Boxing's great double standards

[Axl_Nose]

I mentioned this point in the Brit Forum a couple of weeks ago and its to do with Boxing fans very obvious double standards when they view a fighters career .. It was a post to do with good boxing books and i recommended the Gene Tunney biography by Jack Cavanaugh called 'Boxings Brainiest Champ' .. For me Tunney was a sensational fighter who is often under-rated, a man who fight fans seemingly want to forget and theres only one reason for that, Tunney was the man who defeated 2 of the most highly mythologised fighters in history, Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey .. He beat Greb 4 times and Dempsey twice, in my experience fight fans give Tunney very little credit for beating Dempsey, its always excuse after excuse, whether its the 'Long Count' or 'Dempsey was so far past his best at that point, he was rusty and inactive', now here is the double standard,

Jack Dempsey won the championship over 38 year old Jess Willard, who was little more than a heavy bag with very little boxing ability, and people to a man said and still say, 'Wow that was totally destructive, this guy is brilliant' .. Nobody ever questioned Willard's, Firpo's or Carpentier's credentials, the focus was always on the positives of Dempsey ..

Gene Tunney beats a 31 year old Jack Dempsey very comfortably twice, displaying some genuinely great boxing ability, strategy and ring smarts and he gets very little credit. The focus was all on 'Why Dempsey Lost' , and the excuses are endless 'Dempsey was washed up', 'Dempsey was more of an actor than a fighter at this point', 'If not for the Long Count, Dempsey would have won the rematch' .. Tunney gets zero credit, and this was the man that beat Greb 4 times, a fighter that Dempsey wouldnt fight ..

The next double standard regards Tyson and Holyfield. Mike Tyson along with Dempsey and Greb has to be the most mythologised fighter in history for fight fans, the endless threads and posts on ESB to do with how 'unbeatable an '88 Tyson was' go from strangth to strength. But here is the double standard ..

Mike Tyson knocks out 38 year old Larry Holmes, Holmes at this point was weathered and his reflexes werent what they were, a former great but nowere near at his best level .. Nobody ever mentions this. 70 years after Dempsey beat Willard the story is the same, all the talk is about 'how destructive and phenomenal Tyson is', nobody questions Holmes's age or reflexes, the focus is on the positives of Tyson ..

8 years after Tyson's destruction of Holmes, a 30 year old Mike Tyson takes on a 34 year old Evander Holyfield .. Holyfield isnt given a chance, hes thought of as washed up and surely he'll fall at the feet of boxings so called iron man .... Instead Holyfield out-boxes, out-fights, bullies and roughs up Tyson before stopping him in round 11 .. After a performance like this you would think that all the plaudits would go to Holyfield and they did for a time. But now theres a kind of revisionist feeling with many fight fans, no longer was this fight an example of Holyfield's undeniable courage and fighting ability, its suddenly a fight were it became 'obvious that Tyson was washed up and past his best' and 'an '88 Tyson would have wiped the floor with Holyfield' ....

The boxing double standards are clear for me to see, Dempsey and Tyson are like religious figures for many fight fans and to suggest that they would get beat fair and square by better fighters on the night is like suggesting the impossible ..

I'd be very interested if anybody could come up with any other 'Double Standards' with how various fighters are perceived by fans ..

[janitor]

Some valid points.

Anybody inclined to downgrade Tunneys wins over Dempsey should bear in mind that Dempsey beat Jack Sharkey on the best night he ever had between those two fights.

If that version of Dempsey managed to win one round against Tunney in two fights, then it should at least suggest that Tunney was a lot better than Jack Sharkey (even when his head was screwed on), and probably better than Max Schmeling who had his hands full with the same version of Sharkey.

To give Holyfield his due we would have to consider that even a shot Tyson managed to hand Andrew Gollota his head after he had basicaly beaten Bowe into retirement.

I have always felt that Tyson's win over Holmes is sold short. Holmes beat Ray Mercer who gave Lennox Lewis a close fight. Nobody should have done tht to Holmes past his prime or not. I would even venture to say that if the 45 year old Holmes had fought a prime Lennox Lewis he would have done better.

