Your unpopular boxing opinions

Totally disagree, but I like it. I can see your points.

 

He definitely lost to Hearns but I think he beat Hagler. The results of both McClellan's and Jackson's opponents say Jackson is harder.
Hagler better than Greb?
Johnson and Langford actually fought. And Johnson won however controversially (by reports)

 

- The skill level of the sport has increased over time, largely plateaued since the 80s but still probably marginal improvement.
- Right now is the best time ever to be a boxing fan, despite all the whining that so many boxing fans partake in. The standard is as high as ever and we can watch it all with minor effort and expense.
- Joe Louis whilst as brilliant a fighter as there had been up his point in time is a lot less impressive by today's standards that he is made out to be. He had basic footwork, slow feet and never cut the ring off. His opposition was also largely terrible yet he doesn't get an ounce of the criticism for that as other heavyweight greats such as Marciano, Holmes, Tyson or Wlad Klitschko.
- Sugar Ray Robinson on film as a middleweight from 1949-1952 was basically the same as Robinson in his prime, people make outlandish claims about how much better he must have been as a welterweight.
- Robinson was the best fighter that had ever existed up until the 1950s, still hugely impressive in many respects even today but much like Louis people never want to acknowledge that he was less than perfect. His footwork not as exceptional as dozens of welterweights/middleweight that have come since, he loaded up too much on his power punches (usually maximum speed and power), his defensive skills were not remotely exceptional and his jab was good but not great.
- If you saw pristine footage of Harry Greb in his prime you'd think, if you were being truly honest, that he was a pretty crude brawler.
- Floyd Mayweather Jr is underrated by the 'hardcore' boxing fans, for the usual prejudicial reasons. The reality is that he is one of the absolute greats.
- Non-US fighters, particularly the finest Asian ones, tend to be ranked historically lower than they deserve.
- Ezzard Charles's stature has been blown up too far in recent decades, contemporaneous valuations were probably more accurate.
- The so-called Black Murderer's row of fighters have also had their status blow out of proportion to reality, especially Charley Burley.
- Old-school methods are not always the best methods.
- The World sanctioning bodies are not as bad as everyone makes out and the time when there was supposedly only one champion per division is at least partially a myth, and to the extent to which there was an era where there was largely one champion per division, it was an era significantly more corrupt than today.
- The world sanctioning bodies have played a big role in expanding the sport globally, creating opportunities for boxing in different markets.

 

Says the 12-year old.

 

Sorry, that was kind of snotty.

 

Heavyweights past the 60s are grossly overrated H2H and Lee Savold would be a contender today.

 

No. 1 P4P

 

Cmon. We'll. Just hang around a while.

 

Can't honestly say, that I disagree with any of this!

 

This post is the epitome of this thread...

Definitely not popular opinion, will not be well-received in general here...
Arguments both ways could be made though...

Definitley take issue with some of these, but it adds to the flavor here.

I like it.

 

Tarver icing Roy Jones had almost nothing to do with Jones' decline and everything to do with Tarver finding the same crack in his defense that Del Valle did.

 

Boxing today is spoiled by the blatant corruption starting at the top with the State Commissions they are worse that the mob & mafia of the 50's. Think for a minute Experienced judges suddenly producing ludicrous scorecards to ensure the cash cow fighters keep winning?? Have they suddenly lost their minds or are they put under pressure by the commissions to make sure the right guy gets the win ??
Everyone has the same opinion that certain boxers are protected & given every advantage legal & illegal to ensure they "win" the $$$$$$$$ rolls in

 

I thoroughly disagree with pretty much all of this and reminds me of even more unpopular opinions I have that I may add to my previous ones later. All i'll say for now is that the various US State Athletic Commissions are not overtly corrupt, or at least not in the way you are suggesting, but they are certainly incompetent and largely unfit for purpose. Hauser has written some fine articles about the NYSAC in the past couple of years.

 

Thanks, out of curiosity which one of my opinions do you least agree with?