What are some boxing myths that can be broken with FACTS?

I haven't heard that story, but I'm not surprised with that one either.
Jimmy Young was well on his way to being a third-rater by the time Tyson was 16, and an alcoholic or heavy drug user too by most accounts.
We all know Tyson was deadly serious.

 

True.
I'm amazed that some people on this forum don't see how much trickery and con-artistry, hyping, spinning and ballyhooing goes on in the PROFESSIONAL BOXING business.

Having said that, I think having Johansson spar in public in that condition was a MISTAKE. Not the smartest way to promote interest in a title fight.

 

MR. UN,

You are correct again,,,,,,as usual.

Some do very little researach, and then post the 'canned pre-fabricated script'.

In truth, INGO'S sparring sessions in Miami Beach were pretty much held behind
closed doors at the Sea Breeze Hotel.

Prior to arriving in Miami Beach, on Friday, February 3 1961.
Ingo had spent all of January 1961, living the life of a European Playboy
in Geneva, Switzerland.
He did participate in a handful of 2 and 3 Round boxing exhibitions, but he was not
in training.

 

Oh, they do. When it suits them. Obvious facts like Dempsey ducking Wills can be denied by those who'll happily believe any innuendo about fighters they personally don't like. And those who see something murky in everything Leonard did will be short to outrage should anything be insinuated about such stand up man's men as Hagler and Duran.

Personally, I see little intellectual consistency or quality in most of the conspiracy theories put about here.

Funny enough, lately one would get the impression that pro boxing has been pretty much on the level except for about 1960-1967.

 

What conspiracies,,,boxing has always been on the up-n-up.

A very legitimate business.

Boxing started to make a move in the right direction in 1968.
It was time for a proper cleansing.

 

I don't think the fighters themselves are the architects of the con-jobs and trickery and ballyhoo.
I mean, managers and promoters and publicists and match-makers and the media machine are doing all that stuff 24-7. Fighters have to train and fight.
Maybe nowadays we can find more fighters who are clued-in with those "dark arts" of marketing, but only a small minority of the real top guys. The fans will buy anything anyway, there's not really much to choose from.

Ray Leonard was business and media savvy but he rarely sold himself or his opponents as anything more than they were, because frankly he didn't need to. He was the goods, and he fought the best fighters more often than most champs do (Benitez, Duran x2, Hearns in three consecutive calendar years, for example).

If you're talking about Il Duce, then it seems that the 60s and early 70s are his period of expertise. He provides good factual information from that time, and it should be easy to separate the facts from his mere opinions. If you don't like this opinions, that's fair enough, but you shouldn't let it cloud appreciation of the factual information. Unless of course you knew it all already.

 

I do like to 'stir up the pot' a little bit.

I try to get some posters to think 'outside the box'.

It does make a bit of difference, when you actually lived through a period of time, and witnessed the issues, instead of reading about them and then posting comments.

Of course when I make a statement about Cassius Clay or Muhammad Ali, the
'chirpers' start claiming there goes the Ali-hater.

I'll be the first to state, Cassius Clay brought much needed life to boxing, at
least the Heavyweight division, which was going stale.

 

I do like to 'stir up the pot' a little bit.




Ha ha ha! You do alright Il Duce. ha ha!:good

Nice bit of info on Ingo's sparring partners btw.

 

He does provide good facts, very good ones, would make for a better read without the agenda, though. And, of course, if it wasn't about my favourite fighter I'd care less. (even though I also defend other fighters against unfounded allegations)