Unpopular opinions

Also, if John Tate had beaten Mike Weaver and survived 1980 intact, his chances of beating Larry Holmes were 50/50, minimum.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with that. He kept those hands high and had that nice left hook off the jab. Busier than Larry & very important, he used his legs in there.

Larry thrived on those stationary face first guys he fought with those title defenses. They were made to order. Which one was the first guy he faced not highly susceptible to a jab anyway?

I also do not think there is a 5% chance the fight would have been made. DKP is not signing the fight. Maybe Smith could have and would have tried putting it together in that timeframe. But I don't see Holmes jumping ship from Don King back then.

Tate would have needed a far more diligent backing by Arum to have made this fight. And if Bob was looking out for what was best for John Tate, he would have never ever had him on the road for 2 fights in a row with 140,000 fans rooting for the other guy.

Or put 1980 Tate in with a shot Ali. Or Spinks. Or face first guys like Ledoux or Gardner or old Lyle or some other soft matchups.

 

Great Points:good.

 

Practically everyone dramatically overrates their own ability to pick winners, which is why fantasy arguments are pointless. Boxing reality is crazier than the fantasy boxing logic, so it's impossible to accurately apply the latter to the former...let alone with the certainty that's usually applied.

If we were that good, we'd be spending the millions we've made on betting on modern fights. With all the video footage right there for us to scout with on practically all fights of any world-level significance, there's nothing stopping us.

It's the sheer proportion of gross mismatches that give the average fan (and the delusional serious fan) the impression that they're better at picking fights than they really are.

 

As far as really unpopular ones, I actually had Iran Barkley eking out a win over Duran in that fight. It's been awhile so I don't have a RBR scorecard of it, but I thought the Blade deserved the edge.

 

Hopkins beat Taylor twice because he landed the sharper punches (though sparingly) between Taylor's wild swings which mostly hit air. Winky beat Taylor because Taylor was hitting mostly arms while Winky was mostly hitting Taylor's mandible.

Jermain Taylor's chin is underated but his boxing skills are overrated.

Vernon Forrest was robbed in the second Mayorga fight. Forrest landed the vast majority of clean shots.

James Toney beat Montell Griffin twice because he had the cleaner work in both fights.

Roberto Duran was the most technically complete fighter to ever live (Not sure how many people agree with that statement).

Tyson Fury is an underated boxer (and I dislike him).

 

Me too. I doubt you'll find many people who dispute that the fight was at least a toss up though (other than the Duran fanatics, maybe).

 

Though I hate to say it, I think Qawi would have beaten Saad in his prime too.

 

^ This is why polls may actually be more enlightening in fantasy matchups than the arguments are. Collective opinions are more similar to gambling prediction markets, which tends to be better guides than individual sports experts' views.

 

Gambling lines are skewed to reflect public opinion, not accurate ****ysis of fighters. For example, a fighter will always receive favorable odds if he has an island nation of millions fervently backing him despite generally not knowing anything about boxing.

 

I don't think he would have beaten 1979-1980 Holmes.

He could have beaten Ali in 1979, though

 

A great matchup

 

Same here.

 

khan canelo is an interesting fight.

 

Fury narrowly outhustles Wlad in a rematch.