Debunking what you consider to be boxing myths, misnomers or plain lies!

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon, gents.
 
Anyone else, like me, ever wonder how certain stories or takes on matters are often passed off as cold, hard facts in the sport of boxing without any real basis? Or how something untrue is repeated enough and by so many people that, oftentimes, it manages to become a consensus, despite its incorrect beginnings?
 
Moreover, does anyone else get annoyed when, if we look at things openly, objectively and without bias, there is a wealth of evidence to show that these things were indeed myths, misnomers of just plain lies all along - but too many just point blank refuse to acknowledge this evidence?
 
If so, then here is a thread dedicated to debunking these myths. Tell us what your grievance is, and tell us why you consider it a distortion of the truth. And if you can convince even a couple of people that you're right and that those myth mongers are wrong, then all the better! It can be based upon popular but ultimately ill-conceived theories of a particular fight, a particular fighter throughout history (or today), a man's career in general and how it is perceived, or the works of promoters, trainers etc.
 
I'll get the ball rolling with the complete (and pretty fanciful) myth that Sugar Ray Leonard somehow 'ducked' or 'avoided' Aaron Pryor in the early eighties.
 
Those who defend Leonard for ducking Pryor and instead choosing to fight patsies and no-marks such as Duran and Hearns in those years often point out the fact that Pryor never made an attempt to establish himself as a contender at 147 lb while Leonard was in his pomp, and that Pryor didn't offer that same financial incentive which Leonard's aforementioned rivals did.
 
All of that, of course, is true, and it's understandable that people say this.
 
But we can go even further to show how this theory, often passed off as fact these days as the legend of Pryor's abilities continues to grow out of all proportion, is really a complete load of cobblers. I mean, for instance, do Leonard's critics on this subject know that Pryor was offered a fight against Leonard in 1981, for a purse of $500,000 - but turned it down? That's right, Pryor said no to the fight, not Leonard.
 
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1126084/2/index.htm[/url]
 

 
Maybe Leonard's critics are unaware of this, or maybe they just choose to ignore it - who knows? But what's more, Leonard did not use this initial setback as an excuse to totally write off Pryor as a potential future opponent. In fact, Leonard continued to try and make the fight, eventually offering Pryor (and this was before Pryor established himself as one of the elite by beating Arguello) $750,000 for a 1982 fight. This time, Pryor accepted, and the fight was effectively signed, pending Leonard's expected win over Stafford in a defence of his undisputed world Welterweight crown in May of that year. However, it was in the build up to that fight that Leonard's detached retina was discovered - and of course, he was advised to retire immediately at the risk of losing the sight of his left eye.
 
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19821115&id=8QEzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dBMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5942,3477066
 
So there you have it - Ray Leonard never turned down an opportunity to face Aaron Pryor. Rather, it was Pryor who turned down the first chance to make the fight. What's more, Leonard put the feelers out to make the fight happen again, and this time it was simply bad luck which prevented us from seeing it, not any cowardice of fear on Ray's part.
 
Ray Leonard, categorically, never avoided Aaron Pryor in any way, shape or form. Agree, or disagree? And more importantly, what boxing myths would you like to debunk, and feel that you can?
 
Fire away, everyone. Cheers.

Truss, like a moth to light old mate... I was being tongue in cheek. Starling absolutely outclassed him, no doubt about. and as for Breland...wasn't he suddenly weight drained?

Curry was weight drained against honey, but honey's partying and big time charlie attitude played no part in his abject display against starling. That old chestnut.

As a Don curry fan i'd like to believe the often promoted story that he was owning mccallum before a bolt from the blue sparked him. Reality, he was ahead on the cards but edging a close fight against a slow starter.

Cue Truss telling you to watch Starling's post-fight interview after beating Honeyghan so that you can realise how wrong, wrong, wrong you are, Milky.

Ah yes, the old myth about how Curry was hammering McCallum before that left hook. Indeed, it's much like the silly old myth that Nunn was doing the same to Toney before he landed that left hook of his own......

Chris I thought you showed admirable restraint to not use nunn toney in your thread opener. I did wonder whether I'd just left the door open for you!

