View Full Version : Boxing myths


glidesmack
05-25-2009, 12:13 AM
I have a similar thread in the nutrition/training section. This one I'd like to make about boxing history.

"Rocky Marciano couldn't fight, he fought bums" or "Rocky Marciano was the greatest champ who ever lived. Look at his record, he never lost." - I'd have to say both are far from the truth.

"Jack Dempsey and Mike Tyson are overrated. They both had ****ty careers." - Their careers are ****ty. As fighters, they weren't.

"Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali are the greatest fighters of all time. Look at their careers." - Their careers are great. That doesn't make them the greatest fighters.

"Fighters from the distant past suck" or "Modern fighters are no good." - both wrong.

"All champions fight for money and money alone." - most do, unfortunately. But not all of them.

"No one will ever be better than so and so." - yeah, yeah, yeah.

Thread Stealer
05-25-2009, 01:16 AM
There's a myth that this is the KO punch. It is not. Look at the angle of where Walcott and Marciano are, compared to the ropes.

http://loutavern.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/marciano-walcott.jpg

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M9msELiZKyU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M9msELiZKyU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Thread Stealer
05-25-2009, 01:26 AM
"Marvin Hagler was a brawler"- that myth is a pet peeve of mine. He was a boxer-puncher. He brawled when necessary, but spent more time as a boxer-puncher than in aggressive swarmer mode. Similar to this is when people talk about Ray Leonard and act like he was always a dancer, and that he switched his style when he brawled too much against Duran in the first fight. Leonard switched his style more in the rematch (and Hagler fight), when he danced on his toes. Leonard spent more time flat-footed than on his toes.

"George Foreman was dominating Muhammad Ali before he got tired"- Ali was countering effectively THROUGHOUT the fight, not only after Foreman fatigued. Ali did most of the clean punching upstairs, Foreman did the better bodywork.

"The term pound-for-pound was invented for Sugar Ray Robinson"- it was probably more popularized by Robinson. However, other fighters were described as being the best "pound for pound" before SRR. Guys like Tony Canzoneri and even Bob Fitzsimmons, who was fighting before Walker Smith was ever born.

"Willie Pep won a round against Jackie Graves without throwing a punch". It appears from research done by someone on cyberboxingzone that it's just a myth. A newspaper account describes that round as being a good 2-way action round.


"The Legendary Nights Myths"


Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor. You can argue that Leonard "low-balled" Pryor by offering Pryor $500,000. This myth is just another example of internet fans getting their ****s hard over the "calling out" process, when the real "calling out" is in negotiations (usually away from the public eye).

Meldrick Taylor was never any good again after the first Julio Cesar Chavez fight. Actually the documentary never said that, it just said that after the fight, Taylor had diminished performances in the ring (true), health problems (true), and outside the ring problems (true). Taylor was still good enough to move up in weight a year later to win a world title at 147 lbs, against undefeated champ Aaron Davis. Never being the same after a fight but still being pretty good, isn't quite the same as being "completely ruined".

KnockoutTheFat
05-25-2009, 01:36 AM
That the weigh-in procedures changed from the day of the fight to the day before because of Mancini-Kim. That is a myth.

Thread Stealer
05-25-2009, 01:53 AM
That the weigh-in procedures changed from the day of the fight to the day before because of Mancini-Kim. That is a myth.

Do you think the aborted Spinks-E. Muhammad rematch and the money lost from that had a bigger role?

KnockoutTheFat
05-25-2009, 01:56 AM
Do you think the aborted Spinks-E. Muhammad rematch and the money lost from that had a bigger role?

Yes. Wasn't that the direct fight that caused the change?

KnockoutTheFat
05-25-2009, 01:57 AM
Besides, who would want a big fight like that cancelled on the DAY OF?

MANGLER
05-25-2009, 01:57 AM
Havin a perfect record makes you gr8.

Wrong. It's who you beat to build your record that makes you gr8.

RightCross94
05-25-2009, 07:42 AM
I have a similar thread in the nutrition/training section. This one I'd like to make about boxing history.

