Boxing's biggest sacred cow

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Apr 2006, 10:37

History has a way of casting some in glory and others in misery. There are many reasons for this, but who are the boxers who have benefitted the most from historical write ups of the fight game?

For example, does Frazier's win over Ali get downgraded by historians who like to talk about The Thrilla rather than The FOTC. Is Ali a sacred cow who is somehow beyond reproach?

Do most poeple put Ray Robinson as #1 p4p because they think they have to rather than because they've actually taken time to consider the merits of other candidates?

Looking forward to hearing some of your thoughts...

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 10 Apr 2006, 10:54

I agree, Fraziers win against Ali in 1971 is somewhat overshadowed by the 1975 Ali fight in Manila. However, I think the Foreman losses, especially the first go more against Frazier than his 2 defeats by Ali.
As for top P4P fighter, the only fighter id be tempted to pick over Robinson is Sam Langford, considering he fought his way through the lower weight divisions to become the best HW of his day barring Jack Johnson.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Apr 2006, 11:14

dr_devious wrote:I agree, Fraziers win against Ali in 1971 is somewhat overshadowed by the 1975 Ali fight in Manila. However, I think the Foreman losses, especially the first go more against Frazier than his 2 defeats by Ali.
As for top P4P fighter, the only fighter id be tempted to pick over Robinson is Sam Langford, considering he fought his way through the lower weight divisions to become the best HW of his day barring Jack Johnson.

devious,

fair points...

I'm not just interested in these 2 examples. I just picked these to illustrate my sacred cow idea. Any others you feel history shines a little too brightly upon?

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 10 Apr 2006, 11:26

Its a good topic Ezzard. I never understood how Willie Pep has always been ranked higher than Sandy Saddler despite dropping 3 out of 4 to him. Pep may be the only fighter in history to lose 3 out of 4 to another fighter and still be ranked by historians higher than the guy he lost to. History has also been kind to Willie even though he is suspected of doing the old flip - flop in a couple of fights also. Also some of the old time historians marvel at how Pep in one fight managed to win a round without throwing a punch. Im not real impressed with that. Who the hell was refereeing that fight? Dont get me wrong , I think Willie was a great fighter but History has been very kind to him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 12:43

its because pep was past his prime for all the saddler fights

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 10 Apr 2006, 12:44

expug wrote:Its a good topic Ezzard. I never understood how Willie Pep has always been ranked higher than Sandy Saddler despite dropping 3 out of 4 to him. Pep may be the only fighter in history to lose 3 out of 4 to another fighter and still be ranked by historians higher than the guy he lost to. History has also been kind to Willie even though he is suspected of doing the old flip - flop in a couple of fights also. Also some of the old time historians marvel at how Pep in one fight managed to win a round without throwing a punch. Im not real impressed with that. Who the hell was refereeing that fight? Dont get me wrong , I think Willie was a great fighter but History has been very kind to him.

The thing is that Pep had already been champ for about 6+ years and was on the slide when he lost to Saddler...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 10 Apr 2006, 12:48

Ezzard wrote:History has a way of casting some in glory and others in misery. There are many reasons for this, but who are the boxers who have benefitted the most from historical write ups of the fight game?

For example, does Frazier's win over Ali get downgraded by historians who like to talk about The Thrilla rather than The FOTC. Is Ali a sacred cow who is somehow beyond reproach?

Do most poeple put Ray Robinson as #1 p4p because they think they have to rather than because they've actually taken time to consider the merits of other candidates?

Looking forward to hearing some of your thoughts...

I'll probably get hell from some quarters for saying this, but I always thought that Marciano is rather overrated by some in this sort of context... theres a lot of myth about him whereas champs like Tunney and Charles are more or less forgotten yet were better fighters imo...
Regarding Robinson I wouldn't say he was overrated really having seen a lot of his fights and looked at his record etc... though Greb, Ali and Armstrong are right up there with him p4p imo....

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:32

Robinson and Ali are not overhyped in my opinion. I'm not as sure about Marciano. The key to the Ali Frazier trilogy lies more in the second fight where Ali simply took him totaly seriously and did his thing and dominated albeit in a "non exciting" way. He always had the tools to do that. but in both the first and third fight he wanted to "showboat" and it cost him dearly in both fights. He truly thought in the Thrilla that he had a worn out Frazier on his hands and didnt realize until about the 4th or 5th round that in fact Frazier was comin with the goods. By then he had spent a lot of his energy by trying to get laughs using foolish tactics including the "rope a dope" a very very very foolish thing to to with a sharpshooting body puncher like Joe.

