Revisionist History Contest

[dav8d777]

Who has been the greatest beneficiary or worst victim of revisionist history. Here's a start:

1. Cinderella Man, the movie made a hero out of Jim Braddock who was plainly a bum.

2. People are starting to pretend that Mike Tyson never was any good.

Your thoughts?

[PowerPuncher]

1. Bums don't put on boxing clinics against the baddest man on the planet in Max Baer

2. I dont think any serious poster says 'Tyson was never any good'

[janitor]

[quote=dav8d777;3075967]Who has been the greatest beneficiary or worst victim of revisionist history. Here's a start:

1. Cinderella Man, the movie made a hero out of Jim Braddock who was plainly a bum.


Braddock undoubtedly had the talent of a world class fighter but he spent much of his career as a journeyman because he had to fight regularly with broken hands.


2. People are starting to pretend that Mike Tyson never was any good.

Your thoughts?



That is plainly nonsense.

Tyson at his best was a potential lightning bolt for anybody.

Winners and loosers?

A big winner is Harry Wills due to K Smith and other historians. He is finaly starting to get talked about as an all time great heavyweight.

John L Sullivan is another big winner thanks to Adam Pollacks biography.

Primo Carnera is emerging as a winner because people are starting to question the more ridiculous stories told about him.

Loosers have been guys like Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.

Previously their resumes were never questioned but now they are scrutinised (with some justificaqtion). Unfortunately those who scrutinise often dont apreciate the importance of some of their best wins at the time. Fights like Johnson Martin and Dempsey Fulton were megafights of their day.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Rubin Carter.

[klompton]

Braddock was garbage. Period. He improved later as a heavyweight because he boxed more trying to preserve his hands. He was a puncher as a LHW and he sucked. Watch his title fight with Loughran. He looks worse than amateurish. Its pathetic. I also think the Baer fight was close and could have gone either way. I have the complete fight and its not the boxing lesson its cracked up to be.

[janitor]

[quote=klompton;3076382]Braddock was garbage. Period.

That is a harsh (and controvertial) asesment.

He was a puncher as a LHW and he sucked. Watch his title fight with Loughran. He looks worse than amateurish. Its pathetic.

Loughran could make almost anybody look amateurish. After the fight Braddock was talked about as the heir aparent to Loughrans throne when he moved up in weight. It was sort of like Calzaghe Kessler in that respect.

I also think the Baer fight was close and could have gone either way. I have the complete fight and its not the boxing lesson its cracked up to be.

It was close but Baer had just demolished Schmeling and Carnera.

Braddock would have deserved some credit for finishing on his feet.

[TBooze]

On this forum: Jimmy Young and Ezzard Charles.

Just because you were underrated at the time, does not mean you should be overrated now......

[dav8d777]

1. Bums don't put on boxing clinics against the baddest man on the planet in Max Baer

2. I dont think any serious poster says 'Tyson was never any good'

Tyson is getting a bum rap especially from Teddy Atlas who hates him on a personal level, but has a microphone.

Braddock's record was the record of a bum. He never should have had that title shot.

[red cobra]

Braddock was garbage. Period. He improved later as a heavyweight because he boxed more trying to preserve his hands. He was a puncher as a LHW and he sucked. Watch his title fight with Loughran. He looks worse than amateurish. Its pathetic. I also think the Baer fight was close and could have gone either way. I have the complete fight and its not the boxing lesson its cracked up to be.
It was more a case of how good Loughran was instead of how bad Braddock was. Braddock s no bum...an average fighter perhaps, but no "bum" beats a Max Baer, even an unfocused, head-case, unmotivated Max Baer.

[McGrain]

In his run to the title Braddock beat the #1 HW prospect in the country, the #1 contender, an ATG LHW (Braddock's original division) and beat the incumbent champion, also a very good fighter, Max Baer. He then lost to one of the greatest HW's of all time, having given him a good fight, before beating another top contender in Farr.

This thread is for shit.

[Bokaj]

I must say that this forum has a very balanced view IMO. If anything the tendency is to correct the somewhat undeserved reputation of fighters like Dempsey while lifting up those that undeservedly has been denied the spotlight like Langford, Wills and Burley. Some hero worship that still persists of guys like Jeffries, Sullivan and Dempsey can annoy me, though.

