Biggest misconceptions in boxing?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by DavidC77, Feb 13, 2020.


  1. DavidC77

    DavidC77 Active Member booted Full Member

    768
    483
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2018
    You're missing my point.

    It's the authorities who recognise champions not boxers.
    Claiming to be the best fighter in the world is a matter of opinion, it doesn't make you the champion.

    The champion is the person who is officially recognised as such by a boxing authority and will continue to be recognised as such until he is defeated in the ring, retires or is stripped of the title.

    Going into 1978 Muhammad Ali was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

    Was he the best heavyweight in the world?

    No.

    And yes, you could form your own organisation and enter yourself as a contender for the world title but you would still have to beat someone to get that title.

    I've said this before, there are now so many organisations that it is highly unlikely that there will be another undisputed champion. The last one in the heavyweight division was Tyson in 1989.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
    TBooze likes this.
  2. DavidC77

    DavidC77 Active Member booted Full Member

    768
    483
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2018
    The WBO was a Mickey Mouse organisation and their recognition of Damiani as world heavyweight champion was laughable but the fact he had that recognition meant that wasn't an undisputed heavyweight champion at that time.

    It's that simple.
     
  3. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist Full Member

    11,564
    5,176
    Sportsbook:
    1,605
    Apr 3, 2012
    The WBO wasn't counted until Hamed came around. And it still wasn't universally recognized until the early 2000s.

    The big three (or at least one or two of them) would strip any champion who claimed WBO. It was impossible for Tyson to unify the WBO.
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  4. Seamus

    Seamus Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    40,898
    9,479
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 11, 2005
    Genaro Leon established the WBO in the minds of the cognoscenti.
     
  5. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,516
    658
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    And I think you miss my point. When you try and get literal with abstract terms in boxing, you need to go to an absolute to make sense.

    Thus you cannot call out someone for claiming Lennox Lewis was an undisputed champion, if you then suggest Mike Tyson was. You are not being absolute, just choosing a different abstract path.

    Same with the term official. By removing abstraction either everything is or is not official, there cannot be any grey, it has to be a black or white term. Thus you need to go to an extreme, that very few people use as a measurement in the sport.
     
    BitPlayerVesti likes this.
  6. DavidC77

    DavidC77 Active Member booted Full Member

    768
    483
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2018
    Tyson was undisputed champion in 1989 because he was recognised as champion by every boxing organisation.

    Lewis was never recognised by every boxing organisation therefore he was never the undisputed champion. It wasn't his fault there were more organisations by that time but he was never the undisputed champion.

    It's that simple.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  7. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,516
    658
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    It can be simple, but what you write; that is an abstraction (your interpretation) not a misconception, which is what you claimed the thread was about.

    As I stated, to remove abstraction you need black and white answers. Thus everyone who claimed a universal title had a point, or no one could be universally recognised; you cannot have no misconception with your answer that fight 'A' was, but fighter 'B' was not.
     
  8. DavidC77

    DavidC77 Active Member booted Full Member

    768
    483
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 30, 2018
    Interpretation has nothing to do with this. Your failure to understand the meaning of the word 'undisputed' is really extraordinary.

    It's like failing to understand the difference between a split decision and a unanimous decision.

    I've tried my best to explain this incredibly simple fact to you but you still don't get it!! :roflmao:

    I think it's time we both moved on as there's nothing more I can do to make this clearer or easier for you to understand.
     
    TBooze likes this.
  9. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,516
    658
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    LOL; you are right

    Undisputed; to not dispute... You simply would not have fights in boxing if there were no disputes!
     
  10. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist Full Member

    11,564
    5,176
    Sportsbook:
    1,605
    Apr 3, 2012
    You understand that Tyson wouldn't have been allowed to hold the WBO without being stripped of other belts right?
     
  11. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,516
    658
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Oct 22, 2006
    What are you writing about?
     
  12. NoNeck

    NoNeck Pugilist Specialist Full Member

    11,564
    5,176
    Sportsbook:
    1,605
    Apr 3, 2012
    Nevermind. I thought you were the OP
     
  13. Flash24

    Flash24 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,605
    1,989
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 22, 2015
    The fight game today simply doesn't pass the eye test, if you've watched the sport long enough to see the difference.
     
  14. Flash24

    Flash24 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,605
    1,989
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 22, 2015
    Over 200 lbs the assumption that height, weight ,and musclelarety automatically means more punching power.
     
  15. PhillyPhan69

    PhillyPhan69 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,071
    8,480
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 20, 2006
    disagree completely. I would counter that nostalgia is the reason for the opposite view...but perhaps my 45 years of watching boxing and 15 of them as (IMO) a serious student of the sport is not long enough for me to see what your wisened eyes see
     


Advertisement