature of fight scoring, could well have won it.

I'd rate Mayweather very highly indeed if he faced a few live opponents. His career highlights are Diego Corrales who he utterly starched, Arturo Gatti (same result) Ricky Hatton (same result) Zab Juddah. All who were either on the cusp of being over the hill (and to be fair he called the timing brilliantly) or in the case of Juddah, a six round fighter. Corrales was the only one I'd consider a live opponent. Jose-Luis Castillo gave him all sorts of trouble too. The rest is padded out by the likes of Shambra Mitchell, Jesus Chavez, Lovemore N'Dou, Demarcus Corley and a very faded Oscar De La Hoya. I'm not saying for a minute that he isn't brilliant, because his skills are sublime and the check-hook which did the damage to Hatton was executed as perfectly as I have ever seen it done, but your legacy is decided by who you face and he doesn't want any part of Shane Mosley, didn't want to face Antonio Margarito or Miguel Cotto before the latter two began to slide a bit (alarmingly so in Cotto's case) He may eventually fight Manny Pac because despite the fact that Manny will get up in weight, the natural size difference will still be a factor at this level of fighter. Basically, he picks his fights. If he were to fight a couple of bigger men who have good names like Mosley, win or lose, I'd probably place him in my top 5 at the expense of Chavez. In summary, brilliant fighter. Potential all time great in anyone's book, but seems to be try to convince the world otherwise.

My top five, in an order that frequently changes and not based on being the best but purely on my own personal like or admiration, would probably be... 1. Thomas Hearns 2. James Toney 3. Ken Buchanan 4. Wilfred Benitez 5. Julio Cesar-Chavez Honourable mentions for Aaron Pryor, Roberto Duran, Felix Trinidad, Barry McGuigan (another absolute gent), Larry Holmes, Nigel Benn, Marco-Antonio Barrera, and a good few more. I also liked watching stylists like Edwin Viruet, but Viruet's lack of an overall package (couldn't crack and egg with a hammer in his hand) means that he'd never get anywhere near my favourites. His first fight with Duran is comedy though. In terms of a best of all time from the fighters that I have seen decent amounts of and were pretty active in my lifetime, I'd say... 1. Sugar Ray Leonard 2. Roy Jones Junior 3. Roberto Duran 4. Larry Holmes (my only real memories of Ali were him getting beaten by Holmes and Berbick) 5. Julio-Cesar Chavez. Possibly Mike Tyson between 1985 and 1988. I've actually sparred Nigel Benn. It was a thoroughly traumatic experience although the years mellowed him between occasions. The pain was utterly surreal. It seemed to start in the very centre of your body and come to the surface of your skin over a period of a week. Never been hit like that before. Tyson, his sociopathic nature aside, was treated abominably by boxing and Don King in particular. I feel quite sorry for him. I'm not saying he was a good guy, and I am not going to speculate as to whether he was guilty or not, but he sure as hell would not have gone off the rails in such a big way had Cus D'Amato and Jimmy Jacobs stayed in charge of his career and life. Swap the two of them, Teddy Atlas, Jose Torres and Kevin Rooney for Don King, Carl King, Richie Giachetti, John Hornweather, later on Panama Lewis, and you have the makings of a human disaster. Unsurprisingly that is exactly what occurred.

Yes, Wilfred Benitez is another of my top 5 I'd say. Sublime defensive skills. I don't think I've ever seen a better defensive boxer with his back to the ropes. Pernell Whittaker might come close, but Benitez was special. His current situation is all too common with fighters who stay in too long, but particularly surprising given his elusive mastery. One of my favourite fights of all time is his fight with Sugar Ray Leonard. It is a craftsman's fight. Most people (even a lot of younger fighters) sadly don't appreciate it because they just want crash, bang, wallop, and for the large part of this contest it is a blueprint for strategic excellence. It's a bit like Madison Square Garden in the 60's and 70's versus Vegas in the 80's & 90's. I have Ken Buchanan's second fight with Ismael Laguna in 1971 on DVD, and at one point when his left eye is rapidly closing, but he is protecting a decent lead, Buchanan elects to go to the ropes and defend. In a 30-40 second period he barely lands a punch, but all of Laguna's efforts go swiftly either side of Buchanan's head or are parried, slipped or blocked. You hear a small crackle of applause from the distance in the hall, which grows over the 30 seconds into a roar of appreciation at Buchanan's elusive skills. Nowadays if it was in Vegas Buchanan would have been booed by idiots who have most likely never laced a pair of gloves in their lives. Kirkland Laing is the biggest waste of talent ever. No-one really knows how good he might have been, because by all accounts he never trained. The people who have told me that should know, and are not prone to wild exaggerations.

What's also interesting is how the result totally alters people's perceptions of that fight too. It seems to have been totally forgotten that Hearns was considered the puncher in the fight and was a slight betting favourite, rising to a clearer favourite as the fight approached. It is also forgotten that Hagler was seconds away from being stopped on cuts after I think two time outs to visit the ring doctor to have his especially nasty cuts looked at, before he rallied in such spectacular style, but yes. What a fight. It is a shame that instead of being mentioned as at the same level as Hagler and Leonard, Hearns is often considered a level beneath them. Not by me I hasten to add. This fight seems to have built Hagler into a one punch knockout merchant in some people's eyes, and whilst I'm not for one second diminishing his legendary status, he was not that fighter. He tended to wear people down by dismantling them systematically. A bit like knocking a building down in stages with a wreaking ball, whereas Hearns was dynamite beneath in the foundations. Very different styles, but the same end result. Few of either man's opponents heard the final bell. Hearns also broke his right hand on Hagler's head in round one, which he ignored for a further round before electing to box and move. One only wonders how different the outcome might have been if he could have continued to through his right properly... Incidentally, I've had the good fortune to meet Hagler, and a nicer man and fighter you could not meet. He has really seemed to mellow since his malevolent, brooding fighting peak. I've met hundreds of fighters over the years and dozens of top class ones, and I can't think of a more pleasant one than Hagler.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Toney would still be a major force in boxing if he > could stay away from McDonalds. Partly. He is 41 now, and I think that it is inevitable that a fighter declines at that age. Hopkins is the obvious exception to the rule at roughly 106 years of age. Yes, he eats and trains exceptionally carefully but his style of fighting makes for a long career too. He tends to ruin fighters psychologically too - win or lose. Taylor, Pavlik and a whole host of others have never been the same after facing him - and Jermaine Taylor beat him twice!

I love Hearns. Another of my top 5 fighters, but I'm afraid he never used the philly shell at all. It is primarily a defensive manouvre, with a key opportunity to set up counter right hands over the top - especially good at negating southpaws and countering on the inside. Not really a Hearns type of manouvre though. Carrying your left low and shooting from the hip is not the same thing.

Had James Toney's win over John Ruiz for the WBA title been upheld, he'd have been the shortest in recent years at 5ft 9ins. If you go back in time, there are plenty shorter. The most notable being Tommy Burns (apparently a truly horrible man) who held the title from 1906 to 1908 until he was well and truly starched by Jack Johnson. This was of course in the days well before the cruiserweight division, which Burns would have fought in if he were around today, as he frequently weighed well under 200lbs and was known to be as low as 167, putting him somewhere between Middle and super middleweights (which was also not around in 1908. As an aside, I loved James Toney as a fighter. In the early 90's he was in a class of one man. An even better exponent of the philly shell than Floyd Mayweather, although the latter's speed of foot makes him a better all round defensive exponent. But Toney was truly brilliant up until about '93 or so. Even since his renaissance he's been pretty excellent. Watch his sparring session with Danny Green on YouTube to see his mastery at close quarters (albeit, Green is several levels below him and Toney is letting him get some work in)

