Please name some opinions about boxing that may or may not be well-versed. You, however, hold these opinions to be as unshakable as death and taxes. For you, they are the very foundational truths upon which boxing knowledge flows. For me: Ali stands alone as the best heavyweight. Louis is a firm second, but Ali's accomplishments and level of opposition separate him. Hagler lost to Leonard, and it would have been unfair all things considered to give Hagler the verdict. And this comes from a Hagler fan. Boxing is in a steady state of decline. Watching the fluid art of the old timers juxtaposed against the clumsy, stiff jousters-wrestlers we see today shows me all I need to know. And when the likes of a goof like Jake Paul or whatever his name is qualifies as a "star" or combat sports, you know you have a frigging gigantic hole you need to fill and an itch that just isn't being scratched. Yours?
Good points, I disagree with Hagler beating Leonard, I had Leonard up by 2 points, now if the fight went 15 rounds instead of 12, Hagler probably would have gotten the nod. I don't know if boxing is in a state of de4ciline, maybe here in the USA, but in Russia and Eastern Europe and the rest of the world I think it has grown. A friend of mine was saying how MMA was more popular than boxing, maybe it is, but the top MMA fighers don't make nearly as much money as the top fighters in boxing. As far as Ali, I agree completely.
Leonard lost to Hagler. Boxing is the best it has ever been. Greatest recruitment of athletes worldwide, greatest understanding of physical preparation, best diets, best medicine, fewer fights so that we don't get stale, shopworn, injured versions of fighters, extensive video footage of opponents.
You guys missed it. Those are not points up for debate. He's merely stating that they seem like facts to him.
Joe Louis over Ali , for absolute Truths the top 2 pound for pound boxers ever are Harry Greb and Sam Langford!
I agree. Hagler did not do enough to claim absolute victory. His coming out righty compromised his claim in many ways. It showed an attitude that he would win no matter what.. he took the threat of ray winning for granted. With Hearns in went in there thinking this is the fight of my life.
For as much as I agree with your thoughts and love your posts, this is unexpected and the first time I remember disagreeing with you this much... Much respect but Leonard won, and it wasn't that close. 8-4.
No, more seriously, there are very few things I believe with any real conviction about boxing. A random selection of some of them are: * Ring rankings are a reasonably decent way to determine who the best fighters were at a particular time. * Fighters aged 50 or older can very rarely compete at the highest level. * Fighters with long losing records, whose opponents also have long losing records, are highly unlikely to beat top 10 ranked guys. * Elite lightweights are very unlikely to beat elite heavyweights. * When boxers hit each other for our entertainment, they sustain cumulative brain damage. * Fighters' bodies work in roughly the same way that other athletes' bodies work. * Boxing professionals are not collectively stupid, and respond over time to incentives. * The alphabet belt system must be destroyed. WBO delenda est.
A big one for me, is that people's confidence in fantasy fights is usually way way more than justified.
If they were transported 100 years into the future , just as they were, almost no top fighters from the 1910s would stand a chance against the top fighters from the 2010s. With his boxing and slugging skills, if Tommy Hearns had a top of the line chin he would have been the best fighter of all time.
