What fighters do we hold a revisionist perception of?

Is it surprising someones standing gets revised after winning the worlds heavyweight championship by KO?

Anyone not revising after such a result followed by a second victory in a rematch would be awful dumb........or obscenely defiant.

 

Walcott was a pretty well cut dude - his physical appearance at 38 was extraordinary in its own right I guess.

I wonder how much training (vs genetics) contributed to that.

A clearly past prime Louis’ KO of Walcott in their rematch should never be underrated.

Rather than framing and exaggerating Louis’ fights vs Walcott as highlighting Louis’ vulnerabilities to movers/boxers, it should be noted that Walcott, at best, would be a highly difficult customer for many top fighters.

 

Yeah, I thought this was focused on revisionism after the fact of a fighters career. Opinions on Ali were somewhat “revised” after he did a number on Liston in Miami.

 

Lennox Lewis

 

Yes the press assessment ok now Im convinced the press never gets anything wrong then or now.

 

Well, then let's look at the fact that lost almost every third time he entered the ring.

The press gets things wrong at times, but they often get them right.

 

I haven't read the posts in this thread but in my opinion the following stand out:

Harry Greb -- upgraded
Ezarrd Charles -- upgraded
Jack Dempsey -- downgraded
Bob Fitzsimmons -- upgraded (ridiculously so in my opinion)
Mike Tyson -- downgraded
Earnie Shavers -- upgraded (I don't him as the monster some people do. I guess he could punch hard, but so could a lot of heavyweights. He was kind of slow and didn't have much stamina. I guess I'm jaded, though, I saw him lose the 4-rounder to Stan (the Animal) Johnson, and I haven't been able to get over it)


These are the only ones that really come to mind. The rest of the discussions are a lot of back and forth about a lot of good fighters. A lot of people grade Cleveland Williams high and others don't, but that's just an example of an ongoing discussion!

 

Seamus I’m curious would you consider Fritzie Zivic about a journeyman? Touch better with just under a third of his bouts not being victories.

 

The quality of the last several years of his opponents was great. The press is 50-50 at best.

 

And he went 11-9 over his last 20.

Journeyman.

 

Thats your opinion, most would disagree that Walcott was a journeyman.

 

Holmes ans Liston.

 

Liston for sure: He was regarded after the two Ali fights as a shady guy who:

1) Quit on his stool when he wasn’t outwardly injured in any way (he was throwing punches just fine the round before he quit) and gave away the biggest prize in sports

2) Perhaps threw one or both fights against Ali

3) Basically couldn’t get sanctioned to fight again in any meaningful venue (exiled to Sweden for a couple of years and then pretty much ‘off Broadway’ for most of the rest of his career)

Beyond that, he was also regarded (and his record backs it up) as a criminal and a lowlife, had mob connections, possibly worked as a legbreaker/enforcer in retirement and died as a drug addict (and likely alcoholic).

He had a few good years in the heavyweight division, with his crowning achievement being blown through a champion (Patterson) who was at least as scared as Michael Spinks was against Tyson (albeit twice) and who wasn’t exactly known for his chin nor durability. He had one successful title defense and overnight he apparently aged 20 years before fighting Ali.

Now I personally think he ranks somewhere between the fearsome ATG some today paint him as being and the complete undesirable he was seen as in his day, but no doubt history has been far kinder to him than his actual lifetime and fighting days were.

 

A lot of his reputation rejuvenation came because Foreman loved him and Tyson admired him.

 

Revised is an understatement LOL