Absolute Truths of Boxing

The light heavy scene of the 70s was more stacked than and entertaining than the 70s heavyweights

McGuigan gives Nelson all he wants between late 84 and late 85

Floyd Patterson has the best post reign resume of any heavyweight champion

 

That fight is draw.
I am not Hagler fan; i am truth fan.

 

I thought SRL won, I also thought it wasn't a great fight, I haven't seen it in years. I used to love SRL, I always prefer the Stylist Craftsmen BOXER over Fighters,,, However as we know Leonard became a very unlikeable character who put a lot of people off. He also ran & skated around to victories. Still a Great fighter though.

 

Errol Spence has entered the chat

 

This is very true. The 70's era was very exciting but not talented. Norton and Young is probably the most talented but that's about it, Shavers was inconsistent and Lyle was somewhat meh, and you have Middleton, Zanon, Garcia, Evangelista, Stander, etc who are barely talented. The fights in the 70's HWs are very entertaining from start to end. The way the fights are rearrange in the timeline is perfect. In fact, I find it to be way TOO perfect. In the early seventies you have a fight between 2 undefeated boxers which surpasses the hype (Ali-Frazier), in the mid seventies you have a brutal heavyweight brawl (Foreman-Lyle) and the end of the it you have an old lion vs a young tiger type stuff (Norton-Holmes). Not only that, along the way you would witness upsets, epic rematches and unexpected fights which surpasses the hype. From 70-73 you have: Ali-Frazier 1, Norton-Ali 2, Shavers-Ellis. From 74-76 you have: Ali-Frazier 2, Shavers-Lyle, Foreman, Lyle, Foreman-Ali and Ali-Frazier-Ali 3 and from 77-78 you have: Foreman-Young, Norton-Holmes, Shavers-Williams, Holmes-Shavers 2 and Holmes-Weaver. Gosh I would love to live in that era!

 

Never called him a "Saint". But even your words indicate you
closed minded on that particular subject.
A skewed Perception.
Almost everyone's has the opinion of
their was a stimulate in the water.
But what if it was only peppermint snap
as he said it was?
No other proof came out to suggest otherwise.
And simple human physiology would suggest
something taken through the mouth or orally
takes a heck of a lot longer than what was
left in that fight to have any effect.

 

I didn't say you did call him a saint ! I used the term in a obvs reference to his well known and proven shenanigan's in the Collins fight, so he has form, also I said there was something other than water in the bottle, if as you , or he says, it was snap of some sort, then I was correct in my assumption yes ? keep well.

 

Salvador Sanchez’s WBC featherweight title reign started in 1980 and finished in 1982.

That’s a fact, right?

Wrong. At least, according to one poster who I had a disagreement on this seemingly indisputable statement of truth. But he was bat**** crazy.

So, when even a fact as mundane as that becomes a source of debate, I’m not sure I hold any actual opinion on boxing so cast in stone that I couldn’t later change my mind on it.

 

Everyone has the right to their opinion, so I respect yours.
My opinion is that the fairest thing would be to declare the fight draw.

 

Good point, but I don't know whether a fact has to be undisputed *by everyone* to qualify by this thread's standards.

People dispute that the world is round, but that doesn't make the world any flatter.

 

A poster who argued that the 20th century started in 1901 or something. He was quite mad.

 

No, it doesn’t, you’re right. I’m just not convinced I hold anything as so immovable that my opinion will never change on it.