[Addie]

I have a real problem with people dismissing the second Leonard/Duran II fight. Whilst we all hail Duran's victory in Montreal as being supernatural, all I hear about the return bout is about how out of shape Roberto was and how he had passed his prime. Let's not forget that he'd continue to fight for over a decade, putting in 2 or 3 very good performances in during that stint against top flight competition. Ray made the ultimate macho man quit, and although it's not as great as Duran's win over Leonard, it's still a very very good win.

Also, compare it to how Marco Antonio Barrera vs Manny Pacquiao I is viewed. By all accounts, it was an astonishing win and one that deserves a hell of a lot of credit. However, Barrera did look sluggish and not his usual self in that fight, much slower than usual during the early going, but he would later go on to put in good performances against Morales and Ayala.

We don't say, "Well, Barrera's training camp had issues because of the Forrest fire, which can be backed up by video footage" We congratulate Manny on a wonderful fight, which is how it's supposed to be. So instead of saying, "Duran was out of shape, Duran was lacking motivation", can we not just congratulate Leonard on a wonderful effort?

.

[Bokaj]

I'd say that Duran and Dempsey are the recepients of the greatest double standards. People make a great big thing out of how Leonard supposedly lured Duran into the ring "only" six months after their first fight, but say nothing about Duran never rematching Buchanan.

But Duran does really deserve the praise he gets, though. Because he was a truly great fighter. One of the very best. Dempsey never really proved his greatness, on the other hand. Willard, Firpo and Carpentier just don't cut it as far as opposition is concerned. Not when he failed to prove himself against Wills and Greb, and lost clearly against Tunney.

[janitor]

Dempsey never really proved his greatness, on the other hand. Willard, Firpo and Carpentier just don't cut it as far as opposition is concerned. Not when he failed to prove himself against Wills and Greb, and lost clearly against Tunney.

You are wrong big time here.

Even if your point about Tunney has some merit.

[Bokaj]

You are wrong big time here.

Even if your point about Tunney has some merit.


Well, we've been around that block, haven't we? And I'm not saying that Willard, Firpo and Carpentier was bums or tomato cans in any way, just not good enough to get a man on my top 10 at HW.

[janitor]

Well, we've been around that block, haven't we? And I'm not saying that Willard, Firpo and Carpentier was bums or tomato cans in any way, just not good enough to get a man on my top 10 at HW.

You have to look at how a guy was rated on the ground at the time.

For example Fred Fulton was the consensus No1 contender, and Jess Willard had been acused of avoiding him for about three years.

Dempsey walking through Fulton in 23 seaconds raised a few eyebrows.

[janitor]

I think Willard Dempsey deserves a shout.

Willard was the prohibitive favourite, and he requested legal immunity if he killed Dempsey.

Now some people give Dempsey about as much credit as if he beat up a heavy bag.

[Jaws]

I have always felt that Tyson's win over Holmes is sold short. Holmes beat Ray Mercer who gave Lennox Lewis a close fight. Nobody should have done tht to Holmes past his prime or not. I would even venture to say that if the 45 year old Holmes had fought a prime Lennox Lewis he would have done better.

Agreed. And I completely disagree with the original poster's claim that no one questions Tyson's win over Holmes. I see the complete opposite--Tyson seems to get next to no credit for beating Holmes.

Was Holmes prime? Of course not. But I still think he was game. He was 38, which isn't that old for a fighter of his style. Most of the current top heavyweights are fighting at around that age. I also think Holmes desperately wanted to beat Tyson. It would have redeemed his entire career and the whole debacle with Spinks. Just imagine if Holmes had won that night... Factor in that Holmes was never taken out like that again, even at a much older age against other top fighters, and I think you have a damn good quality win for Tyson.

[Jaws]

I'll throw in a double standard I see:

Tyson constantly gets ragged on for his decision wins over Tillis, Green, Tucker, and Smith. Even though these wins were all very comfortable, and in the cases of Green and Smith, absolute shutouts.

No other fighter seems to take such heat for his decision wins. And they weren't even controversial.

[Axl_Nose]

I'd say that Duran and Dempsey are the recepients of the greatest double standards. People make a great big thing out of how Leonard supposedly lured Duran into the ring "only" six months after their first fight, but say nothing about Duran never rematching Buchanan.

But Duran does really deserve the praise he gets, though. Because he was a truly great fighter. One of the very best. Dempsey never really proved his greatness, on the other hand. Willard, Firpo and Carpentier just don't cut it as far as opposition is concerned. Not when he failed to prove himself against Wills and Greb, and lost clearly against Tunney.