I'm not saying they weren't good, but I can't say anything conclusive about guys that have ducked as many good fighters as they have.

[ChrisPontius]

In his run to the title Braddock beat the #1 HW prospect in the country, the #1 contender, an ATG LHW (Braddock's original division) and beat the incumbent champion, also a very good fighter, Max Baer. He then lost to one of the greatest HW's of all time, having given him a good fight, before beating another top contender in Farr.

This thread is for shit.

Love the avatar, McGrain. One of the baddest characters around.


As for the topic, i'll support the mention of Primo Carnera.

[JohnThomas1]

I must say that this forum has a very balanced view IMO. If anything the tendency is to correct the somewhat undeserved reputation of fighters like Dempsey while lifting up those that undeservedly has been denied the spotlight like Langford, Wills and Burley. Some hero worship that still persists of guys like Jeffries, Sullivan and Dempsey can annoy me, though.

I'm not saying they weren't good, but I can't say anything conclusive about guys that have ducked as many good fighters as they have.

Fine post. The overall balance around here might be collectively the best around.

[mr. magoo]

I for one can say that I'm actually glad that Ron Howard directed Cinderella man. There were some falacies from what I have read. For one thing, Max Baer was not the brute in real life that the movie depicted him as. He was actually known as a fairly nice guy. But as for Braddock getting too much appraisal? I don't see what's wrong with the telling of man's life story, especially one that was as fascinating as his, and no, I don't think that his legacy was revised through history.

Mike Tyson gets a lot of flack for his loss to Douglas, especially when compared in head to head fantasy matchups. I don't however, think that most fans, historians, etc. view him " never being any good "

[dav8d777]

I for one can say that I'm actually glad that Ron Howard directed Cinderella man. There were some falacies from what I have read. For one thing, Max Baer was not the brute in real life that the movie depicted him as. He was actually known as a fairly nice guy. But as for Braddock getting too much appraisal? I don't see what's wrong with the telling of man's life story, especially one that was as fascinating as his, and no, I don't think that his legacy was revised through history.

Mike Tyson gets a lot of flack for his loss to Douglas, especially when compared in head to head fantasy matchups. I don't however, think that most fans, historians, etc. view him " never being any good "

I made a big mistake by starting this thread with a statement calling someone a bum. Sorry. I do think that Cinderella Man boosted Braddock's stock a lot more than is usual in boxing history. One reason I know that is because I collect autographs.

If I may rephrase I'll just say that that one movie revised and rehabilitated Braddock's reputation more than I've ever seen one's reputation rehabilitated by history.

As for Tyson, I mean to say that he's getting a bum rap. I think Riddick Bowe is being treated the same way. Bowe really did beat Holyfield twice.

Anyway, sorry for the bum remark.

[dav8d777]

I for one can say that I'm actually glad that Ron Howard directed Cinderella man. There were some falacies from what I have read. For one thing, Max Baer was not the brute in real life that the movie depicted him as. He was actually known as a fairly nice guy. But as for Braddock getting too much appraisal? I don't see what's wrong with the telling of man's life story, especially one that was as fascinating as his, and no, I don't think that his legacy was revised through history.

Mike Tyson gets a lot of flack for his loss to Douglas, especially when compared in head to head fantasy matchups. I don't however, think that most fans, historians, etc. view him " never being any good "

Baer suffered from that portrayal bad. The one boxer he killed he regretted deeply according to his son. He also put the man's kids through college.

As far as the second man he "killed" it should be pointed out that the fellow was in the 13th round of a fight with Primo Carnera when he died. I'm sure that being beat in the head by Max didn't help him, but it's also not like he went to the gym two weeks later and died because he caught a jab from his sparring partner....

[McGrain]

Love the avatar, McGrain. One of the baddest characters around.


"Barnes been shot nine times. And he ain't dead. That mean something to you? The only one who can kill Barnes...is Barnes."

