Biggest things armchair boxing historians get wrong

Greetings to the forum from my armchair.

In your experience, what are the biggest things that armchair boxing historians -- the people who haven't been around the game up close as fighters, promoters, coaches, etc. -- get wrong about boxing?

What do casuals or even outsider boxing historians commonly fail to understand?

 

That boxing is first and foremost a business, and only then a sport.
I do not claim that it has always been so, but now it is so.
There are other factors, but they are far behind what I have stated.

 

Yeah, it’s always been a business first and a shady one at that. It’s not known as ‘the red light district of sports’ for nothing.

 

as above, and in fact because of it, the mistake of thinking/believing that the World Champion and even Top Contenders are 'always' the best, they are not and in some cases it is very obvious.

 

Lesnevich and Milles being rated above Moore and Marshall in 48 being a case in point.

 

You can usually suss out the casual fan by the lack of depth of knowledge for anything under heavyweight.

As to specifics for other things:

The old "Leonard ducked Pryor" nonsense. No, just stop.

On Facebook recently there was a thread asking if it was really true that Canelo was the greatest Mexican fighter ever. I wanted to have him ask something comparatively useful, like why Leonard ducked Pryor.

 

Joe Frazier never ducked Muhammad Ali. On March 7 1967 in our local newspaper sports column, Ali then champion preparing for his ninth title defense against WBA no.1 ranked Zora Folley on March 22 1967 in Madison Square Garden, was asked who will be next after Folley. Ali stated a rematch against Floyd Patterson in April 1967, then on May 27 1967 it would be Oscar Bonavena in Tokyo, Japan, this because Joe Frazier turned down a title match, he's (Frazier) smart, he does not want to get hurt per Ali. In reality Joe's manager Yank Durham knew that Ali was not going to accept military service and would be stripped of his title and boxing license. This would enable Joe to gain valuable experience on his quest to win a title, little did they know that Ali and Frazier were going to meet on March 8 1971.

 

That every outcome that goes against the odds and/or popular opinion instantly defaults the related fight into being rigged or fixed.

That there will or should be some sort of concessional grace afforded to defending champions in super close fights. The old adage being - that a challenger has to “take” the title by reasonable margin in order to win.

Falling for style over substance and calling fights as they “imagined” would transpire rather than the fight that is actually unfolding.

Expecting unconditional acceptance of risk and punishment and calling ANY fighter’s courage into question when THEY themselves have never even stepped into the ring.

I type all this from my own comfy arm chair with its own deluxe beer holder, recliner and leg raiser functions. Ready to go the full 15 (now 12) rounds if necessary. Now where did I put that damn remote?

 

In addition to above mentioned, I think a huge thing underestimated is the wear and tear factor.

It is easy to see and follow, but always seems to be ignored. Especially going into a fight. After the fight, everyone becomes an expert in hindsight. but the clues were always there and not difficult to see.

 

When their fighter gets beaten in a close fight and they scream robbery. I dont think some know the meaning of what a robbery is. Another bugbear is when important factors simply must be taken into consideration regarding fights and its not even realised and/or given consideration i.e. fighter A being 175yrs of age and/or a shell of them former selves when losing to fighter B. Ive seen a guy consistently argue that Robinson could not have been that good as he lost so many times and then ask for a name of a top fighter he beat. When presented with plenty, its just brushed under the carpet with a 'well he wasnt too good either'. A few laptops have come close to being thrown through my kitchen window over this type of nonsense

 

People often say there was only one belt and one champion until the alphabet soup exploded. Since the 1920s there were at least 2 recognized titles with the NBA/WBA and NYSAC/WBC. There was usually one champion, but not always.

There’s always been the revisionist history regarding Zaire and the rope-a-dope. The narrative is that Ali just waited on the ropes til Foreman tired, but Ali was landing most of the clean shots to the head throughout the whole fight. As soon as he went there in round 2, he was consistently landing straight shots.

Ali didn’t just tire Foreman out, he outfought him off the ropes throughout.

The Leonard ducking Pryor myth is part of another topic that is a pet peeve of mine. People who care so much about what a fighter says or does at a press conference or in an interview.

Fights are made with contracts and lawyers and people act like a fighter “calling out” another fight is proof that he really wants to fight that guy.

 

That Marciano was a skill less oaf tripping over his own feet. He was unskilled and raw early in his career (where this myth comes from). He was mediocre skill wise come Louis. He was a polished stone come Savold/Matthews. Excellent defense and style for what suited him. I cringe when a so called “expert” refers to the little fella as a skill less brawler. No 5”10 185 pound man wins the title ever that is without skill.

My other pet peeve is those that say Ali is feather fisted. Has a lot of decent KOs over men who were never stopped.

Last but not least is Mike Tysons aura of invincibility. I’ve had so many arguments with casuals that think he beats everyone easily. He was awesome but obviously not unbeatable.

 

The difference between same-day weigh-ins and day-before weigh-ins changed everything and it’s rarely accounted for in mythological matchups.

I don’t know if prime Marvin Hagler beats middleweight Canelo Alvarez because Canelo would be a cruiserweight, or at least a hefty light heavyweight, when he stepped into the ring after weighing 160 the day before. (One example but we could choose many.)

This one thing completely changed the sport to the point that there is a definitive before/after on what every weight division below heavyweight looks like.

 

THIS is a great point that has often occurred to me.
Guys are just not the same size as they were in a given division because of day before weigh in "grade inflation".
The older fighters had tougher circumstances & less advanced training access & yt while they still could beat many of the later ATGs-in the case of a SRR or Armstrong maybe everyone-but not if you actually make them fight people in higher divisions.

It would be like forcing any more recent fighter to contest with someone on average nearly 10% larger.


Also, many folks too easily make picks of blowouts & one sided fights ending in KOs between prime ATGs.
That wuld be the exception, not the rule.

 

My own completely untutored suspicion is that most fights between ATGs would end in blowouts, but probably in ways that would surprise a lot of people. The odds of two eras separated by decades being almost exactly equal in the depth of their talent pools, despite all kinds of differences in training, background, social circumstances, demographics, etc. seem low.