common opinions you disagree with

[jezzamundo]

it's a common opinion that bowe only had a peak night w/holyfield in their first fight but i thought bowe looked pretty good in their second fight and could have arguably got the decision in that one

tyson's prime only being from '85-'88. def something i disagree w/. he looked awesome in his bout against carl williams, def one of my fav tyson KOs with his left hook in that one

I agree with both of those. I think the main difference between the first and second Holyfield-Bowe fights was that Holyfield fought a lot smarter in the second fight, the first would have been a lot closer had Holyfield not foolishly decided to trade with the much bigger man. Bowe performed well in both fights, he was very offensively gifted, but his defense was always poor, his performance in the first Holyfield fight is somewhat overrated due to Holyfield's willingness to trade.

[elmersalsa]

Well, Riddick Bowe won fair and square in their first bout. He also fought very intelligently. The second fight, Bowe lacked the discipline, plus he thought he could do it again without training at his very best and paid the price. This guy Bowe, if he would have take boxing seriously, right now, right now, we would have been talking about him as an all-time great. I have never seen a big heavyweight like him that could slug it well on the inside exchanges. Bowe at his very best, Holyfield does not beat him. No matter what Holyfield does.

[elmersalsa]

it's a common opinion that bowe only had a peak night w/holyfield in their first fight but i thought bowe looked pretty good in their second fight and could have arguably got the decision in that one

tyson's prime only being from '85-'88. def something i disagree w/. he looked awesome in his bout against carl williams, def one of my fav tyson KOs with his left hook in that one

Tyson's prime was from 1985 to 1990...It is what it is. I did not see his prime in full potential, though. I got the feeling that he did not reach his peak of his powers.

[stevedoc]

Ali would beat modern heavies with ease , I mean the klitschko's and lennox lewis .
I think it would be close fight between ali and lewis or wladimir ,size does matter and 210 pound ali would struggle with wladimirs jab .ali would be cruiser weight today

[SenorPipino]

By the 70's Ali was a solid 220. Weighed a little lower for the Foreman fight and the Inglewood rematch with Norton, (when he trained his ass off) but basically he was a big heavyweight. To say he would be a cruiserweight today is laughable.
Tyson's prime probably ended after the Spinks fight in '88. He beat Bruno and Williams handily afterward, but the questionable chins of that pair may have had something to do with the ease of the knockouts.
He then was KO'd by Douglas. Tyson's decline in the late 80's probably coincides with the absense of Kevin Rooney.
Holyfield has said that Bowe was the best man he encountered because he was adept at fighting on the outside just as well as he fought on the inside.

[CrazyHorse]

By the 70's Ali was a solid 220. Weighed a little lower for the Foreman fight and the Inglewood rematch with Norton, (when he trained his ass off) but basically he was a big heavyweight. To say he would be a cruiserweight today is laughable.
Tyson's prime probably ended after the Spinks fight in '88. He beat Bruno and Williams handily afterward, but the questionable chins of that pair may have had something to do with the ease of the knockouts.
He then was KO'd by Douglas. Tyson's decline in the late 80's probably coincides with the absense of Kevin Rooney.
Holyfield has said that Bowe was the best man he encountered because he was adept at fighting on the outside just as well as he fought on the inside.

Yeah but by the time he fought Foreman he was a fraction to what he use to be. He couldn't dance like he said. He told his trainer he can't dance for 15 rounds anymore like he use to. That's why he used a different strategy. In his prime he was anywhere from 205 ish to 210 ish. He wasn't in as good of shape in the Foreman fight from when he was say the Liston fight either. 220 for a HW is hardly considered "big" by any means. But in his prime he could have easily fought at Cruiser. Just sweat off 5-10 lbs and you're there.

I don't think he would have walked through Lennox or the Klitschkos but I think it would have been close but it's hard to say and we will never know for sure what would have happened.

[Fireball]

it's a common opinion that bowe only had a peak night w/holyfield in their first fight but i thought bowe looked pretty good in their second fight and could have arguably got the decision in that one

tyson's prime only being from '85-'88. def something i disagree w/. he looked awesome in his bout against carl williams, def one of my fav tyson KOs with his left hook in that one

SRR greatest of all time, greatest this, greatest that.

[man]

i disagree with the view that foreman lost fair and
square in the jungle. he was the reigning champ, he
did beat the count and it was the last second of the
round. every other champion would have got the
chance to continue.

i do not think he could have won the bout it, but i
think he deserved better treatment, no matter if he
was fighting lex luthor or, as he did in reality, ... bambi.

[Syntax Error]

Ali would beat modern heavies with ease , I mean the klitschko's and lennox lewis .
I think it would be close fight between ali and lewis or wladimir ,size does matter and 210 pound ali would struggle with wladimirs jab .ali would be cruiser weight today

The Cruiserweight limit is 200lb (used to be 190); when did Ali ever weigh under 200lb for a fight?

Ali was about 212lb in his prime & went up to the late 210s & early 220s in the 70s, when he was a tad heavier & slower.

