My most controversial opinions

I agree with you on Norton. Shavers also falls under the same category, in that it was a close, 8-7 split, which in my opinion should have gone the way of the challenger.

Young, for me, won much more clearly, but it would have run boxing establishment aground with an unpalatable champion.

I haven't put pen to paper on this one, but I did come away with the impression that Barrera had sharpened his overall skills.

An equally contentious view of mine would be that Morales deserved the trilogy against Marco: 2-0-1.

This I don't see as controversial. Plenty are willing to go along with the same notion because of how damaged Frazier was after their initial encounter. Personally, I think Frazier is just about the only person who could exploit Muhammad's weaknesses in his prime.

 

Joe Louis blitzed Schmeling in 1938. He certainly came in better shape comparatively speaking, but no leaps were made in terms of technique. The same flaws were visible then as it was two years back.

At that point in 1938, his physical prime had passed. Joe, himself, crystallized after facing Max Baer. Schmeling was the wake-up call, but he would never again regain the destructive form he had for Baer.

 

I think 1st round knockouts can happen in Heavyweight boxing - regardless of prime etc. It happens. Like for example Vitali Klitschko against Oldanier Solis. Oldanier could fight Klitschko a year later and go the full 12. Same way as Louis vs Schmeling. Sometimes a fighter is so geared up like Louis was and if the opponent isn't ready then there is gonna be a quick ko.

 

I think Lockridge narrowly beat a weight-drained Julio Cesar Chavez.

Rocky is slightly underrated on the whole, and so too are Norton, Chuvalo, and Starling.

 

I actually agree with this. And he's the main reason I became a pre 50s guy.

 

You thought Mosley won the second Forrest fight? I thought he looked horrible and scared the entire fight. That was the first fight of several where Mosley showed that when he thought he was outmatched he just stopped taking chances.

I agree with you on all the others except Id have to go back and watch the Corrales fights and the Tszyu fight. I seem to remember that Tszyu fight being very close but cant remember how I had it. Urkal was a tricky guy. Underrated.

 

Replies above.

 

The last one.

 

i think david haye is a competant proffesional hw boxer (as well as a toe based comedy act)

i think generalisations about who was greater are of zero value to fantasy fights.

since wilder proved me/us wrong once he deserves some respect.(for now)

that boxers getting paid well, not having 300 fights, and not having a color bar for title fights are good things.

there is no such thing as a 0% chance of winning.

that boxing is one of only 2 sports where you could pull certain competitors out of pre ww2, throw them straight into a modern event and they wouldn't be completely hopeless.

THE BIG ONE:

not cheating and losing shows a lack of desire and will to win that is as big a black mark on my judgement of a sportsman as cheating is.

 

Cant agree with the last point. Its this thinking that's ruining the game with PEDs. I admire good sportsmanship, it shows courage and strength and integrity. Sneaky cheating is quite an unmanly trait.

 

Progress in what sense? I seriously hope you're not referring to skill and talent, because it's only gone backwards in the last fifteen years.