BoxRec

This has something to do with punditry but more on the often ludicrous view of three ringsiders seated in baby chairs and just about everything on Britain's reluctant heavyweight hope Joe Bugner (later Australia's reluctant heavyweight hope). Bugner was riding the crest of a wave in 1977 when he made his way to Las Vegas for a big fight with Ron Lyle. Joe had flattened Richard Dunn in the first round of his previous encounter (you could get odds of 100/1 on Joe winning in the first) and the forgiving British boxing public anticipated another impressive win over the respected but ageing Lyle in their 12-rounder and then a second crack at the world heavyweight title. Bugner was all over the tabloids.
However, Lyle really got stuck into Joe, pushing him back to the ropes and working him over. Bugner was nothing if not durable and he soaked it all up and responded with a few arm punches here and there, with nothing. Mickey Duff was the between-rounds pundit for BBC radio on the night and had Joe losing by a street because everyone had him losing by a street - well, almost everyone. At the time, American-TV was sporadically (and experimentally) revealing the scores of the judges to the TV audience and at the end of the eighth round, Duff caught a glimpse of the scores on a TV monitor and the judges had the fight dead level. He rushed over to Bugner's corner and yelled the information to the fighter. It was the kind of information that would lift anyone in the same situation, anyone except our man. Lyle carried on attacking and Joe carried on surviving. The decision went to the man who wanted it.

I wonder how much the Foreman fight took out of Lyle? He'd already lived a life by then too, of course. Still must have been a seriously intimidating opponent for the big but gentle Bugner.

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑28 Nov 2020, 10:15

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑28 Nov 2020, 05:39

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑28 Nov 2020, 04:13 In one of the Wilder fights while hyping a unification the US broadcaster had a stat on screen saying there hasn't been an undisputed heavyweight champion since Mike Tyson.

Actually there's been Douglas, Holyfield, Bowe and Lewis!

I suppose there's a counter argument to that in that the WBO at some point was recognised by most as one of the big belts. Douglas, Holyfield and Lewis never held that belt and Bowe didn't have it at the same time as he had the others. It didn't exist until 1989 so Tyson was technically the last undisputed champ in the eyes of those who recognise the WBO as legit

Only if you retroactively elevate the WBO to major belt status, which is obviously absurd. It was the second-tier heavyweight belt throughout the 1990s, as a whole mountain of contemporaneous media evidences.

Nelson spoke total sense on IFL today. Rubbished hype trains, matchmaking etc.... Kugan really should have just said “what about Sky?”.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2020, 11:51 Nelson spoke total sense on IFL today. Rubbished hype trains, matchmaking etc.... Kugan really should have just said “what about Sky?”.

Yh.. called BT a bullshît machine..

What does that make Sky?

This is why I think they need a balance in punditry and analysis.

It's alright saying that certain journalists have never boxed so they have nothing to offer etc but there is a place for everyone, or you end up with Lennox Lewis (an esteemed former heavyweight champion and all-round legend, no doubt) winging it on PBC when two bantamweights were fighting.

He had absolutely zero knowledge of either and couldn't even pronounce the one guy's name. Same when Froch is picking a winner and goes for one fella cause "I've never heard of the other guy" or cannot name a single bantamweight during the Butler-Rodriguez fight when Bean asked him who was number one in the division.

Let him comment on the technique, nuances, shifts in momentum, tactics by all means but have a nerd in to give the background and context on who we are watching. Simples.