Great examples of boxing revisionism!

[thepocketrocket]

Now I am getting older I am able to remember fights from 'back in the day' and sometimes I realise that the an element of revisionism is used to bull up their achievments in certain fights, when in fact, at the time, what was being achieved was not seen as that spectacular.Here are some examples.

Hamed-Kelley contemarary logic- Kelley past it and has done very little recent years...good name for Hamed's debut but not really that competetive.

Hamed-Kelley now- Hamed goes over to the states and beats the great Kelley...one of the best performances of his career.

Lewis-Tyson contemparary logic- Years too late...if Tyson lands Lewis could go...but he isn't likely to land as he is old and shot

Lewis-Tyson now- Lewis cleans up his era making him one of the best ever (missing the fact that Tyson and Holy were past their sell by date)

Calzaghe-Brewer contemarary logic- Brewer shot to shit and chinny as fook, when will Calzaghe step up?

Calzaghe-Brewer now-What a war, Cazlaghe shows the heart that makes him a champion against muderous puncher Brewer.

This does get me wondering what things were in boxing's golden era? Have the stories been embellished? Have fighters been given more credit than their resume demands???

Has anyone got any other examples?

[chinny]

Good thread. The one you mention about Lewis cleaning up the division is definitely true. He spent an awful lot of his career as an outsider politically and it really is only in retrospect that fighting the established system seems like a good move.

I think revisionism has been very unkind to Naseem. That run he had until getting beat - narrowly albeit convincingly - was incredible and versus very un mr legedley opposition by and large.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Now I am getting older I am able to remember fights from 'back in the day' and sometimes I realise that the an element of revisionism is used to bull up their achievments in certain fights, when in fact, at the time, what was being achieved was not seen as that spectacular.Here are some examples.

Hamed-Kelley contemarary logic- Kelley past it and has done very little recent years...good name for Hamed's debut but not really that competetive.

Hamed-Kelley now- Hamed goes over to the states and beats the great Kelley...one of the best performances of his career.

Lewis-Tyson contemparary logic- Years too late...if Tyson lands Lewis could go...but he isn't likely to land as he is old and shot

Lewis-Tyson now- Lewis cleans up his era making him one of the best ever (missing the fact that Tyson and Holy were past their sell by date)

Calzaghe-Brewer contemarary logic- Brewer shot to shit and chinny as fook, when will Calzaghe step up?

Calzaghe-Brewer now-What a war, Cazlaghe shows the heart that makes him a champion against muderous puncher Brewer.

This does get me wondering what things were in boxing's golden era? Have the stories been embellished? Have fighters been given more credit than their resume demands???

Has anyone got any other examples?

Do you consider that boxings 'golden era'?

[oliverfennell]

Great thread, especially as when we talk about revisionism it's usually because a win is discredited after the event (a la Calzaghe-Lacy), so this is looking at the other side of the coin.

However, I disagree with Lewis-Tyson. At the time it was seen as a good fight, with Tyson still highly ranked and fans and press split as to who would win. It was also pitched by Lewis himself as his final chapter in "clearing up" the division. It was only after Lewis won easily that people started saying it had been a mismatch all along,

[thepocketrocket]

Nah, I was meaning the 40's and 50's! The supposedly great times when fighters fought every day ect...I wonder if there is some 80 year old going 'hang on, lets not get too carried away here'.

Read a thirty year old article on Minter-Hagler (written the week after) and it made it clear that Minter was the favourite...Hagler had questionale stamina and Minter would take over later on....now the fight is seen as a mismatch...and in a way, rather than lauding Hagler, that denigrates what he did.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Nah, I was meaning the 40's and 50's! The supposedly great times when fighters fought every day ect...I wonder if there is some 80 year old going 'hang on, lets not get too carried away here'.

Read a thirty year old article on Minter-Hagler (written the week after) and it made it clear that Minter was the favourite...Hagler had questionale stamina and Minter would take over later on....now the fight is seen as a mismatch...and in a way, rather than lauding Hagler, that denigrates what he did.

Four world titles, cherry picked world title defences, boxing cleared off terrestrial TV and could only be seen on satellite/cable with pay per view coming into play, boxing coverage being eradicated from the national press. Sure - the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s were Babylonia in comparison. Unless you were sperm on the milkmans underpants in those days and you don't know any better.

