Kind of the opposite of 'what if?'...

The recent 'what if?' articles on here, especially the Tyson-Douglas one, reminded me of an article I wrote on the old 606.

I've tracked it down, decaying on our erstwhile home along with expertBoxingMaster and Old Stone Hands and, if you'll forgive the self-indulgence, I'd like to re-post it on here.

by Il_Gialloblu (U14074312) 28 September 2010

Hello all.

You know, Tolstoy believed that history is an inexorable process which man cannot influence.

He thought that this life, this life that we all try to make the best of and hope for the best for, is all one big motion that no man can change no matter how much he thinks he can.

According to old Leo, we think we have a choice in everything... but we don't. Our decisions were set by past events and must lead to a certain future happening.

It's not impossible to believe that the celebrated author of War And Peace could have had the following views on boxing, amongst others of course...

"La Motta was always going to be a boxer for, without him, Robert De Niro could not have won an Oscar for Best Actor in 1980, as he was predestined to do."

"Foreman could do nothing but lose to Ali for it was part of the history of mankind that Ali would be victorious, astound the world and lay claim to be The Greatest."

"Hopkins had no chance against Calzaghe because the latter's undefeated record was always to be used to defend him in post-career arguments."

So... why am I talking about an old Russian's philosophy on a boxing board?

Maybe it's because I have two questions. (Tolstoy would probably say it definitely is because of this reason and that I had no choice.)

1. Which events in boxing past were a shock at the time but actually led to something greater than what the expected result would have done, thereby making the perceived surprise a blessing in disguise?

2. If you were the writer of this supposed 'script of human history', how would you write the next five years in boxing? And please, it's your ideal future, so feel free to be as realistic or as fanboyish as you like.

Cheers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread garnered an incredible 9 comments on the old 606, two of which were me admonishing D4 and praising IJK's input.

Speaking of which, I'll post IJK's reply here now:

comment by Inventing Johnson Klute (U2268314)

posted Sep 29, 2010

Love Tolstoy's work, but I've never agreed with some of his theories, but anyways......

Good and original article and for me I suppose the old Holy, Buster, Tyson Equation would generate the most interesting knock on effect.

Holy was being lined up and prepared for a Tyson shot way back when, when of course Buster upset the apple cart.

Holy then beat Buster and Mike got put in jail, Mike came out of jail and regained the Heavy Title, before losing it to Holy, which in many peoples opinions was the defining fight for both fighters careers. This then leads on to their 2nd bout....

All these events ebbed and flowed before creating an iconic image of the 20th century (Tyson biting Holys ear) and created a legend (in Holy), whilst destroying another (Tyson).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, with the emphasis more on a 'why?' than a 'what if?', those questions again:

1. Which events in boxing past were a shock at the time but actually led to something greater* than what the expected result would have done, thereby making the perceived surprise a blessing in disguise?

2. If you were the writer of this supposed 'script of human history', how would you write the next five years in boxing? And please, it's your ideal future, so feel free to be as realistic or as fanboyish as you like.

* for 'greater', maybe read 'more historically significant'

Cheers, again.

Jeffries would be the obvious one.

He 'had' to come out of retirement, as an old, slowed and significantly diminished shadow of his former glory to lose against Johnson in fight of the century 1 - and thus legitimate Johnson's claim to the title.

Sad though, because Jeffries lost his place on almost every ranking list for this. Once the greatest HW champion in history, now struggles to find a place in the top 15.

On another note, we're 1/10th of the way to improving upon your previous comment performance...

Liston v Clay I

manos de piedra wrote:Liston v Clay I

Also very true - unless Liston-Ali was the more significant, epoch determining moment?

Very interesting article, mate. I trust it got the obligatory 5 1*'s on the old 606?

I guess one I'd suggest is Duran vs Leonard 1, in Montreal. Duran, the career lightweight, moving up to beat one of the finest welterweights of all time. The impact of that win on Duran's career, and the way in which he is viewed retrospectively, was immense. Take away Montreal and you will have Duran as perhaps the greatest lightweight ever and not much else, but Montreal immortalised Hands of Stone, and sees him sitting comfortably within most P4P top 10's of all time.

On that note then - the no mas fight as well. To pull Duran back down from "deity" status.

Absolutely, Oxy.

Always believed that myself though not so stringently. Think how people act and react shapes the future and the people around them. Then occasionally someone comes along and bucks the trend and people are awed. But very much a nurture over nature person myself although will make exceptions for the mentally ill.

Hearns getting sloppy and letting Barkley off the hook led to Roberto Duran's bravest performence in taking the middleweight title.

That's a good one, JBW, another shock that further cemented the legacy of Duran. Had a couple, didn't he.