Worst Boxing Myths...

Fixed.

 

30 years after his prime, Duran's still on everybody's mind :mj:

 

A loss is a loss. Hopkins lost to Jermain Taylor while he was still champ and considered at the top of his game, in his natural division.

Duran lost to DeJesus once and avenged it twice. Hopkins couldn't beat Taylor in 2 tries.

Ali and Jones weren't shot either.

Jones was weakened from moving back down in weight, but at that point there was nothing to indicate shotness. He looked shot after that, without a doubt.

Ali was washed up, but not totally shot. He was just beaten, as he was against Frazier, Norton and Young :kidcool:

 

I honestly question anyone who could watch prime Duran fight, fiercely and violently hopping around, violently mauling his opponent, with his bouncy, thick, shiny, exuberant puppy hair boinging up and down, grinning to himself as he was dishing out a vicious beating and NOT like Duran.

I mean it boggles the mind.

 

Two things (because I know you were going to bring that up):

1. Jones wasn't dominated, it was a one punch KO
2. Jones was never the same after coming down from heavyweight. Duran was still kicking ass at the time of the Hearns fight and after that.

 

I feel the same. It's a massive demonstration of bad taste.

 

The funny thing is, I'm just kidding around. I'm pretty sure you're serious about the comparison in bold. ::

 

Duran's a deadly serious topic, steve. Deadly. Serious......

 

Still, we don't really need to be comparing champions in their early 20s to champions in their early 40s.

 

I'm actually a Hopkins fan, but damn, it's fucking surprising he couldn't beat Taylor.

Incidentally, everyone has different abilities to fight at different ages.

I remember loadedgloves saying something to the effect of "Can you imagine <INSERT fighter>doing what Hopkins is doing in his 40's? Me neither".

As impressive as it is, it has no bearing on their prime abilities. For example, Jones can't do what Hopkins is doing, but of course when they met in their primes, Jones won.

Still, what Hopkins is doing is incredible, and Pascal isn't a scrub like some people seem to think :kidcool:

To be on topic, one BIG fucking myth in recent years is that Pacquiao lost the first Marquez fight.

I have no problem at all with anyone thinking Marquez won the SECOND fight, but Pacman won the first one clear as day. I think Marquez simply got too much credit for an admirable recovery and performance.

 

Jones was injured, & Hopkins was a good five years shy of his prime when they met. That was not a prime clash (though I think the outcome, with Jones winning going away, is about what you'd see at their best).

There have been some good ones here. I want to add two more...

"Fernando Vargas was shot after Felix Trinidad."

-Don't buy it. He looked just as good against De La Hoya (albeit enhanced) as he did with Trinidad, IMO. I had him down just one point when De La Hoya brought him undone in the eleventh. Very few in the JMW class at that time could've run even that De La Hoya so close, circa-02. He definitely dropped off thereafter, however. I've always wondered how much losing that fight, to someone he so despised (& knowing he was cheating to win it) impacted hus psyche. He left the arena immediately, & never looked so strong again.

"Mike Tyson is the youngest HW champion ever."

-Not true. It's still Floyd Patterson, if we're talking the real championship (& why shouldn't we be?). Tyson is merely the youngest major belt-holder in division history. Same thing with Holyfield's claim to being five-time champ or whatever the hell number he's upto nowadays. He was champion twice, period. Everything else is belts, belts, belts, not championships.

 

Well that's not really a myth, more so semantics.

 

Respectfully, I consider it a very big distinction, not semantics. In any event, a lot of people (Boxing & non-Boxing fans) would definitely repeat it in honest belief, so that should constitute a myth.

 

I hear what you're saying but the "championship" title situation has been a mess for as long as anyone can remember with the exception of Muzse.

I think everyone likes the idea of one true champ and being able to trace a lineage. Sad as it is it's easier to get a title shot when you have a title. ::

In the case of Tyson, if Michael Spinks was the only champion around that fight would have happened sooner most likely.

Then there's the case of the general public. This shit is annoying enough discussing with boxing fans let alone joe sports fan. Try explaining the lineal vs alphabet vs unified vs undisputed vs Ring champ.

