More Boxing Misconceptions

never knew that, interesting

 

this is a good thread. keep 'em coming guys :good

 

i don't want to ruin a good thread but since a closet joyboy in you already ruined it, can you state which fighters instead of the last 6 should have pac fought instead? don't say floyd coz we all know, he doesn't really intend to fight.

 

Willie Pep never had a round where he won it without throwing a punch.

 

:yikes but history has it embedded on the interwebz by now

 

Good thread.

 

Even wikipedia has that claim that Pep won a round without throwing...and references this Ring article:

^ Stradley, Don (April 2007), "Willie Pep: 1922-2006", The Ring 86, no. 4: 71

somebody has to correct that if untrue

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=3522638

 

Couple of things:

-Wiki does -not- claim, it states there -are- claims.
-Wiki can be edited by anyone.
-The reference notation is placed after the last sentence about Pep "tipping off" ringside reporters, rather than the sentence that states there are claims (first sentence).
-Unless we can determine his sources, Don Stradley himself is only a secondary source.

 

Who won these fights doesn't matter. This type of **** along with SRL and his bogus claim to a light heavyweight belt is COMPLETE GARBAGE!

It is why NEITHER PAC nor DLH are the multi division champs they claim to be.

 

Aaron Pryor was a good, but not great fighter. On the night of Pryor/Arguello I Alexis was in his 4th division, and his 83rd night in the belly of the beat, and that was Pryor's best win.

 

Do you know what age Alexis started fighting professionally? So give me a break with the 4 divisions bull****.

A blind man could see that Pryor was great. How great? No one will ever know, and it is that aspect of his career that leads to HYPERBOLE, but that doesn't mean you take the HYPERBOLE in the other direction and state something that is obviously false.

Pryor was great. No one said he was greater than the "Thin Man" Alexis.

 

good, possibly even very good, but certainly not great.

 

Absolutely no way to argue this stuff. It is perception and opinion. I got no problem with good or very good as I have no overwhelming EMOTION vested in any fighter not even my cousin.

 

I have a nice misconception for this thread:

Marco Antonio Barrera became a boxer later in his career - FAIL

This is a classic example of impressionable viewers who are new to a sport SIMPLY REPEATING **** THEY HAVE HEARD.

Marco had always been a boxer puncher. He was a very TECHNICALLY SOUND stalker. He always used his jab, but he fought a lot of guys who it wasn't necessary against.

Go and watch Marco's classic fight with Kennedy, and tell me that guy isn't highly skilled and schooled.

The MEDIA loves to create STORY LINES, and Marco played into this story line himself because it brought him more accolades than him telling Jim Lampley, "No I always had these skills, I just haven't had to rely on them as much in the past because I was younger".