I tried, Milky. I really did. I'm taking pills and having injections, and hopefully that along with the support of the good people of v2 will help me conquer this terrible affliction.

Keep watching the toney Tiberi fight chris. It's the only known cure for toneygeniusitis.

The myth that Ali wasn't in the foreman fight until the final round.
Junior jones performances not being taken into account when evaluating Barrera.

That ODLH isn't a tranny, he's as plastic as a ken doll, it wouldn't surprise me if he shares anatomical similarities.

milkyboy wrote:Keep watching the toney Tiberi fight chris. It's the only known cure for  toneygeniusitis.

Have a heart, mate. You can't expect me to revisit my favourite fighter getting his head punched off by a Sunday school teacher and sagging like a ninety-year-old boob after five rounds if you're not going to put yourself through a similarly horrible experience watching a favourite of your own!

Conteh-Burnett, anyone?

Ah you see, the pastings my favourites took, generally weren't in their prime chris:whistle: 

Wish I'd been more sympathetic and understanding of those who claim that Tyson wasn't in his prime for the Douglas fight now......You've won this round, Milky.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You might want to check back...plenty of others have agreed with me on that thread..

Just saying...

Really? Who??!

ScottyHotty or whatever he's called.......

The Terror of Tylorstown wrote:

Nico the gman wrote:Myth Klitschko would definitely have beaten Lewis if the fight hadn't been stopped on cuts.

That Barrera's win against Hamed was because Hamed hadn't trained properly rather than an excellent performance from a Mexican great.

They're both opinions rather than myths, I don't think Vitali would have beaten Lewis but I also don't think Hamed trained properly.

Disagree.

Kind of the whole point of these kind of things is that opions tend to snowball and end up as myths. Which I think is the case in Lewis-Vitali.

The fact Vit won the first 4 rounds (with the 4th being debateable) and that Lewis 'only' won on cuts has snowballed into Vitali handing Lewis a shellacking and Lewis getting a purely lucky get out of jail free card with a minor nick being considered sufficient to stop the fight and, therefore, Vit would definitely have won had the fight continued. The fact Lewis won the last 2 (if not 3) rounds and that Vit's face was actually shredded, not just cut, gets ignored by those trying to kknock Lewis.

And similarly with many other 'myths'/conspiracies, other stuff always comes out. Like Lewis taking the fight at short notice to explain his sluggishness and lack of fitness, except he'd already been in training camp for another fighter (Williams or someone). And reciprocally Vitali taking the fight at short notice, also not strictly true as he was meant to be in training for someone also if I remember rightly.

Going to agree with Tophat - the myth that Vitali would have beaten Lewis irks me greatly. Vitali was visibly slowing and taking some big punches. Lewis wasn't a quick starter really, especially against the big guys. He usually had superior stamina so he liked to take it past 4/5 rounds before getting to work. Vitali performed admirably, we can't take that away from him but if the fight had gone on (and resulted in Vitali having sight problems for the rest of his life more than likely) then I can't see past a late KO from Lewis or a decision. Winning 4 rounds doesn't win you the fight overall. Boxing is over 12 rounds, and to detract from that and say Vitali would have won is spitting on Lewis' performance who showed incredible grit to weather those first few rounds like he did.

There is a flipside to all this though and a view equally as frequently put forward as gospel is the idea that Lewis’ victory had the fight continued being a foregone conclusion. My own view is neither view is accurate. No doubt Lewis was coming on but is also true he was four two down in rounds. As such he needed to win five of the remaining six to secure the win barring knockdowns on either side.

Also as the fight was fought at a fair old lick is reasonable enough to question how his stamina was going to hold up at an advanced age. Also as Vitali has never been stopped or even off his feet as a pro we perhaps should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he sees the final bell.

Should add I am by no means saying Vitali wins but as someone who is largely on the fence as to how the fight finishes and is nowhere near as sold on Lewis as others are I have to say I find the blithe assumption Lewis wins had it continues every bit as irksome as the contrary view.

For me, it all hinges on the cut aspect. There's no way Vitali's corner were getting to grips with that. Watch it back and look how they're mauling it like extras in a Romero film. You would think that someone as adept as Lewis was going to target that eye and force a stoppage at some stage. No two ways about it.