[greenyox3]

Hopkins v De La Hoya contemporary logic - De La Hoya was fighting way above his weight class, and was extremely fortunate to hold a title at MW in the first place after a questionable decision win over Sturm. Went down from an innocuous-looking left body shot.

Hopkins v De La Hoya now - Hopkins takes down DLH with a viscous left hook to the liver, establishing him as the undisputed king of the MW division having beaten all competitors.

[thepocketrocket]

Was meaning more fighters resumes....was there some Yank in the 30's going....oh, Joe Louis will smash up Schmelling in about two rounds, he should never have lost the first time round and Max is older now....cue today 'greatest performance ever'.

The proliferation of titles is bent, I agree, that wasn't my point!!

[thepocketrocket]

Hopkins v De La Hoya contemporary logic - De La Hoya was fighting way above his weight class, and was extremely fortunate to hold a title at MW in the first place after a questionable decision win over Sturm. Went down from an innocuous-looking left body shot.

Hopkins v De La Hoya now - Hopkins takes down DLH with a viscous left hook to the liver, establishing him as the undisputed king of the MW division having beaten all competitors.

Exactly my point...I remmber very little interest in this fight!

[oliverfennell]

Nah, I was meaning the 40's and 50's! The supposedly great times when fighters fought every day ect...I wonder if there is some 80 year old going 'hang on, lets not get too carried away here'.

Read a thirty year old article on Minter-Hagler (written the week after) and it made it clear that Minter was the favourite...Hagler had questionale stamina and Minter would take over later on....now the fight is seen as a mismatch...and in a way, rather than lauding Hagler, that denigrates what he did.

Four world titles, cherry picked world title defences, boxing cleared off terrestrial TV and could only be seen on satellite/cable with pay per view coming into play, boxing coverage being eradicated from the national press. Sure - the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s were Babylonia in comparison. Unless you were sperm on the milkmans underpants in those days and you don't know any better.

I wasn't around back then but while the rankings/standards of boxing may have been better in the 40s-60s, the coverage was much less. Yes, the audiences were bigger when it was on, but in the 40s and 50s most people didn't even have a television set. Probably not quite in the 60s either. And for those who did have TV, the fights were often delayed by days and/or in highlights form. So if you wanted to know a result sooner you'd either have to listen to the radio or wait for the papers a day or two later.

As for the 70s and 80s, that's when title and division fragmentation really got going. Sure, it was nowhere near as bad it as it is today, but it was no longer the 8-weight, 1-title "babylonia" either. And while TV had become a staple by then, it's a misnomer to think boxing was widely and frequently consumed, since there were literally only 3 or 4 channels available, so that meant the slots were shorter and much rarer than they are today.

In the late 80s/early 90s, we were spoilt if there was one 50-minute Big Fight Live on a Saturday and 30 minutes of highlights on Sportsnight on a Wednesday.

While the title situation is an irrepairable shambles, I'd say now is the best time I've known as a boxing fan, in terms of access to coverage. With the combination of traditional media (newspapers and terrestrial TV), digital media (cable TV and internet video) and the written internet, I am watching and reading about more boxing than ever before.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Was meaning more fighters resumes....was there some Yank in the 30's going....oh, Joe Louis will smash up Schmelling in about two rounds, he should never have lost the first time round and Max is older now....cue today 'greatest performance ever'.

The proliferation of titles is bent, I agree, that wasn't my point!!

Allright then... I'll tell you one, Golota vs Lewis - LOADS of people were picking Golota to destroy Lewis - Steve Holdsworth said Golota would smash up Lewis and make him quit, Dan Duva said it was athlete vs chess player, allsorts of nonsense was spoken about that fight though I told my brother to put 50 quid on Lewis smashing him up in the first three which of course he did. Now the fight is seen in it's rightful context but at the time - a lot of experts were going for Golota big time to do a proper number on the 'softer' Lewis.

[thepocketrocket]

Look at what the brute Golota had done to Bowe...I remember the exact same logic at the time! And to be fair it didn't seem without merit!!!

Should be seen as a great result for Lewis but is totally overlooked, whilst other fights are given precendence, when in reality there is too much hyperbole

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Nah, I was meaning the 40's and 50's! The supposedly great times when fighters fought every day ect...I wonder if there is some 80 year old going 'hang on, lets not get too carried away here'.

