Boxing's great double standards

I mentioned this point in the Brit Forum a couple of weeks ago and its to do with Boxing fans very obvious double standards when they view a fighters career .. It was a post to do with good boxing books and i recommended the Gene Tunney biography by Jack Cavanaugh called 'Boxings Brainiest Champ' .. For me Tunney was a sensational fighter who is often under-rated, a man who fight fans seemingly want to forget and theres only one reason for that, Tunney was the man who defeated 2 of the most highly mythologised fighters in history, Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey .. He beat Greb 4 times and Dempsey twice, in my experience fight fans give Tunney very little credit for beating Dempsey, its always excuse after excuse, whether its the 'Long Count' or 'Dempsey was so far past his best at that point, he was rusty and inactive', now here is the double standard,

Jack Dempsey won the championship over 38 year old Jess Willard, who was little more than a heavy bag with very little boxing ability, and people to a man said and still say, 'Wow that was totally destructive, this guy is brilliant' .. Nobody ever questioned Willard's, Firpo's or Carpentier's credentials, the focus was always on the positives of Dempsey ..

Gene Tunney beats a 31 year old Jack Dempsey very comfortably twice, displaying some genuinely great boxing ability, strategy and ring smarts and he gets very little credit. The focus was all on 'Why Dempsey Lost' , and the excuses are endless 'Dempsey was washed up', 'Dempsey was more of an actor than a fighter at this point', 'If not for the Long Count, Dempsey would have won the rematch' .. Tunney gets zero credit, and this was the man that beat Greb 4 times, a fighter that Dempsey wouldnt fight ..

The next double standard regards Tyson and Holyfield. Mike Tyson along with Dempsey and Greb has to be the most mythologised fighter in history for fight fans, the endless threads and posts on ESB to do with how 'unbeatable an '88 Tyson was' go from strangth to strength. But here is the double standard ..

Mike Tyson knocks out 38 year old Larry Holmes, Holmes at this point was weathered and his reflexes werent what they were, a former great but nowere near at his best level .. Nobody ever mentions this. 70 years after Dempsey beat Willard the story is the same, all the talk is about 'how destructive and phenomenal Tyson is', nobody questions Holmes's age or reflexes, the focus is on the positives of Tyson ..

8 years after Tyson's destruction of Holmes, a 30 year old Mike Tyson takes on a 34 year old Evander Holyfield .. Holyfield isnt given a chance, hes thought of as washed up and surely he'll fall at the feet of boxings so called iron man .... Instead Holyfield out-boxes, out-fights, bullies and roughs up Tyson before stopping him in round 11 .. After a performance like this you would think that all the plaudits would go to Holyfield and they did for a time. But now theres a kind of revisionist feeling with many fight fans, no longer was this fight an example of Holyfield's undeniable courage and fighting ability, its suddenly a fight were it became 'obvious that Tyson was washed up and past his best' and 'an '88 Tyson would have wiped the floor with Holyfield' ....

The boxing double standards are clear for me to see, Dempsey and Tyson are like religious figures for many fight fans and to suggest that they would get beat fair and square by better fighters on the night is like suggesting the impossible ..

I'd be very interested if anybody could come up with any other 'Double Standards' with how various fighters are perceived by fans ..

 

I'd say Dempsey proved his greatness before he even got the title, Levinsky, Fulton, Miske and Brennan were all great wins .. Carpentier was also a great fighter but at Light Heavy .. My original post was in no way an act of denigrating Dempsey, Greb or Tyson as im a big fan of all 3 it was merely an analysis of the way Boxing fans will make endless excuses for certain fighters but they wont give other fighters their fair dues ..

 

I totally agree with you on the Leonard point .. But then there is always a certain anti Leonard agenda whenever you talk to fight fans .. Sugar Ray Leonard was a sensational fighter in my opinion, and i dont really understand the antipathy towards him .. SRL V Duran 2, was a great display of boxing and an example of speed and precision that Duran couldnt deal with. But Duran is a fight fans fave, so the excuses start to appear, 'he had stomach cramps', 'he didnt train properly', 'he didnt have time to prepare' etc .. The same happened when Leonard fought Hagler, it was a close fight were i had Leonard edging it by 1 or 2 rounds, but you read about that fight today and its like it was the biggest robbery of all time, and again its because Hagler was a fan fave so there has to be an excuse why he lost .... The anti SRL agenda is an interesting subject which maybe Janitor could shed a little more light on, its gotta be more than he was the 'Olympian Golden Boy' with a dazzling smile, its gotta be more than he made all the decisions from ring size to gloves etc, all 'money' fighters control these type of decisions. I dont know what the Anti Leonard feeling is but that feeling from fight fans has continued with Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather .. Instead of being totally mesmerized by these fighters stellar ability like i am, some fans want to pick them apart ..

 

Willard was 38 years old, he had 31 fights, he was propelled to the spot after beating a 37 year old Jack Johnson in the scorching heat of Cuba in the 26th round, under very controversial circumstances .... in the early 1900s it was still a time when people used to worship guys who were 6'6 - 6'7 as if they were giant unbeatable gods, thats why the odds made him favourite, he'd already been beat by Gunboat before he got a shot at Johnson ..

Willard v Carnera would of been an interesting fight, im going with Carnera .. Willard was a money making giant, but as for boxing ability, he was limited to say the least ..

 

I take on board your point, but i totally disagree with the comparison with 'most of the current top heavyweights' considering we are in the worst heavyweight division in history and you have Kevin Johnson fighting for the world title, age doesnt matter in todays crop .. What my original post was about was the fact that the prime focus on the Holmes v Tyson fight wasnt the fact that Holmes was 38 and past his prime, it was the fact that Tyson was a destructive phenomenal fighter, wereas 8 years later when Tyson got beat by Holyfield the prime focus is that Tyson was not at his best and was on the downhill slide ....

Tyson beats a 38 year old Holmes and Tyson is lauded as a great fighter ..
Holyfield beats a Tyson that is 4 years younger than him and its all about how Tyson isnt what he was ....

Im a huge fan of Tyson, Dempsey, Holmes, Holyfield and all the genuinely great fighters that have been, the interest in this subject is all about fans perception and their bias .. Looking for excuses if their favourite fighters lose but not giving the credit to fighters who they dont like ....

Maybe your right though, Holmes was a million times the fighter that Spinks was against Tyson. I watch Spinks v Tyson and never fail to shake my head, Michael Spinks was a wonderful fighter, absolutely brilliant and for him a World Champion to get 'spooked' against Tyson was an absolute disgrace that has tarnished his legacy .. If you take a look at the tape and keep your eyes just on Spinks, forget what Tyson is doing, just keep your eyes on Spinks, what the hell was his gameplan there, he didnt have any idea how to go about that fight .. It looked like he thought to himself, 'just take a couple of shots and go down for a very nice payday to finish off the career' .. Such a disappointment when you've seen Spinks at his best ....