Close decisions change on boxing history.

I'll go with #2 - Floyd would of lost his 0 which was, along with his polarizing personality, was his main selling point for ppv. We can debate forever on the ramifications of Floyd's career on the sport both positive and negative but it would of been marketed significantly differently had he lost that fight; and the entire marketing of the sport henceforth may be different.

 

If foreman had beaten briggs I don't see him actually meeting Lewis. He would have carried on meeting low rate contenders until one actually beat him. So the lineal title may have passed to other hands. Whenever they choose to meet Lewis eventually isn't certain. So Lewis may not have become linear champ for a lot longer if at all.

If Hagler beat leonard he would probably have retired after. Which only changes his legacy slightly. It would probably affect leonard s more.

Norton beating ali wouldn't have altered that much. Norton still loses to foreman and ali beats foreman. Then a rubber match between Ali and Norton later which ali wins.

If Floyd lost to castillo then definitely a shake up and probably a rematch between the two. But Floyd s legacy is tarnished and affects his future fight s
So I'll go with Floyd.

 

I've a feeling that owing to the closeness of the second bout between Ali and Norton,Muhammad would still credibly campaign for a Foreman bout. Their third bout would be more of a long term game changer,imo. If Ken had got the decision in that one,would he have defended the title against his former conqueror,George Foreman ? If so George may well have been the third man to have regained the crown.

 

The second one without doubt.

 

Leonard-Hagler. A large part of Leonard's legacy is based on that fight. Mayweather-Castillo was a lesser fight that would've been avenged anyway.

 

For potential, easily 1. The Ali Foreman and second reign saga was arguably the biggest in boxing history. A second defeat to Norton may have thrown the trajectory entirely off.

 

Their has been a few but for me what comes to mind because I'm such a big James Toney fan were his two "losses" to Montell Griffin. I feel Toney deserved both decisions every time I watch the fights. If Toney had gotten the nod in the first or second he'd have probably gone on to challenge for a light heavyweight title and maybe rematched Roy Jones Jr. I'd give him a solid chance of capturing a belt at light heavy if challenged one of the other champs aside from Roy. If he got the Jones Jr fight it may have been more of the same, will never know because of what I feel we're two gift decisions to a good fighter in his own right Montell Griffin.

 

Mayweather Castillo for sure

 

Mayweather - Castillo easily because despite the fact Floyd would have avenged the loss and still gone on to have a great career, his "0" was the main reason why he was such a draw. The whole subsequent period thereafter would have been different.

 

Option 2 definitely.

 

#1 definitely. Who knows how that would've affected Ali in terms of getting a shot at the championship, may have been later than 1974.

 

This thread is the reason why, ultimately I don't classify fights as robberies. The historical impact is too great to overthrow a result. I mean asterixs it and compliment the performance sure, but don't consider it a win when it wasn't.

Because ultimately, let's take Ward V Kovalev. A majority scored that for Kovalev but regardless he's no longer the man to beat in the division now.

As for this thread in gonna go with Ali v Norton 2. That could have completely derailed the comeback.