"Rocky Marciano couldn't fight, he fought bums" or "Rocky Marciano was the greatest champ who ever lived. Look at his record, he never lost." - I'd have to say both are far from the truth.

"Jack Dempsey and Mike Tyson are overrated. They both had ****ty careers." - Their careers are ****ty. As fighters, they weren't.

"Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali are the greatest fighters of all time. Look at their careers." - Their careers are great. That doesn't make them the greatest fighters. "Fighters from the distant past suck" or "Modern fighters are no good." - both wrong.

"All champions fight for money and money alone." - most do, unfortunately. But not all of them.

"No one will ever be better than so and so." - yeah, yeah, yeah.

how the **** not??? what else besides the quality of a fighters career impacts on their all time standing?

glidesmack
05-25-2009, 09:20 AM
Simple, Kostya. A great career is worth a lot, of if you're simply talking about peak ability it isn't the end all. Mike Tyson and Jack Dempsey had relatively crappy careers compared to some other greats, but at their best they were better than many fighters with superior overall careers.

RightCross94
05-25-2009, 07:14 PM
Simple, Kostya. A great career is worth a lot, of if you're simply talking about peak ability it isn't the end all. Mike Tyson and Jack Dempsey had relatively crappy careers compared to some other greats, but at their best they were better than many fighters with superior overall careers.

but how can you speculate they were better at their peaks than other guys with better careers? they didnt have the quality of opposition to prove that, its easy to look great beating up on bums

Thread Stealer
05-25-2009, 10:58 PM
Yes. Wasn't that the direct fight that caused the change?

Not sure really. Flip Homansky was one of the people I believe who led the change (he now wants the old way back) for medical reasons, but "Weightgate" and money might've played a role too.

Same with the change to 12 rounds. It might've been more because networks like CBS could fit 12 rounds and the extras into an hour easier than 15.

DeepSleep
05-25-2009, 11:27 PM
Ken Norton having a glass chin is a rather bizarre statement considering his KO losses were too Shavers(One of the Hardest Punchers), Young Foreman(One of the Hardest Punchers) and Cooney(A Extremely Hard Puncher) and early in his career he dropped a fight which is understandable early in a fighters career.

▀ringer
05-27-2009, 12:25 PM
One that constantly gets on my nerves, is this one.

Bernard Hopkins only beat smaller men.

It's not just in Hopkins' case that this annoys me ; it's that any great fighter who happens to beat an equally great fighter from a lower division, the win is instantly **** because he was "smaller"?

Get the hell out of here with that ****.

Trinidad was a fit at Middleweight. He knocked out a damn good career Middleweight in William Joppy in what? 6 rounds? Joppy you may recall, lasted 12 with Bernard himself - despite Hopkins' best effort to end it early because he had a personal bet of $100,000 with Joppy that he wouldn't last 12 with him.

The Oscar fight was at 156, not 160. A lot of people fail to realize or understand that. It was at a catchweight only 2lbs north of Oscar's most comfortable weight post-147.

Winky Wright, I'll give you. He was blown up as hell, and nowhere near anywhere he was good at. And he still put forth a good effort.

Pavlik was at 170, 4lbs north of the 166 limit in which Kelly beat Jermain in the rematch. A weight Kelly himself said "felt good", and that he "feels stronger". Physically speaking, both Pavlik and Hopkins are equal in terms of reach, and Pavlik is actually taller than Hopkins, with slightly larger shoulders.

A lot of people talk down about fighters who fight a fighter from a lower weight coming up, or what have you.

But I've noticed it's mostly directed at Hopkins around here.

One guy even bashed the hell out of B-Hop for fighting Tito, yet had absolutely no problem with Hagler fighting Duran and Leonard.

I'm not saying those fights weren't legit, they clearly were.

But damn - if you're going to ***** about a particular incident ; ***** about it all across the board.

Don't belittle it when someone you dislike does it and then turn around and justify it when you're favorites have done it.

