The Reality Check Thread!

Yeah, but you don't write the history books, and I'm not saying its correct in a moral sense. But when people look back on certain fights, they will pay attention to what history says and records, not what some guys opinion is on a boxing forum (not matter how popular or widespread that opinion is) about whether it is a win or not.

 

Pavlik :hi: Lacy :hi: Dawson :hi:

 

Tito Trinidad beat De La Hoya, cold, hard, fact.

 

Reality Check!

Fact:

Calzaghe's best win came in a very close fight, in which his ass touched canvas against a man who Roy Jones dominated 13 years earlier and Jermain Taylor beat twice.

 

Reality Check:

Jones has 2 dominating wins against 2 future HOFers and ATGs in or VERY close to their prime......Joe has one controversial SD over 1 future HOFer and ATG who was in his 40's and couldn't fight a full 12 rounds....but still embarrassed and outboxed Joe early on. :good

 

Everyone thinks they know what it means to be saved by the bell, but few in fact do know.

It's very hard to admit your favourite fighter lost a very close fight.

The rules of the game have a great impact on the eventual winner. Under a different set of rules the loser of a fight might be the winner.

Just because a fighter is one-dimentional doesn't mean he cannot be the best.

Just because a fighter doesn't have smooth skills or great defence doesn't mean he cannot be elite.

Intangibles like power, chin, mental and physical toughness and strength are often underrated by fans because they cannot be easily assessed or appreciated by watching videos.

There isn't a direct proportionality between power and KO%.

It's very hard to assess correctly the performance of those fighters you have an emotional attachement (positive or negative) to.

Will to win, motivation and concentration are often crucial in deciding the fate of a fight but even those fighters characterised to a great extent by these qualities aren't always equally motivated, concentrated or determined to win no matter what.

Boxing is as much a business as it is a sport. Fighters are as much athletes and fighters as they are products that are built up and exploited by promoters and TV networks.

Losing your "0" is blown out of all proportions by fans, which encourages fighters to pad their records and pick and choose fights good risk/reward fights that will make them look good instead of trying to fight the best, giving their all, win or lose.

Not all sanctioning bodies are equally corrupt or lacking in legitimacy.

The Ring belt is just a prize given by a boxing magazine.


Words like "exposed" usually expose the user's lack of knowledge and understanding.

Every fighter can have a bad day at the office.

The best fighters aren't the ones who aim to finish their careers unbeaten but the ones who aim to fight the best, giving their all, having prepared like Champions, as if their next fight was the most important of their career.

It's true that the true measure of a Champion is taken by looking at the way he comes back from defeat.

To assess how good a fighter is you have to look at his level of performance given the level of performance of his opponent and given the way their styles match up.

Styles make fights. Transitivity doesn't apply in boxing. Never say never.

It's impossible to detemine how good a fighter is until he fights a world class puncher, a world class boxer and a world class pressure fighter.

Any fighter can be beaten by the right man at the right time.

Any fighter can be knocked out by the right punch or combination of punches delivered at the right time in the right order.

The more you study boxing, the more you realise how little you know.

 

Reality check, no matter how people spin things, no matter the result, the fact reamins Manny Pacquiao beat far faded versions of both Barrerra and Morales, and could quite easily have lost a decision to Juan Manuel Marquez with nobody thinking theres any controversy.

Reality check, as great a fighter as he is, and he is great, his three best wins are not as good as many claim.

Reality check, since Mayweathers departure, the top of the pound for pound list is the weakest it has been since I have been alive, even though there are great fighters there.

 

Reality Check: There are no definites in boxing (in relation to an individual contest; the history of the sport has taught us that it is folly to make bold, cannot-possibly fail predictions in regard to a bout - too much can go wrong; so by all means state your opinion, but try not to put your rep on the line or your house on the bet by dealing in definites).

Reality Check: Just because a boxer enters the ring with a nice shiny belt held above his head, this does not always mean that he is a high calibre of fighter. Do not be fooled: all that glitters is not gold.

Reality Check: When watching a fight on TV do just that, WATCH THE FIGHT. Commentators/pundits have their own personal bias in regard to certain fighters (they are not infallible). Pick up useful facts that they divulge, by all means, but also judge the fighter and in the end make up your own decision as to his worth.

 

Reality check: in the vast majority of cases fighter A actually would beat fighter C. Stating the above mantra does not constitute a rebuttal to someone who is actually making a reasoned argument that such will happen.

 

Cobbler this is in essence very unReal in as far as the facts go. Its merely speculative opinion:deal

 

Reality check: Just because a fighter does better in the round then he did in previous rounds doesn't justify him winning the round (not the most improved award).

 

Reality Check: You're hatred for Roy is well documented as well as your manlove for Calzaghe....This is indeed Real and fact

Who wins between Jones and Calzaghe is merely speculative opinion and can't be a rendered fact until the eighth of November:deal