Classic Boxing Blind Spots

:yep

My soft spot are hated fighters and nuthugging. I can´t stand both and stand up either for the hated or against the nuthugged.

When a fighter beat so many greats and HoFer that´s a little bit of indication that he could deal with anybody at the weights he fought. And with perhaps the exception of Sam Langford nobody fought and beat as many greats and HoFer as Greb.

 

Just look at the footage and use your common sense!

 

You mean I should judge a fighter by a footage where he fooled around and totally ignoring all the fighters he beat and the footage we have of them? Don´t know if this qualifies as common sense.

 

Thats what I am saying - judge fighters with your own eyes not the reviews and opinions of biased people. Looking at him man to man, Hagler Hearns et el destroy him.

 

Anyone that could willfully ignore the number of great fighters that Greb beat, and beat handily, in his long career, should slink out of here in abject shame.

 

You can look at the footage of the fighter he beat and think about how good he must have been to do so. You just can´t ignore all the facts and bend everything just so that it fits into you biased oppinion.

 

The thread is about admitting your own personal blind spots. Have you contributed, or simply bagged everyone else?

I rate Aaron Pryor much lower than many others. I don't think it's a blind spot but others might, so here i am. His two best wins were over well worn fighters with one a long way up in the weights, even if they were were great. I see Chavez, Duran, Whitaker and some others beating him for starters. SRL would have left him prone before 7 in a great action fight IMO, but one Leonard would never be in serious danger of losing.

A great fighter tho, just not as great as soooo many think IMO.

 

Before I get accused of ignoring the topic of the thread, I'll say that my blind spot, at least among the more modern day fighters, is SRL. Supremely talented, with a surplus of confidence in himself, his wins over Hearns and Hagler defined him as a great....AMONG HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

I just have a hard time seeing him getting away with some of his antics against the likes of a Greb, Ketchel, Monzon or even Griffith. So anytime there is an all time greats discussion I tend to diminish Leonard, based on some of his annoying ring habits. Irrational, I know;-)

 

The guy had a cast-iron chin, power in both hands and was absolutely fearless. He beat Arguello when Alexis was 30 years old; and not an old 30, as no one had seriously tested him for at least four years before he met Pryor in their first bout. Consider that Arguello had lost only one fight over the past eight years, and that to a cutie, Vilomar Fernandez, whom AA took a little lightly.

C'mon....you guys have got to be kidding me. The Hawk was virtually unstoppable as a fighter. His curse was the shitty division he was in, and his ultimate downfall was crack cocaine, not another fighter.

 

And there we have it.

 

So, by your reasoning, "tough" fights simply drain and waste a fighter; they don't add to his arsenal of experience, right?

I guess Archie Moore was shot by the time he beat Maxim, too?

C'mon guy....of course he had tough fights: He met the best 30 and 35-er's around; how could he not have tough fights. The important thing is that he WON them all. Was he knocked down? Hell yes. Against the one-dimensional Ganigan he got careless. He also got right up and stopped Andy a few rounds later. Was he cut and lumped up? Sure he was. He also dealt out more punishment than he ever received. He was the superior fighter and he retained those superior skills and attributes when he fought Pryor. If he was shot he would have been overwhelmed and wasted within the first five rounds against Pryor in either fight.

Pryor was the better, stronger, faster and yes, younger, guy in their two meetings is all. To diminish Pryor's victories over him not only flies in the face of all facts and logic, but sounds kind of petty, too.