Classic Boxing Blind Spots

"It's like Paul Pender saying "Check it out; I just beat the legendary Ray Robinson." Everybody knew enough to take that victory with its appropriate grain of salt. Many people seem unable to apply the same reality to Pryor's situation."

And there is ONE glaring hole in your logic: That you would equivocate Paul Pender with Aaron Pryor = Blind Spot, baby ;-)

To partially answer your many questions: Yes, Arguello had been in a few tough bouts. Chronologically speaking, yes, he was on the downside of his career, but only based on the losses to Pryor is this a proven. To extend the hypothetical nature of the discussion: Had he won the first or both fights with Pryor, would he still be considered on the "downside" if he continued to fight on and win? Or, if Pryor had not become addicted to drugs, would he have continued to dominate the jr. welters; perhaps he would have moved up to '47 and established a greater legacy there? Who knows?

Bro, it is ALL hypothetical. That's why it is hysterical to see how we try and do fantasy matchups on this and other boxing sites, when it is virtually impossible to do so for any number of reasons. But we do, because in order to be a boxing aficionado you have to possess passion. This passion sometimes overwhelms logic, leading to the blind spots that this thread was created to expand upon.

You cannot obviate the talent and skills of a given fighter by simply trying to make a case that his wins were against fighters on the downside.

I'm of the opinion that Arguello was still an elite, P4P best fighter at the time he met Pryor, and not some faded, ill-conditioned pug looking for a fat, final payday. You obviously disagree. And that's okay; that's what makes forums like this one so much fun to visit.

 

Nothing annoys me more than when I here someone describe DLH performance in the first part of the fight, as masterful boxing. Great boxing is about making punchs miss by a small amount rather than make them miss through the usage of extreme lateral movement. Stalling a fight whether through extreme lateral movement or through excessive clinch isn't masterful boxing. He got what he deserved.

 

For me its Ismael Laguna,I don't see him as all that great.Also think B Hop is slightly overated.Probably wrong on both counts.

 

I'm an Ali fan and have virtually his whole career in my collection and nothing pees me off more than when some 'fan' comes along, wanting to sound cool, fit in with the 'in-crowd' or whatever and tries to convince everybody that Ali was the best and untouchable in his prime. Now, whilst I rate Ali as the best HW, he had many flaws as a fighter and as a person ... to paint him different as if he were superhuman is dishonest, IMO.

SRR was p4p the greatest to ever lace the gloves for my money. His smooth, fluid style, punching ability and charisma make him unique ... but many don't appreciate that he, too, like every single fighter had flaws ... defensively, he can be seen getting caught by pawing jabs that he had no business being caught by, he was droppable ... as boxing fans, we don't have to cloud the truth to appreciate greatness. Fighters are human beings, human beings are flawed ... fighters are therefore flawed: this does not diminish their greatness, in fact, it sometimes adds to it.

My major upset with my fellow boxing fan contemporaries is when fellow fans try to convince me that some past-time great from Victorian days, who I can only read about, no footage for my own analysis, can beat a more modern great whose career I have in front of me, have analysed and can arrive at logical, real evidence based conclusions, relying on my own boxing knowledge and intellect. Before I'm impressed by an extremely short Walcott beating the HWs from his era, my skeptical mind wants to delve into just how good the HWs were ... my belief is that no great HW should lose to a great WW ... because of the lack of footage of a Walcott for me to analyse myself, I have issues with integrity in forming conclusions on his ability and therefore refuse to allow myself to comprehend how he might beat a Napoles, let alone a SRR or Hearns.

 

I'd agree & say X is somewhat overrated here: he's a difficult guy to assess IMHO.

Laguna was a fast jabber: take away his jab, & chances of winning increase significantlty. Granted, easier said than done, but Ortiz executed it in rematches.

Interesting thread. Mine would probably rest with Tunney, & some opinions on this site regarding Burley.

 

Great idea for a thread, Sal, though I do feel a little like the Catholic kid who hasn't stepped into the confessional for longer than his pastor would approve of, which is exactly what I am.

I'd say my blind spots are based on my preference in weight class and my preference in style. I agree the HW's are the least interesting, because they are usually the least skilled. And I can enjoy the little guys, they do display all the boxing prowess you could want. But they can lack power, and that's why I like the MW's the best. They're often athletic enough to box and big enough to bang. As for style, come to think of it, my blind spot is born of the same prejudice; I love a boxer/puncher. I like to watch a guy who can dazzle between the ropes, who's elusive and smart, who's almost acrobatic in his feats, but has the punch to change the timber of a fight at any moment. I can watch a LaMotta or a Frazier or even a Tyson, and can appreciate the physical dominance, the relentless pursuit that is fueled by their passion, that feeling that is equal parts love and hate, half consisting of faith and the other half of indescrimate destruction, but I gotta admit I like a guy who can walk on water. There's something, no a lot to be said, for the raw heart a guy with less natural ability has to have in order to be competitive, and if there is anything more admirable in not a fighter, but in a human being other than maybe selflessness, I couldn't name it. But as a spectator of all sports, I wanna watch a Michael Jordan or a Terrell Owens or a Muhummad Ali.

