Who are your most misunderstood fighters?

They were both master boxers, IMO. You probably mean it in a more specific way, though.

 

Yeah it's not too much of a problem anymore. More it used to be, when the grossly unknowledgeable would make statements such as 'Floyd Mayweather is practically the same fighter as Ray Leonard', amongst other manure. Hearns' offense as a means of defense is one of the best examples of such in history, he's a great boxer. Just the stylistic comparisons that pop up that annoy me from time to time, that's all. So yeah it is a specific thing.

 

You're right..Tunney had to be rugged...in his career he was down only for the Long Count and he had to be tough to take the beating he took in his loss against Greb. The public and the press by and large gave Tunney a bad rap with the book reading and Shakespear stuff..he was never one of the boys and was continually described as "colorless".

 

Yeah nice post. The way he smashed Carpentier around was a bit ruthless also.

 

I grit my teeth a little whenever someone say that Chavez was just a tough brawler. Or that Whitaker couldn't punch. Or that Hagler was just a slugger. Those sort of statements show a real lack of even a basic education about the fighters in question.

(Note: yeah, Sweet Pea wasn't a dynamite puncher by any stretch of the imagination, but especially before he started having hand problems he could punch with pretty decent authority, and was always a wicked body puncher.)

 

I think Whitaker is a styles thing. It seems that typically when someone is viewed as a great defensive fighter, the general consensus is that he lacks the power to do anything else.

 

It pisses me off when people think that Pernell Whitaker isn't absolutely the ****!

 

True, there is a tendency to focus on what a fighter does best. Still, Whitaker could shake or knockdown sturdy guys who were a lot bigger than him.

And I spent part of today watching Whitaker's early fights and some of the shots he was was landing could really make you whistle in appreciation, especially because these were small arenas and you could hear the punches landing.

If you're feeling nostalgic, check out some of those bouts (along with early bouts from guys like Morales and Barrera) here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/PernellSaadMorales

 

Will certainly burn an hour or two sitting through some of those fights :good

I just think it's the general perception. I think you actually see it a lot going the other way as well. We assume powerful punchers were crude sluggers (Tua and Mayorga) and we assume that slick masterful boxers don't have the power to do anything else (Whitaker, Floyd to an extent). Just how it works sometimes when you deal with extremes.

 

Those people should ask Diosbelys Hurtado if Whitaker can punch. :deal

Even though it's not truly representative of him as a fighter at all, and certainly occurred well outside his prime, that moment is the most indelibly burned in my mind of Pea (probably because I'm more of a fan of Hurtado than most of the "big" names he mixed it up with, so it has more resonance).

Savage, savage, savage. I'd call Mike Tyson a *** before pissing off Whitaker (at least I can outrun Mike).

 

I don't think he's the absolute ****? :huh

 

Wouldn't be so sure about that, I bet Tyson could run like a mother****er. Very athletic guy.

 

Damn it. I just lost a whole post before hitting submit when Firefox demanded a restart and promised to keep all my tabbed content intact. Whiny little brat, see what happens next time it asks for something...

Anyway, the crux was...this may not count, but: my skepticism of Comeback Foreman being the superior overall fighter to Prime Foreman. Popular opinion (not discounting the opinions of the misinformed or just plain dumb) seems to be split about 50-50 as to whether the smarter, slower old man was a greater head to head force than the twenty-something Big George. So in that sense, he is misunderstood by many.

That said, I think it's total bunk to suggest, as some do, that he simply preyed on the soft underbelly of a weak division upon his return. His run in the 90's was nothing to sneeze at, and he performed competitively against no less than good-enough opposition right up until the bitter end (he beat Briggs at 48...and if anybody refutes this, we know that Shannon himself is gracing ESB with his presence...)

They are two distinct men in the ring...with some obvious overlap, but also with some completely different upside and downside. While the hunk of immobile flab that was the crafty old coot was more fun to root for, against most of history's greats give me the 1970's vintage juggernaut any day.

He was not an idiotic brute in his youth, who could be outfoxed by any slick boxer...he just wasn't the most adaptable guy, and he ran headlong into a perfectly devised strategy in the wrong location in Zaire.

 

The agenda of this entire post hints and encourages people to praise Duran and discredit Leonard. I know you had that in mind when writing the middle paragraph.

Bottom line is Robertards claim he is the most devastating power puncher, most elusive defensive fighter, greatest pressure fighter, the best and slickest counter puncher, had the most impressive stamina, toughest chin, biggest heart and the most technically varied boxer...even though he was outclassed, KTFO and quit like a coward when up against all his top ATG opposition. Not a single one of his 16 losses are acceped as being credible and every single one of his victories are played up beyond belief. He had one night in Montreal to his name, and a dominant run at LW with not a single ATG-defining win there.

 

Floyd Patterson had a glass jaw.

Mike Tyson, Roy Jones Jr. and Floyd Mayweather Jr. are among the very greatest ever.

Max Schmeling is not a Top15/20 hw.

Rocky Marciano had no defence and was easily cut.

Jose Napoles would lose every h2h match-up on cuts.

Sven Ottke won every fight due to corrupt judges and was a bum.

Mike Tyson was unbeatable in his prime and would knock out every atg hw in 5 rounds.

Roy Jones Jr. would beat everybody between 160 and 175.

Manny Pacquiao is the modern Henry Armstrong. I think the better comparison is Tony Canzoneri.

Carlos Monzon's best wins are over undersized fighters while totally ignoring that Benvenuti and Griffitth were atlg mws and ignoring the good performance of Napoles.

Hagler's position was much superior than Hopkins. Hagler has the better top wins but the average competition was very similar.

The 30s were a weak era for hws. Personally I think it was a very good era.

Today's fighter are better athletes then fighters of the past.