Fights that were big but turned out to be (almost) mismatches

One important leason that I have learned about boxing history.

It was not until about the mid 30s that the media realised that a fighter who had been inactive for three years was not the same man as when he last fought.

It was a total blind spot for them!

That will explain a lot about past opinions.

 

Here is one of the few papers that had the competitors even:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70911F8355F1B7A93CBAB178DD85F4D8185F9

 

Dundee called him a Super Champion....and he was.

 

hearns duran
de la hoya rueles
mayweather corrales

 

Lewis - tyson
Floyd - mosley
Hopkins - tito

 

Terry Norris-Paul Vaden

McClellan-Jackson II

Norris-Brown II

 

Minter v Hagler
Leonard V Duran 2
Curry v Honeghan
Nunn v Kalambay (Maybe)
Lewis v Tua

 

Winky-Tito
Floyd-Gatti
Martinez-Williams 2
Tszyu-Judah
Vitali-Sollis:yep

 

I don't think there was any difference in thinking on the issue of lay offs.
Vitali Klitschko was a 2-1 favourite against Sam Peter after a FOUR YEAR lay off.
Floyd Mayweather can take two years off and still be a favourite against anyone, barring Pacquiao.

in 1970, Quarry was 3-1 UNDERDOG against beating a 3 1/2-year layoff comebacking Ali.

The thinking has always been the same. The effects of 2, 3, 4 year lay offs are known to be detrimental, but to what degree is impossible to assess until the fight happens.
And the abilities and ratings of the individual fighters comes into play.

Jess Willard was actually good, and he was HUGE, at 6'6 and 250 pounds, to Dempsey's 6'1 and 186 pounds.
It's more surprising that Dempsey was as good as even in the reckoning.

It's funny how people seem to downplay Willard so much to the point where "it should have been obvious" that Dempsey beats him.
The real story is how good Dempsey turned out to be.
Obviously, Willard was rusty as hell, but that's not the only factor.

 

One not mentioned yet is/was Frazier-Foreman 1. Anybody around at the time thought it was incredible and Foreman was a big underdog. And nobody thought Joe could get destroyed like that. But there were a few folks around that did like the foreman chances going into it.

Same thing w/ Foreman-Norton and lots of folks liked/loved the Norton chances in that one.

 

Duane Thomas v John Mugabi was unexpected and all the stranger because Thomas couldn't follow it up.

What about Barrera v Hamed?