Least believable "Best I've Faced" answers?

I find these columns interesting for precisely this reason: it lets me inside of the mind of the fighter. I don't read the column for objective truth. And I do read it with the expectation that it will contain bias.

Instead, I'm interested in reading it to find out what a fighter can tell me that I don't know. Yes, its true that Hearns' hardest fight was probably against Leonard or Hagler, or possibly the rematch with Barkley, but I do find it fascinating that he found the win over Roldan to be exceptionally grueling, or that Frank Bruno was stunned by Pierre Coetzer's physical strength.

 

Agreed. People get so caught up in if they’re right or wrong. When really it’s nice to just get an insight on what are on these guys minds.

This forum has a strange culture of conspiritorial undertones. People have this weird inclination to go out of their way to point out when a boxer is wrong about something. And they present the information as if they just realized they were starring in the Truman Show.

 

Where's McCallum

 

Wladamir Klitschko's answers strike me as being sincere.

 

I might not describe it exactly like I read it - and to top it off I can't even remember where I read it - but someone said, maybe even here, the reason boxers do that is to not give credit to their rivals. I mean, Zab Judah said Mickey Ward was the toughest he fought, and he won that fight pretty handily. I wish I could find the exact thing I am talking about. Just basically the jist of it is, boxers have a big ego (you have to in a lot of ways) and don't want to put over guys that beat them or already have fanfare. Hope this makes some sense...I have my doubts, lol

 

Totally out of whack.

 

Easier question might be "who gave the most honest answers?"

 

It seems that when fighters are asked 'Who was your toughest opponent?', they hear 'Who was your toughest opponent (that you beat)?' It makes sense to me that they wouldn't want to pore over the defeats, particularly the bad defeats where they were KO'ed as there's no ambiguity there to explain away why they lost. I don't blame them at all as you don't really want to revisit the time(s) you were mugged/beaten up as it's not a nice thing to relive. I find their answers interesting regardless.

 

Check out the Ruben Olivares 'Best I faced'. He has no problem citing those who beat him.

 

The funny thing is the hypocrite people. They do not question what a fighter says when they agree with him but when the opinion of the fighter does not match with their crappy opinions then automatically the fghter is crazy and his opinion is a joke.

 

Are you implying every single answer from these guys is gospel? There is no bias at all?

 

What i am saying is that every ****ing body is biased.

when certain fighter gives a positive opinion about a certain rival,even if this one is a crazy opinion i guarantee you the supporters of this certain rival will not say nothing against this "crazy" opinion because it favours to their favourite fighter. But when it is about another guy they will say ."it is crazy" "what a liar " etc