How can anyone look at tapes of Ali or Robinson at there best and think for a moment of them as "over" hyped. They had astounding skills. If Ali would have been a "no nonsense" personality it might have been even more jaw dropping of a career. Marciano on the other hand had grit but I would have liked to have seen him hang in there for a few more years to see a more "complete" and thus more easy to analyze career.

Ezzard suffered terribly in perceptions a result of the "Marciano Media Express". I've said earlier that I think Pryor was overhyped. Gatti may fall in that catagory to but we all love the courage the guy has. Maybe Lamotta was overhyped...unless being able to "take it" is an art form. In which case maybe not.

Tyson appears to me to lose luster as time passes. How fair that is I'm not sure I"m trying not to let his later efforts cloud his accomplishments but it has been difficult for me.

Duran deserves his good press as does Tommy Hearns. Sugar Ray looks better to me through the lens of time as well but I think many would say he was overhyped. Sometimes I think Hagler might have been as well. But all of these names are spectacular fighters.

I'm neutral on Lewis, and Holyfield at this point.

Underhyped....Ezzard, Archie, Burley Foster maybe Monzon (not in central or south america)....a host of others. Bowe? Maybe but he had a bizarre career that is difficult to assess.

I'm only addressing the most recognizable names here. If you go into the lesser known fighters the list of under appreciated gets miles long.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:38

lot of myth and bull**** surrounding jack johnson.he could be the most overrated heavyweight champ in history.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:42

I'll probably get hell from some quarters for saying this, but I always thought that Marciano is rather overrated by some in this sort of context... theres a lot of myth about him whereas champs like Tunney and Charles are more or less forgotten yet were better fighters imo...

i respectfully disagree, marciano was a better heavyweight than both IMO.

in 3 fight series between marciano and charles, i favor rocky 2-1. rocky defintley has trouble matching up vs charles which is why i favor charles to win one.

Marciano on the other hand had grit but I would have liked to have seen him hang in there for a few more years to see a more "complete" and thus more easy to analyze career.

so would I, but he had his reasons for retiring. dont forget when marciano retired, he was almost 33.

marciano fought walcott, charles, moore, lastarza old louis, how can we not analysize him from these matches? archie brought his A game when he fought marciano.

i dont see how his career isnt completle enough. he beat 4 hall of famers, beat the best fighters of his era, and never lost.

what exactley are u looking for to analysize? what kind of opponent did rocky not beat that you would like to analysize him against.

would it make u feel that much better to see marciano wipe out a 21 year old patterson, eddie machen, bob baker, hurricane jackson and then in 1958 a 35 year old over the hill rocky get flattened by a peak sonny liston?

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:49

some can't get over the 0 in marcianos record.one of the FEW fighters to recognise when to get out.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:50

Riddick Bowe. Besides the three fights with Holyfield he and his management did a great job of avoiding anybody who was a threat. After getting beateb up by Lewis in the Olympics, the media machine turned him into the next coming of Joe Louis, without him ever facing a top HW. Look at his record and try to find 3 world class opponents besides Holy.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:51

i think jack johnson's accomplishments are vastly overated. he never fought the 3 best contenders of his era during his title reign sam mcvey, sam langford, joe jeanette.

also instead of taking on some of the top white hopes like luther mccarthy, gunboat smith, etc he took on guys like fireman flynn, tony ross. the only legite white hope he fought was willard and he lost.

joe jeanette got closer and closer with johnson every time they fought. its not out of the blue to think a prime joe jeanette might have beaten jack.

i favor jack highly head to head, and think he would have beat langford, mcvey, jeanette.

however, he never fought them when they were in there primes or in langfords case heavier. and quite frankly his title opposition is not something to be proud of. burns and ketchell were great fighters, but they were not real heavyweights.

jack johnsons title reign is a big dissapointment considering how many great fighters he missed out on fighting during that period.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:51

dalek wrote:some can't get over the 0 in marcianos record.one of the FEW fighters to recognise when to get out.

i would rather see marciano living a healthy after life, rather than stay 4 years too long and take unessecary punishment and end up punchy.

i agree

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:56

I really didn't speak to my Marciano doubts with great conviction, Your points are pretty strong one's BB. I do know just that like Ali, Marciano did have an express train of media hype. Sorting the facts out from that is hard for anyone. I guess what your saying is that he was equally deserving of his pro media blitz as Ali or Robinson were/are.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Apr 2006, 13:59

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:jack johnsons title reign is a big dissapointment considering how many great fighters he missed out on fighting during that period.