I'd say Dempsey proved his greatness before he even got the title, Levinsky, Fulton, Miske and Brennan were all great wins .. Carpentier was also a great fighter but at Light Heavy .. My original post was in no way an act of denigrating Dempsey, Greb or Tyson as im a big fan of all 3 it was merely an analysis of the way Boxing fans will make endless excuses for certain fighters but they wont give other fighters their fair dues ..

[Axl_Nose]

I have a real problem with people dismissing the second Leonard/Duran II fight. Whilst we all hail Duran's victory in Montreal as being supernatural, all I hear about the return bout is about how out of shape Roberto was and how he had passed his prime. Let's not forget that he'd continue to fight for over a decade, putting in 2 or 3 very good performances in during that stint against top flight competition. Ray made the ultimate macho man quit, and although it's not as great as Duran's win over Leonard, it's still a very very good win.

Also, compare it to how Marco Antonio Barrera vs Manny Pacquiao I is viewed. By all accounts, it was an astonishing win and one that deserves a hell of a lot of credit. However, Barrera did look sluggish and not his usual self in that fight, much slower than usual during the early going, but he would later go on to put in good performances against Morales and Ayala.

We don't say, "Well, Barrera's training camp had issues because of the Forrest fire, which can be backed up by video footage" We congratulate Manny on a wonderful fight, which is how it's supposed to be. So instead of saying, "Duran was out of shape, Duran was lacking motivation", can we not just congratulate Leonard on a wonderful effort?

.

I totally agree with you on the Leonard point .. But then there is always a certain anti Leonard agenda whenever you talk to fight fans .. Sugar Ray Leonard was a sensational fighter in my opinion, and i dont really understand the antipathy towards him .. SRL V Duran 2, was a great display of boxing and an example of speed and precision that Duran couldnt deal with. But Duran is a fight fans fave, so the excuses start to appear, 'he had stomach cramps', 'he didnt train properly', 'he didnt have time to prepare' etc .. The same happened when Leonard fought Hagler, it was a close fight were i had Leonard edging it by 1 or 2 rounds, but you read about that fight today and its like it was the biggest robbery of all time, and again its because Hagler was a fan fave so there has to be an excuse why he lost .... The anti SRL agenda is an interesting subject which maybe Janitor could shed a little more light on, its gotta be more than he was the 'Olympian Golden Boy' with a dazzling smile, its gotta be more than he made all the decisions from ring size to gloves etc, all 'money' fighters control these type of decisions. I dont know what the Anti Leonard feeling is but that feeling from fight fans has continued with Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather .. Instead of being totally mesmerized by these fighters stellar ability like i am, some fans want to pick them apart ..

[Boxed Ears]

I'll throw in a double standard I see:

Tyson constantly gets ragged on for his decision wins over Tillis, Green, Tucker, and Smith. Even though these wins were all very comfortable, and in the cases of Green and Smith, absolute shutouts.

No other fighter seems to take such heat for his decision wins. And they weren't even controversial.

Agreed. And I completely disagree with the original poster's claim that no one questions Tyson's win over Holmes. I see the complete opposite--Tyson seems to get next to no credit for beating Holmes.

Was Holmes prime? Of course not. But I still think he was game. He was 38, which isn't that old for a fighter of his style. Most of the current top heavyweights are fighting at around that age. I also think Holmes desperately wanted to beat Tyson. It would have redeemed his entire career and the whole debacle with Spinks. Just imagine if Holmes had won that night... Factor in that Holmes was never taken out like that again, even at a much older age against other top fighters, and I think you have a damn good quality win for Tyson.

Agree, agree, agree, agree. There seemed to be so much unfair disappointment when Tyson went the distance, they wrote off the wins no matter how convincing they were. And what Holmes did with Mercer...and Mike was the only man to stop him. No, that was a very good win. Not nearly what it would be if Larry were still champ, but still very high quality. It wasn't anything like Holmes VS Ali.

[Axl_Nose]

I think Willard Dempsey deserves a shout.

Willard was the prohibitive favourite, and he requested legal immunity if he killed Dempsey.

Now some people give Dempsey about as much credit as if he beat up a heavy bag.