[COULDHAVEBEEN]

Braddock was garbage. Period. He improved later as a heavyweight because he boxed more trying to preserve his hands. He was a puncher as a LHW and he sucked. Watch his title fight with Loughran. He looks worse than amateurish. Its pathetic. I also think the Baer fight was close and could have gone either way. I have the complete fight and its not the boxing lesson its cracked up to be.

Nothing in life/boxing is quite as black & white as that assessment!

Braddock's record as a light heavyweight included a long list of early KOs, and 35 wins, 5 losses & 6 draws up until he fought Tommy Loughran for the light heavyweight title. If that makes Braddock a bum he was able to find a long list of bigger bums to pad his record and get a title shot!

Loughran was one of the great light heavyweights! Amongst his 116 wins, 29 losses, 13 draws he regularly made opponents look silly.

Braddock certainly more than fulfilled his potential later as a heavyweight. The fight with Baer was close. But most thought Braddock won. Losing later to Joe Louis was something many others managed to do also.

Braddock wasn't a pretty fighter, but he was pretty successful!

How many world titles did you win? Do you rate yourself a bum??

[The Kurgan]

Floyd Patterson. People talk about how Louis, Robinson and Ali transcended the sport, but during the 1960s and most of the 1970s, Patterson was considered one of the most popular sportsmen EVER in American history. The Madison Square Garden crowd, which was in the 1970s usually at worst mixed in its reaction to Ali, totally turned against him in the Patterson rematch, cheering every single punch landed by Patterson...

... Which brings up another point, which is that a totally shot Patterson was still able to be very competitive against a pre-Rumble Ali who was out to look impressive after a series of listless fights. Anti-Patterson fans might say that Ali was clowning, but I can't think of any occasion when Ali clowned when he was behind on the scorecards half way through the fight. It took Ali's brutal talent at messing up faces to draw that one to a close...

... Which under modern rules means that Floyd Patterson won the event, if not the decision. :think Considering the reaction of the crowd to the stoppage (they couldn't see that Patterson's eye looked like a split plumb) it has significant parallels with Klitschko-Lewis, except that it was the old guy who did better than prediceted. And it was a scientific boxing match.

Basically Floyd Patterson is overshadowed by Ali, to the extent that we think of Ali as being the defining boxer of the 1960s. That wasn't what people thought at the time: Patterson then possessed the kind of mass-popularity that Ali would only get in the mid-to-late 1970s. That's epitomised in the fact that Patterson brushed shoulders with the US President in the 1960s, while Ali had to wait until after the Rumble.

Whatever one thinks of his abilities, we should always remember that Patterson was loved by the masses in a way that only a handful of boxers in history have been loved, and perhaps uniquely, it was almost solely due to his charm and honour outside of the ring. Patteson could lose or he could win, but he was always the man that the US public cheered for before the fight.

[Bokaj]

Floyd Patterson. People talk about how Louis, Robinson and Ali transcended the sport, but during the 1960s and most of the 1970s, Patterson was considered one of the most popular sportsmen EVER in American history. The Madison Square Garden crowd, which was in the 1970s usually at worst mixed in its reaction to Ali, totally turned against him in the Patterson rematch, cheering every single punch landed by Patterson...

... Which brings up another point, which is that a totally shot Patterson was still able to be very competitive against a pre-Rumble Ali who was out to look impressive after a series of listless fights. Anti-Patterson fans might say that Ali was clowning, but I can't think of any occasion when Ali clowned when he was behind on the scorecards half way through the fight. It took Ali's brutal talent at messing up faces to draw that one to a close...

... Which under modern rules means that Floyd Patterson won the event, if not the decision. :think Considering the reaction of the crowd to the stoppage (they couldn't see that Patterson's eye looked like a split plumb) it has significant parallels with Klitschko-Lewis, except that it was the old guy who did better than prediceted. And it was a scientific boxing match.

Basically Floyd Patterson is overshadowed by Ali, to the extent that we think of Ali as being the defining boxer of the 1960s. That wasn't what people thought at the time: Patterson then possessed the kind of mass-popularity that Ali would only get in the mid-to-late 1970s. That's epitomised in the fact that Patterson brushed shoulders with the US President in the 1960s, while Ali had to wait until after the Rumble.

