Five Boxing myths exploded - Hagler, Hearns, Curry, Honey, Farr, Pep + Bowe

1. Hagler won because he took Hearns best shot....... Wrong......Hearns never landed his best shot.......There are people around who say Hearns couldn't stop Hagler........Yep on the night...Tyson/Lewis couldn't stop Tucker........Make no mistake the right hand that Shuler took leaves Hagler tasting canvas.......Nobody takes Hearns best shot at 147-160.........Nobody.

2. Curry quit against Honey..........Heard it so many times.......Fact is the Doctor stopped the fight......and the head shaking as Curry observed later was to do with the fact his timing was out and he had a huge gash on his eye.......

3. Tommy Farr ran Louis close..........No he didn't.

4. Pep won a round without throwing a punch.......

5. Bowe was scared of Lewis........He took on the more respected Holy instead.......For more money.

Cheers.

1. A "myth" in your mind only. Hagler took Hearns' best stuff and kept coming -- Tommy couldn't keep him off. Hagler's chin was concrete.
 
2. Curry may not have surrendered but he was well beaten and looked relieved when the fight was stopped -- looked beaten before the cut even. Weight drained and a shell of his former self.
 
3.Farr was competitive -- a surprise -- but by all accounts Louis was a worthy winner (haven't seen the fight in full).

4. A myth by all accounts.
 
5. Bowe was scheduled to face Lewis after beating Holyfield but his promoter, Rock Newman, was overly protective and steered him well clear of Lewis after Lennox wiped the floor with a shopworn Razor Ruddock. Bowe may not have been scared of Lewis but he wasn't keen to give him a title shot.
 
Once Holyfield had relieved him of his belts, Bowe (and Newman) were given the cold shoulder by most of the industry (he had to pucker up to Herbie Hide of all people to find a way back in). They did sign to face Lewis but McCall shocked Lennox and the fight went out of the window again.
The only other window of opportunity was after Holyfield 3 (Lewis has started baby-stepping under Steward and embarrassed Tommy Morrison). Bowe, though, was chasing a Tyson fight (and got his marbles scrambled by Golota in the interim).

Hagler wouldn't have taken the shot that Shuler took..........

Hearns never landed a payoff shot........

You haven't rebutted any of the other points If that was your intention.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Hagler wouldn't have taken the shot that Shuler took..........

Hearns never landed a payoff shot........

You haven't rebutted any of the other points If that was your intention.

The first right hand that Hearns landed was a beauty (he broke his hand landing it repeatedly). Strange point to assert without any basis.

Hagler took a heap of Tommy's Sunday punches and kept rocking and rolling.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
You haven't rebutted any of the other points If that was your intention.

I wasn't trying to -- I agree with the others (as would all relatively rational folk).

How about:
 
Leonard lost to Duran because his emotions got the better of him and he fought the wrong fight.
 
Leonard fought exactly how he had planned to -- only Duran was better than him. Leonard, as the bigger, stronger man (and bigger puncher), had planned to be aggressive rather than box and counter. Duran was too skilful and too crafty.
 
There's a myth to get stuck into....

 Haz.

hazharrison wrote:How about:
 
Leonard lost to Duran because his emotions got the better of him and he fought the wrong fight.
 
Leonard fought exactly how he had planned to -- only Duran was better than him. Leonard, as the bigger, stronger man (and bigger puncher), had planned to be aggressive rather than box and counter. Duran was too skilful and too crafty.
 
There's a myth to get stuck into....

Leonard fought the wrong fight...........Never said he planned to do anything different.

Doesn't mean he didn't think about it before Duran got under his skin.

Doesn't mean he did...........Geez!! 

Point being it's only opinion as to whether he fought the wrong fight by having a poor gameplan or whether the pre-fight silliness got to him.
And it's only your opinion that Hagler wouldn't have taken "that shot"

No myths "exploded" but hopefully another long and drawn out slanging match "defused"

Mayweather is on drugs because his plecs are big.

Pacquiao must have cheated because his head is so huge in proportion to his body.

Kell brook is a great prospect

GGG was knocked down in sparring


These are some myths i see daily

DAVE667 wrote:Point being it's only opinion as to whether he fought the wrong fight by having a poor gameplan or whether the pre-fight silliness got to him.
And it's only your opinion that Hagler wouldn't have taken "that shot"

No myths "exploded" but hopefully another long and drawn out slanging match "defused"

Point is an invalid point.......Is all I'm saying............I can't read minds and If I could it I'm sure it wouldn't take long to read yours !!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Point being it's only opinion as to whether he fought the wrong fight by having a poor gameplan or whether the pre-fight silliness got to him.
And it's only your opinion that Hagler wouldn't have taken "that shot"

No myths "exploded" but hopefully another long and drawn out slanging match "defused"

Point is an invalid point.......Is all I'm saying............I can't read minds and If I could it I'm sure it wouldn't take long to read yours !!