Willard was 38 years old, he had 31 fights, he was propelled to the spot after beating a 37 year old Jack Johnson in the scorching heat of Cuba in the 26th round, under very controversial circumstances .... in the early 1900s it was still a time when people used to worship guys who were 6'6 - 6'7 as if they were giant unbeatable gods, thats why the odds made him favourite, he'd already been beat by Gunboat before he got a shot at Johnson ..

Willard v Carnera would of been an interesting fight, im going with Carnera .. Willard was a money making giant, but as for boxing ability, he was limited to say the least ..

[Axl_Nose]

Agreed. And I completely disagree with the original poster's claim that no one questions Tyson's win over Holmes. I see the complete opposite--Tyson seems to get next to no credit for beating Holmes.

Was Holmes prime? Of course not. But I still think he was game. He was 38, which isn't that old for a fighter of his style. Most of the current top heavyweights are fighting at around that age. I also think Holmes desperately wanted to beat Tyson. It would have redeemed his entire career and the whole debacle with Spinks. Just imagine if Holmes had won that night... Factor in that Holmes was never taken out like that again, even at a much older age against other top fighters, and I think you have a damn good quality win for Tyson.

I take on board your point, but i totally disagree with the comparison with 'most of the current top heavyweights' considering we are in the worst heavyweight division in history and you have Kevin Johnson fighting for the world title, age doesnt matter in todays crop .. What my original post was about was the fact that the prime focus on the Holmes v Tyson fight wasnt the fact that Holmes was 38 and past his prime, it was the fact that Tyson was a destructive phenomenal fighter, wereas 8 years later when Tyson got beat by Holyfield the prime focus is that Tyson was not at his best and was on the downhill slide ....

Tyson beats a 38 year old Holmes and Tyson is lauded as a great fighter ..
Holyfield beats a Tyson that is 4 years younger than him and its all about how Tyson isnt what he was ....

Im a huge fan of Tyson, Dempsey, Holmes, Holyfield and all the genuinely great fighters that have been, the interest in this subject is all about fans perception and their bias .. Looking for excuses if their favourite fighters lose but not giving the credit to fighters who they dont like ....

Maybe your right though, Holmes was a million times the fighter that Spinks was against Tyson. I watch Spinks v Tyson and never fail to shake my head, Michael Spinks was a wonderful fighter, absolutely brilliant and for him a World Champion to get 'spooked' against Tyson was an absolute disgrace that has tarnished his legacy .. If you take a look at the tape and keep your eyes just on Spinks, forget what Tyson is doing, just keep your eyes on Spinks, what the hell was his gameplan there, he didnt have any idea how to go about that fight .. It looked like he thought to himself, 'just take a couple of shots and go down for a very nice payday to finish off the career' .. Such a disappointment when you've seen Spinks at his best ....

[Axl_Nose]

I'll throw in a double standard I see:

Tyson constantly gets ragged on for his decision wins over Tillis, Green, Tucker, and Smith. Even though these wins were all very comfortable, and in the cases of Green and Smith, absolute shutouts.

No other fighter seems to take such heat for his decision wins. And they weren't even controversial.

I would certainly agree with that, when Tyson won every round but didnt get a knockout people were disappointed, Smith held onto him for most of the fight and Tucker was a very decent fighter at that point ..

But for me Tyson fans are still totally biased, when Douglas beat him there was endless excuses, when Holyfield beat him there was endless excuses, excuses that other fighters wouldnt get away with in a million years ....

[Dempsey1238]

I would certainly agree with that, when Tyson won every round but didnt get a knockout people were disappointed, Smith held onto him for most of the fight and Tucker was a very decent fighter at that point ..

But for me Tyson fans are still totally biased, when Douglas beat him there was endless excuses, when Holyfield beat him there was endless excuses, excuses that other fighters wouldnt get away with in a million years ....


Yep the Douglas lost, saying Douglas didnt beat Tyson, Tyson beat himself.


Or the long count thing. I pretty sure Douglas would have beaten the count fast or slow, Buster was not relly hurt from that shot. He was clear headed. This was no Tunney Dempsey II repeat imo.

Than we have the Tyson "Prime" which ended in 89. So Douglas beat a past prime Tyson.

Tell me, what other heavyweight champion was shot at 24??