Thread Stealer
05-27-2009, 06:52 PM
The DLH fight was actually contracted for 158, but Hopkins came in 2 lbs. below that at 156, saying he could catch Oscar because he was "light in the ass".

Hopkins, Hagler, and Monzon all get criticism from time to time for beating "smaller men". But that's not all they beat. They also beat some of the top middleweights around (not just fighters who had suddenly risen to 160), and in Hopkins's case, dominating a career-long light heavy.

KnockoutTheFat
05-27-2009, 08:06 PM
Not sure really. Flip Homansky was one of the people I believe who led the change (he now wants the old way back) for medical reasons, but "Weightgate" and money might've played a role too.

Same with the change to 12 rounds. It might've been more because networks like CBS could fit 12 rounds and the extras into an hour easier than 15.

I thought Mancini-Kim led to the change from 15 round championship fights to 12 round championship fights. The Spinks-Muhammad proposed rematch should be the one that lead to the weigh-in change I mean that was for the undisputed LHW title and the fight doesn't get postponed, but CANCELED on the day of the fight! That's utterly ridiculous and a ****-ton of money was lost that day

Thread Stealer
05-27-2009, 08:27 PM
I thought Mancini-Kim led to the change from 15 round championship fights to 12 round championship fights. The Spinks-Muhammad proposed rematch should be the one that lead to the weigh-in change I mean that was for the undisputed LHW title and the fight doesn't get postponed, but CANCELED on the day of the fight! That's utterly ridiculous and a ****-ton of money was lost that day

Mancini-Kim is said to have to led to the change of both 15 rounds to 12 rounds, and also the weigh-in procedures. Kim lost a lot of weight to make 135 so that was believed to be a reason why he died.

The powers that be may have used the health reasons as an excuse to make both of these changes for financial reasons. Who knows really.

▀ringer
05-28-2009, 12:19 AM
The DLH fight was actually contracted for 158, but Hopkins came in 2 lbs. below that at 156, saying he could catch Oscar because he was "light in the ass".

Hopkins, Hagler, and Monzon all get criticism from time to time for beating "smaller men". But that's not all they beat. They also beat some of the top middleweights around (not just fighters who had suddenly risen to 160), and in Hopkins's case, dominating a career-long light heavy.

Damn, I thought it was 156. LOL@ "Light in the ass". :lol1:

The weird thing, as I said, was that this guy discredited every single "standout" name on Hopkins record as being "too small", with Tarver being "weight drained" of course.

But had the balls to say something like "Marvin Hagler was much better, he never picked on small men.".

It left me scratching my head in amazement at the double standard.

And it's not just Hopkins, it's fighters in general. It doesn't even have to be a full weightclass, sometimes it's only a couple pounds difference on fight night, and everybody *****es a fit about it.

As if 5lbs is the difference between life and death when you're talking about Elite fighters.

Thunder Lips
05-28-2009, 12:31 AM
The whole concept of a "glass chin" or "strong chin" is actually a myth, the terms weren't meant to be took literal. At any rate, Norton was certainly ill equipped in dealing with big knockout punchers as he folded rather quickly against every one he faced. His crab defense and smothering pressure was excellent at deflecting jabs and frustrating pure boxers but not so effective against big sluggers.

http://www.brickcityboxing.com/media/ken%20norton.jpg

Norton at his best spoiling one of the greatest jabs in history.


http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/9172/boxing/xcoonort.jpg

Norton unable to stop Conney's barrage.

Abstraction
05-28-2009, 08:23 AM
One that constantly gets on my nerves, is this one.



It's not just in Hopkins' case that this annoys me ; it's that any great fighter who happens to beat an equally great fighter from a lower division, the win is instantly **** because he was "smaller"?

Get the hell out of here with that ****.

Trinidad was a fit at Middleweight. He knocked out a damn good career Middleweight in William Joppy in what? 6 rounds? Joppy you may recall, lasted 12 with Bernard himself - despite Hopkins' best effort to end it early because he had a personal bet of $100,000 with Joppy that he wouldn't last 12 with him.

