Boxing Myths That Need to Die ASAP

That steroids don’t enhance the ability to take a punch.

 

There's no such thing as the belt lineage. It goes back to Vitali, who won it of Peter, who was already beaten by Wlad at the point of becoming the tile holder. WBC didn't recognize the real heavyweight champion since Lennox retired up until Fury got the belt from Wilder. Stiverne and Arreola weren't even Top 5 guys when they fought for the vacant strap. Arreola wasn't even in Top 10. The belt was worthless at that point. Everybody and their momma knew Wlad was the real world heavyweight champion.

Stiverne did have a pulse, I said he was a good fighter. Fury was Wilder second opponent with a pulse after 3 years of defending the belt against bums.

 

Wonder what Tommy Morrison's chin would be like without the steroids in that case.

 

1. Plenty of people think Vitali established lineage against Sanders.
2. If Arreola actually got knocked out of the Ring ratings for the rematch with Stiverne, it’s specifically because of Stiverne. Arreola was in his prime as far as I’m concerned.
3. Wilder did what Larry Holmes didn’t: He beat a top guy for a belt who won it in the ring.

 

1. Minority of people. Vitali was never universally recognized. Even The Ring Magazine called the coronation of him a fiasco after some time. He had a claim tho. But Vitali was never beaten after that. So it doesn't matter in this discussion.
2. Well, he wasn't rated. And even if he got knocked off by Stiverne, he still wasn't a Top 5 guy. A belt who is fought for by below Top 5 guys is meaningless.
3. Larry Holmes beat number 3 heavyweight on the planet for the WBC belt, beat the future WBA title holder which earned him The Ring title, beat the returning lineal champion to solidify his claim and then beat the highest rated contender who he hadn't yet defeated. Wilder just beat Stiverne for a meaningless belt. You just made a case how trash Wilder was, lol. Not to mention Larry defended the belt 13 times in a row with Top 10 competition while Wilder only beat 1 Top 10 guy in his run as a title holder.

 

Wilder beat the number 3 heavyweight for the WBC belt. AND that guy won it in the ring, unlike Norton.

You walked right into that one. Discussion over.

 

Neither Norton nor Stiverne were champions, so you just fooled youself.

 

Myth is something that never happened, not to be confused with hypothetical matchup. I think some of the reply on here dont quite understand the difference.

 

Well, since I don’t live in my mom’s basement, like you do, and have adult responsibilities, I don’t have as much time to write on a forum as you do. That’s why “it took nearly 4 years” to reply to you.

 

I'm sure you feel really good about yourself, you should probably get back to those adult responsibilities. I'm sure they need you!

 

Very poor response

 

IMO the WBC HW belt isn't a real alphabet title from 2005 to 2018 when Wilder fought Luis Ortiz. That was their first title caliber matchup in 13 years. WBO might as well have replaced the WBC at HW. Strangely the other WBC champs were pretty good at that time.

 

Ruddock was awful v Tommy, he was wide open and Tommy simply took advantage of Foreman`s slow feet in their early 90`s fight, he didn`t take much damage from Foreman.

 

To be fair, the match between Stiverne and Wilder was quite ok. Number 2 rated contender against number 6 rated contender. Vitali Adamek in 2011 was a good one as well, 2 Top 5 guys squaring off.

 

We're talking like 20 fights here. Individual matchups were acceptable they really stink as a group. Because Stiverne was already champ that was the best fight they could have made.

Adamick was ranked top 5 by the Ring 4 years in a row. How did that happen? Adamek got the title shot by beating McBride.