[GPater11093]

I have a real problem with people dismissing the second Leonard/Duran II fight. Whilst we all hail Duran's victory in Montreal as being supernatural, all I hear about the return bout is about how out of shape Roberto was and how he had passed his prime. Let's not forget that he'd continue to fight for over a decade, putting in 2 or 3 very good performances in during that stint against top flight competition. Ray made the ultimate macho man quit, and although it's not as great as Duran's win over Leonard, it's still a very very good win.

Also, compare it to how Marco Antonio Barrera vs Manny Pacquiao I is viewed. By all accounts, it was an astonishing win and one that deserves a hell of a lot of credit. However, Barrera did look sluggish and not his usual self in that fight, much slower than usual during the early going, but he would later go on to put in good performances against Morales and Ayala.

We don't say, "Well, Barrera's training camp had issues because of the Forrest fire, which can be backed up by video footage" We congratulate Manny on a wonderful fight, which is how it's supposed to be. So instead of saying, "Duran was out of shape, Duran was lacking motivation", can we not just congratulate Leonard on a wonderful effort?

.

You cant say the Duran in the first leonard fight was the same as the Duran in the second leonard bout?

He looked like he had no drive or ambition to win the fight, or at least nowhere near the drive as in the first bout. To me he looked sluggish, half-arsed and unmotivated. He just never even looked like he was even trying to cut the ring off.

However, saying that i do generally think Leonard does get sold short in yhis fight he boxed a great fight, no doubt. Showed not an extra dimension to his game, but confirmed it solidly that he could box with the best. I also think the Duran that turned up for that fight was about 70% at most of the Montreal Duran but he was still at least the 3rd best Welter after Leonard and Hearns at the time.

[PetethePrince]

Foreman vs Tyson.

Once the late 80's and early 90's rolled around Mike Tyson was past it. Same speculate he was shot (Ridiculous). People say he wasn't at his peak. Maybe he was physically, but all his timing and skills were diminishing as he wasn't focused or training nearly enough as he should. Oh, and there's that good old Rooney not being in his corner. This changes the whole dynamics of Tyson. He can't prefer with this lucky Irish charm behind him. Tyson's best performance is lauded as the Spinks fight. Everyone talks about the signs on the wall when looking at the Bruno fight. He wasn't moving his head as much (Non-sense). He wasn't moving his head as effective (Perhaps...) He just lunged in throwing multiple punches (Like he did against Spinks. Who he had zero respect for in the power department). He didn't set his offensive up behind the jab (Perhaps). Yet after looking at this one fight they're clear that this is a sign of his detoriation. Whether it be through a lack of focus or being mentally gone. Yet, a few months later he knocks Carl Williams out with a devastating left in round 1. He does all the same things he does against Spinks. It's the performance that makes people put the Spinks fight on a pedestal. But he does a ton of wrong things and is obviously over-aggressive. It's just Spinks was scarred to death and zero threat. But the Bruno fight was a declining Tyson. And The Douglas fight was a complete fluke.

To continue on that point. Tyson was 24 years at the time. Any fight 1990 and beyond is a non-prime Tyson. Automatically he's just washed up. Even if his speed and combos were still devastating and power. He wasn't at his all-mighty god like invincible status circa 1987-1988. People argue about how the guy's prime consisted of just a year or two. Anyway... when Foreman lost to Ali in 1974 he was devastated. I argue that Foreman changed from 1973 of Jamaica all the way to 1977. First off, he used the jab to neutralize Frazier in that fight. After he blows out Frazier it just takes 1 great performance like that for him to fall in love with his power. He just loads up against Norton, with no jab. With Ali, he's swinging like a wild man for the fences. His decline is more noticable, and obvious to the eye than Ali's even BEFORE the Rumble and the Jungle. Now after this fight with Ali everyone talks about Lyle and Young. Lyle busted him up. That was a Foreman that wasn't mentally not there, even if he wanted to show heart. This version of Foreman paced and settled back way too much. He loses to Young in PR and now he has zero chance against any boxer/mover H2H. I don't see how that's fair, given the leeway Tyson gets against opposition from 1990 onward as compared to what he could do in his prime. When talking about Foreman, he gets zero slack.

The next biggest double standards I see is that you match Frazier with the super-heavyweights and he has a good chance. But someone like Marciano is just too small or too limited.

[red cobra]

Some valid points.

Anybody inclined to downgrade Tunneys wins over Dempsey should bear in mind that Dempsey beat Jack Sharkey on the best night he ever had between those two fights.

