Biggest misconception/narrative about the following fighters you don't agree with?

Foreman - his stamina was poor during the 70’s. While this is true to some extent it’s also overstated. He was stopped once by the greatest heavyweight of all time.

Tyson - That anyone who stood up to him could beat him. I also feel that his loss to Douglas is all too often used by his detractors to make other fighters the favorite in fantasy fights.

 

That he had no stamina in first career. Two fights showed he didn't have stamina, that being when he wasn't arsed with the sport and was mentally shot vs Young and the some of strangest circumstances in a heavyweight title fight vs Ali. He wasn't as well conditioned as Fighting Harada, but he wasn't poorly conditioned either, he learned to pace himself better with age.

Really nothing. Nothing immediate jumps out at me.

God, there's so many. I'll start with my biggest gripe though: Dempsey isn't a top 10 HW, or even 15. He didn't have a great résumé, he had a really patchy title run and lost to the best he fought whilst ducking the best of the era.

That he's invincible H2H. I'd pick FOTC Frazier over him, every time. A true stylistic nightmare if there ever was one.

That he'd have lost to average southpaws based on never fighting one. You think Holmes couldn't adapt on the fly? FOH.

That he's good H2H. He's basically a better version of John Ruiz...

No heart? That's bull****. Look at the pastings he took and didn't give in, he had heart, he just wasn't stable. Similar to Durán.

That he wasn't a puncher. The guy could bang with the best of them. I'd say he hit as hard as Marciano or Dempsey. Dropping Bowe and Mercer, hurting Old Foreman, KOing Douglas, Tyson, Rahman, Cooper and Qawi shows he could out some force in those hands.

 

Foreman

"Foreman had no sense of strategy". Even when he was younger Foreman was very shrewd. You don't win gold with very little experience without some skill. People also pretend like he didn't get his pulverizing jab until his come back (watch the Chuvalo and 2nd Frazier fights, it's frightening and looks like he's hitting them with a police battering ram).

The funny thing is people make exceptions for holyfield ackowledging he had "great technique with a bad habit of brawling" when angry. Why can't the same apply to Foreman? About Zaire: not only was Ali fooling the whole world with his strategy, he fooled Foreman's corner which included legendary hall of famer Archie Moore and his long time trainer from day 1 saddler. Foreman repeatedly asked for instructions and they repeatedly told him to keep pounding away. Why wouldn't he trust their judgement? I'd have fired them too.

Louis

"Louis had slow feet" correction, he had methodical feet. There's a reason no other big puncher comes close to Louis when it comes to having emergency KO power even in the later rounds. He wasted no energy, made no unnecessary movements, and was always on good balance and in position to punch. All these factors enhanced his already tremendous power and technique. I truly believe at his best h2h, no one could beat him in a best of 3. He was that good.

Dempsey

I don't think he's criticized enough for the lack of depth in his resume. He should have been more active or gave up the title when he was spending so much time NOT defending it. I do give him credit for rematching tunney. But i do think he should have made more of an effort to defend against prime healthy fighters and especially black fighters. I feel like he showed his true colors (no pun intended) always making a big deal about the money whenever the Wills fight was on the table. A classic case of a hungry impoverished fighter who gives it their all but loses the fire once they achieve success.

Ali

"Ali was a defensive wizard" no he wasn't. Ali did have some neat tricks like rolling with shots to lessen the impact and his trademark sway and lean, but other than that his defense was VERY basic. A simple high guard that still left his body wide open. If you could make Ali go in his shell for an extended period of time, you usually won the round. He wasn't some sort of precursor to mayweather.