Read a thirty year old article on Minter-Hagler (written the week after) and it made it clear that Minter was the favourite...Hagler had questionale stamina and Minter would take over later on....now the fight is seen as a mismatch...and in a way, rather than lauding Hagler, that denigrates what he did.

Four world titles, cherry picked world title defences, boxing cleared off terrestrial TV and could only be seen on satellite/cable with pay per view coming into play, boxing coverage being eradicated from the national press. Sure - the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s were Babylonia in comparison. Unless you were sperm on the milkmans underpants in those days and you don't know any better.

I wasn't around back then but while the rankings/standards of boxing may have been better in the 40s-60s, the coverage was much less. Yes, the audiences were bigger when it was on, but in the 40s and 50s most people didn't even have a television set. Probably not quite in the 60s either. And for those who did have TV, the fights were often delayed by days and/or in highlights form. So if you wanted to know a result sooner you'd either have to listen to the radio or wait for the papers a day or two later.

As for the 70s and 80s, that's when title and division fragmentation really got going. Sure, it was nowhere near as bad it as it is today, but it was no longer the 8-weight, 1-title "babylonia" either. And while TV had become a staple by then, it's a misnomer to think boxing was widely and frequently consumed, since there were literally only 3 or 4 channels available, so that meant the slots were shorter and much rarer than they are today.

In the late 80s/early 90s, we were spoilt if there was one 50-minute Big Fight Live on a Saturday and 30 minutes of highlights on Sportsnight on a Wednesday.

While the title situation is an irrepairable shambles, I'd say now is the best time I've known as a boxing fan, in terms of access to coverage. With the combination of traditional media (newspapers and terrestrial TV), digital media (cable TV and internet video) and the written internet, I am watching and reading about more boxing than ever before.

The coverage wasn't less in those days, are you serious? Boxing was on all the time, at the cinema, on TV (We are talking when people had a TV but boxing was shown a lot more then - amateur and pro) on the radio, and there was a lot more in the press! There was a lot more registered boxers and there was a lot more boxing full stop!

When my dad talks about Bruce Woodcock - he talks about 'Come in Barry' Barrington Dalby and that listening to the radio was like being there as well as the pathe fights at the pictures. And millions listened to it, when team GB whitewashed the yanks 10-0 in 1961, it was front page news, this is when the 1966 world cup win over Germany wasn't front page news - the queen of England knew who Billy Walker was! Henry Copper was selling Brut 33. Do you think it is like that now! It is nothing like that now! People in those days knew who boxers were - why did that happen? How did that happen? If team GB whitewashed the Americans 10-0 tomorrow - who would give a shit except us?

And if we are talking about the 1980s with Midweek Sports Special/Sportsnight/World of Sport/Grandstand as well as the special world title boxing shows on ITV and BBC (and fight night and ringside depending on where you lived in the country) I saw far more boxing in the 1980s than I do now - and the newspapers carried the results from home and abroad - they don't do that now thats for sure!

[Wrists]

Now I am getting older I am able to remember fights from 'back in the day' and sometimes I realise that the an element of revisionism is used to bull up their achievments in certain fights, when in fact, at the time, what was being achieved was not seen as that spectacular.Here are some examples.

Hamed-Kelley contemarary logic- Kelley past it and has done very little recent years...good name for Hamed's debut but not really that competetive.

Hamed-Kelley now- Hamed goes over to the states and beats the great Kelley...one of the best performances of his career.

Lewis-Tyson contemparary logic- Years too late...if Tyson lands Lewis could go...but he isn't likely to land as he is old and shot

Lewis-Tyson now- Lewis cleans up his era making him one of the best ever (missing the fact that Tyson and Holy were past their sell by date)

Calzaghe-Brewer contemarary logic- Brewer shot to shit and chinny as fook, when will Calzaghe step up?

Calzaghe-Brewer now-What a war, Cazlaghe shows the heart that makes him a champion against muderous puncher Brewer.

This does get me wondering what things were in boxing's golden era? Have the stories been embellished? Have fighters been given more credit than their resume demands???

Has anyone got any other examples?

