Page 1 of 3
revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 04:12
by jamamb
was just thinking from another thread about this. how fights are recalled one way at the time, but over time become regarded as something different. not necessarily massively different, but still different
a few various for me:
1. ggg-jacobs: i looked at various forums and boxing writers at the time and there was a very close split as to who won and loads of ppl called robbery.
but now i see far less opinions for jacobs and seems consensus is that it was close but clear for ggg and always was. i disagree
2. haye-bellew: on the day it seemed pretty clear and well accepted that haye looked awful but was still obviously winning and opening up more of a lead . bellew meanwhile had begun to seriously shell up and be negative when suddenly his achilles totally blew out from a step back, allowing bellew to take over in very messy and unimpressive fashion.
but now i see more and more that bellew just plain old bossed haye throughout and outmanned him
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 04:13
by jamamb
any others? and it doesnt necessarily have to be on fights either, can be on boxers in general or whatever.
and yes of course some ppl have held a consistent opinion. good for you, you can point it out if it makes you feel good
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 04:15
by Sklar
Haye v Bellew was a dire affair from first bell to the end. That they'll sell it again proves two things: people have short memories and not much on of a weekend.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 05:21
by leejonesjnr
As said ‘remember when Bellew knocked out David Haye...’
Also ‘remember when Tyson Fury smashed Wlad...’
The one ridiculous scorecard also lead to ‘GGG was robbed against Canelo’ when the fact is a draw or a close win either way was fine
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 06:23
by dirk2686
jamamb wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 04:12was just thinking from another thread about this. how fights are recalled one way at the time, but over time become regarded as something different. not necessarily massively different, but still different
Fury Klitschko has to be the biggest example of this. It really was absolutely horrible to watch and it's now held up as an absolutely bewitching masterclass.
Lewis Tyson has changed over the years as well. It was genuinely close to a 50/50 fight at the time, (I believe the prices were similar to GGG Canelo) but I think people these days treat it like Lewis in his prime vs a total shell.
One fight that I thought would have changed but hasn't which pleases me is Calzaghe Jones. I wonder if Roy continuing when he was so past it has helped with that, but I remember at the time thinking the fight was a joke but people saying 'in ten years time all people will remember is Calzaghe beat Roy Jones.' I think everyone still sees it for what it was.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 06:32
by smiling assassin
I remember watching the Canelo vs Trout thinking that it was a really close fight and that there was a big case for giving it to trout. It's now just spoke of as if he beat him with a bit to spare
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 07:31
by spencey
This is a really interesting thread - I see examples of this all the time. I think the narrative of Tyson Fury's entire career has been revised to be honest. Don't get me wrong, I love him and think he causes Joshua all sorts of problems if fit, but he's been involved in some of the worst fights I've ever seen. The Klitschko fight was booed, both Chisora fights were booed etc. He's long, quick and awkward which makes for stop-start, boring fights (at least for the casual fan).
I still enjoy watching him because it's such a unique style, but I definitely think he's been hyped up/glorified during this period of inactivity. The balloon might burst if he struggles to look good in an easy come back fight.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 07:44
by keirw
It sometimes doesn't take very long for the change to take place.
I listened to Wlad vs Fury on the radio and Bunce scored the fight to Wlad. Yet in a newspaper column a few days later he was lavishing praise on Fury for a great performance as if he considered it a masterclass all along.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 08:46
by dookus
keirw wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 07:44
It sometimes doesn't take very long for the change to take place.
I listened to Wlad vs Fury on the radio and Bunce scored the fight to Wlad. Yet in a newspaper column a few days later he was lavishing praise on Fury for a great performance as if he considered it a masterclass all along.
Bunce is a windbag with all the integrity of a feral cat
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 08:57
by stujones
Helenius vs Chisora - from a close fight in which while Chisora MIGHT have been the deserving winner it was close enough to us to expect Helenius to get it - to the biggest robbery a British fighter has ever received.
Fury vs Klitchsko as mentioned several times above.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 08:58
by Counter-puncher
dookus wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 08:46
keirw wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 07:44
It sometimes doesn't take very long for the change to take place.
I listened to Wlad vs Fury on the radio and Bunce scored the fight to Wlad. Yet in a newspaper column a few days later he was lavishing praise on Fury for a great performance as if he considered it a masterclass all along.
Bunce is a windbag with all the integrity of a feral cat
I await a twitter post asking for your address
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 08:59
by stujones
stujones wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 08:57
Helenius vs Chisora - from a close fight in which while Chisora MIGHT have been the deserving winner it was close enough to us to expect Helenius to get it - to the biggest robbery a British fighter has ever received. John Rawling changed his view during the broadcast - they left him saying mmm that was close not sure really if Helenius deserved that - after the studio guest called it a robbery - he called it a terribly robbery.