Holmes

The criticism of his personality and behavior is what irks me the most (although his criminal underrating in ATG lists by casuals is also infuriating). Holmes was sandwiched between literally the 2 most famous boxers of all time. He got no credit for beating one (and understandably so due to Ali's age and condition) but gets shat on for losing to the other (despite being in a similar position to Ali: an older ex champion facing a dynamic prime champion). The infamous jock strap comment, people need to get the **** over it. I really hate "selective outrage". No one said jack about all the trash talk Ali did, and Rocky Marciano's brother taunted him and even gloated that Holmes couldn't beat his record. The gerry Cooney build up and ring walk fiasco was disgustingly racist even for that time period. Honestly I'm just surprised we didn't see MORE of Holmes lashing out at his critics. No scandals or spousal abuse/cheating, took care of his kids, no drug or alcohol problems, invested his money wisely, gave back to the sport by operating a gym at a very cheap price, didn't duck anyone and carried the championship like it meant something. Was often the older man in the ring and still won. Just a great, straight up fighter who let his amazing skill and heart do the talking. WHY. DONT. PEOPLE. LIKE. HIM???

Johnson

I can't think of any crazy narratives off the top of my head.

Tyson

The only thing i find annoying about Tyson's narrative is that his fans (the extreme ones) are notorious excuse makers but don't do the same courtesy for any other fighter if Tyson is being compared to them (be it careers or h2h performances). They can be very hypocritical and if you slightly disagree you "hate" Tyson or haven't done your research.

Holyfield

The idea he was finished after the Bowe trilogy is a complete lie given his later success. "Diminished" is a better word, less spry and explosive but obviously not "shot". His career is somewhat similar to pacquiao in the sense pacquiao was utterly destroyed by Marquez but bounced back and delivered some amazing highlights.

While i agree holyfield's power is underrated, some of the highlights you mention are a bit questionable. Douglas was in no shape to fight obese as hell, no motivation etc. Can't take anything away from him taking care of business but douglas' lack of ****s and binging on food is well documented. The Rahman fight was stopped due to a horrendous clash of heads and wasn't so much about power. Qawi was a cruiserweight and a very small one at that but a very great fighter.

I completely agree that dropping Bowe, Mercer, and hurting foreman is extremely impressive. They were like tanks.

 

Foreman - Never developed a high ring IQ
Louis - He deserves the comments on his lack of dynamic footwork, so I don't know.
Dempsey - That he had a good resume. Those names on his docket are known because they bask in Jack's glow not for any heavyweight accomplishments of their own. And Jack's glow was more about the business of show than accomplishment in the ring
Ali - had no power, wasn't an immensely strong man.
Holmes - Couldn't dirty box inside. Holmes was a bitter, strong fighter who could grab and elbow with the best and strongest.
Johnson - Couldn't change to the front foot with quickness. He could change gears in a heartbeat.
Tyson - No heart and no stamina. He always tried to get up... at least until the very end of his career when he was just toast.
Holyfield - Wasn't on the gear.

 

Foreman - both the narrative that he was just a slugger and the one that he had this secretly advanced techniques. He actually had a good jab, but his outstretched arms defense was truly terrible. Should be beneath any pro, really.

Dempsey - gets too much credit for one performance, which happened to be against a 37-year old rusty champion. In his other filmed fights he doesn't look that spectacular.

Louis - that he had flawless technique and put together as fast, lowing combos as Patterson, Ali and Tyson. His technique and combos were really goo, don't get me wrong, I just don't think either was on a level of its own.

Johnson - that he would be a defensive master even in today's boxing.

Tyson - that his every fight was a highlight reel until Rooney left and he was useless afterwards. In fact, he looked better against Williams, Bruno (rematch especially) and Ruddock (first fight especially) than he did against some of his so called peak performances like Thomas and Tucker.

 

Foreman: That he was unskilled. Possessed a wonderful jab, could cut off the ring beautifully.

Ali: That he was simply an average puncher. Dude had legit power and could easily hurt durable guys when he set down on his punches. Also could fight well on the front foot when so inclined.

Tyson: That his prime ended before the Douglas fight. He may have been overconfident, but he was still very much in his physical prime in Tokyo.

 

Foreman - That he lacked a ring IQ.
Louis - That he lacked durability, and had slow feet.
Dempsey - That he was cowering under his bed terrified of Harry Wills.
Ali - That he was not an all time great finisher.
Holmes - That his era lacked talent.
Johnson - That he only fought smaller fighters.
Tyson - That he lacked heart, and depth to his resume.
Holyfield - That he was not a dangerous puncher.