[stevedoc]

Ali would beat modern heavies with ease , I mean the klitschko's and lennox lewis .
I think it would be close fight between ali and lewis or wladimir ,size does matter and 210 pound ali would struggle with wladimirs jab .ali would be cruiser weight today

The Cruiserweight limit is 200lb (used to be 190); when did Ali ever weigh under 200lb for a fight?

Ali was bout 212lb in his prime & went up to the late 210s & early 220s in the 70s, when he was a tad heavier & slower.

middle weights now put 20 pounds on between weigh in and the fight i'm sure ali could of weighed in under 200 pounds while younger ,losing 10 pounds of liquids is completely normal for a boxer making weight . I would lose 10 /12 pounds the day before a fight to make weight .
as Ali said 208 good dancing weight

[giacomino]

Ali would beat modern heavies with ease , I mean the klitschko's and lennox lewis .
I think it would be close fight between ali and lewis or wladimir ,size does matter and 210 pound ali would struggle with wladimirs jab .ali would be cruiser weight today

Not sure it's a common opinion that Ali would beat Lewis "with ease." I haven't heard a lot of people say that. Also, when the question was asked about Ali-Klitschko on boxrec, there were plenty of people who said either Klitschko would beat Ali or it would be tough fight.

[BoxBuzz]

Cassius Clay defeating Sonny Liston in a legitimate bout.

"Legitimate Bout"..........

Where both fighters attempt to win, and put out their best effort.

This is not to say that Cassius Clay 'couldn't' win a Legitimate Bout, just
that Cassius and Sonny never engaged in one.

I like your defining aspects here, and would not disagree.

So if we watch the fights in their mutual careers that immediately follow these bouts, where they both do legitimately give their best efforts, I have concluded that it would end up with about the same outcomes.

Liston always has a punchers chance, but with Ali's chin, it becomes pretty minimal. And when I say that, I don't mean to discount Liston's boxing abilities he was good, AND past his best at this point.

In a backwards upside down sort of way, Liston's reputation is enhanced by these "mysterious" encounters. Especially fight 2, (fight one IMHO is "what you see is what you get" even cheating did not help Liston gain the "W" "legitimacy" in this case would not have helped Sonny) Had they simply both put forth their best efforts in fight 2, Liston would have some of the wind drawn from his legacy sails. Not a lot perhaps because his body of work up until then should remain well respected.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not sure it would qualify as a common opinion, but I thought the Liston gave his best for the 6 rounds. Then he saw he wasn't going to win and quit.

[witherspoon]

'It's widely believed that Larry Holmes was robbed in the Spinks rematch'.
Not so.
I posted my scorecard 3/4 months ago expecting to get ripped for giving the fight to Spinks. I was surprised when several posters agreed with me and no one posted a scorecard for Larry.

[jrc26]

Great topic.

David Tua was good or very good. - I think he was average in about every category other than entertainment value and having a unique look.

Not sure if this is a common opinion, but I would say I commonly see Hagler not ranked anywhere best high enough on the all time p4p list. The judges robbed Hagler of the win against running Ray Leonard, but at the same time I think they robbed him of his proper place all time. For example I just looked at two all time lists compiled by reasonably credible boxing sources. Duran-9, Leonard-12, and Hagler-35. Second list was Duran-6, Leonard-11, and Hagler-23.

I've always had him in my top 10-12 and above both fighters mentioned above.

[Ambling Alp II]

Agree with Tua being overrated by some people. He had a good left hook and a good chin. Otherwise he was ordinary fighter.

Disagree about Hagler. He should not be in the top 10 and was not as good as Duran and Leonard.

He certainly was not robbed against Leonard. He did almost nothing in the first four rounds and could not catchup. It's not like Leonard had a lot of experience as a middleweight. This was the first time Leonard had fought at that heavy of a weight and he only had one fight in the last 5 years. If he was as Leonard, with his advantages he should have won easily.
I know this will irk the Leonard haters, but Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran should not be rated higher than Leonard.

1.Duran did not win the head to head to head series.
2.Leonard beat better competition.
3. Leonard did better against common opponents.
4. Leonard was more consistent. Anywhere close to their primes, Leonard never lost to an inferior opponent and Duran did.

[Syntax Error]

Frank Bruno had a dodgy chin!

No he did not; he actually had a very good chin, but his problems were that he was too slow, had less than average stamina, was too muscular & could not improvise under pressure.

PS: Also agree about Leonard -v- Hagler. That fight was not a robbery; it was a close fight, but Hagler only has himself to blame for losing. He was more interested in his payday, his legacy & cursing Leonard in the ring rather than fighting him. He gifted the first 4 rounds to Leonard & was then too slow to do anything about it afterwards. Leonard completely out-psyched him & I will always believe that.

[elmersalsa]

Agree with Tua being overrated by some people. He had a good left hook and a good chin. Otherwise he was ordinary fighter.

Disagree about Hagler. He should not be in the top 10 and was not as good as Duran and Leonard.

