Boxing Revisionist History at it's worst/best.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 12 Sep 2007, 17:37

Ok....the resurgence of the Cooper thread gave me a thought to start a thread of this nature. Name the greatest "disinformation train" that rolls through these hallowed halls of the BOTP forum, or through Boxing in General.

For example the rumor is that the Louisville Lip had a day and a half to rest after his KD by H'nry's Hammer thus stealing certain victory from the rugged Brit.

I would give a five star rating to the this following disinfo piece.

Carnera was genuine championship material perhaps competitive in any era. (Help BoxBuzz and the truth squad stamp out this vicious rumor)

theone · Post by **theone** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:18

Good ones Buzz, Here's five of my own:

1. The combacking Foreman was better than prime Foreman, who was nothing but a wild swinging brawler with no stamina.
2. Ezzard Charles had somehow regained prime form when he fought Marciano the first time and no other fighter would have beaten him that night.
3. Roy Jones was always a china chinned fighter who would have been taken out by any past great once they landed a big shot.
4.Tyson and Hamed were complete frauds who never beat any fighter of substance, and would have lost to any decent fighter that tried hard enough.
5. Leonard unfairly had all the advantages against Hagler when they fought.

markl · Post by **markl** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:48

Tyson was shot and the Holyfield that people thought would die in the ring was in his prime.

Sonny Liston had no heart.

Chavez was spent when a past his prime Whitaker schooled him.

Ike Ibeabuchi would have easily been a dominant champion if he wasn't a nut case.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 12 Sep 2007, 19:07

Ali's whole career seems to be subject to a disinformation train, but we've been over that in other threads.

Leonard being afraid of Pryor I think is one that has become prevelant, though not in this forum. Leonard was not afraid of Pryor when he fought Duran, Hearns and Hagler. It was about money.

Floyd Patterson is sometimes described like he was an ordinary fighter, which I think is nonsense. He was a great fighter. And though he had struggles I would attribute that to the fact that he was not a natural Heavyweight, he started out at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight.

Duran did low blow Buchanan, but it was not unprovoked. Buchanan hit Duran after the bell.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 12 Sep 2007, 19:10

Rocky Marciano was nothing more than an over hyped Cruiserweight with exaggerated punching power and was easy to hit, nothing more than a Neanderthal with no concept of boxing whatsoever.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 12 Sep 2007, 19:37

HomicideHenry wrote:Rocky Marciano was nothing more than an over hyped Cruiserweight with exaggerated punching power and was easy to hit, nothing more than a Neanderthal with no concept of boxing whatsoever.

Nonsense....Neanderthal's had long arms

theone · Post by **theone** » 12 Sep 2007, 20:36

Rocky Marciano was nothing more than an over hyped Cruiserweight with exaggerated punching power and was easy to hit, nothing more than a Neanderthal with no concept of boxing whatsoever.

Well, I'm pretty sure he had some concept of boxing.

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 12 Sep 2007, 20:46

1. Trinidad used cast as handwraps his whole career.
2. Juan Manuel Marquez is straight.
3. Sonny Liston had an accomplished career
4. Hopkins is a great fighter
5. Roy Jones Jr has a glass jaw.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 12 Sep 2007, 21:13

Alabama_Man wrote: 3. Sonny Liston had an accomplished career
4. Hopkins is a great fighter

Some nice disinformation right here.

Edit: I'm thinking this response might have been a little ambiguous... I'm disagreeing with alabama, of course.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 12 Sep 2007, 21:55

That Trinidad rumour was interesting. Sort of like what Harris is accusing Witter of. I imagine Witter will have to live with a future "honorable mention" in this thread in 10 years.

markl · Post by **markl** » 13 Sep 2007, 00:41

That Vitaly klitchko actually beat Lewis

markl · Post by **markl** » 13 Sep 2007, 01:32

Decagon wrote:
markl wrote:That Vitaly klitchko actually beat Lewis
And Chris Byrd. I don't know why people get their panties in such a wad for someone whose best victories were over Corrie Sanders, Danny Williams and Kirk Johnson.

I spent about an hour last week with someone telling me that frazier would be destroyed by Quitaly in less then 2 rounds.

No "champion" has done less then him. Christ, Rahman ran him out of the sport.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 13 Sep 2007, 01:38

..that archie moore would have beaten ezzard charles if theyhad fought again and archie really won their second fight...

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 Sep 2007, 15:05

Decagon wrote:
markl wrote:That Vitaly klitchko actually beat Lewis
And Chris Byrd. I don't know why people get their panties in such a wad for someone whose best victories were over Corrie Sanders, Danny Williams and Kirk Johnson.

An interesting contrast. I'll let the footage speak for itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rLdggqtaWw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY1jzjTjIhY

TamTam · Post by **TamTam** » 13 Sep 2007, 16:54

1. Whitaker v Chavez is one of the worst robberies of all-time.
2. If he didn't go to jail, Ibeabuchi would have reigned for ten years.
3. Titles in 50 different divisional belts are worth more than long reigns of dominance over one.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 13 Sep 2007, 18:48

Decagon wrote:
Jaclem wrote:..that archie moore would have beaten ezzard charles if theyhad fought again and archie really won their second fight...
... and only lost their third bout on a fluke.

I was hoping that absolute facts would not be confused with creative revisionism.....however I see this is all digressing faster than the Japanese Bullet Train.