 

I'm going to focus on isolated incidents as well as generic assumptions. Here goes

Foreman - that he lifted Frazier off his feet. It didn't happen. He hit Joe, Joe staggered back then hopped off the ropes onto his knee. Foreman's arm was back when Joe went up. If he had lifted him with the punch, it happens on impact. Not after.
Louis - No real opinion on Joe, I'm afraid.
Dempsey - that the punch that kayoed Sharkey was devastating. It was an arm punch with no torque while he was walking forward. His feet weren't set, there was no whip from his legs or hips. And it hit Sharkey mid face. It should not have hurt a professional fighter of any note.
Ali - that Angelo split his glove and they had to send for a replacement in the first Cooper fight. Watch the fight. There is no significant delay. Clay got around a minute to recover.
Holmes - that he was a shell of himself v Tyson. He looked good until he got hit. It's just that Tyson ca 1988 was a brilliant finisher. But Larry looked better than anyone else had up to that point.
Johnson - that he put socks down his trunks to enhance his Johnson. If he did, they must have been booties as he looks like an Action Man in pics I've seen of him in his trunks.
Tyson - that he had a short prime. He held the title for three and a half years, similar to Marciano, longer than Liston or Foreman among his rivals for a spot in the all-time top 10. It wasn't as long a prime as it could/should have been but it was no flash in the pan and he fit a significant body of work into it.
Holyfield - that the 2nd round of the first Moorer fight shouldn't have been scored 10-10. Moorer was winning the round. He got knocked down. It goes from 10-9 Moorer to 10-10 in the same way that if Holyfield had been winning the round then put Moorer down, it's a 10-8 round. Knockdowns essentially equate to a point deduction from the victim. That's what happened here. No controversy.

 

How'd you figure it'd be 10-10? I can see a case for 10-9/10-8 Holyfield but not for Moorer, and certainly not 10-10.

 

Some might be repeated but I'll give my 2 cents on a few
Foreman- That he didn't have technique or skill. His cutting off of the ring was excellent and he knew how to make sure anyone would get caught with his shots
Louis- That his footwork sucked, it was pretty great for his stalking style
Dempsey- I'm gonna get **** for this, but that his competition was bad. Several hall of famers and great fighters. Factors are:
1. The early 1900's were a wild west where everyone fought everyone in different weight classes (except in a racial sense), but it was common to see middleweights and light heavyweights challenging each other and heavyweights.
2. His resume has a decent depth, it's not as good as Ali's and he doesn't have a win against someone who's an ATG heavyweight like how Frazier beat Ali, but overall his comp was decent. I think a combination of the fact that information was sketchy (lot of discrepancy with factors like his record) and how his opponents were more obscure (a lot of his opponents got forgotten because once he was a superstar he didn't fight as much so his more known wins aren't as many) make everyone assume he just beat up bums then had like 2 decent wins at the top when honestly there's a lot more to it
3. Before anyone says Wills, management decisions. Unfortunately he's a product of his time
Ali- That he was a featherfist, man had power, but it wasn't outstanding for a heavyweight. Foreman himself described Rumble Ali as hurting him with that last punch
Tyson- That he fell under adversity, the Ruddock fight proved otherwise, he was a pretty fearsome fighter and beast H2H with a monsterous shovel hook. The fact Tyson stopped him at first, even described it as a "mule kick" and went in for a 12 round rematch says a lot about him

 

Holyfield was losing the round. It's 10-9 to Moorer at this point in round 2.

When a fighter is winning the round, he tends to be scored 10-9 in the absence of anything major happening. But if he knocks the opponent down, it is a 10-8 round; the KD equating to a point, essentially.

Although Moorer is winning the round (10-9), Holyfield scores a knockdown but doesn't really do much else. A knockdown equating to a point makes a fair score 10-10. To make it 10-9 or 10-8 for Holyfield, you're awarding him two, three even, points for the knockdown.

 

Absolute great break down on Holmes.

 

WHY. DOESN'T. EVERYBODY. WRITE. POSTS. THIS. GOOD???

Spot on, Glass. Your take on Holmes was particularly succinct. Elevated him as a man in my eyes.