Absolute Truths of Boxing

I've preached this since I 1st wrote on this site.
He's one of the most overrated boxers in
history.

 

Agreed. Many of mine were selected specifically because they can be proved. There are surprisingly few such statements.

 

This is a great thread, by the way. We don't discuss bedrock truths in boxing very often.

 

That Dillion Whyte would be a nobody in the 70`s

 

Ok, who did he stop that hasn't been stopped before
by so called lesser punchers? Or fighters not known
as power punchers?
For instance.
#1 J.Jackson was known for having a shaky chin.
He was stopped by Mccallum in his prime at his
best fighting weight.
# 2 Mugabi after Hagler took his soul, stopped by
Thomas and Norris at his best fighting weight, well
before he fought Mccellean.
And I could go right down the line for all of his victories.
Plus, Benn who was stopped by Eubank and Watson
again two fighters not none for great power, yet
Mccellean , the great puncher landed bomb after
bomb on him for ten rds, but end up getting ko'ed
himself.
As OP wrote his power is tremendously overrated.
With a skill set that was average at best.
He was a product of very careful matchmaking.
Nothing more.
In my opinion I think some allow the tragedy
of his fate blind them to how average he was.
The myth of his devastating power has grown
as the years have passed, by some who
may not have seen him fight live, or only
his highlights.

 

So would Wilder .

 

Emile Griffith was actually in a lot of really fun fights.

The Griffith-Paret trilogy might very well be the most thrilling trilogy of all time.

Don Dunphy did a great blow-by-blow, but his commentaries were loaded with errors and exaggerations.

When determining fantasy fight outcomes, you should never base the outcome on who has more wins, who beat ranked men, and who didn't. It should all be based on style and conditioning. This is probably the greatest sin that runs rampant on the forum.

Peak Ali would never convincingly defeat peak Norton. He will always be Ali's toughest opponent, strategically.

Dempsey-Firpo is not close to making the 100 most exciting fights of all time. Never will be.

Hagler-Hearns would make the top 100, but is not as great as it is said to be.

No way Sharkey faked being KO'd by Primo Carnera. No ****ing way.

 

A few more so painfully obvious that you'd look sideways at someone who disagrees. This time, in terms of scoring:

* Vitali vs Briggs was correctly scored a UD for Vitali according to conventional scoring criteria.

* Calzaghe vs Lacy was correctly scored a UD for Calzaghe according to conventional scoring criteria.

* Holmes vs Cobb was correctly scored a UD for Holmes according to conventional scoring criteria.

* Ali vs Terrell was correctly scored a UD for Ali according to conventional scoring criteria.

If you score any of these fights for the other guy, your scoring criteria may be seriously out of whack with conventional ones.

 

This is an interesting one, and would lead to surprising outcomes. Also implies that once you get to championship level, the differences in raw quality cease mattering much compared to style. Which may also be true.

 

Hagler vs Hearns was 2 1/2 minutes of war, followed by Hagler grinding Hearns
down the 5-6 minutes left in the fight.
Certainly one of the greatest rd in history, but not the greatest.
The fight itself is not in my top ten of greatest fights in history.
After the 1st 2 1/2 minutes, the rest of the fight was one
sided, the only real drama was would the fight be stopped
because of Haglers cut.

 

It is a very fun fight, but I find it gets very repetitive, and fast too. It just didn't have time for a lot of ebbs and flows, which would have made it go up in my book, but I still gave it a high amount of recognition.

 

Mayweather Jr. should be commended for
the brilliant way he manipulated his fan base
above lightweight.
Very few serious (No) threats , yet
he became one of the wealthiest athletes
in history.

 

So do I . But not the greatest fight in history.