Which common boxing take/opinion present or past frustrates you the most?

Fighters today are superior to previous generations because of advanced training and supplements.

Boxing should have no draws

A fighter has to take the title off the champ so if it's close the champ gets the decision

Wilder is the hardest one punch fighter in heavyweight history, how does anyone know?

Pacman beat Bradley in first fight (don't bother responding to this, i know i am in minority and all argued out)

Floyd is the GOAT, er no!

 

Well, he is a fat blob. He's 6' at the absolute most and he weighed in at over 20 stones in the Anthony Joshua rematch and was utterly useless. He wouldn't have got near Malik Scott that night. Look at your own avatar. Is that lean body mass around Andy Ruiz' waist?

Mine would be when people try to elevate Wladimir Klitschko's achievements and dismiss his losses. His achievements are almost exclusively based on beating up either old or short opposition for almost 10 years. You can't simply dismiss his spectacular losses to mediocre opposition. I believe many of the same people who boost him are those who called him boring during his career, because he was far from a popular champion outside of Ukraine and Germany. I think people do this to bolster their own agenda.

Another would be people bringing up the likes of Carlos Takam and other "contenders" (useless opposition, in other words) to claim that Anthony Joshua's resume is better than Tyson Fury's.

I'd rather have 3 great wins (yes, 3) than a bunch of 6/10 level, steady Eddie wins.

 

Prime Ali beats everyone

Prime Mike Tyson is the GOAT

Literally anything Wilder fans say

AJ is a bum

Fighters today have absolutely zero chance of beating past fighters (nostalgia gets in the way of making a solid argument way too much)

Picking only on Holyfield for using ped’s (positive most of the other fighters in his era were also juicing)

Using the Benn fight as an example in arguments about McClellan (he had serious brain damage going into the fight)

Lennox Lewis isn’t an atg because of his two losses (literally just flukes, happens all the time at heavyweight)

 

@Toney F*** U basically covered a lot of my entries

As for Holy, I think he gets singled out for building his body up with peds to being a full blown heavyweight, rather than using peds as an aid.
He litterally increased the size gap between him and natural modern heavyweights like Bowe and Lewis with HGH and the like, while when really on a non doping level playingfield, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell beating the likes of them due to natural selection.

The Ali thing, is one of the things that frustrates me the most, because we know he had (very) controversial decisions going his way, has a questionmark over some of his bigger wins, we know there were styles he just couldn't beat (think Norton), and basically was a size and reach bully in his prime.

 

Which brings me to another one...

People constantly bringing up, "he might be quite good, but wouldn't beat prime [enter wellknown 90's blatant ped-user's name], so he's not that great anyway."
We're clearly not talking level playingfield here, as modern day boxers would be caught as easily and often as Miller, who would fit right in 90's boxing scene.

 

People claiming that boxing has been going downhill for the past several decades, and is now dying.

 

Ruiz is a fat blob to be fair

 

UFC fans are hilarious.

one of our "star" boxers makes more than the entire fleet of UFC fighters COMBINED and more. McGregor only had a purse of what >$2m? in the biggest fight in their history lmao. Most of their champs come and go quicker than your local prostitute.

 

The assumption by some that you have to have a nostalgic bias to favour a past great over a modern SHW.

And when you're a 6'0 guy who could probably make cruiserweigh and you show up at 280+ lbs, you're a fat blob.

 

That Salvador Sanchez “fought to the level of his opposition”. Just a lazy way of dismissing his less than stellar performances, almost all of which came against opponents who stayed at long range and/or forced him to lead. He had problems with those kinds of fighters because he was a natural counter puncher. Not much else to it.

And on the topic of Sanchez, I’ve never agreed with the notion that we never saw his prime or really even that he would’ve continued improving. We saw him at his best. He turned pro very young and blossomed early. In his 46 fights, 10 were for the title, and 5 went to the 15th round. That’s a wealth of top level experience.

He was essentially the finished product by the time he took the title from Danny Lopez, in my opinion. Never looked better. I think his tragic death causes many to go overboard with what might’ve been. People should just appreciate what he was. There’s no need for could haves and would haves when the fighter in question already proved himself to be an all time great.

 

I think the 2 things that annoy me the most are how if someone who’s never been knocked out before gets wobbled all of a sudden he’s got a glass jaw. And if you have a previously undefeated fighter suddenly loses then all of a sudden he’s ****, never was any good or he’s done etc etc...