The Oscar fight was at 156, not 160. A lot of people fail to realize or understand that. It was at a catchweight only 2lbs north of Oscar's most comfortable weight post-147.

Winky Wright, I'll give you. He was blown up as hell, and nowhere near anywhere he was good at. And he still put forth a good effort.

Pavlik was at 170, 4lbs north of the 166 limit in which Kelly beat Jermain in the rematch. A weight Kelly himself said "felt good", and that he "feels stronger". Physically speaking, both Pavlik and Hopkins are equal in terms of reach, and Pavlik is actually taller than Hopkins, with slightly larger shoulders.

A lot of people talk down about fighters who fight a fighter from a lower weight coming up, or what have you.

But I've noticed it's mostly directed at Hopkins around here.

One guy even bashed the hell out of B-Hop for fighting Tito, yet had absolutely no problem with Hagler fighting Duran and Leonard.

I'm not saying those fights weren't legit, they clearly were.

But damn - if you're going to ***** about a particular incident ; ***** about it all across the board.

Don't belittle it when someone you dislike does it and then turn around and justify it when you're favorites have done it.

Pretty much Agreed

BennyST
05-28-2009, 09:49 AM
As if 5lbs is the difference between life and death when you're talking about Elite fighters.

Although I completely agree with everything you've said and they were all excellent points, I don't know why anyone would ***** about Hopkins' career, among the truly elite five pounds can often be just the thing that can be the difference between winning or losing....or gaining just that little edge between such highly skilled athletes that are so close in skill and everything else.

It is such a seemingly small thing but it really can be the difference. I say this in no way though to down-play Hopkins wins at all though. The Trinidad win was genuinely great. The fact he knocked out both Oscar and Tito is even greater. Incredible as no one else could do it.

As with all great fighters though, there will always be fools that will pick on the smallest aspects of a fighters entire career and simply deny everything else and the whole body of work in favor of honing in on some tiny little insignificant thing to play up as much as they can something that they hope will make them appear to be .... not so great.

ironalex
05-28-2009, 10:02 AM
Simple, Kostya. A great career is worth a lot, of if you're simply talking about peak ability it isn't the end all. Mike Tyson and Jack Dempsey had relatively crappy careers compared to some other greats, but at their best they were better than many fighters with superior overall careers.


i wouldn't call being the youngest ever heavyweight champ, then beating the best to be undisputed champ, fighting great fighters a bad career. it was a bad career when he was old and still fighting on, but there are so many liek that, if you count fighting when you are past it and loosing as a bad career, then durans is,de la hoyas, and so many more, idk how you come to the conclusion....

▀ringer
05-28-2009, 05:21 PM
Although I completely agree with everything you've said and they were all excellent points, I don't know why anyone would ***** about Hopkins' career, among the truly elite five pounds can often be just the thing that can be the difference between winning or losing....or gaining just that little edge between such highly skilled athletes that are so close in skill and everything else.

It is such a seemingly small thing but it really can be the difference. I say this in no way though to down-play Hopkins wins at all though. The Trinidad win was genuinely great. The fact he knocked out both Oscar and Tito is even greater. Incredible as no one else could do it.

As with all great fighters though, there will always be fools that will pick on the smallest aspects of a fighters entire career and simply deny everything else and the whole body of work in favor of honing in on some tiny little insignificant thing to play up as much as they can something that they hope will make them appear to be .... not so great.

I can see your point about the small difference in weight, but to me ; I just think that a truly elite fighter, can adapt and find victory no matter what the circumstances.

Overall, I agree. People tend to make too big a deal, especially with Hopkins. But I also see it pretty much anytime "fighter x" moves up to challenge "fighter x" in whatever weightclass or catchweight they agree upon.

Thread Stealer
05-31-2010, 05:50 PM
"Marvin Hagler was a brawler"- that myth is a pet peeve of mine. He was a boxer-puncher. He brawled when necessary, but spent more time as a boxer-puncher than in aggressive swarmer mode. Similar to this is when people talk about Ray Leonard and act like he was always a dancer, and that he switched his style when he brawled too much against Duran in the first fight. Leonard switched his style more in the rematch (and Hagler fight), when he danced on his toes. Leonard spent more time flat-footed than on his toes.

