Greats whose legacies were most victimized by bad decisions

Let's face it: Human beings have a tendency to judge things purely on the basis of outcomes or results rather than the context. Perhaps this is inevitable, because nobody has time to learn all the surrounding circumstances that complicate assessing legacies. That is why, for instance, Alexander is considered greater than Hannibal among amateurs: Alexander was undefeated, whereas Scipio beat Hannibal at Zama - even though Alexander inherited the greatest military machine in antiquity and fought no one of repute, whereas Hannibal and his downtrodden mercenaries of some 40,000 engaged the greatest power in the world whose manpower numbered some 800,000 (if Polybius is to be believed).

Likewise, in boxing we gravitate to won-loss record. The problem, however, is that relying solely on won-loss record is even more deceiving in boxing than in military history. Whereas there usually are clear-cut winners and losers in battles, many undeserving victors are declared as such in boxing. The problem is even more exacerbated when he examine the legacies of Asian boxers of yore, given the sheer amount of corruption in that region in the past and the bad decisions that resulted from it. Typically, casual fans see what Boxrec says and judge fighters entirely on that basis. This distortion is less severe now that we actually have more fights of Asian fighters online, but it still exists.

So in that context: Which fighters' legacies would you say were most victimized by bad decisions?

My two candidates are Fighting Harada and Jung-Koo Chang. If Harada is correctly awarded the win in his second fight with Kingpetch, then he's undefeated as a flyweight with 3 wins against fringe top 10 all-time flyweights. Further, if he is given the decision in his first Famechon fight, then he's a 3 weight champion, and the first to begin as a flyweight champion, in an era when that would have been a stupendous achievement. Likewise, Chang has two controversial losses - though these were admittedly closer decisions. If Chang gets the decision against Zapata in their first fight, then Chang retires undefeated in his "first career." Then if he gets the decision against Chitalada after his comeback, then he becomes a two-weight champion, one of the first to win both junior flyweight and flyweight, I believe.

As currently stands, I think the Western assessment of Harada is around top 10 but not top 5 flyweight and around top 50 but not top 25 all-time pound-per-pound. With these two decisions changed, you'd have him top 5 flyweight and almost certainly top 25 pound-per-pound. In Chang's case, he is considered the #1 junior flyweight but with some contention ( with some votes going to Yuh), but not considered as a guy who could compete against the great flyweights. With those two decisions changed, he's undisputed #1 junior flyweight and possible top 10 all-time flyweight (I'd take him against any post World War II flyweight in a hypothetical head-to-head except Harada and possibly Too Sharp, but that's another debate).

Who else?

Edit: This thread was inspired by this thread: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/remove-y-from-xs-resume-and-x-will-no-longer-be-an-atg.648656/

I also remember when knowledgeable people used to lecture me that Harada was not even a top 10 flyweight, and that he was at his best at bantamweight, because he "split with Kingpetch" and "lost to Esparza."

 

I was going to say the same for Ali, but I desisted since 1) I assumed someone else would do so eventually, and 2) I didn't want to feed the trolls (I try to avoid too many Ali, Tyson, and Jones discussions, because they tend to get side-tracked quickly).

 

No, the Esparza fight was at bantamweight. I talked to a Japanese boxing historian about this a few decades ago.

 

Exactamundo.

Edit: Also another one I thought about but didn't want to feed the trolls

 

I had the same score as Lederman. I also frankly think both Mosley and DLH would have beaten Floyd if they fought in the latters' primes. I recall there was some talk of Mayweather v. Mosley before Mosley fought DLH, and apparently Mayweather's camp was never really serious about that one, as they didn't think it was winnable.

Yes, there were a lot of bad decisions, from what I understand, even in the U.S. in the first half of the last century. There is also another issue about taking losses at face value in that era - in addition to bad decisions: The sheer number of times fighters fought. When you fight more than once a month, you are bound to have off nights - especially when it was not so easy to cancel or even postpone fights due to injuries.