True, it's would just be the words "TRUSS is a f*****g tw*t!" endlessly..
You can't read minds and you can't know for a fact that Hagler takes Tommy best shots They're just opinions not myths exploded.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Mayweather is on drugs because his plecs are big.

Pacquiao must have cheated because his head is so huge in proportion to his body.

Kell brook is a great prospect

GGG was knocked down in sparring


These are some myths i see daily

Kell Brook is a great Brit prospect.........Course he is........

Has a good chance of beating Alexander.

True enough, on his day, Brook has the ability to give anyone a run for their money. Problem is we have no idea how he'll cope in a genuine "big" fight. He may be like Hatton v Kostya or he may be like Johnny Nelson or Junior Witter.

He has potential which, may end up wasted, but like it or not, Brook is capable of taking that title.

Hence the reason he's a prospect and not a sure-bet..

Therefore it's not a myth, mobile.

DAVE667 wrote:Therefore it's not a myth, mobile.

Would seem to be more a commonly held view you don't necessarily agree with. Nowhere near as pithy to bill it as such though.

Rowley wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Therefore it's not a myth, mobile.

Would seem to be more a commonly held view you don't necessarily agree with. Nowhere near as pithy to bill it as such though.

"Five commonly held views exploded/dismissed using fact and distinct lack of hyperbole"

Aye, not the most exciting title for a thread...doesn't contain the words "Peter Jackson" for a start (let alone "Bradley Pryce")

Windy was at the Corbett-Fitzsimmons fight in a pink dress..........

Is another myth we can bust.......

It was yellow with blue flowers

DAVE667 wrote:Therefore it's not a myth, mobile.

Beggars cant be choosers Dave.

I never invented these "myths", ive just heard them around the boxing community a fair bit.

If im honest, I don't even think Kell IS a GREAT Prospect. Just a good fighter at a good level, nothing extraordinary.

Hopefully ill eat my words with him being British.

Totally depends on your definition of "great"

No doubt Joshua is going to be the next as he demonstrates "World class" punching power or whatever the hell else Adam Smith decides to cream himself over.

Haha.

The Peoples Champion??? Brilliant.

By great i mean like, Khan maybe? Was hailed as a great prospect, one of the best as most pointed out after Athens.

Went on to become world champ, fought in big super fights, unification bouts, some good names like Judah, Maidana, Kotelnik and Paulie on his resume.

but then in flip revers, in sure Audley was quoted as the next best heavyweight after his Gold.

Lets not talk about how he turned out

I just think Brook will be in the middle. Similar to a Bruno? Good fighter not great, good fights but loses against the very best, may pick up a strap along the way?

Hearns would have needed a shotgun to put Hagler down that night he hit him with big shots and it just made Marvin more angry. Hearns is probably my favourite fighter of all time, but he found out just like everyone else that Hagler had a freakishly good chin and in a straight up toe to toe was almost unbeatable.

hazharrison wrote:How about:
 
Leonard lost to Duran because his emotions got the better of him and he fought the wrong fight.
 
Leonard fought exactly how he had planned to -- only Duran was better than him. Leonard, as the bigger, stronger man (and bigger puncher), had planned to be aggressive rather than box and counter. Duran was too skilful and too crafty.
 
There's a myth to get stuck into....

There is more in that than people think, Leonard found out how good Duran could be that night and that's why he offered him silly money for short notice rematch knowing Duran was is no kind of shape after partying, drinking and shagging about for weeks on end. Even Leonard openly admits he knew Duran's greed and arrogance that he would still win would get the better of him and he they could entice him back when he was not in any sort of condition to fight. Fact is when they were both in top shape Duran was the better man.

One thing you don't do is try to match Duran at his own game, which is exactly what Leonard did,2nd time round Leonard used his speed and boxing skills and the fights different.
Leonard is my favourite fighter of all time but no excuses Leonard Duran 1 was a brilliant Duran performance.

Leonard was great in the rematch, but he was also a very smart man he says he went straight into training pretty soon after he lost, but Duran was a different story he was awful his timing was all over the place and he was in nothing like the condition of the first fight. Leonard was a truly great fighter but it may well have been a very different fight if he turned down the big offer and delayed the rematch till he was in tip top condition again.

It was Leonard that pushed that story. He liked an edge, but likes even more that people think he's clever. Duran partied between all his fights, though granted sometimes he turned up in better shape than others!

Who's to say how it pans out if the Leonard from the second fight fought the Duran of the first fight. Duran's condition relative to the first fight is largely conjecture. Its a convenient excuse but personally, i thought he seemed to lack the intensity he showed in the first and I think there's enough noise about his weight issues to assume it was certainly Leonard that was the fighter in better shape in New Orleans.