As great as I think JJ was, I have to agree. Of course in his defense, his title reign was complicated greatly by the racial tensions and trumped up Mann act charges that forced him to flee the country.

Arsenal · Post by **Arsenal** » 10 Apr 2006, 14:02

BoxBuzz wrote:Robinson and Ali are not overhyped in my opinion. I'm not as sure about Marciano. The key to the Ali Frazier trilogy lies more in the second fight where Ali simply took him totaly seriously and did his thing and dominated albeit in a "non exciting" way. He always had the tools to do that. but in both the first and third fight he wanted to "showboat" and it cost him dearly in both fights. He truly thought in the Thrilla that he had a worn out Frazier on his hands and didnt realize until about the 4th or 5th round that in fact Frazier was comin with the goods. By then he had spent a lot of his energy by trying to get laughs using foolish tactics including the "rope a dope" a very very very foolish thing to to with a sharpshooting body puncher like Joe.

How can anyone look at tapes of Ali or Robinson at there best and think for a moment of them as "over" hyped. They had astounding skills. If Ali would have been a "no nonsense" personality it might have been even more jaw dropping of a career. Marciano on the other hand had grit but I would have liked to have seen him hang in there for a few more years to see a more "complete" and thus more easy to analyze career.

Ezzard suffered terribly in perceptions a result of the "Marciano Media Express". I've said earlier that I think Pryor was overhyped. Gatti may fall in that catagory to but we all love the courage the guy has. Maybe Lamotta was overhyped...unless being able to "take it" is an art form. In which case maybe not.

Tyson appears to me to lose luster as time passes. How fair that is I'm not sure I"m trying not to let his later efforts cloud his accomplishments but it has been difficult for me.

Duran deserves his good press as does Tommy Hearns. Sugar Ray looks better to me through the lens of time as well but I think many would say he was overhyped. Sometimes I think Hagler might have been as well. But all of these names are spectacular fighters.

I'm neutral on Lewis, and Holyfield at this point.

Underhyped....Ezzard, Archie, Burley Foster maybe Monzon (not in central or south america)....a host of others. Bowe? Maybe but he had a bizarre career that is difficult to assess.

I'm only addressing the most recognizable names here. If you go into the lesser known fighters the list of under appreciated gets miles long.

Good post aprt from the mention of Hagler. Without doubt deserves his praise after the time he had whilst he boxed.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 14:03

rocky is one of those guys you can say "he did it" rather than "he shoulda, coulda, woulda done it." for his time, rocky accomplished as much as you can.

so the only think you can harp on rocky being overated for is in head to head matchups.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 14:07

wut about riddick bowe? u never see him in the top 20 even though he won his trilogy with evander holyfield. the fact bowe didnt fight lennox and people think he ducked lennox is a big reason why he is not rated highly.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 14:12

boxbuzz,

my ordered archie moore fights came in. i watched with my father

archie vs billy smith 1946
archie vs harold johnson V 1954
archie vs jimmy bivins II 1947
archie vs james J parker 1956
archie vs embrell davidson 1951

let me tell u, me and my dad dispelled the archie myth that he was better in the 1940s. archie moore looked better in the harold johnson fight 1954 then in any of his 1940s fights. archie was just as fast, except smarter, stronger.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 Apr 2006, 14:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:wut about riddick bowe? u never see him in the top 20 even though he won his trilogy with evander holyfield. the fact bowe didnt fight lennox and people think he ducked lennox is a big reason why he is not rated highly.

Look beyond the Holyfield trilogy and you don't really find anything else in his entire career. He didn't just avoid LL, he avoided anybody that was a threat. I think the only reason he took the Holyfield fight was because it was the gold ring.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Apr 2006, 14:24

perhaps the bowe fights degrade holyfields legacy. then again, holyfield most likely woulda won the 3rd fight if he didnt have hepatitus.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 10 Apr 2006, 16:16

Bowe definately had the tools to be an all time great... his weakness was his liking for the fridge and also a poor defense.....

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 10 Apr 2006, 18:50

Wow Brockton...what are the chances of getting DVD copies of those? Be glad to pay in advance.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 10 Apr 2006, 19:45

How about Jimmy Wilde? I admit to a certain ignorance in regards to top flyweight fighters of the time, but when I look at Jimmy's career I see that most of those KOs that line his record are against European fighters. Were these opponents that good? How many world ranked flyweights did he conquer? Did he wipe out a strong division?

Boxing's biggest sacred cow

Boxing's biggest sacred cow

Re: Boxing's biggest sacred cow