He certainly was not robbed against Leonard. He did almost nothing in the first four rounds and could not catchup. It's not like Leonard had a lot of experience as a middleweight. This was the first time Leonard had fought at that heavy of a weight and he only had one fight in the last 5 years. If he was as Leonard, with his advantages he should have won easily.
I know this will irk the Leonard haters, but Roberto "Forever a lightweight" Duran should not be rated higher than Leonard.

1.Duran did not win the head to head to head series.
2.Leonard beat better competition.
3. Leonard did better against common opponents.
4. Leonard was more consistent. Anywhere close to their primes, Leonard never lost to an inferior opponent and Duran did.

Totally disagree with you that the great Sugar Ray Leonard was better than the great Roberto Duran.

1. Duran won when it mattered the most. When BOTH were in the top of their games, at their very best and in shape for the bout. Give Duran credit for that. The second fight everybody knows that it was AN OFF NIGHT by Duran.
2. Leonard beat better competition because it was his prime. Duran at lightweight beat some great opposition too. Duran was already in his 13th year as a pro when he met Leonard and over 73 fights under his belt. Was already considered a hof and all-time great and the greatest lightweight of all time by the majority of boxing experts. Duran lost to Benitez, Hearns and Hagler when he was OUT OF PRIME and in weight classes TOO BIG FOR HIS FRAME.
3. Same as above
4. Leonard more consistent? Duran went 41-0 in 8 years!. Leonard 27-0 in in only 3 years. Duran had more DURABILITY, it is proven because by 1982, Leonard retired with only 5 years as a pro? By 1984, he did not had it. Oh, I see. The detached retina.

Duran got more KOs than Sugar Ray had fights.
Duran is ranked #1 lightweight all time. Leonard? nuff said.

Duran lost to an inferior opponent in his prime? say what? Who was that? Leonard LOST TO A LIGHTWEIGHT. HOW ABOUT THAT?

[SamWise72]

1. Duran won when it mattered the most. When BOTH were in the top of their games, at their very best and in shape for the bout. Give Duran credit for that. The second fight everybody knows that it was AN OFF NIGHT by Duran.

I think there's a lot of merit in all your other points, but not this one. That fight was incredibly close, even though Leonard chose to stand and trade and try to out-man Duran. That was brave, but stupid; I genuinely believe nobody could out-man Duran (imagine Duran Chavez at lightweight!). Given that it was that close in those circumstances, I have no doubt Leonard would have won if he'd fought his fight, as he did in the second. Perhaps Duran wouldn't have quit, but I can't see how he would have won.

Now, that doesn't detract from Duran's victory at all; he fought the SRL who was in front of him, and he won, but if we're comparing who was the greatest boxer, then what Leonard could have done has to be taken into account.

[jezzamundo]

another one :

that roberto duran dominated SRL in their first match . . .

i actually scored that one a draw

It was certainly an impressive victory by Duran, but to call it a domination is a huge stretch. I score it for Duran by a margin of just 1 point.

[Ezzard]

This Duran-Leonard one will always rumble on.

Leonard was an aggressive fighter, who planted his feet and went looking for the other guy. He moved well, sure…

In the first fight they stand off one another early on. Duran wins the long range duel. He almost floors Leonard in round 2 and then beats him up for the next few rounds.

Leonard moved up close because he was safest there. Because on the outside he was losing. Watch the fight. Duran nails him early. The next 4-5 rounds are about survival. Duran was ahead on the cards. Leonard had to do two things (1) be more aggressive to try and close the gap on the scorecards and (2) avoid standing off because Duran was picking him off.

At this point Duran was a counter-punching swarmer…not some kind of crude swinging whirling dervish. Leonard was an exciting, come forward boxer puncher, not a dancer who looked to jab and clutch his way to points decisions.

Saying Ray fought the wrong fight is fine, if you also accept Duran fought the wrong fight in the rematch.

[SamWise72]

I don't know that Duran fought the wrong fight in the rematch, just that he didn't have the conditioning to apply the same sort of swarming pressure. Ray often fought with his heart, but in the rematch and also in the Hagler fight he fought with his head, and used his speed and footwork in a different way. That Ray, for me, beats any Duran you put in the ring with him.

[BoxBuzz]

I would say that at their mutual best, Duran wins. Because it happened.

The second fight was a disaster for Roberto, but you can't say it was him at his best. He was so full of himself after beating Ray, that he just thought he could do it in his sleep. Not sure he ever totally recovered. He was never quite as good after that, though he remained damn good.

And for this, the mental aspect, I'm inclined to agree that Ray was better, Not because he was a better "fighter" but because he was a better "winner".

Not sure Ray EVER went into a fight over confident. And that is one major defining feature of a great winner...and a great fighter.

[keithmoonhangover]

A common opinion on here is that Tyson was still at his physical and mental peak going into the Douglas fight. Getting rid of Rooney, not training properly and all the distractions outside the ring made no difference and Tyson was still the spartan warrior that did Holmes on 4 and Spinks in 1.

I think it's bollocks.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

No Mas was closer than Montreal. It always cracks me up when I read people act like Leonard could have Ali shuffled and clowned in there against the Duran from Montreal. He slugged it out because he had no choice. That pressure was far too intense.