Fury vs Klitchsko as mentioned several times above.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 14:20
by thepocketrocket
Calzaghe v Eubank. In reality an up and coming fighter beat a guy who was seen as way past his best and had taken the fight at short notice despite being well overweight. Young guy beat him easy. Now seen as one of the great JC performances against a killer
Hamed v Kelley. Was seen as monster Hamed going in against a NY native with a good record who was way past his best but had enough name value for the American unveiling. Now seen that Kelley was a monster who superhuman Hamed was able to beat because he was so superhuman.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 14:37
by Horse
smiling assassin wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 06:32
I remember watching the Canelo vs Trout thinking that it was a really close fight and that there was a big case for giving it to trout. It's now just spoke of as if he beat him with a bit to spare
The main problem was with the WBC's stupid policy of announcing the scores every 4 rounds.
Alvarez may well have been able to win with a bit to spare in a normal fight, but the WBC's nonsense muddied the waters and allowed him to coast.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 14:56
by Jackson328
In years to come people will look at Groves beating Eubank, compare their respective records going into the fight and assume it was just another day at the office for Groves (which it was in truth) without seeing that Eubank was a favourite with the bookies and most respected pundits were tipping him to win.
I feel sorry for Calzaghe sometimes when I recall his schooling of Lacy, most people had him knocked out or easily outpointed going into the fight yet now its generally accepted that Lacy was hugely overhyped. You can pick holes in absolutely anyones resume throughout history in reality.
Buster Douglas was just a bum who got lucky against an unmotivated Tyson who hadn't trained etc but he fought like a beast that night as a rank outsider. Almost three decades later I have yet to meet anyone who thought Tyson would lose that fight.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:02
by Boxerbeetle
Fury - Klitschko is definitely the best example in recent memory, with the amount of people who claim it was a ‘masterclass’ of boxing from Fury when in reality he barely squeaked a decision and hardly landed any punches all night.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:10
by smiling assassin
Horse wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 14:37
smiling assassin wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 06:32
I remember watching the Canelo vs Trout thinking that it was a really close fight and that there was a big case for giving it to trout. It's now just spoke of as if he beat him with a bit to spare
The main problem was with the WBC's stupid policy of announcing the scores every 4 rounds.
Alvarez may well have been able to win with a bit to spare in a normal fight, but the WBC's nonsense muddied the waters and allowed him to coast.
Yeah I agree with you giving scores out after every 4 rounds was a bad idea but coasting or not it was still a very close fight in the end
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:23
by stujones
Jackson328 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 14:56
In years to come people will look at Groves beating Eubank, compare their respective records going into the fight and assume it was just another day at the office for Groves (which it was in truth) without seeing that Eubank was a favourite with the bookies and most respected pundits were tipping him to win.
I feel sorry for Calzaghe sometimes when I recall his schooling of Lacy, most people had him knocked out or easily outpointed going into the fight yet now its generally accepted that Lacy was hugely overhyped. You can pick holes in absolutely anyones resume throughout history in reality.
Buster Douglas was just a bum who got lucky against an unmotivated Tyson who hadn't trained etc but he fought like a beast that night as a rank outsider. Almost three decades later I have yet to meet anyone who thought Tyson would lose that fight.
Probably don't believe me...but I called Douglas vs Tyson....
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:26
by stujones
Noticed on the Ricky Hatton thread.
Original - Ricky is the stronger man Floyd is a natural lightweight...the extra weight suits ricky. Look how much bigger he looks in the press conference
Revised - Floyd is the bigger man and Ricky is no 147 pounder whereas floyd is stronger at the weight.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:31
by Horse
smiling assassin wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:10Yeah I agree with you giving scores out after every 4 rounds was a bad idea but coasting or not it was still a very close fight in the end
I scored it a draw, but I assume that Alvarez would have tried harder at the end if it wasn't for the WBC's announcements.
We'll never know now though.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:32
by Yes We Can
stujones wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:23
Jackson328 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 14:56
In years to come people will look at Groves beating Eubank, compare their respective records going into the fight and assume it was just another day at the office for Groves (which it was in truth) without seeing that Eubank was a favourite with the bookies and most respected pundits were tipping him to win.
I feel sorry for Calzaghe sometimes when I recall his schooling of Lacy, most people had him knocked out or easily outpointed going into the fight yet now its generally accepted that Lacy was hugely overhyped. You can pick holes in absolutely anyones resume throughout history in reality.
Buster Douglas was just a bum who got lucky against an unmotivated Tyson who hadn't trained etc but he fought like a beast that night as a rank outsider. Almost three decades later I have yet to meet anyone who thought Tyson would lose that fight.