Hamed gets no where near the credit he deserves for the Kelley win - it was a great win against a guy who was at the time a top 3 feather and had only been beaten once.

Lewis Tyson was an event rather than a competitive fight and Calzaghe Brewer I agree was a strange one.

The worst example of revisionism is Calzaghe v Lacy - again JC gets little credit where he deserves a boatload

[crusader]

Kelly was a good win, but I feel calling it great is definitely a case of what the thread starter is pointing out. Getting dropped on your ass three times in four rounds isn't exactly impressive, and prime Kelly (not who Naz fought) was a good fighter, but certainly not a great one.

[Tomasino]

Great thread, especially as when we talk about revisionism it's usually because a win is discredited after the event (a la Calzaghe-Lacy), so this is looking at the other side of the coin.

However, I disagree with Lewis-Tyson. At the time it was seen as a good fight, with Tyson still highly ranked and fans and press split as to who would win. It was also pitched by Lewis himself as his final chapter in "clearing up" the division. It was only after Lewis won easily that people started saying it had been a mismatch all along,

No chance!!! It was a man in his prime against a shadow from the very start. I don't know anyone who thought Tyson had a chance. He was utterly shot.

At the time it was viewed as a worse mismatch than PacMan v Mosely.

[palooka]

The Hamed v Kelly bout was hyped beyond all recognition as Naseem was boxing Kelly in New York City, Kevins' home town. I remember the adverts for the bout and it was really played up. Kelly were near the top of the tree but not the best challenge out there for Naeem. The bout was exciting though

[deadpan]

Eubank's career.

Some genuinely exciting fights digging in the trenches when forced to, but was involved in a load of impossibly tedious fights quite often where he was gifted decisions against underwhelming opposition that were utter snoozefests after the ringwalk -

Sherry
Amaral
Thornton
Schommer
Essett
Close (twice)

If there were forums back then he'd have been getting shedloads of flack.

Plus he never faced several fighters who would've severely tested him -

Jones Jr
Toney
Graham
Nunn
McCallum
Kalambay

[Jeff Thomas]

Calzaghe Vs Lacy is the worst case of this- that was a truly great win, Lacy had looked mostly superb.

[oliverfennell]

Great thread, especially as when we talk about revisionism it's usually because a win is discredited after the event (a la Calzaghe-Lacy), so this is looking at the other side of the coin.

However, I disagree with Lewis-Tyson. At the time it was seen as a good fight, with Tyson still highly ranked and fans and press split as to who would win. It was also pitched by Lewis himself as his final chapter in "clearing up" the division. It was only after Lewis won easily that people started saying it had been a mismatch all along,

No chance!!! It was a man in his prime against a shadow from the very start. I don't know anyone who thought Tyson had a chance. He was utterly shot.

At the time it was viewed as a worse mismatch than PacMan v Mosely.

I'm not saying it wasn't a mismatch, but I clearly remember it not being viewed as such going in. Sure, some did, but I mean in overall terms. I ran a website at the time and I polled a mix of writers, fans and boxers and the predictions came in at a dead heat 50-50.

Nobody was saying Tyson wasn't past his best, but remember Lewis was only one fight removed from a KO loss to Rahman, so the logic for those backing Tyson was that Lewis would get taken out at some point, because if Rahman of all people could do that, then Tyson surely could. They also thought Lewis' penchant for boxing cautiously might backfire because it would give Tyson confidence from the off.

It's all well and good looking back at how easily Lewis won and saying "everyone knew it was a mismatch", but that's getting the tenses wrong. Everyone knows now it was a mismatch, but they sure didn't know it at the time.

[oliverfennell]

Four world titles, cherry picked world title defences, boxing cleared off terrestrial TV and could only be seen on satellite/cable with pay per view coming into play, boxing coverage being eradicated from the national press. Sure - the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s were Babylonia in comparison. Unless you were sperm on the milkmans underpants in those days and you don't know any better.

I wasn't around back then but while the rankings/standards of boxing may have been better in the 40s-60s, the coverage was much less. Yes, the audiences were bigger when it was on, but in the 40s and 50s most people didn't even have a television set. Probably not quite in the 60s either. And for those who did have TV, the fights were often delayed by days and/or in highlights form. So if you wanted to know a result sooner you'd either have to listen to the radio or wait for the papers a day or two later.