If that version of Dempsey managed to win one round against Tunney in two fights, then it should at least suggest that Tunney was a lot better than Jack Sharkey (even when his head was screwed on), and probably better than Max Schmeling who had his hands full with the same version of Sharkey.

To give Holyfield his due we would have to consider that even a shot Tyson managed to hand Andrew Gollota his head after he had basicaly beaten Bowe into retirement.

I have always felt that Tyson's win over Holmes is sold short. Holmes beat Ray Mercer who gave Lennox Lewis a close fight. Nobody should have done tht to Holmes past his prime or not. I would even venture to say that if the 45 year old Holmes had fought a prime Lennox Lewis he would have done better.

Excellent points you make! This one hell of an interesting thread.

[asero]

ranking duran's win over leonard as one of the biggest while snobbing rahman's win over lennox.

[Jack Dempsey]

Tunney was almost 'engineered' to beat Dempsey, he studied him for ages and found the way to beat Jack, true he would still need the necessary skills to carry out the plan. I'm not sure Dempsey would have ever found a way to defeat Tunney, close as he came in the rematch

[Bokaj]

You cant say the Duran in the first leonard fight was the same as the Duran in the second leonard bout?

He looked like he had no drive or ambition to win the fight, or at least nowhere near the drive as in the first bout. To me he looked sluggish, half-arsed and unmotivated. He just never even looked like he was even trying to cut the ring off.

However, saying that i do generally think Leonard does get sold short in yhis fight he boxed a great fight, no doubt. Showed not an extra dimension to his game, but confirmed it solidly that he could box with the best. I also think the Duran that turned up for that fight was about 70% at most of the Montreal Duran but he was still at least the 3rd best Welter after Leonard and Hearns at the time.

I think you're a good poster and enjoy reading your inputs, but I think this stance is a bit unimpressive.

Sure, Duran looked better in Montreal than in the rematch, but you could just as well switch around and say that Leonard looked much worse in Montreal than he did in the previous match against Benitez or in the rematch against Duran. It's just as true.

To watch it from only one perspective is not a good analysis. The simple fact is that when one fighter has a great perfomance his opponent, no matter how great, often looks sub-par.

Duran made Leonard look like a kid out in the deep end in Montreal, Leonard made Duran look like frustrated has-been in the rematch. So? Ali made Liston and Foreman look like amateurs. Norton made Ali look horrible at times, Douglas made the invincible Tyson look completetly ineffectual, and so on, and so on.

That's why I take fights at face value, if there isn't a very valid reason not to. There seldom is.

[Flea Man]

Floyd saying Pac ducked him by saying he would allow Arum and his Advisors to pick his next opponent rather than calling anyone out.

Floyd to Max Kellerman as Shane Mosley approached him in the ring. "I'll let Leonard Ellerbe decide my next opponent' :lol:

[GPater11093]

I think you're a good poster and enjoy reading your inputs, but I think this stance is a bit unimpressive.

Sure, Duran looked better in Montreal than in the rematch, but you could just as well switch around and say that Leonard looked much worse in Montreal than he did in the previous match against Benitez or in the rematch against Duran. It's just as true.

To watch it from only one perspective is not a good analysis. The simple fact is that when one fighter has a great perfomance his opponent, no matter how great, often looks sub-par.

Duran made Leonard look like a kid out in the deep end in Montreal, Leonard made Duran look like frustrated has-been in the rematch. So? Ali made Liston and Foreman look like amateurs. Norton made Ali look horrible at times, Douglas made the invincible Tyson look completetly ineffectual, and so on, and so on.

That's why I take fights at face value, if there isn't a very valid reason not to. There seldom is.

Well fair enough, but i really dont think Leonard was worse than the one that fought Benitez or Duran for the second time. He was in his prime and was always in shape. He just changed things up in the second fight tactics wise.

[Bokaj]

Well fair enough, but i really dont think Leonard was worse than the one that fought Benitez or Duran for the second time. He was in his prime and was always in shape. He just changed things up in the second fight tactics wise.

This I agree with.

The loss in Montreal is such that either breaks you or a learning experience that you come out of as a more mature fighter. It is interesting to note that Leonard's original plan before Hagler was to go toe-to-toe, but then he got KO'd in sparring just days before the fight and immediatly changed gameplan.

