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

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.

Good work

Ali's phantom punch.

I have seen replays but can't tell if it connected on Liston. I kinda think it did but with Listons shady background it would not surprise me if he took a dive. All manner of conspiracy surrounding this one starring the Mafia, NOI, and politics but would like to know the truth.

Liston being afraid of needles as to why he didn't kill himself.....

Addicts will go through hell for a fix..

Sad but true..........

Am not too sure you can count this as a myth because in real terms there was a long count but always get ridiculously wound up by the fuss King created over the Tyson Douglas long count. Truth is referees should pick up the count of the time keeper but in practical terms they frequently do not and start their own count. This is what Meryan did, and is consistent with how he had refereed the countless fights he had done previously. A fighter has one responsibility and one only and that is to rise before the referee completes his count. Douglas did this, as such as far as I am concerned there is no question mark or asterix that should be attached to this win.

Pity you didn't tell that to Harry Carpenter.....That disgrace of a commentator you used to have..

"I saw Douglas get counted out"......... "Don't complain to me tell Tyson he'll sort the winner of Holy-Douglas out!!"..........

"Get in there Frank"..........

F**king disgrace that guy..

I'd also like to debunk the myth that the black bottle had any bearing on the result of Arguello - Pryor 1..........

Sure it was controversial but Pryor was owning his backside all night long..

Did 'Arry have an affair with your wife, Truss?

Calm it down a bit sunshine.

She likes younger men not older ones.....

and men with substance..which rules you out as well..

Fair point.

One I have been wondering about is why was Michael Spinks bricking himself before the Tyson fight?

I've heard three explanations, one that Butch Lewis went to check on Tyson's handwraps and Tyson got annoyed and punched a wall and Spinks heard that, the second (Bert Sugar's version I think) is that Tyson punched the wall but Spinks was sitting the other side and the punch nearly hit him, and the third is that there was a hole in the wall in Spinks' dressing room and someone told him Tyson had done it before the Holmes fight. Probably none of the above.

In fairness there wasn't a fighter that didn't brick it against Tyson back then.....

Thomas.......Douglas..........excepted........Berbick was too dumb to brick it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pity you didn't tell that to Harry Carpenter.....That disgrace of a commentator you used to have..

"I saw Douglas get counted out"......... "Don't complain to me tell Tyson he'll sort the winner of Holy-Douglas out!!"..........

"Get in there Frank"..........

F**king disgrace that guy..

He was quite a good commentator and presenter truss, with one fatal flaw... He had his favourites and jet emotions get the better of him. Bugner cooper was his lowest moment.

Maybe I was a little out of order.........

Just...........rubbishing Douglas performance like that and shouting someone to get in there whilst commentating...

Is amateur night..

Union Cane wrote:Fair point.

One I have been wondering about is why was Michael Spinks bricking himself before the Tyson fight?

I've heard three explanations, one that Butch Lewis went to check on Tyson's handwraps and Tyson got annoyed and punched a wall and Spinks heard that, the second (Bert Sugar's version I think) is that Tyson punched the wall but Spinks was sitting the other side and the punch nearly hit him, and the third is that there was a hole in the wall in Spinks' dressing room and someone told him Tyson had done it before the Holmes fight. Probably none of the above.

Spinks readily admitted he was scared of all his opponents... And used that fear to keep his focus, I guess if you're scared of a 175 lb journeyman, getting in the ring with Tyson must be petrifying. The jinx should have worn brown trunks for that one.

I think in a way you've hit the nail on the head........

Spinks was a 175lber............Tyson was unbeatable to many..........

Spinks was intelligent...........He was slower...couldn't hurt Tyson......and couldn't see how he could win !!!!

I had him knocked out in the second........couldn't see how anybody could think it was a good fight..

The ring had Spinks winning.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Maybe I was a little out of order.........

Just...........rubbishing Douglas performance like that and shouting someone to get in there whilst commentating...

Is amateur night..

No qualms with the above truss, anyone rubbishing Douglas that night gets a virtual slapping from me

I thought spinks had an outside chance if he could stay out of trouble for 5 rounds. As soon as I saw the ring walks I ripped that one up and called it as it was.

A couple of interesting things in that article chris.... Allegedly there was a contract for Duran Pryor. Never heard that before. Now that would have been a proper tear up.

milkyboy wrote:A couple of interesting things in that article chris.... Allegedly there was a contract for Duran Pryor. Never heard that before.  Now that would have been a proper tear up.

Pryor kills him...........

Rolls him like a drunk no doubt

I hate that line......It's classless.

Fair point, what idiot first used it round here?

TRUSSMAN55 used it on the old bbc606...

I'm TRUSSMAN66....

I remember him...he was a jackass. The newer version we have is an improvement...of sorts...or so I hear.....fatter probably.

Like I said I enjoy it when you're not on threads I'm interested in.. 

Fatter? no. Beefier? Maybe

No definitely fatter....most of it between the ears.

Debunking the myth...wonder if in four weeks time we can debunk the "Haye is intimidated by Fury's size" myth?

In fairness, you never know what can happen but only one person sees this "intimidation" and yet the fact Haye failed to beat the best HW he's ever likely to face seems to have been used as some kind of proof positive that he's going to freeze up when he faces this lumbering oaf who has never boxed to his fullest potential (not that his fullest potential is much anyway)

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

Just saying...

Bernard Hopkins holding the middleweight championship defence record grates on me (as with most modern-day title defence bunkum).

He held a portion of the championship for years in the same way Calzaghe defended his WBO version for years.

Did Ali duck a Foreman rematch?

Hopkins was considered the best middleweight in the world throughout his reign and it's not as if there was anyone he could have fought that he didn't, he cleaned up beyond doubt and deserves his record.

