Worst Boxing Myths...

Apples and oranges. Floyd didn't have to unify the belt; Tyson did as there were three major sanctioning bodies at the time.

 

Yeah but is "lineal" ALWAYS the most accurate way to define who's the "champion"? That's the real question here.

I don't think it is.

 

Ali would beat Tyson on mind games

Foreman was beating Ali before the comeback

RJJ was unbeatable

RJJ had decent punch resistance before he got old

Marquez won either of the Pacquiao fights

Arturo Gatti was ever good

Tyson would've smoked Lennox in his prime

 

Please. Don't ruin an otherwise solid post with a bullshit statement like that.

Hopkins weighed 177 and fought a 174 1/2 pound guy in his debut. His next fight he weighed 166. Claiming he began his career at cruiser is just being disingenuous.

 

disingenuous or just mistaken?

 

undoubtedly DISINGENUOUS!

 

175+ to 190 was the cruiserweight category back then. I didn't say he was a big cruiser, I said that Hopkins was a big middleweight and he factually DID turn pro in the cruiserweight class whether you like it or not.

 

This is indeed a FACT. No doubt. But it's also misleading...and you know this you troublesome punk! ::

 

An analogy to explain:

In order to prepare a case (unfair case) that a certain person is a bad seed, a person could bring up that he has been convicted of Statutory Rape in the past. Now this may be in FACT true, but if the circumstances of the case were that at age 19 he had consentual sex with his girlfriend who was just 2 years younger...it's rather DISINGENUOUS if you were to bring that up.

Ya dig?

 

Why is Bernard statutory raping people?

 

::

 

I don't consider it apples & oranges, though. I mean, the championship is just that, the main one. I understand Tyson had multiple belts to unify, & I'm not penalising him for that --- I'm saying, however, that he still didn't win the Heavyweight championship of the world until he was older than Patterson.

 

I don't think it is always the correct way, no, but in most (including this one), I can't fathom how Tyson could truly be considered the youngest ever. It's just something which sounds flashy, & thus, gets repeated over & over.

 

At the time when he beat Berbick he was given that distinction, rightly or wrongly.

Holmes was the linear champion after beating Ali (which solidified his early achievent in beating Norton)...but the title was then splintered three ways and Holmes (his fault or not) never unified it as a true champ should...besides at the time the IBF title (although he originally won the WBC) was the least regarded of the big three.

Spinks held onto the crown controversially in the Holmes rematch but yes was undoubtedly the champion at that time. But fighting Cooney and Tangstad amidst long periods of inactivity while Tyson was decimating all top men in the division and collecting all the belts...did make the championship somewhat of a grey area in the eyes of the public. By the time of the Tyson-Spinks fight, Tyson was seen as the defending champion by the majority of people..and rightly so.

 

Pacquiao is on roids. Just because he won't take tests that test for roids doesn't mean that he is on juice. Its just a coincidence.

 

Floyd wants Manny to take never before done testing in boxing because he wants to clean up the sport of boxing.

 

Again I ask whiskey, what's up with the photo of Audley Harrison in a sports bra?

 

Why, then, does no one question the reign of Jack Johnson? He did more dodging than Spinks. I've never heard anyone say Johnson's ledger in the record books should be considered faulty, & that he should not be considered champ beyond a certain year during his tainted tenure.

 

::

I hope there aren't too many buying into that one, but you never know. As a famous businessman once quipped, "Nobody ever lost a dime betting on the stupidity of the public."

 

:bears::bears:

 

Agreed

 

Pssst...Stafford is a big Tyson fan. Mystery solved.

 

Ezzard Charles was the greatest light heavyweight ever.

 

White men can't fight.

White fighters get paid more, just for being white.

 

I disagree --- although that's akin to me disagreeing Muhammad Ali was the best HW ever, & nominating Joe Louis --- even if I don't think Charles is the very best in division history, he's still a choice I can't strongly dispute.

It's sad the way Charles was lambasted & hounded during his day.

 

The title of the thread was "Worst boxing MYTH."

Larry Merchant started that myth about Ezzard in 1979 on HBO's Boxing's Greatest Champions", and Max Kellerman and others took it and ran with it twenty years after the fact.

He was not even considered that when he was active, not by a long shot, because he was not, and never will be.

The Greatest was Bob Foster.

 

Excuse me, I was obviously mistaken about the thread I was in.

Excuse you, you are dead, flat wrong.

 

Why don't you tell us all who the best was then?

 

Foster is the greatest 175lb champion.

Charles is the greatest 175lb guy never to win the 175lb championship.

I think most people would agree with both of the above statements.

The disagreement starts when people parlay Charles never winning the title, more specifically never getting the shot, and then winning the title at Heavyweight, into a case for Charles being the greatest at 175.

That argument carries merit too. But it need not be true.

 

Charles' competition & Foster's tell the tale better than I ever could, but even watching them, I see who the better man is.