Boxing History "Facts"

well usually...unless it's ole Roberto "I need a Poo" Duran. then it's quite appropriate

 

With respect, i disagree. One judge had Leonard ahead by 1 round when the fight finished in the 8th, the others had it by 2 rounds. So whats that? 4-3, 4-2-1 and 4-2-1 in rounds? Im not denying leonard wasnt winning the fight but it wasnt the one-sided affair that it gets made out to be

 

@ johnmaff36 and salsanchezfan.
Leonard beat Duran to the punch pretty much every time. Hurt him throughout the fight, and controled the distance. When Duran was able to get him against the ropes. Leonard was able to quickly escape.

 

Jack Slack was the champion of England from 1750 until 1760.
In fact, he lost his title much sooner, he lost to George Taylor on Feb 6, 1751. That, of course, breaks the lineage that has been commonly accepted by historians for over 2 centuries.

 

This is how I felt. Ali was scoring, albeit lightly, and fighting for the entire round. Norton got some good shots late, but in my 6 scorings of the fight, I've never given th 15th to Ken.

I have waffled on the winner, though. I seem to score it 8-7 either way, switching back and forth every time. Think Norton might have had the better argument, but I give the judges no fault, especially scoring live. Watching Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield I ringside, I had it 116-112 for Lewis, with an argument for 115-113. Rewatched the HBO broadcast later, I had it 10-2. Watching it live DOES change things.

 

I had it 5-2 Leonard, but the action was much less decisive than it was in the first fight. Leonard was outboxing and outspeeding Duran on the retreat, which doesn't look as impressive, imo. Still think the scorecards in NO were kind to Duran.

 

Both times I've scored it I've given the last round to Norton. Just don't think Ali's stick and move was very effective by that point. And both times that round is what edged it for Norton imo.

But that just goes to show how close it was. Truly can't understand how Norton and Young are suppossed to have been robbed, even though I had both winnning by a point.

 

Well, Mr Butt claimed it a fact that Leonard waited Hagler out, and many seems to agree, so that goes in there.

Still, no one of them have been able to explain the wisdom in drinking and snorting instead of staying active when supposedly waiting for a fighter to decline.

This for me is boxing's equivalent of claiming that the earth is flat.

 

Young, imo, has more of an argument: LONG stretches of that fight have Ali doing nothing at all. He was outfought in plenty of rounds by Norton, but only gave a couple away. Against, Young, I can remember 5 that he threw maybe 20 punches in.

 

Yeah, he was woeful against Young. But Young was to satisfied with just making Ali look bad, and himself looked bad when sticking his head out the ropes.

Against Norton, Ali actually looked good considering the stage of his career.

 

Young robbed himself.

Norton-Ali was a fight. Young-Ali was a disgraceful sparring session between a scared challenger and a slovenly, disinterested champion. If neither guy can be arsed to fight, the judges can't be arsed to turn in respectable cards.

Young probably won the fight, but I don't lament his fate at all. When he was robbed against Shavers in that draw, he at least FOUGHT. He got the decision against Foreman because he lit home boy up with the left hand.

Against Ali? Nothing. Nothing really coming back. Fouling, holding, cowardice, heads out the ropes. GOD that fight was awful. I've watched it once, and once is the only time.

 

It is a truly horrible fight. Ali looks like he's coming hung-over to a training session, and still Young seems to mistake him for a 230 lbs version of Julian Jackson at times.

 

I have actually never been able to finish Ali-Young. I assumed this was true of everyone.