I was inspired by @Bujia 's post. Share some of your boldest claims about any fighter in history. Here's mine.... I don't think Tyson's prime was over in 88. I think he reached his "apex" at a young age like Derrick Rose in basketball. His highly, explosive style would've worn down his body sooner or later regardless of his success. I'm not sure how Tyson would've adapted his style later in his career.
Tbh, I'd say every Tyson fan says that, or something like that. Joe Salica is a greater bantamweight than Terry McGovern. Apparently bold.
Byrd beats Holmes on points Lewis beats Ali on points Gerald McClellan deserves everything what happened
I can’t wrap my head around Sandy Saddler being as successful as he was in the era he fought in. It wasn’t a primitive time for boxing. Fighters were penalized and/or DQ’d more often in previous eras for similar level offenses all the time. Yet, he was only DQ’d one time. Only after the worst slump of his career where he’d lost 3 of his previous 4 (this made 4 of 5). His infractions in that fight? Holding, hitting on the break, and lacing. The same kinda tactics he was allowed to get away with time and again to the point of being one of the most dominant forces in boxing. His one win during that 5 fight stretch? The 4th title fight against Willie Pep, considered one of the dirtiest fights ever. I dunno. Maybe that fight, and the fact that Saddler couldn’t buy a win otherwise, caused the powers that be to write him off. Or at least to stop letting him get away with murder.
Pretty bold. I don't think so, personally, I think he's legitimately truly great. Look at that sensational round-robin group at 130 in the 80's; Chacon, Boza, Limon, Navarette. They were all really good and had a remarkable parity between them. Arguello annihilated all of them, stopped all four. Showing that even at that championship level, among the very cream of the crop he was still a full level above. Pseudo-mathematically speaking then, the level above champion historically is.......well, greatness. And that was just at 130.
•The 70s heavyweight era is badly overrated •Leonard is the best of the four •You have the best avatar on this forum
This is interesting because while I have a lot of respect for Saddler I pretty much agree. He was incredibly dirty, frustratingly so for a guy who is held in such high regard. I have his complete fourth fight with Pep. Its a fascinating fight and incredibly underrated. Pep is masterful, and dominates Saddler for long stretches. Saddler wades through everything and just keeps coming. He gets hit with punches that would stopped a lot of featherweights but he just soaks them up like the terminator and keeps on coming. The problem is that he is clearly so frustrated by Pep's success that he constantly resorts to incredibly dirty tactics. He throws a dictionary of dirty tactics at Pep (who ultimately responds in kind). The fight has often gone down as more of a wrestling match than an actual fight but this isnt correct. I think its an all time great fight that was unfortunately marred by Saddlers tactics. Ray Miller absolutely sucked as a ref in this fight. He warned and warned and warned and finally deducted a point from PEP!! Not Saddler who rarely landed anything legal. Had Miller jumped Saddler's ass early in the bout and brought both guys under the rules I have little doubt Pep would have won. He had the fight well in hand when both fighters fought within the rules he just wasnt as strong as Saddler as an alley fighter.