I suppose the way i look at is Mike Tyson is the youngest heavyweight champ in history, but with an asterisk.

 

Why not just call him the youngest titleist in history? I guess the answer is it isn't as dramatic, but alphabet confusion aside, facts are facts, simply put --- & Patterson is numero uno here.

 

I suppose that's fair, but obviously creates some confusion. "What do you mean titlist? He was world champion but he really wasn't?"

The answer is yes basically, but let me explain why. :doh:::

If i was asked the question on a trivia show for a million dollars "Who's the youngest heavyweight champion in boxing history" i'd answer Mike Tyson.

Boxing fans know it's not technically correct but if you answered Floyd Patterson and gave them your reasoning, i doubt they would overturn their decision.

 

Ramonza would take the $1m hit............they could keep the money.

 

He probably would.

It's about principals!!! :goingmad::laughing:

 

Irish knows me too well. How could I sit there and knowingly contribute to the myths perpetuation. Better to answer Patterson and take them to court over it down the line. That way, theres still a chance to have your cake and eat it too, otherwise, its just dirty money.

 

I would have fun with you on the stand if i was an attorney. :crafty:

 

I dont doubt any attorney would. I am riddled with such neuroses as on display here ::

 

Exhibit A




"Since you consider yourself a boxing expert explain how these two are better than Pernell Whitaker and Manny Pacquiao."

Based upon witness testimony plaintiff considered insane and the case is tossed out.

 

It is? Like who??? Donald Fisher??

 

judah schooled tszyu and nearly had him outta there in 1, the last 40 secs of rnd 1 suggest otherwise

 

You dont school anyone within two minutes of the fight starting, you get the jump on them. Besides, Judah nearly had him outta there? Not even with Jay Nady as ref was Tszyu in any real danger of being stopped. Not even near to it.

 

I escape the question on a technicality --- I consider myself no Boxing expert. Lucky, too, because I do rank them above Pacquiao & even Whitaker. How, I cannot say. It is just an instinct you are either born with or not.

 

Insanity only works as a defense, not when it's used as witness testimony.

Just take the million dollars!

 

"The jab is the most important punch in boxing." For the majority of fighters it simply isn't. Probably for the vast majority.

"Throwing an uppercut from distance is dangerous." Yes and no. You can almost always get away with this if you don't do it regularly. Try to think of how many times you've seen a fighter hurt when throwing an uppercut from out of position. The only example most of you will come up with happened 20 years ago.

"The jab doesn't work against the southpaw." Southpaws jab righties all the time. If you get your feet in the correct position the jab works. Even if your feet are in the wrong position, jabs can be effective but you can't be retarded since the typical path is obstructed if you are in a mirror position and hands are up.

"Amateur boxing is about pity pat punching." This was about as far from the truth as could be during the reign of computer scoring ~1990-2010, but USA dipshits on tv kept saying it and the USA boxing public kept buying it. Amateur boxing during those 20 years was about landing big, clean, and/or noticeable shots that do damage.

"Body shots don't score in amateur boxing." Yeah, they do. The stupid shit done in clinches won't score, but clean shots that judges can see do score, they just aren't that easy to land. Also, clean jabs to the body would score all the time.

"But they send in men against our boys." Partially true, but Cuba, Russia, and others always seem to have the young champion phenoms along with the mid-20 guys. The reason they are better than the USA fighters is mainly because they are better, not because they are older.

 

Not really because Ray was at 147 as was Hearns when they fought. Later Benitez was 154 as was Hearns. Contrary to that, Hopkins was a big middleweight (started career at cruiser) and Nunn a career middle/supermiddle. When people say it was impossible to outbox a prime Hearns, they mean the welterweight Hearns typically as 147-154 was considered his prime.

It's like saying it's not impossible to outbox SRR because Joey Maxim did it at 175. While the thought may be true, the supporting evidence is faulty.

Who would have outboxed Hearns at welterweight? I dunno about outbox as in beat on points. Mike McCallum would have beaten him at 154 in my opinion---but he would have stopped him, not outboxed him.

 

If Benitez can't do it and Ray Leonard can't do it...... :dunno: