Boxing misconceptions that bug me

gensu3k1 · Post by **gensu3k1** » 29 Jun 2003, 15:26

1. "Ray Mancini vs. Duk-Koo Kim was a mismatch."

Mancini probably wasn't even the best lightweight in the world at the time, and Kim was certainly top 15. And it was perfect matchmaking: two sluggers with near identical physical dimensions and styles, one orthodox and the other a southpaw. The first 10 rounds were as evenly matched as boxing gets, with both fighters giving everything they had and trading rounds. While Mancini turned the tide and controlled the 11th, 12th and 13th, it was never clear that Kim was out of the fight and there were no obvious signs that he was in trouble. A few shots of Kim in his corner seemed to show him in some distress, but there wasn't anything that occurred in the ring that made it clear that the fight should be stopped. Fighters die; it's a brutal sport.

2. "Robinson-LaMotta VI was one-sided."

I don't know how it happened, but everyone seems to have forgotten that Jake dominated the early rounds against Robinson. The biggest reason for his loss was Robinson's greater endurance (perhaps due to LaMotta's struggle to make weight). Without question, Jake took a horrific beating late in the fight, but it was not a one-sided fight.

3. "Liston was knocked out by a phantom punch in the second Ali fight."

A phantom punch is one that doesn't really land, or never even existed. Ali clearly caught Liston with a quick counter. Whether it was powerful enough to KO Liston is debateable (I don't think it was hard enough), but it was NO phantom.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 29 Jun 2003, 15:57

gensu3k1 wrote:3. "Liston was knocked out by a phantom punch in the second Ali fight."
A phantom punch is one that doesn't really land, or never even existed. Ali clearly caught Liston with a quick counter. Whether it was powerful enough to KO Liston is debateable (I don't think it was hard enough), but it was NO phantom.

That punch wouldn't have knocked out a 12 year old girl...

gensu3k1 · Post by **gensu3k1** » 29 Jun 2003, 16:28

Tantum wrote:
gensu3k1 wrote:3. "Liston was knocked out by a phantom punch in the second Ali fight."
A phantom punch is one that doesn't really land, or never even existed. Ali clearly caught Liston with a quick counter. Whether it was powerful enough to KO Liston is debateable (I don't think it was hard enough), but it was NO phantom.
That punch wouldn't have knocked out a 12 year old girl...

Sigh...... BUT IT'S STILL NOT A PHANTOM PUNCH!

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 29 Jun 2003, 16:50

They call it a phantom punch, because the Ali camp claimed it was the punch before that one that did it... what punch?

SugarRoyRobinson · Post by **SugarRoyRobinson** » 29 Jun 2003, 16:55

Not a phantom punch, but I watched it in slow motion and it kind of grazed from the temple slightly more down. Overall it did not hit the jaw. But Ali often hit like that and punches to the temple are always a bit strange. He was not in a position to hook him to the jaw cleanly and was too close to make the punch look harder.

That punch wouldn't have knocked out a 12 year old girl...

If she was standing on a book, tilted her head to the right and twisted her upper body into the punch while holding her mouth wide open, it would knock her unconscious.

That's a bit sexist though.

[/quote]

Dutch Windmill · Post by **Dutch Windmill** » 29 Jun 2003, 16:57

SugarRoyRobinson wrote: If she was standing on a book, tilted her head to the right and twisted her upper body into the punch while holding her mouth wide open, it would knock her unconscious.

That's a bit sexist though.

Sexist? More Dave Hilton-ist

SugarRoyRobinson · Post by **SugarRoyRobinson** » 29 Jun 2003, 17:13

I think he'd do more than punch her.

Before any Hilton-fans flame me, it's only a very, very distasteful joke.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 12 Jul 2003, 00:42

back to the topic:

misconception....."all billy conn had to do was stay on his feet for three more rounds after the 12th."

zojo · Post by **zojo** » 12 Jul 2003, 03:53

About number 3:

A buddy of mine (who is one of the most honest person I know) was in Lewiston at the fight. He said with out a doubt Liston took a dive. He was right there near the front of the arena and said he saw NO punch before Sonny went down.