Whatever one thinks of his abilities, we should always remember that Patterson was loved by the masses in a way that only a handful of boxers in history have been loved, and perhaps uniquely, it was almost solely due to his charm and honour outside of the ring. Patteson could lose or he could win, but he was always the man that the US public cheered for before the fight.


I see a lot of respect for Patterson in this forum. I don't think he's underrated. And I don't think he was shot when he met Ali. He looked really good for a 37-year old to me.

[The Kurgan]

I see a lot of respect for Patterson in this forum. I don't think he's underrated.

I'm not talking about his abilities as a boxer, but his place as a sporting icon. Patterson got overlooked because he was followed up by an icon who was even easier to spin into something he wasn't.

And I don't think he was shot when he met Ali. He looked really good for a 37-year old to me.

If he wasn't shot, then he'd suddenly become unshot after years of being shot. A more likely explanation is that he had a REALLY smart gameplan that got Ali on the front foot and gave him plenty of chances to counter. Patterson's footwork in that fight is really an example of how "less can be more".

[dav8d777]

Floyd Patterson. People talk about how Louis, Robinson and Ali transcended the sport, but during the 1960s and most of the 1970s, Patterson was considered one of the most popular sportsmen EVER in American history. The Madison Square Garden crowd, which was in the 1970s usually at worst mixed in its reaction to Ali, totally turned against him in the Patterson rematch, cheering every single punch landed by Patterson...

... Which brings up another point, which is that a totally shot Patterson was still able to be very competitive against a pre-Rumble Ali who was out to look impressive after a series of listless fights. Anti-Patterson fans might say that Ali was clowning, but I can't think of any occasion when Ali clowned when he was behind on the scorecards half way through the fight. It took Ali's brutal talent at messing up faces to draw that one to a close...

... Which under modern rules means that Floyd Patterson won the event, if not the decision. :think Considering the reaction of the crowd to the stoppage (they couldn't see that Patterson's eye looked like a split plumb) it has significant parallels with Klitschko-Lewis, except that it was the old guy who did better than prediceted. And it was a scientific boxing match.

Basically Floyd Patterson is overshadowed by Ali, to the extent that we think of Ali as being the defining boxer of the 1960s. That wasn't what people thought at the time: Patterson then possessed the kind of mass-popularity that Ali would only get in the mid-to-late 1970s. That's epitomised in the fact that Patterson brushed shoulders with the US President in the 1960s, while Ali had to wait until after the Rumble.

Whatever one thinks of his abilities, we should always remember that Patterson was loved by the masses in a way that only a handful of boxers in history have been loved, and perhaps uniquely, it was almost solely due to his charm and honour outside of the ring. Patteson could lose or he could win, but he was always the man that the US public cheered for before the fight.

I think Patterson took the same rap as Frazier, both unfairly. People talk about Frazier not having a good chin, but there is no evidence for that other than the Foreman fights. I think Floyd took the same drubbing over the two Liston fights. Not fair, but I think that that is the source.

[Bokaj]

If he wasn't shot, then he'd suddenly become unshot after years of being shot. A more likely explanation is that he had a REALLY smart gameplan that got Ali on the front foot and gave him plenty of chances to counter. Patterson's footwork in that fight is really an example of how "less can be more".

He had been on a pretty long winning streak and had beaten Bonavena shortly before taking on Ali. How is that shot? His last loss was a very close one against Quarry if I'm not mistaken. He looked in better shape than seven year younger Ali when they met in 1972.

[Bokaj]

I think Patterson took the same rap as Frazier, both unfairly. People talk about Frazier not having a good chin, but there is no evidence for that other than the Foreman fights. I think Floyd took the same drubbing over the two Liston fights. Not fair, but I think that that is the source.

You do have a point, but both faced one really big puncher each and both was obliterated (Floyd twice). People draw conclusions from what they know.

[joe33]

Who has been the greatest beneficiary or worst victim of revisionist history. Here's a start:

1. Cinderella Man, the movie made a hero out of Jim Braddock who was plainly a bum.

2. People are starting to pretend that Mike Tyson never was any good.

Your thoughts?