Ps. If one wants an example of a fighter that looks much, much worse in the rematch, one doesn't have to go further than Schmeling. He looks absolutely atrocius in the rematch, and you can make all kinds of excuses for him, but people quite rightly mainly focus on Louis' ability to come back much stronger in rematches.

[GPater11093]

This I agree with.

The loss in Montreal is such that either breaks you or a learning experience that you come out of as a more mature fighter. It is interesting to note that Leonard's original plan before Hagler was to go toe-to-toe, but then he got KO'd in sparring just days before the fight and immediatly changed gameplan.

Ps. If one wants an example of a fighter that looks much, much worse in the rematch, one doesn't have to go further than Schmeling. He looks absolutely atrocius in the rematch, and you can make all kinds of excuses for him, but people quite rightly mainly focus on Louis' ability to come back much stronger in rematches.

fair enough again

I do think Leonard did not get dragged into a fight with Duran, he had a good plan but Duran was too good. The rematch was real good tactics but Duran did look rubbish but as you say leonard should get praise for coming back which i give him.

[Bokaj]

fair enough again

I do think Leonard did not get dragged into a fight with Duran, he had a good plan but Duran was too good. The rematch was real good tactics but Duran did look rubbish but as you say leonard should get praise for coming back which i give him.

It is of course impossible to know exactly what goes through fighters minds or why they make the choices they make, but it's only in hindsight it seems like a bad fight plan for Leonard to go toe-to-toe with Duran.

Leonard was after all a boxer-puncher with very good power and chin as well as great speed and skill, facing an older and narurally smaller man. Why should he run? Of course he felt he would be able to duke it out with Duran. Hell, he obviously originally had that notion before facing Hagler.

[Boxed Ears]

ranking duran's win over leonard as one of the biggest while snobbing rahman's win over lennox.

No offense, but I just don't see these as being at all comparable.

[GPater11093]

It is of course impossible to know exactly what goes through fighters minds or why they make the choices they make, but it's only in hindsight it seems like a bad fight plan for Leonard to go toe-to-toe with Duran.

Leonard was after all a boxer-puncher with very good power and chin as well as great speed and skill, facing an older and narurally smaller man. Why should he run? Of course he felt he would be able to duke it out with Duran. Hell, he obviously originally had that notion before facing Hagler.

Exactly, we are singing of the same hym sheet

[Duodenum]

If one wants an example of a fighter that looks much, much worse in the rematch, one doesn't have to go further than Schmeling. He looks absolutely atrocius in the rematch, and you can make all kinds of excuses for him, but people quite rightly mainly focus on Louis' ability to come back much stronger in rematches.Speaking of that, I just stumbled across a clip of Max's 1939 comeback from Louis II, a one round knockout win of his own for the EBU heavyweight title over defending champion Adolf Heuser, one of the first matches ever televised. (I've been looking for this one a long time, and wasn't even sure it existed.)

The one minute clip of Schmeling-Heuser (including slow motion replay) runs from 4:17-5:17.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

Speaking of that, I just stumbled across a clip of Max's 1939 comeback from Louis II, a one round knockout win of his own for the EBU heavyweight title over defending champion Adolf Heuser, one of the first matches ever televised. (I've been looking for this one a long time, and wasn't even sure it existed.)

The one minute clip of Schmeling-Heuser (including slow motion replay) runs from 4:17-5:17.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I confess that I didnt even know that existed.

Heuser actualy died after the knockout but mediucs were able to bring him round.

This fight is the strongest argument for those who argue that Schgmeling still had a lot left when Louis beat him.

[Duodenum]

I confess that I didn't even know that existed.Coming from a poster of your stature, that makes this one of my better contributions on ESB Classic. That it was broadcast on state run television before 70,000 fans in attendance also suggests that Max was not as widely discredited a figure in German sport and society following the aftermath of the Louis rematch as one might suppose.Heuser actually died after the knockout but medics were able to bring him round.Now that, I didn't know, but I'd imagine that was directly related to the aforementioned deflection onto his jugular vein. Yet, Heuser was back in action the very next month, winning by knockout. (Imagine that quick a return from such a knockout loss being allowed to happen today!)This fight is the strongest argument for those who argue that Schmeling still had a lot left when Louis beat him.It's certainly a testament to Max's true greatness that he could rebound from such a devastating and injurious loss at that age to remain a top competitor among the likes of top German rivals like Heuser and Neusel. Unlike many domestic contemporaries, Max was removed from sustained ring activity by the wartime draft. If he had been allowed to continue boxing, I think he would have emerged from WW II with both his IBU and German BDB HW Titles intact.

