People always look at fighters' styles the wrong way because of a fight or two. Which one of these is worse, and more inaccurate?
The Leonard one is up there with the greatest myths in boxing history. He didnt fight his fight :rofl
The vs V. Klit is up there. This V.Klit guy eye was literally hanging by a thread and he was bleeding like a wounded animal yet his crazy fans still think he could have continued. I seen far worse cuts get stopped by the refs or doctors.
I meant that more as a joke. Unfortunately, people have actually claimed that the cut was from Lewis's hair and that the doctor was racist. Another good one is that I heard someone say "Vitali barely had a nick over his eye".
All pretty bad tbh, but the lewis one is the worst as it has absolutely no base in truth what so ever. At least hagler brawled against hearns and leonard moved and did the flashy stuff against hagler, so you can sort of understand where a noob/idoit might get it from. The cut however, was clearly caused by a punch but some nuthuggers still think it was a thumb or hair or an unfair stoppage
Personally I hate it when people call Whitaker boring, he really wasn't. I think the problem is, if a person hasn't seen him before they tend to watch his fights against big named opponents.......Nelson, Chavez, DLH, Tito, and against Nelson, DLH, Chavez, he fought from long range and used his legs, and to be honest, the DLH, Chavez, Nelson fights were not the most exciting, but that is because Whitaker had to fight that way, you cant stand in the pocket against a guy who is 5 '10, who can hit (DLH), and it would be silly to stand infront of Nelson, Chavez period, therefore he used his legs. Aside from the aforementioned fights, Whitaker was pretty masterful to watch, and unlike Mayweather, was not scored to be aggressive, to close the show. I mean, can you see Mayweather fighting the way Pea fought against Roger Mayweather?