"George Foreman was dominating Muhammad Ali before he got tired"- Ali was countering effectively THROUGHOUT the fight, not only after Foreman fatigued. Ali did most of the clean punching upstairs, Foreman did the better bodywork.

"The term pound-for-pound was invented for Sugar Ray Robinson"- it was probably more popularized by Robinson. However, other fighters were described as being the best "pound for pound" before SRR. Guys like Tony Canzoneri and even Bob Fitzsimmons, who was fighting before Walker Smith was ever born.

"Willie Pep won a round against Jackie Graves without throwing a punch". It appears from research done by someone on cyberboxingzone that it's just a myth. A newspaper account describes that round as being a good 2-way action round.


"The Legendary Nights Myths"


Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor. You can argue that Leonard "low-balled" Pryor by offering Pryor $500,000. This myth is just another example of internet fans getting their ****s hard over the "calling out" process, when the real "calling out" is in negotiations (usually away from the public eye).

Meldrick Taylor was never any good again after the first Julio Cesar Chavez fight. Actually the documentary never said that, it just said that after the fight, Taylor had diminished performances in the ring (true), health problems (true), and outside the ring problems (true). Taylor was still good enough to move up in weight a year later to win a world title at 147 lbs, against undefeated champ Aaron Davis. Never being the same after a fight but still being pretty good, isn't quite the same as being "completely ruined".



http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DvwgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mXUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6510,2531715&dq=pound-for-pound+boxing&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qhIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fnQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6544,3044228&dq=pound-for-pound+boxing&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bBIyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YeQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1024,461171&dq=pound-for-pound+boxing&hl=en


Some others from other posters on another forum.

Philadelphia Inquirer, June 12, 1899

"If a great fistic luminary rose on Friday night, a great one set. Taking him pound for pound, Bob Fitzsimmons was the greatest fighter that ever stepped into a ring, Tom Sayers not forgotten."

"Tony Canzoneri is the greatest fighter, pound for pound, who ever stepped into ring shoes." - Mar 13th, 1933, Albert Kane of the Hartford Courant

"Even those of us who picked Ambers to win easily, and all of us did, were yelling for Canzoneri from the start. There's something about the little sawed-off fellow that gets you. maybe it's the fact that for 10 years he's been, pound for pound, the best fighter in the business." - May 11th, 1935, Urbana Daily Courier


"With a featherweight championship fight coming up, every follower of the fancy seems to be talking about Hurry-Up Henry Armstrong, the coffee-colored clouter from East St.Louis. They say that Hurry-Up Henry, pound for pound, is the best fighter in the world." - Oct 29th, 1937, John Kieran of the NY Times

DR.ORGYY
05-31-2010, 05:51 PM
..............

apokalips
06-05-2010, 06:03 PM
One that constantly gets on my nerves, is this one.



It's not just in Hopkins' case that this annoys me ; it's that any great fighter who happens to beat an equally great fighter from a lower division, the win is instantly **** because he was "smaller"?

Get the hell out of here with that ****.

Trinidad was a fit at Middleweight. He knocked out a damn good career Middleweight in William Joppy in what? 6 rounds? Joppy you may recall, lasted 12 with Bernard himself - despite Hopkins' best effort to end it early because he had a personal bet of $100,000 with Joppy that he wouldn't last 12 with him.

The Oscar fight was at 156, not 160. A lot of people fail to realize or understand that. It was at a catchweight only 2lbs north of Oscar's most comfortable weight post-147.

Winky Wright, I'll give you. He was blown up as hell, and nowhere near anywhere he was good at. And he still put forth a good effort.

Pavlik was at 170, 4lbs north of the 166 limit in which Kelly beat Jermain in the rematch. A weight Kelly himself said "felt good", and that he "feels stronger". Physically speaking, both Pavlik and Hopkins are equal in terms of reach, and Pavlik is actually taller than Hopkins, with slightly larger shoulders.