Heuser and Neusel each added over a dozen bouts to their records during WW II, winning some and losing some. Competing domestically, I believe Max still could have posted a wartime record like 12-0 or 15-0, even against the credible German and European opposition of the day. (Max's vacated IBU HW crown was briefly usurped by 5-2-1 Olle Tandberg in a box off with former titleholder Karel Sys in 1943. Tandberg promptly lost it in an immediate rematch with Sys. As much as I respect Sys and the tremendous career he had, I can't see him beating an active Schmeling for that European championship, even in '43, '44 or '45. Max had a punch and style well suited for an extended career.)

[Hookie]

I mentioned this point in the Brit Forum a couple of weeks ago and its to do with Boxing fans very obvious double standards when they view a fighters career .. It was a post to do with good boxing books and i recommended the Gene Tunney biography by Jack Cavanaugh called 'Boxings Brainiest Champ' .. For me Tunney was a sensational fighter who is often under-rated, a man who fight fans seemingly want to forget and theres only one reason for that, Tunney was the man who defeated 2 of the most highly mythologised fighters in history, Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey .. He beat Greb 4 times and Dempsey twice, in my experience fight fans give Tunney very little credit for beating Dempsey, its always excuse after excuse, whether its the 'Long Count' or 'Dempsey was so far past his best at that point, he was rusty and inactive', now here is the double standard,

Jack Dempsey won the championship over 38 year old Jess Willard, who was little more than a heavy bag with very little boxing ability, and people to a man said and still say, 'Wow that was totally destructive, this guy is brilliant' .. Nobody ever questioned Willard's, Firpo's or Carpentier's credentials, the focus was always on the positives of Dempsey ..

Gene Tunney beats a 31 year old Jack Dempsey very comfortably twice, displaying some genuinely great boxing ability, strategy and ring smarts and he gets very little credit. The focus was all on 'Why Dempsey Lost' , and the excuses are endless 'Dempsey was washed up', 'Dempsey was more of an actor than a fighter at this point', 'If not for the Long Count, Dempsey would have won the rematch' .. Tunney gets zero credit, and this was the man that beat Greb 4 times, a fighter that Dempsey wouldnt fight ..

The next double standard regards Tyson and Holyfield. Mike Tyson along with Dempsey and Greb has to be the most mythologised fighter in history for fight fans, the endless threads and posts on ESB to do with how 'unbeatable an '88 Tyson was' go from strangth to strength. But here is the double standard ..

Mike Tyson knocks out 38 year old Larry Holmes, Holmes at this point was weathered and his reflexes werent what they were, a former great but nowere near at his best level .. Nobody ever mentions this. 70 years after Dempsey beat Willard the story is the same, all the talk is about 'how destructive and phenomenal Tyson is', nobody questions Holmes's age or reflexes, the focus is on the positives of Tyson ..

8 years after Tyson's destruction of Holmes, a 30 year old Mike Tyson takes on a 34 year old Evander Holyfield .. Holyfield isnt given a chance, hes thought of as washed up and surely he'll fall at the feet of boxings so called iron man .... Instead Holyfield out-boxes, out-fights, bullies and roughs up Tyson before stopping him in round 11 .. After a performance like this you would think that all the plaudits would go to Holyfield and they did for a time. But now theres a kind of revisionist feeling with many fight fans, no longer was this fight an example of Holyfield's undeniable courage and fighting ability, its suddenly a fight were it became 'obvious that Tyson was washed up and past his best' and 'an '88 Tyson would have wiped the floor with Holyfield' ....

The boxing double standards are clear for me to see, Dempsey and Tyson are like religious figures for many fight fans and to suggest that they would get beat fair and square by better fighters on the night is like suggesting the impossible ..

I'd be very interested if anybody could come up with any other 'Double Standards' with how various fighters are perceived by fans ..


Good read and I totally agree with you. Tunney was an amazing fighter. He was nver stopped and his only loss was to Greb... like you said, he beat Greb several times.

Holyfield and Tyson were both past prime. Prime vs. Prime I think Holyfield would have done about the same.