Firstly, my point still remains that younger people are rebelling in a far more positive and meaningful way than any of the previous generations. That is the main point I'm making and I think I'm correct on that one personally. Just my opinion. Casuals were unique in the respect that they are the only youth culture to date that were not either associated with a particular type of music or were the creation of someone, and therefore our rise was far less able to be tracked. It is a similar sort of subversiveness to what the Myspace generation are doing now in the respect that both were quite under the radar, albeit as I keep saying, I think this generation is far smarter and more positive. By definition soulboys were associated with a particular musical genre, as are all other youth cults. Not a criticism, just a fact. Also, I didn't say the most important at all. I said the most authentic. In the respect that the whole thing happened pretty organically over a fair period of time, I'd say there are few more authentic cultural movements in the UK in the last 25-30 years. I don't count skinheads. Their rise started nearer 40 years ago to my mind. I think that your last paragraph suggests that we're slightly at odds in how we see rebellion. When I was 15-20 I was running around various cities in Northern Europe booting the sh!te out of people who looked almost exactly like me, save for the accent or language. On reflection, not particularly positive or constructive. Same with Skins, mods, rockers etc... These kids these days I think are just so impressive in the way that their natural urge to rebel manifests itself in producing more positive things like music, blogs, other content. Way cleverer than a bunch of hooligans (me included) battering lumps out of one another, and way more scary to those who hold power and who fear the power of a collective movement. Acid house was positive I think only by virtue of the fact that it stopped folk like me being recidivist nutcases and calmed us all down enough to get on and become (hopefully) sensible adults. Again the subversive nature of it created a monster that was truly feared by society. God knows why though. It was also great fun.

The Eye Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "As an aside, I think that today's young people > are also probably a good deal smarter than > previous generations." > > I can't help but not only agree with the above > sentence, but applaude its insight. Well instead of their rebellion taking the form of spitting on grannies and drawing swastikas on their backs - a la punk in 1976, driving around the M25 for hours looking for a rave which may or may not exist (like me, only a different motorway) they are quietly going about the business of making and marketing their own music/lifestyle to their own crowd on their own terms. I was chatting with a mate about how different things are these days. 20-25 years ago you could spot youth tribes a mile off - the goth would look different from the soul boy, would look different from the new romantic, would look different from the two toner, would look different from the skin, etc... The reason that I think it is far harder to spot tribes now is because their rebellion is far more subversive and under the radar than older generations ever were. In in short they are far more clever. They are not conforming to youth tribes which have been manufactured by the media or music industry, they are making their own and we often don't know a thing about it. Why should we? We're ancient as far as they are concerned. Probably the most faithful and authentic youth cult before now was in fact football casuals, which I was also a part of before I got into acid house (hence the moniker) Far from being encouraged, every effort was made to deny us the credit we deserved as a cultural movement, simply because the growth of the phenomena was from the youth upwards as opposed to the media downwards, it was driven my no single musical movement and it grew organically, very fast. In short most people couldn't work out how to make money out of it. I happen to think that casuals are for this reason THE most authentic youth movement of the last 25 years. Far more so than punk was. Kids nowadays, in their own quite entrepreneurial way are very authentic too. Again, just my random thoughts...

As an aside, I think that today's young people are also probably a good deal smarter than previous generations. I think that their natural urge to rebel is far more positive and productive. Whether you like them or not (and I'm not too keen as it goes) The Arctic Monkeys used Myspace to launch themselves whereas a couple of generations ago they would have been at the mercy of some fat A&R executive who may or may not have seen them as a quick buck. The fact that they said sod it and just did it themselves and broadcast to a huge audience, really needing no-one's help, had said music execs in a panic. It's almost like the Myspace generation are eating the beast from within, and I admire them for it. For all their snarling malevolence, the sex pistols I don't think were ever this clever. They were exploited as much as anyone. Many will disagree, but punk I don't think has the level of cultural significance that some believe. To all intents and purposes it was started by Malcolm McLaren to help sell his wife's T-shirts. I'd say that with the passage of time Vivienne Westwood is the true lasting legacy of punk, not McLaren, Country Life butter bloke or anyone else. I'm sure that The sex pistols will have a greater footprint in history than the arctic monkeys, but I think that is because they were really the sole visible representatives of their genre at the time, whereas I think young people now really have the punk ethic right (do it yourself) and have the means to transmit their efforts beyond the end of their street. Just my musings...

Realising the dawn of acid house - the youth movement which changed my life - is well over 20 years ago, and that it has absolutely no cultural significance to today's youth whatsoever. Sounds a bit like what we used to think about hippies really! I was going to add that the first few summers of Ibiza were also over 20 years ago too, when it was something worth knowing about, but then it dawned on me that it made me sound reeeeeeally old! I also think that ecstasy, the drug of choice for a period of a good decade when I grew up, now seems quite quaint and old fashioned.