A lot of people talk down about fighters who fight a fighter from a lower weight coming up, or what have you.

But I've noticed it's mostly directed at Hopkins around here.

One guy even bashed the hell out of B-Hop for fighting Tito, yet had absolutely no problem with Hagler fighting Duran and Leonard.

I'm not saying those fights weren't legit, they clearly were.

But damn - if you're going to ***** about a particular incident ; ***** about it all across the board.

Don't belittle it when someone you dislike does it and then turn around and justify it when you're favorites have done it.

This one annoys me as well. It's worse when it comes to Mayweather Jr, because he is a small guy himself. People will say he's not that great, but believe it is more fair for him to fight Paul Williams at 154 than it is for him to fight JMM. He has also been outweighed hugely by opponents and nothing is made of that, but when he outweighs Marquez and "makes" Hatton come up to 147 (where ironically I think he outweighed Floyd on fight night) its some sort of cheat.

In boxing guys go up and down in weight all the time, its their choice...especially when it comes to the very top p4pers.

Vadrigar.
06-05-2010, 06:26 PM
I have a similar thread in the nutrition/training section. This one I'd like to make about boxing history.

"Rocky Marciano couldn't fight, he fought bums" or "Rocky Marciano was the greatest champ who ever lived. Look at his record, he never lost." - I'd have to say both are far from the truth.

"Jack Dempsey and Mike Tyson are overrated. They both had ****ty careers." - Their careers are ****ty. As fighters, they weren't.

"Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali are the greatest fighters of all time. Look at their careers." - Their careers are great. That doesn't make them the greatest fighters.

"Fighters from the distant past suck" or "Modern fighters are no good." - both wrong.

"All champions fight for money and money alone." - most do, unfortunately. But not all of them.

"No one will ever be better than so and so." - yeah, yeah, yeah.
Are you serious?
you've gone beyond all rational thought here.

Have you even looked at Ali's and Robinson's resume's?

What else does a boxer need to do, except have a great career?

r.burgundy
06-06-2010, 12:19 AM
willie pep once won a round without throwing a punch

King Zeezi
06-06-2010, 12:57 AM
willie pep once won a round without throwing a punch

i thought that was a myth

Benny Leonard
06-06-2010, 01:21 AM
All you have to do is not Fear the Bully and Stand up to him and you will win.


Funny thing, Foreman was scared of Frazier and Frazier wasn't scared of George.

Fear can be a great tool to win...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://web1.nyc.youtube.com/v/x9l_RrjjTMc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://web1.nyc.youtube.com/v/x9l_RrjjTMc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Note: if you are going to stand up to a bully, you better have a gun like Teddy Atlas.

Cupo303
06-06-2010, 02:10 AM
Damn, I thought it was 156. LOL@ "Light in the ass". :lol1:

The weird thing, as I said, was that this guy discredited every single "standout" name on Hopkins record as being "too small", with Tarver being "weight drained" of course.

But had the balls to say something like "Marvin Hagler was much better, he never picked on small men.".

It left me scratching my head in amazement at the double standard.

And it's not just Hopkins, it's fighters in general. It doesn't even have to be a full weightclass, sometimes it's only a couple pounds difference on fight night, and everybody *****es a fit about it.

As if 5lbs is the difference between life and death when you're talking about Elite fighters.

And the thing is, most one-weight-class/career middleweights in this case, have no choice but to eventually and face and yes, if they can, beat a great smaller man coming up.

Naturally you're going to be defending your title against natural 160 pounders but besides being ranked in the Top 10 in your weight class, they're not going to be considered great. So in B-Hop's case, he's defended his titles against natural very good 160-ers with the occasional great Welterweight/Jr-Middle looking for another division title and he knocked them off.

Does that mean, Margarito or Baldomir or Judah shouldn't have gotten credit had they defeated the smaller Floyd Mayweather coming up?