Name the times heavyweight title has changed hands..

Stop coming in a decrying that threads are over as if you're the arbiter of what we should collectively find interesting, dude. This is like the 3rd time you've done it lately and it's conceited as hell.

 

When were the other two times?

And no...I'm not conceited...I'm convinced. :kidcool:

 

Can't remember the other two times mate, but you've done a few times in the last couple of weeks. It's Valentino esque!:: And you don't wanna be that guy, Sly.

 

Actually, Floyd took Johannsson lightly in the first fight and Ingo spent more time being a celebrity than training for the rematch.

 

another very bad example

Rahman and his trainer were pretty much at war during the training camp, it was so bad that toward the end, they weren't speaking to each other anymore. In all case, it's now pretty well known that he had a terrible training camp. And btw, I picked Lewis to beat him easilly in the rematch ( even thought I didn't knew about Rahman disastrous camp )

 

UGTBK, you gonna like this and that was probably your whole point in starting the thread, but Vitaly-Peter is a good example to me. Sure Peter was a fat ass, but it,s not like if it's something unusual for him. I can't think of many excuses, other than admitting he is mediocre, that Sam can come up with. Wlad vs Byrd x 2 are also example where, apart from some ridiculous lunacy ( poisonned gloves bullshit ), everyone can pretty much agree that Byrd could have trained for a billion year and not fare any better

 

In both the Foreman-Moore and Weaver-Tate the lucky punch excuse could be thrown ( and ot a lesser extent, Walcott-Charles III also )

The Norton-Holmes could be described as a robbery by the Norton camp and, quite a few agreed with it, so that's a valid excuse imo.

As for McCall-Bruno, never seen the fight, but remember seeing an article in the Ring magazine ( or KO ) stating something like '' that Bruno sunny day came over McCall's storm'', alluding to his outrageous drug addiction and out of the ring erratic behavior, so I McCall,s problems were already widely known

 

:::atu::bears:


imho neither Klitshko has won the actual heavyweight title

 

:nono:

 

I don't think there was anything "lucky" about the results of Weaver-Tate, Foreman-Moorer or Walcott-Charles. All of the losing fighters were hit hard and couldn't recover. In the cases of Weaver and Foreman, they were behind and needed knockouts to win...they succeeded in doing so and their opponents couldn't stop it from happening.

Holmes-Norton was an extremely close fight and the decision could have gone either way, so any "robbery" cries are hollow. And if Norton was so upset about the decision...it's his own fault for not doing enough in the early rounds which made his late rally not quite enough to swing the scores in his favor. The early rounds count just as much as the later rounds. And the rounds where Holmes jabbed and moved and Norton was like a fat kid (and YES, I KNOW Norton wasn't fat) who can't quite catch the ice cream truck counted as much as the later rounds where Norton took charge and had the better of it.

I watched that fight when it happened and I was cheering for Norton, but there wasn't much room for complaint with the decision, it could have gone to either man. A fight that close isn't a robbery no matter who the decision went to. For me, it was actually quite similar to how I reacted to Leonard-Hagler. Both Norton and Hagler, lost most of the early rounds, got back into the fight and then closed stronger, but were not able to over come the early deficits. When both of those fights ended, I hoped that Norton and Hagler had done enough to win the fight, but I also knew that the decision could easily to the other fighter as well.

What I thought DID suck was that Holmes dodged an immediate rematch with Norton. Unfortunately, Holmes (as he did for most of his career when someone gave him a tough fight) had NO interest in dealing with Norton again.

 

truth is we will now always have people making excuses.

The proliferation of titles and the proliferation of nationalities fighting for those titles means someone somewhere will always have an agenda.

When Wlad beat Byrd over 12 rounds...Byrd barely won a minute of either round, was hurt repeatedly and dropped twice.

But Maxboxing {Doug Fischer and that Kim} managed to keep a campaign going for around 2 years that Wlad had loaded gloves or something....and it was enough to taint his victory.

Holyfield was a master at it. "Oh, I got tired"..."Oh, I ran out of gear"...etc.

Lennox Lewis beat Michael Grant like a the redheaded stepchild of a cheap rented mule....and Wally Matthews was all over him the next day, saying that Lewis performed like "An Amateur, albeit a powerful amateur...the occasion got to Grant, and Lewis fouled repeatedly".

The proliferation of media outlets means we have a proliferation of asshole opinion which ensures everything is "controversial" and everything is "disputed"...:fightme::fightme:

 

Dont fukkkin' bring da klitschko up in the myth matchup forum you scottish thistle,.. it causes extreme tension and instability.

 

Some people in the MM section had a problem with Vitalis brilliance.....so....I....corrected them. And, when the Mods tried to prevent me doing my duty....I....corrected them some more....


<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VjdgXqKjHvY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

 

There's a reason why the 'WHITE' flag is symbolic of surrender and submission you realise :nono:.

 

Yeah. Something to do with white tee's and white vests.

Did you know that the Vitali haters are trying to bring an outside party into this....situation?

 

The reason I made this topic (since people are convinced I have an agenda) is that this part of boxing started to trouble me one day. My second favorite sport is track-and-field and in there you don't hear nearly as many excuses. Of course someone could be injured there too, but usually we can say that we had a competition and the best guy won it, and results tell us who would have won between athletes from different eras. Boxing is perhaps the most honest sport in the world (the sport itself, not people surrounding it), but still we hardly ever get answers to the questions the sport is supposed to ask

 

Soccer is full of it. Absolutely full of it. I mean, there are guys out there who have made a fine art form out of making excuses. They have it so they can walk away from games with their reputations enhanced, even though they just took a beating. It's no surprise boxing has gone the same. Run like a bitch, flick the jab, raise your hand at the end of every round, drop a wide decision and say you were robbed. Pathetic.

 

An outside party?.. Well that's wrong because,.. boxing is doing just fine, no need for the WADA,..the olympics suck anyway,.. how much dah' day earn?.. You being a right-winger oughta know that money is the real measure of a man :nono: ya gotsta' know how da play da game.