Without the cut the fight probably goes into the later rounds but again, whilst Lewis was blowing hard he wasn't expending as much energy as Vitali trying to get his punches off. That uppercut he landed which had Vitali hanging on for all he was worth is, to me, as telling as anything. When it came to punches, Lewis was landing harder cleaner more hurtful shots. Vitali has never seemed to punch his weight and whilst he's clearly heavy handed, he does seem to lack the finesse to get the best out of his shots. Look at the way Lewis hammered Briggs into submission and look at how Vitali couldn't get the job done ten years later.

Vitali wasn't going to start hitting harder as the fight wore on and Lewis had already taken his best shots. Lewis was starting to wake up and the next three rounds would have, I believe seen Lewis start to show his superiority and start taking control.

Without the cut vk Lewis was a Pickem. Both were blowing hard, no evidence to suggest a clear outcome either way to me. I slightly err to Lewis on the grounds he seemed to be finding his range but nothing more than a leaning.

Toppy, Lewis was training for kirk Johnson I think. Who was both short and rubbish, so the claim is, he took his training lightly and it had been targeted at a different size/type of fighter. Poor excuse but there you go!

Kirk Johnson wasn't short, just that he was shorter than Vitali (most fighters are) and I think Kirk was a southpaw....may have dreamed that bit and can't be bothered verifying these facts before posting (I'm hoping someone else will do it in an attempt to rubbish my post - not bothered as long as I'm not the one trawling the 'net)

To defend myself i did your research dave. 6'2 which i didnt know and orthodox which i did.

On the short side for a modern heavy, and, as you point out considerably shorter than vitali which was the point. But thanks for your contribution;)

As Dave says, with the cut, there was only ever going to be one ending. To discuss what would have happened if there had been no cut is to engage in pointless what-aboutery.

That said, I think the bigger myth about Klitschko-Lewis is that what 'would have' happened actually matters. The guy got stopped, not particularly controversially. Why the need for so much debate around it? And how is it used to denigrate Lewis or boost Klitschko?

Jabby

I'd have to disagree with your assessment that Lewis started slower against the big men when the evidence suggests the complete opposite. Briggs, Golota, Grant, Ruddock, Morrison and Mason were all pretty big men and he came out the blocks fast against all of them, it seemed to be the smaller shorter guys like Holyfield, Mavrovic, Tua and Tyson against who he started slower. The flipside of that is of course that the smaller men he faced all had cast iron chins and could take punishment for round after round particularly Mavrovic. He started off unable to work out the unconventional style and grew into the fight slowly later landing almost at will with every punch in his repertoire.

Were I a betting man at the time I would have expected Lewis to start fairly fast against Vitali, he liked to exert his dominance on the big men from the very start.

While it probably doesn't come under being a myth I can never understand how Trinidad got the decision over De La Hoya when every one agrees that Oscar won the first seven rounds and even though he cruised the rest of the fight he wasn't overwhelmed put down or out boxed.

Yeah, Trinidad-De la Hoya is a funny one, isn't rapidringsroad?

Virtually everyone, from what I've seen, agrees that Oscar won it - and yet they still can't bring themselves to call it an outright injustice because of the way that De la Hoya just went so ridiculously negative in those final three rounds. A unique (or at least unusual) case in which a fight is either in or very close to the 'robbery' category, and yet the fighter on the wrong end of the decision doesn't receive a wave of sympathy from the fans.

To me, that'll always be the one defeat of Oscar's which is most costly to his legacy, and I'm sure that if he could reverse just one of his losses, that would be it. As odd as it sounds, I don't think he ever really fully recovered from it.

I think the issue with the VK Lewis fight is two-fold

1) I dont think most fans have anything against the ending per se, its just that the cut was an incidental opening caused by a slightly errant punch. And he looked better towards the end because he had a six inch target against a guy who had to make big plays due to fact that the ref could end it any time. I just feel the cut forced Klitschko's hand a tad, but I am biased.

2) The lack of a rematch. And the excuse that followed