Dave1armedTua · Post by **Dave1armedTua** » 12 Jul 2003, 04:05

And that's why we video tape fights so when peoiple at ringside miss things we can point them out.

It still doesnt change the fact that it was weaker than a jab and Liston took a dive though.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 12 Jul 2003, 11:31

Dave1armedTua wrote:It still doesnt change the fact that it was weaker than a jab and Liston took a dive though.

I bet Timmy Austin has landed harder jabs.

Bladder · Post by **Bladder** » 12 Jul 2003, 12:55

terap wrote:2. "Robinson-LaMotta VI was one-sided."

It may have been.

In the "dream" world.

Because they only fought 5 times.

WRONG

Robinson-LaMotta fought 6 times

Dutch Windmill · Post by **Dutch Windmill** » 12 Jul 2003, 15:55

terap wrote:Good for you.

RING RECORD BOOK

They fought

October 2, 1942

February 5, 1943

February 26, 1943

February 23, 1945

September 26, 1945

February 14, 1951

1.2.....aargh lost count
1.2..3. WTF
Somebody please tell me how many times they fought!

Bladder · Post by **Bladder** » 12 Jul 2003, 16:55

terap wrote:Good for you.

RING RECORD BOOK

They fought

October 2, 1942

February 5, 1943

February 26, 1943

February 23, 1945

September 26, 1945

February 14, 1951

No problem.

Happy to have educated you.

gensu3k1 · Post by **gensu3k1** » 14 Jul 2003, 18:43

terap wrote:Good for you.

Is this your smug way of admitting you were wrong? If you're gonna be a jerk when you try to correct someon ("'dream' world), at least be a little apologetic when you are shown to have been wrong.

Lopman · Post by **Lopman** » 27 Jul 2003, 14:43

Jaclem wrote:back to the topic:

misconception....."all billy conn had to do was stay on his feet for three more rounds after the 12th."

Yup, that's a misconception. If Louis won ALL three rounds he could actually win. Louis was more in the fight than people realise.

Then again, if Billy Conn kept up what he was doing he would have won, as I say in my site.

Lopman · Post by **Lopman** » 27 Jul 2003, 14:44

terap wrote:a.

You too, terap.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 27 Jul 2003, 16:26

lopman...yes, if Conn had kept to the style he showed in his winning rounds he MIGHT have won the fight. But...the 12th was his most impressive round...by moving in and out and attacking, which gave him the confidence to go on thr attack again. Another but....I'm not so sure he COULD have gone on with his earlier style....I think the footwork might have been gone...he took a terrific battering to the body in the early rounds. It's a "we'll never know for sure" speculation, but my take on the fight is that Louis simply caught up with him and when he did Conn made a mistake that lasted no longer than a nanosecond and which was all Louis ever needed to land the one punch that stunned and started the barrage.

Regardless....no one can take away the great acheivement that Conn demonstrated in that fight.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 28 Jul 2003, 00:26

terap...there are times when I think I'm alone in my assessment of the louis/conn fight....but rarely....as now for example, someone agrees with me.

a real study of joe louis shows that just when he looked at his worst he was most dangerous. he has said he told his corner he'd knock conn out in the next round (the 13th) and he was the most honest of men and i believe him. he also, (as i wrote some other place here) was the essence of calm after he did win and said to his trainer, the cigar chewing manny seamon..."how many seegars did you swallow, manny)...not the words of a guy who felt he narrowly avoided defeat.

the more I look at that knockout the more I marvel at Conn's chin.

gensu3k1 · Post by **gensu3k1** » 29 Jul 2003, 14:06

(Legitimate boxing = EIGHT weight classes----::

I understand why people complain about the huge number of weight classes, but I really think the strawweight division is legitimate. It's a 7 pound jump from strawweight to flyweight, which is even greater than the jump from flyweight to bantamweight.

Also, even though a lot of the fighters bulk up to fight in the heavyweight division, I think the Cruiserweight division is legitimate as well. There is a difference between the best 190 pound fighters and the best heavyweights (who are usually 220 and up).

So I think at a minimum that there should be 10 divisions.

Boxing misconceptions that bug me

Boxing misconceptions that bug me

Re: Boxing misconceptions that bug me

Re: Boxing misconceptions that bug me