Bum ???????, that "bum" dropped a prime joe louis and gave him a hard fight when louis was destroying people, he was also for a lot of his career fighting hungry and broke and with a damaged hand due to lack of food, he was no fucking bum

[Dempsey1238]

I think Patterson took the same rap as Frazier, both unfairly. People talk about Frazier not having a good chin, but there is no evidence for that other than the Foreman fights. I think Floyd took the same drubbing over the two Liston fights. Not fair, but I think that that is the source.

Lets not forget the many times Patterson hit the deck, in his championship rein vs novices, including a guy in his pro fight. Thats not easy to write off.

[GPater11093]

patterson dont get me wrong is a great fighter (with a even better last name) he was fast and had a hard punch and was really just a blown up light heavy going up to heavy for the sake of it really. he didnt have the best of chins though as he was KO'd by Johansson and Liston and put down alot but if you take in to account the weight differences against him he regulary fought at his achievments look even better.

[markedwardscott]

Ruben Carter gets a lot of sympathy for his wrongful conviction. But the movie Hurricane shows him beating the crap out of Giardello which is not what happened. Carter's fame was built on his flash kayo of Emile Griffith, who was a blown up welterweight.

[JohnThomas1]

Ruben Carter gets a lot of sympathy for his wrongful conviction.


Supposed wrongful conviction.

[heehoo]

Braddock a bum? Clearly you don't know boxing!

[The Kurgan]

Lets not forget the many times Patterson hit the deck, in his championship rein vs novices, including a guy in his pro fight. Thats not easy to write off.

My point was that it didn't stop him from being, during his career, the most popular boxer in the world. His contemporaries clearly valued his courage more than his ability.

[True Writer]

I think Jake Lamotta's done pretty well out of ranging bull.
Ali has become god like.
Joe Fraizer is overated because of the above.
Sonny Liston - see above above
Tyson is underated - for the moment but this will change with time.

[GPater11093]

i think its harsh to say that patterson was put on the floor by a novice in his first fight. it wasnt as though this was some kid he was fighting, he was fighting an olympic champion who was fully grown and a great olympic champion

[Marciano Frazier]

I haven't seen Braddock's standing shoot up any in historical circles since the release of the film. Perhaps he's talked about a little more because of the publicity, but that's about it. If you're talking about popularity among the general public/correlating autograph value, then sure, his stock has improved, like any fighter's would after a critically-acclaimed motion picture about his life. The same goes for Jake LaMotta.

Second, Braddock was not a bum, and his record certainly doesn't suggest anything of the sort. No professional fighter with a winning career, let alone a professional world champion, deserves to be called a "bum," and I would prefer to spare the rod on the losing ones as well.

[sweetsci]

The original poster apologized for calling Braddock a bum around thread #16. It looks like we're pretty much in agreement that that's the one thing Braddock wasn't.

Regarding Patterson, it seems to me he had a nice run at the end of his career and was far from shot. I remember in 1978, after Spinks beat Ali, people were jokingly saying that Floyd should come back and fight Leon. At that time Floyd's age at the time, 43, seemed OLD. In light of achievements by Foreman, Hopkins, Holyfield, etc., I'm thinking he might have been able to pull it off.

Back to the original topic, why isn't Wilfred Benitez mentioned alongside the "fab four" (or whatever they're called) of Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, and Duran? I can see the reasoning, actually, but I think to exclude him from the discussion leaves out an important piece of history.

[salsanchezfan]

I made a big mistake by starting this thread with a statement calling someone a bum. Sorry. I do think that Cinderella Man boosted Braddock's stock a lot more than is usual in boxing history. One reason I know that is because I collect autographs.

If I may rephrase I'll just say that that one movie revised and rehabilitated Braddock's reputation more than I've ever seen one's reputation rehabilitated by history.

As for Tyson, I mean to say that he's getting a bum rap. I think Riddick Bowe is being treated the same way. Bowe really did beat Holyfield twice.

Anyway, sorry for the bum remark.



.................Glad to see this post. Anyone knowing his boxing history knows Braddock was no Superman, but he was far, far from a bum.