As for the 70s and 80s, that's when title and division fragmentation really got going. Sure, it was nowhere near as bad it as it is today, but it was no longer the 8-weight, 1-title "babylonia" either. And while TV had become a staple by then, it's a misnomer to think boxing was widely and frequently consumed, since there were literally only 3 or 4 channels available, so that meant the slots were shorter and much rarer than they are today.

In the late 80s/early 90s, we were spoilt if there was one 50-minute Big Fight Live on a Saturday and 30 minutes of highlights on Sportsnight on a Wednesday.

While the title situation is an irrepairable shambles, I'd say now is the best time I've known as a boxing fan, in terms of access to coverage. With the combination of traditional media (newspapers and terrestrial TV), digital media (cable TV and internet video) and the written internet, I am watching and reading about more boxing than ever before.

The coverage wasn't less in those days, are you serious? Boxing was on all the time, at the cinema, on TV (We are talking when people had a TV but boxing was shown a lot more then - amateur and pro) on the radio, and there was a lot more in the press! There was a lot more registered boxers and there was a lot more boxing full stop!

When my dad talks about Bruce Woodcock - he talks about 'Come in Barry' Barrington Dalby and that listening to the radio was like being there as well as the pathe fights at the pictures. And millions listened to it, when team GB whitewashed the yanks 10-0 in 1961, it was front page news, this is when the 1966 world cup win over Germany wasn't front page news - the queen of England knew who Billy Walker was! Henry Copper was selling Brut 33. Do you think it is like that now! It is nothing like that now! People in those days knew who boxers were - why did that happen? How did that happen? If team GB whitewashed the Americans 10-0 tomorrow - who would give a shit except us?

And if we are talking about the 1980s with Midweek Sports Special/Sportsnight/World of Sport/Grandstand as well as the special world title boxing shows on ITV and BBC (and fight night and ringside depending on where you lived in the country) I saw far more boxing in the 1980s than I do now - and the newspapers carried the results from home and abroad - they don't do that now thats for sure!

Sure, the papers are pitiful now when it comes to boxing - you won't get any argument from me. And when boxing was on TV back in the "good old days", of course it made more of an impact because people only had 2 or 3 other channels to choose from, not the 500 they have now, so inevitably more people would watch and more people would remember.

I'm by no means saying boxing has a bigger fanbase now, but what I am saying is that there are so many more ways to watch it now, and I am watching more than ever now, and from more places.

How many Sot Chitalada or Nana Yaw Konadu or Yuri Arbachakov or Sung Kil-moon fights did the average British fight fan watch live or within a day of it happening back in the 80s and early 90s? Answer = precisely none. But nowadays we can pretty much watch boxing from anywhere in the world.

[whiskey]

Calzaghe Vs Lacy is the worst case of this- that was a truly great win, Lacy had looked mostly superb.

TBH Jeff I was in the same boat , but i bought Lacy's career set on DVD and he was sh*t in a lot of fights.

The Robin Reid fight was the most flattering that many brits actually managed to watch.

He was labouring away at the Playboy mansion against Richard 'Alien' Grant after flooring him in the 1st round, was plodding about the place until the scorecards rolled in, long before he got the poop kicked out of him. He was woeful against Sheika too.

Gary Shaw has always been full of bollocks at the best of times, but "new Mike Tyson" ?! more like "old Mike Tyson".

[Jeff Thomas]

Calzaghe Vs Lacy is the worst case of this- that was a truly great win, Lacy had looked mostly superb.

TBH Jeff I was in the same boat , but i bought Lacy's career set on DVD and he was sh*t in a lot of fights.

The Robin Reid fight was the most flattering that many brits actually managed to watch.

He was labouring away at the Playboy mansion against Richard 'Alien' Grant after flooring him in the 1st round, was plodding about the place until the scorecards rolled in, long before he got the poop kicked out of him. He was woeful against Sheika too.

Gary Shaw has always been full of bollocks at the best of times, but "new Mike Tyson" ?! more like "old Mike Tyson".

Yeah perhaps I fell for that too then, he was absolutely sensational against Reid I thought. Compare pre Calzaghe performances to post and its like watching a different fighter entirely. Feel sorry for the guy actually.