I'm not so sure about that no throwing in the towel rule, when it's an emergency and fight or flight adrenaline is kicking in, I'm pretty sure a towel hitting the ref would encourage him to stop the fight.
I read a quote where Frazier said he sparred with Sly and beat the crap out of him because he stole the idea of punching the meat in cooler from Frazier.
Ah c'mon you are kidding Mark? If not, that likely was a joke, or someone falsely ascribed it to Frazier. Few boxers would really let loose on an ordinary fit guy.
He was a highly skilled technical fighter one of the best switch hitters I ever saw. An absolute complete boxer puncher.
I agree but almost unbeatable isn't unbeatable and even if a Brit fighter is in their prime, motivated and has had a full camp they can still be beaten. For instance, they could get robbed by the judges, stopped on a cut or they could suffer a freak injury.
I understand what you are saying- the challenger can win 115-113 if it is a clear victory. If it is too hard to score a clear victory though, then the champion must get the benefit of any doubt. I will give the example of GGG Canelo 1 where GGG was not given any benefit of the doubt after being champion for so long, in a bout where there was no doubt in my mind GGG won by at least 4 clear rounds. This is the most blatant evidence of boxing politics in a sea of examples.
THIS I agree with. Only if it is a draw or too ambiguous to decide, give it to the champion. Ties go to the champ anyway, as it should be. But yes it is *wrong* to steal a close victory from a challenger if he does not deserve it.
Ties should go to the Champion - this is the main argument that GGG beat Canelo in the first time. That he only should have been awarded the win BECAUSE he was Champ, not BECAUSE he really won. That's the source of all this - That GGG didn't really best Canelo, but since he was Champ and since there were so many close / tied rounds all those rounds should go to GGG because he's the Champ. That's a major fallacy. Champions advantage is that if the match ENDS tied, the Champion retains the title, NOT that any close round goes to the Champ. What you're trying to do is argue that GGG deserved to win all the close rounds simply because he's Champ, then claim that because he didn't win all the close rounds it's a robbery. In effect, GGG was GIVEN many of the close rounds that were arguably TIED or even Canelo rounds. Two judges gave GGG round 3, a round that most fans gave to Canelo. Two judges gave him rounds 4-6 EACH of which could have easily gone to Canelo. Even Byrd gave GGG round 4 another one of the close or so-called "tied" rounds if you were scoring even rounds. So your first problem is that you're automatically deciding that any remotely close round should be given to GGG because he's the Champ. Judges are supposed to score rounds straight up, not close rounds to the Champ. If a match ends in a tie, that's when it benefits the Champ so he keeps his title. That's when ties go to the Champ, not in the scoring of individual rounds. Close rounds should be scored to whoever is more deserving of winning the round, who did more in the actual round, not "well it was close so we have to give it to GGG he's because the Champ". That GGG fan-entitlement mindset is how we ended up in this situation where people think it was a robbery. Instead of having to split hairs to decide the close rounds, GGG fans just want to score every close round to GGG because he's the Champ. Lost in all of this is that in the first match, GGG ended up getting more of the true toss-up rounds than Canelo did.
Shavers said he battered Stallone in sparring with one punch too and there`s footage of Bellew knocking out the actor the played Opollo Creed`s song in the movie Creed.
