Which Fighters Have Benefitted/Suffered The Most From Revisionist History Here?

And I say all that right...and I must admit very few fighters in history looks better on film that Roberto Duran...lol

 

Yeah, now Bert Sugar was a fount of boxing knowledge...yeah man,...a regular cigar smokin' boxing sage, if you ask me.

 

Bert Sugar has suffered badly from revisionist history actually.

 

As Joe Frazier once said: "You can only fight the fighters of your era". It is interesting to go back and read legit boxing books of the 1900's, 10's, 20's.....40's ...60's etc. to date, and study the quotes of the era. And now you have Google News where you can research old newspapers' fight coverage and get 3rd party opinions, plus Youtube fight films....and compare all the legit data.

 

No, sorry, it really wasn't! Sorry if it sounded like a pointed comment - you're absolutely right, it's been said by loads of other people and that's why I mentioned it. No offense meant.

 

I've seen the fight with Johnson a few times as well as the Cervantes fight and the one against Kameda where he was also dropped. He didn't look badly hurt in any of them in my opinion.

 

Bert Sugar was a guy who would never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

Love 'em both. Marquez in particular was a demonstrably brilliant fighter who was almost certainly better overall than his two more popular contemporaries, Barrera and Morales.

 

True he was like your classic storyteller who liked to juice stories up....it was part of his appeal to fans and his shtick in boxing circles

 

I didn't and still don't mind him.

Yeah he was prone to exaggeration and hyperbole and you took his opinions with a pinch of salt, but he was colourful and entertaining to me. Contrast him with some of the po faced, research addicted, primary source fixated bores and I know who I'd rather shoot the breeze with, whether he was full of it or not. Boxing is entertainment to me firstly and a scholarly exercise in academia somewhere way down the list.

 

There's a lot of revisionism re: Sugar Ray Leonard implying that he only took fights when everything was to his advantage. Of course he did that in his later fights, but in about a 22 month period in 1979-1981 he fought Wilfred Benitez, Dave Boy Green, Roberto Duran twice, Larry Bonds, Ayub Kalule, and Tommy Hearns. That's some extremely tough competition to squeeze into less than two years. It's probably part of why he was pickier about who he fought and when and under what circumstances later on.

 

Which is why he is of little use to historians. In fact he has created more work for them! His yarns are damaging.

 

Agreed

He is fun to listen too but don't bet on the facts and remember he sensationalizes everything

 

Roy Jones suffers quite a bit. At times it seems like anyone with a good punch and fighting in old enough decades knocks him stone cold.
Larry Holmes has gone from long underrated to a small bit overrated.
Mike Tyson is a bit hard done by nowadays as well.
Leonard is on a downward spiral at the moment as SS alluded to. His golden boy image faded over time and it's personal dislike often clouds his true abilities.
Joe Frazier may have been on a downward spiral too, particularly H2H. Tbh i think it reflects deeper thought into stylistic and size intangibles.
Charlie Burley has been on an upward spiral for a long time. It may be getting a tad over colorful now but he's certainly got some substance.
Joe Louis is on the decline now size seems to mean everything to some.
Chavez seems to be losing some respect with time. Pretty harsh i think.
Barney Ross getting a bit forgotten per how great he was.
Freddie Steele finally getting big deserved kudos.
Pryor overrated but it's evening out of late.
Michael Spinks getting huge respect as a 175.

That's a few off the top of my head.

 

Yeah like.
Ron Lyle
Sonny Liston
Earnie Shavers
Ken Norton
Leotis Martin
Mac Foster