Your unpopular boxing opinions

This Carnera thing… you're an idiota ( I hope this opinion will be popular.)

 

In terms of the Forum Fantasy fight aspect. They rely much too heavily on the easy to visually see aspects such as punching power, speed, footwork, jab etc. But just as important as those is the gameplan, tactics and in ring adjustments for the exact fight and the exact opponent. The more superficial areas are focused on and over emphasized to make these picks since we can't factor in the aspects that are just as if not more important, such as adjustments, gameplans and spare of the moment happenings/mistakes, that are all apart of every match. It is hard to imagine that these outcomes are as solid as we think when we know boxing is as unpredictable as it is. So when I see exact breakdowns to the round, it steps much too far over the line. I've been guilty of this at times, I think it is reasonable to make an overall quite general guess based on what is known but not to the amount that I see around here.

Edit: Fantasy fights with modern fighters that make the (for example) Welterweight limit then re hydrate to Middleweight, that are viewed as Welters in fantasy matchups for some reason even though in ring they're often a middle and the opponent is too. It's just strange. The fact that it's so easy to just transfer them into another weight class when they're actually something else in theory shows how out of logic these matchups are when it comes down to trying to accurately predict something from them using any kind of logical comparisons.

 

I actually think that's pretty reasonable. I know that he would have done convincingly better vs Henry Cooper and Doug Jones than Clay did.

 

Willard was from a tougher, more rugged era!

 

Carnera was as good as Riddick Bowe and Bowe became undisputed HW champion. Maybe Carnera beats Holyfield and becomes undisputed world HW champion? You never know!

 

So the only rare thing that you saw in his comment was the part of carnera? He was obviously joking

 

Around here, some may be serious!

 

Interesting point of view, not one I share, Leonard is generally considered to be one of ( if not the first ) to understand and introduce combination punching to the sport, he had a long reign as champ, came off the floor against Mitchell, beat Tendler twice, after being hurt badly in the first fight, Tendler is ranked very high on the list of ATG southpaws, finally after the mauling Greb gave Tunney in the first fight, it was Leonard that Gene went to for advice on how to try and beat The Windmill ( right hands under the heart ) would he also have been a 2 weight champ had he not failed out against Britton, while a long way ahead on the scorecards.

 

Do you think it as an opinion or do you know it as a fact somehow?

And regardless of that, even if he did do better versus those guys isn't it agreed upon pretty universally that styles make fights, so those results may somewhat help us understand a fight between them but really it comes down to the fight itself, and those results from potential fights that never happened, helping us decide another fight that never actually happened, just leads further up a ladder that's balancing on broken sticks. You seem to "Know" things that never happened, i'd hate to be so high up my ladder that I couldn't see that it's foundations are faulty. The higher you climb doing this the further you get from any truth or result that's as accurate as what you are looking for.

1.Ali vs Jones and Cooper = The result Ali had versus them and the performance
2.Holyfield vs Jones and H.Cooper = Never happened no result or performance
3.InMemoryOfJakeLamottas OPINION that Holyfield would beat Jones and H.Cooper AND do it more convincingly than Ali = "Pretty reasonable" reason for you to conclude that Holyfield would beat him.

This is not any type of logic to get anywhere other than to play around in your own head and create a delusion of "knowing" that makes you confident enough to type it down like it's a fact. And nobody calls people out on it, no, Mr delusion, you do not "know" that he would beat them or do better than Ali, you "think" it. You can argue that you reasonably came to that theory because of certain factors that happened, I wouldn't fault you there. But you didn't.

Ultimately people can type whatever they want but if the'ye doing it to come to a logical conclusion or to have a debate that's reasonable, be reasonable about what is being done and what you are doing.

 

It was a figure of speech, man. Basically I'm saying that I'm as certain as I can reasonably be. Based on a HW Holy's performance vs fighters considered by many to be superior to those 2, I can reasonably conclude he'd have handled those two fairly easily, especially with his size and strength advantage + his skill advantage over those two.

 

I was pointing out that you did not phrase it like that, but if that's what you meant and it was an error in writing and not your thought process then fair enough.

But at the same time my point still stands as one I think you're missing. It is that the unpredictable nature of fighting and the over estimation and over confidence in our abilities to form these results entirely out of our head, in one of the most unpredictable areas of life as fighting is ridiculous. I don't believe we can conclude results as confidently as most do, "Fairly easily" being an example. I like to make general predictions, but the over confidence in the specifics is what i'm talking about here, as well as the general idea of how accurate most tend to think we are with these.

Holyfield came off winning a fight vs George Foreman & got knocked down in the next by Bert Cooper. Is that reasonably justified in any way? Or did it just happen and it was unexpected considering who Holyfield was and became. Foreman was Coopers superior in many ways, yet Cooper did what he could not.

Is it reasonably justified that Muhammad Ali came off the canvas to beat Henry Cooper, but never had to do the same vs Liston in his next fight?

Looking back on history just shows that trying to be reasonable in this sport to predict it is a fools errand most of the time. Boxing is a game of inches in every sense. And only becomes a game that's very easy to predict & see by someone who overestimates their ability in what is actually doable to such a confident degree. We're all just people, as are fighters, we have limits. Ours should be easy to realise when we think on the fact that these fights that we're imagining, literally only take place within our own minds, and are viewed differently in every mind.

All you need to do is watch Michael Nunn doing what he did to Sumbu Kalambay to see that we are just having fun here, these questions are as good as asking who wins between this buck and that buck, and then another buck down the way, it's educated guessing until it happens.
And i'm pointing out my unpopular boxing opinion, that it's done way too confidently and often in a way that seems far from educated, and also far from guessing, words like "know" are often used, not just by you but i've seen it often. People think they know it and defend it to the death because they're sure their way of seeing has seen it for it's truth, instead of seeing it as an idea produced by them, it should be an interpretation but it seems to become a fact in peoples minds.

Read my first post in this thread a few ones up, I talk about this idea.

 

Here's several I've encountered during my months on the forum:
1) Holyfield seriously beat Lewis in their first fight and Lewis was lucky to get a draw.
2) Cleveland Williams was much more skilled than Ingemar Johansson
3) Liston and Foreman were not good boxers at all. They had good jabs, but they had no handpseed, combinations, or footwork. And Foreman had no stamina.
4) Razor Ruddock was a bum
5) Tyson's chin is SUPER-overrated

Oh, and here's a new one: Terrell-Machen isn't as boring and terrible as everyone says it is, although I'm not saying it was a good fight or anything.