Ali knew that he'd defied all logic to beat Foreman and knew his body couldn't take the punishment again. Foreman disappeared for a year or so after his loss to Ali and by the time he'd got himself back into position for a rematch Ali wanted no part of him, Think the third fight with Frazier had pretty much drained the well and whilst he may have been seen as ducking Foreman I don't think many begrudged him that.

Why wasn't Tyson disqualified for hitting Bruno whilst he was on one knee?

Foreman didn't do his case much good with his near loss struggle with Ron Lyle and loss to Jimmy Young.

Infact there's a boxing myth, Young being robbed against Ali. Ali looked awful but he still won, and at ringside both Cosell and Ali's best buddy Norton gave Ali the edge. Then there was the awful refereeing. Whenever Young was hurt or caught clean, he'd duck under the ropes and basically hide outside of the confines of the ring for which he was never penalised, even though the ref gave him a count at one point. I'm pretty sure the rules state you have to stay in the ring or get DQ'd, and he most probably would've been stopped or beaten on a bit more if he'd been limited to using only the ring.

Union Cane wrote:Why wasn't Tyson disqualified for hitting Bruno whilst he was on one knee?

Mor importantly why was he not disqualified against Botha for trying to break his arm. Was gutted about that one as I had a few quid on Botha as I thought Tyson would do something stupid. Still feel cheated out of my winnings.

One that grates on me is that Hamed never fought again after the Barrera loss. It is parroted all over the place, people keep passing it on unchallenged.

On the subject of Hamed the Barrera fight seems to have got a life of its own with the passage of time. Often portrayed as a one sided shellacking from start to finish. Will say that Barrera won and won clearly and deservedly but the idea he pitched a shutout is one easily dismissed by the cards.

Why wasn't Barrera disqualified for smashing Hamed into the turnbuckle?

Yep, I agree, it was a definite and clear win for Barrera but not the total pasting that people insist it was. Good point about the turnbuckle incident! Did he even get a warning? I can't remember.

Believe he had a point deducted but no more than this.

And how did Hamed get away with the WWE-style bodyslam of Soto?!

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.

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.

Regarding Klitschko, it is more a matter of conjecture than a myth. He may have, he may not have...who knows?

Hamed didn't train properly - that isn't to say he would have won otherwise, but I think it would have been a lot closer.

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.

An old favourite of mine is Ali (Clay) getting extra minutes to recover at the end of the fourth round after being floored by Cooper while they looked for a new glove.

hazharrison wrote:Bernard Hopkins holding the middleweight championship defence record grates on me (as with most modern-day title defence bunkum).

He held a portion of the championship for years in the same way Calzaghe defended his WBO version for years.

I think Hopkins was the best middleweight of his time but I agree with your point. It's a lot easier to run up a good number of title defences when there's four titles available and you only hold one of them.

Wlad Klitschko is getting close to Joe Louis' record of 25 defences but if he gets it, it won't have the same meaning for me even if he unifies before he retires.

Union Cane wrote:Why wasn't Barrera disqualified for smashing Hamed into the turnbuckle?

In MAB's defense it was really funny.

SugarRayBray 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.

Regarding Klitschko, it is more a matter of conjecture than a myth. He may have, he may not have...who knows?

Hamed didn't train properly - that isn't to say he would have won otherwise, but I think it would have been a lot closer.

How does anybody know whether Hamed trained properly or not because Hamed or his camp say so,I wouldn't know I wasn't in his camp, much the same as David Hayes big toe having any bearing on his performance against Klitschko.

Starling winning all eight rounds against Honeyghan when in reality lloyd took the first two with the third even?
My favorite myth is that Dempsey was holding a bolt in his fist when he gave poor old Willard such a terrible beating. Jess claimed to have found the offending item on the canvas after the fight. there's no real evidence to suggest this was true, but if it gave his bruised pride a bit of a comfort to believe that, then I guess that it's fair enough- all boxers need an excuse to explain loses- how many times have we heard the old "I was weight drained" or the " I left the fight in the gym" after bold pre fight boasts? I would love to know which we're genuine and which were revisionist explanations.
The other laced glove story that's worth a mention was that Joe Louis had loaded gloves for his rematch with Schmeling. Given that it remains probably the most politically important sporting event in History, and the weight of expectation on Joe, you can see why people may be inclined to believe that he was given every advantage possible, and that given he cracked one of Max's vertebrae, the theory gained more credence. I would hate for it to be true, but it's certainly one of those "well, you never know" kind of claims

Honeyghan took the third If we are being kind...and even then it was on workrate alone....

Tubbs won the first round against Tyson..

Threw nothing of substance all night...Amateur night wasn't it ???...Starling didn't have any easier nights...

You'll be telling me he won a round against Breland next....Never knew Breland had such a potent jab..

Funny how the two guys he hated most who put down his performance against Curry....Both humiliated him...

He still dines out on Curry bless him...But only Brits buy into it...

Keep dreaming Lloyd..

Nico the gman wrote:

SugarRayBray 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.

Regarding Klitschko, it is more a matter of conjecture than a myth. He may have, he may not have...who knows?

Hamed didn't train properly - that isn't to say he would have won otherwise, but I think it would have been a lot closer.

How does anybody know whether Hamed trained properly or not because Hamed or his camp say so,I wouldn't know I wasn't in his camp, much the same as David Hayes big toe having any bearing on his performance against Klitschko.

The documentary that was made charting Hamed's preparations for the fight was quite revealing. He seemed to be more interested in what his hair looked like and living in luxury in Oscar de la Hoya's pad. He looked awful in sparring, all over the shop. By the time of the Barrera fight his head had gotten so big that by his own admission he thought all he had to do was turn up to win. He'd become over-reliant on his power to get him out of jail.