If this nightmare continues the next thing that will happen is that someone will say "Aaron Pryor is an unquestionable legendary all time great."

Ok...maybe that couldn't happen but you get my point.

markl · Post by **markl** » 13 Sep 2007, 19:30

The mythical ducking of Mike Mccallum by Duran,Hearns,Leonard & Hagler is sure to come up once in a while.

Even though the "ducking" took place when Mike was unknown and they were facing each other.

theone · Post by **theone** » 13 Sep 2007, 19:32

The mythical ducking of Mike Mccallum by Duran,Hearns,Leonard & Hagler is sure to come up once in a while.

Even though the "ducking" took place when Mike was unknown and they were facing each other.

Damn...I wish i thought of this one.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:13

theone wrote:
The mythical ducking of Mike Mccallum by Duran,Hearns,Leonard & Hagler is sure to come up once in a while.

Even though the "ducking" took place when Mike was unknown and they were facing each other.
Damn...I wish i thought of this one.

Yes, that old chestnut comes up in here every few months.

Another one that has been slipped in once or twice is that Bert Gilroy deserves to be ranked higher than Ken Buchanan on a 'Best Scots boxer of All time'list.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:17

Decagon wrote:Off topic, but has anyone read Thomas Cahill? He wrote How the Irish Saved Civilization and The Gift of the Jews. Now THAT'S revisionist history.

I assume both are comedies...

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:41

Decagon wrote:They're serious non-fiction. Just written by a hack. Lots of intelligent people have fallen for his crap.

A lot of the people who attend David Icke seminars are professionals. He tells them the world is being run secretly by a race of shape shifting alien lizards..................... at $100 a time.

Still, the title of those 2 books suggest Icke's stories are probably more based on fact than they would be...

donnellon · Post by **donnellon** » 14 Sep 2007, 07:41

Decagon wrote:They're serious non-fiction. Just written by a hack. Lots of intelligent people have fallen for his crap.

Not you, though!!

barry · Post by **barry** » 16 Sep 2007, 14:34

The worst in my opinion is:

Modern boxers are far more superior in nearly ever aspect to early fighters!! Simply not true!!

Another, which is something that has a following of 50/50 in whether fact, or fiction is that the Joe Gans-Terry McGovern bout was a fake. I was in the percent who believed it to be a fake, that is until I actually watched the fight, and after watching the match countless times I think the bout was as legit as it gets and that McGovern beat Gans fair, square and in a very brutal manner!!!

Also the myth about Willie Pep winning a round against Jackie Graves, who was a hell of a fighter known for throwing many punches, without throwing a single punch!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Sep 2007, 15:00

barry wrote:The worst in my opinion is:

Modern boxers are far more superior in nearly ever aspect to early fighters!! Simply not true!!

Another, which is something that has a following of 50/50 in whether fact, or fiction is that the Joe Gans-Terry McGovern bout was a fake. I was in the percent who believed it to be a fake, that is until I actually watched the fight, and after watching the match countless times I think the bout was as legit as it gets and that McGovern beat Gans fair, square and in a very brutal manner!!!

Also the myth about Willie Pep winning a round against Jackie Graves, who was a hell of a fighter known for throwing many punches, without throwing a single punch!

barry regarding the Old fighters vs new fighters aspect I have posted much on this subject mostly in humor. However it seems that most people would at lease INTUIT that on average it must be evolving.....at least at the "best of the best" level. All new fighters have access to all the old films. all the old writings, all the old "tricks that work and tricks that don't cultural stuff that has been passed on through the ages. Nutrition knowledge is better, gym hardware is better designed, there is greater knowledge about how to bring your body to peak performance levels in so many ways. So the current fighter AT LEAST has every advantage over his ancestors.

With that said the only thing that might be missing from today's average fighter is the difference in motivation regarding perceptions about boxing and the "eye of the tiger" in each individual fighter. Even genetics is working in the new fighters favor as people are getting bigger and perhaps stronger ever so slightly with each generation.

So if you don't believe they are progressing can you explain why? Is it really just lack of attitude? One thing certainly working against the new fighter is the amount of potential and easily available diversions. Is that what's holding the new guys back in your opinion?

barry · Post by **barry** » 16 Sep 2007, 15:12

Honestly one of the very few things superior about today's fighters is nutrition and technology!

The biggest percentage of today's fighters lack the same kind of heart, the same drive, the same will to win at all costs, durability and a slew of other aspects and even with the superior technology that today's fighters have they still greatly lack in terms of conditioning compared to the old fighters. Especially heavyweights.

Today a heavyweight comes in to a fight, most of the time, 20+ pounds overweight just for the sake of size whereas the biggest percentage of early heavyweights were trained down to where they had very, very little fat on their bodies, which most were smaller than today's heavyweights in terms of pounds, but in actuality, extra pounds are little advantage. Speed is one of the best assets a fighter can have and today's heavyweight lack the same kind of speed that earlier fighters have due to the added pounds.

It looks like today's fighters would be far superior to early fighters in terms of conditioning, but with the exception of a few of today's fighters, most have difficult even going ten rounds, which is really sad with all of the added advantages in conditioning that we have today.

Boxing Revisionist History at it's worst/best.

Boxing Revisionist History at it's worst/best.

re

Re: re

re