More Boxing Misconceptions

...That some boxing fans are obsessed on glass jawed fighters.

 

That top MMA fighter's could be top boxers in under a year. The best MMA fighters would not even beat an top 50 boxer in a year

 

Sugar Ray Leonard is often credited as the first 5 weight champ in history, but it was Thomas Hearns by four days.

Hearns had already won his historic LH title in 1987 and then beat Kinchen on 4th November 1988 for the SM belt. Leonard beat Lalonde on 7th Novemer 1988 for the SM and LH belts, four days later.

That makes Thomas Hearns the first four weight and first five weight champ ever. What's more Hearns always made weight for the division he fought at, even at Cruiser; Leonard never scaled more than 165 and thus didn't even box at LH.

 

pryor fought on abc
sugar fought on abc

7 pound difference...

there was a time when leonard could have fought him...he was the original guy to start the "the guy isnt big enough, popular enough, doesnt bring anythng to the table" bull****, just to have a PR reason not to take a risky fight...prtor wasnt a big enough name, but bruce finch and larry bonds were... there was a small window where when the big tv station starts hyping it up by having pryor at leonard fights, in the ring after the fight talking about possible match ups, ect...duck , chose not to fight...it was a fight that was on the table and leonard didnt want to take a chance. doesnt mean he would have lost..just means that he had no interest in fighting him, even though EVERYone else did

 

both are bogus ways of adding stats to give 4th weight class title and 5th or whatever...

how the hell is is possible that leonard fights for the light heavyweight and super middlewight title on the same name? its laughable... he won the "light heavyweight title" by fighting the champ at a catch weight of 167 pounds...

and hearns belts was the **** WBO belt that was spawned in 1988
guess who was the first ever wbo 168 champ? yep, thomas hearns
that belt was bogus then and by hanging around for 25 years, people have just accepted it...heres why the belt was bogus back then....

IBF, WBA , WBC Heavyweight champion in 1988-1989 Mike Tyson
WBO Heavyweight Champ in 1989 Francesco Damiani

somehow i dont hear people ever talk about damiani as the heavyweight champ in 1989

David Haye is the Damiani of 2011

 

You're right about Leonard, of course, he never even fought at light heavy. However I think you're too harsh on Hearns.

Hearns WBC light heavy title was legit. Granted, Andres was a crude fighter and the easiest choice for Hearns at the time, but he was a real LH with a real belt. Quite an achievement for a former welterweight.

As for the WBO belt, I agree that it was a weak belt , and as a Hearns fan I felt it at the time. However it has aquired some degree of legitimacy over the years. You'll notice I didn't mention Hearn's cruiser belt!

Still, my point was that Hearns' post 160 achievements are more legit than Leonards'. Becoming the first four weight champ was significant at the time, yet Leonard somehow still gets all the glory.

 

If a fighter shakes his head and smiles when hit ,must have been hurt.

 

Joe Louis was 76 years old when he fought Rocky Marciano

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zVGxk98l4o[/ame]

 

Cassius Clay threw his Olympic gold medal into a river.

 

Thing is, the WBO belt is now pretty much the best in the division with the most legacy and the best champion having worn it. It's not bogus anymore and therefore anyone who held it can't be considered a bogus champion.

And think of it in the light of the first "WBC" champion being a farce, or the first "Champion" in general being a farce, they're all farces, they're made into something more by the level of champion who maintains the belt.