 

Archie Moore is hardly the norm, Hopkins as well. I'd be wary using them as a standard example.

Alexis didn't meet the best 135's around at all, his flutter was very brief there and he didn't fight many of the best. Not that the division was chocked anyway.

Arguello was still one helluva fighter, but the man was way past his greatest weight and time. His first title was at Featherweight! He was fighting for history, no man had ever won 4 world titles in different divisions tho early era's were obviously against it. It was one step too many. Arguello had to hit the wall somewhere. Pryor was also a style nightmare for the conservative technician that was Alexis.

Granted i still rate this a great victory, but hardly top 30 P4P stuff. But this fight and his title defenses gives him the undeniable claim of "great", but there are also degree's of greatness and i rate Pryor lower than many. If he didn't burn out and built to a Curry fight in 84 or 85 this would have been his chance to put an exclaimation mark on his career. Or better yet if SRL didn't retire when he did. Neither happened tho.

You do know Pryor's no huge hitter, right? I know you're looking at his fantastic workrate, but your previous posts lead me to think you consider him a genuine power puncher, which he sure isn't. Solid power, but not overly exceptional. P4P i'd rate a Hagler (not a huge hitter but good hard consistent power) definitely higher.

Oh contraire! The facts and logic tell us Arguello was an aging warrior way up in the weights and past his best. They also tell us Cervantes was way past his best too. He sorely needed SRL or to go on moving forward and hammering other fighters instead of cocaine. He falls a bit short for me, not of greatness but of the lofty perch many seem to put him upon.

Having an opinion and backing it with reasonable thought and effort is hardly kind of petty. We could in turn label you kind of a nuthugger too. There's certainly some BIG holes in your arguement as already pointed out.

Cheers

 

I Agree,

Though many here are obviously more knowledgeable than me, trying to rate a fighter, where there is no footage just becomes heresy on a certain level. Then there are the different fighting style from bygone days, to add into the equation, which again we can't see.

I take Greb as an example, as technical as the discussions can get in here at times, how can folks assess someone sight unseen. He may have been Godzilla, but without being able to see him just leaves a blindspot for me, against someone we have footage of.

IMHO

 

Arguello was past his best, but I wouldn't pick a prime Kostya Tszyu to beat that Arguello.

I think it's fair to deduce from Arguello's performance at 140 (in the first Pryor fight that is) that he was still capable of beating anyone that wasn't great.

Had that been a Mamby in there that night, Arguello walks home a 4 weight champ, no question.

Now as to my blind spot, it's definitely the heavyweights, but really, if I was to graph my knowledge it would peak with the lightweights and welterweights and taper out the further it goes out (towards heavyweight and flyweight).

 

..johnthomas and salsa...you do not have blind spots about pryor. he was not a great fighter. this is my judgement (not opinion) formed by seeing him in more fights , i'm certain, than anyone else here as seen.

re: barbados joe - i have always been puzzled by him. according to the stats against heavyweights his overhand right would have been a low blow and his gloves would have had to be constantly wiped off because they would have kept scraping the canvas.

 

My blind spot would be Roberto Duran.

I appreciate that he was a great fighter and have enjoyed watching his fights but the blatant bias many posters accord him on this site annoys the **** out of me.

The fact that every loss of his has some form of excuse and is never acknowledged as the other guy was better on the night is really disrespectful I feel.I mean some usually rational posters think Duran could actually have beaten Hearns,but use such nonsense as "the fire in his belly wasn't there that night" as an excuse as why he was destroyed when they actually fought.

Also to propose a fantasy match up involving him and to give the opponent any chance seems to be a personal insult to some.

Plus some of the guys on here seem to overrate opponents he beat just to build his status up still further.For example some seem to suggest guys like Palomino were actually great fighters when they were really just very good fighters.IMO there's a big difference between very good and great and guy's like Palomino and Barkley don't fit the great bill for mine.

Like I said Duran was a superb fighter but he wasn't God.He could struggle on a given night which he even did occasionally at 135,but his record speaks for itself.He was a top 10 ATG no worries even without the bull**** excuses and fairytales to justify why he lost or struggled against a certain fighter.

 

I'm hearing you loud and clear. I've warmed to Duran over the last year or two but i do know exactly what you are talking about.