Probably don't believe me...but I called Douglas vs Tyson....
Douglas was rated 8 by the ring mag before the fight I think... Certainly no bum and not anywhere near the biggest upset in boxing history people made out... I know Tyson was almost mythical back then but its been overblown.
My personal choice would be Bowe ducking Lewis through fear. Its been debated endless times I'm sure but I think it was more bad advice and more lucrative options. Anybody who chooses to go to was with evaders isn't scared of early Lewis.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:37
by stujones
Yes We Can wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:32
stujones wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:23
Jackson328 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 14:56
In years to come people will look at Groves beating Eubank, compare their respective records going into the fight and assume it was just another day at the office for Groves (which it was in truth) without seeing that Eubank was a favourite with the bookies and most respected pundits were tipping him to win.
I feel sorry for Calzaghe sometimes when I recall his schooling of Lacy, most people had him knocked out or easily outpointed going into the fight yet now its generally accepted that Lacy was hugely overhyped. You can pick holes in absolutely anyones resume throughout history in reality.
Buster Douglas was just a bum who got lucky against an unmotivated Tyson who hadn't trained etc but he fought like a beast that night as a rank outsider. Almost three decades later I have yet to meet anyone who thought Tyson would lose that fight.
Probably don't believe me...but I called Douglas vs Tyson....
Douglas was rated 8 by the ring mag before the fight I think... Certainly no bum and not anywhere near the biggest upset in boxing history people made out... I know Tyson was almost mythical back then but its been overblown.
My personal choice would be Bowe ducking Lewis through fear. Its been debated endless times I'm sure but I think it was more bad advice and more lucrative options. Anybody who chooses to go to was with evaders isn't scared of early Lewis.
're Douglas vs Tyson...saw Buster basically box Tuckers ears off for large periods before basically quitting....thought losing his mother might change his heart...and I saw Tyson getting floored in Sparring and acting like an unmotivated tourist showing Douglas no respect as a threat.
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:42
by Yes We Can
stujones wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:37
Yes We Can wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:32
stujones wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:23
Probably don't believe me...but I called Douglas vs Tyson....
Douglas was rated 8 by the ring mag before the fight I think... Certainly no bum and not anywhere near the biggest upset in boxing history people made out... I know Tyson was almost mythical back then but its been overblown.
My personal choice would be Bowe ducking Lewis through fear. Its been debated endless times I'm sure but I think it was more bad advice and more lucrative options. Anybody who chooses to go to was with evaders isn't scared of early Lewis.
're Douglas vs Tyson...saw Buster basically box Tuckers ears off for large periods before basically quitting....thought losing his mother might change his heart...and I saw Tyson getting floored in Sparring and acting like an unmotivated tourist showing Douglas no respect as a threat.
Who floored him in sparring? 90's HW was way to much fun...
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:49
by ewenhay
dirk2686 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 06:23
[quote=jamamb post_id
Lewis Tyson has changed over the years as well. It was genuinely close to a 50/50 fight at the time, (I believe the prices were similar to GGG Canelo) but I think people these days treat it like Lewis in his prime vs a total she
It was Lewis v a shell. It's not a myth. Everyone knew Tyson had nothing left by that point other than a punchers chance
Re: revised narratives
Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:58
by tobyh5
stujones wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 15:23
Jackson328 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2018, 14:56
In years to come people will look at Groves beating Eubank, compare their respective records going into the fight and assume it was just another day at the office for Groves (which it was in truth) without seeing that Eubank was a favourite with the bookies and most respected pundits were tipping him to win.
I feel sorry for Calzaghe sometimes when I recall his schooling of Lacy, most people had him knocked out or easily outpointed going into the fight yet now its generally accepted that Lacy was hugely overhyped. You can pick holes in absolutely anyones resume throughout history in reality.
Buster Douglas was just a bum who got lucky against an unmotivated Tyson who hadn't trained etc but he fought like a beast that night as a rank outsider. Almost three decades later I have yet to meet anyone who thought Tyson would lose that fight.
Probably don't believe me...but I called Douglas vs Tyson....
I hate to say it, but I did too. Was at school and saw the clip of Page dropping Tyson, coupled with the clear disinterest in boxing from him, a lot of out of the ring shite and then an interview I saw on the news with Douglas sounding super confident and I went for it. Wanted to bet and go to the bookies but my mates were laughing at me so hard that I was too embarrassed to follow through. All these years later I have the same best mate and he mentions it, often.
I then did go to the bookies with £2 on Eubank to beat Benn in the 7th, 8th or 9th, 33-1 and won £66. I used to get £17 per week on a Saturday job and have never felt richer than when he pulled it off with about 5 seconds left in the 9th!