Srl's tactics are transparently different to me... Notwithstanding that sometimes you simply aren't allowed to fight how you want. Personally, the first fight was close enough that with a change in tactics, Leonard would probably have won. Just my opinion and I can see the counter view, Duran had an intensity in Montreal seldom seen in a boxing ring.

I did cover this a little while back, admittedly, but the growing idea that Leonard somehow swerved Pryor, or was just never interested in the fight, is one which bugs me slightly. Won't repost the links, but Google 'Still hope for Pryor-Leonard' and it pretty much puts the whole thing to bed. There's also a video on YouTube of Pryor admitting that he turned down the chance of a Leonard fight (and a then career-high purse of $500,000) before they went in to negotiations for a second time.

Another one, which in fairness only tends to be used by big-time Lennox fans in an effort to explain away or take the ignominy off of his defeats - that McCall was actually a really good fighter who underachieved due to issues outside the ring. I just don't think Ollie was that much cop, to be honest, and that a few people seem to think that simply having an amazing chin (which he does have, in fairness) makes him a top class fighter.

I mean, come on. The guy only just scraped past a tubby, old version of Holmes who had no legs left - and who still made him look clueless for about nine or ten rounds before simply running out of gas.

In fairness to Hearns, the first clean shot he landed was to Hagler's forehead which probably caused the break, so all future punches wouldn't have been as painful. If it were on the chin, who knows?

I think that you are overplaying Hearns' undoubted power a tad here Truss, - Leonard took big shots from him, Haglar took a few, Iran Barkely took some monsters in their fight at middle weight, and all three ended up KO winners over him. I'm not saying that they took his 'best shot' but there's evidence that he didn't always get to land that sort of shot , even in longer fights. You could make the same argument about most bigger punchers- who could take McClellan's best shot? The apparently dodgy chinned Nigel Benn did.

Agree with horizontal. Good post.

Who knows, it could well be that the right hand Hearns stunned Hagler with wasn't quite as devastating as the one he absolutely flattened Shuler with, but trying to narrow it all down to one, single punch for the sake of saying that Hagler "didn't take Hearns' best punch" is being slightly pedantic, for me. Fact is, the right hand was Tommy's money punch, and any time it landed cleanly anywhere on the skull it was one hell of an examination.

Maybe the left hook which McCallum took off Jackson, which had his whole body in spasm but which he also survived, wasn't quite as perfect as Jackson's right hands which poleaxed Norris and Graham - but on the night, it was the best that Jackson came up with and it would surely have flattened most other fighters, as Hearn's shots in the Hagler fight would almost certainly have done, too.

In both cases, I think you've got to avoid over-analysing it and just say, yep, both Hagler and Jackson took the best shots of their opponent and that it played a huge part in them being able to go on and out-slug them in an absolute war.

milkyboy wrote:It was Leonard that pushed that story. He liked an edge, but likes even more that people think he's clever. Duran partied between all his fights, though granted sometimes he turned up in better shape than others!

Who's to say how it pans out if the Leonard from the second fight fought the Duran of the first fight. Duran's condition relative to the first fight is largely conjecture. Its a convenient excuse but personally, i thought he seemed to lack the intensity he showed in the first and I think there's enough noise about his weight issues to assume it was certainly Leonard that was the fighter in better shape in New Orleans.

Srl's tactics are transparently different to me... Notwithstanding that sometimes you simply aren't allowed to fight how you want. Personally, the first fight was close enough that with a change in tactics, Leonard would probably have won. Just my opinion and I can see the counter view, Duran had an intensity in Montreal seldom seen in a boxing ring.

Duran came down from a reported 180 lb. and couldn't regain the intensity he'd shown first time around -- in truth he was never the same man again (save for flashes against Moore, Hagler and Barkley but even then, that wasn't the real Duran). He had reached a pinnacle few ever could.

At their best, Duran edged him (as the naturally smaller man). Leonard admitted that he couldn't have fought any other way that night -- Duran wouldn't allow him to.

I think with regards to Duran and Leonard it's a case of six one and half a dozen of the other.

In the first Leonard was dragged into Durans kind of fight, that is to Durans eternal credit that he was able to move up in weight to beat a genuinely great fighter at his best weight. Then in the rematch Duran was in my opinion not in the condition he was in for the first fight, the only person to blame for that is Duran himself, Leonard capitalised on it to his credit. When it boils down to it on a head to head basis I have them level possibly with a ever so slight edge to Duran.

I've read that Leonard planned to fight as he eventually did - staying close to Duran to stop the Panamanian getting up a head of steam and forward momentum while looking to negate his skill by overpowering him.

Duran was just too good inside. Leonard, though, masterful performer that he was started to work him out down the stretch - breaking quickly and looking to strike quickly before Duran could crawl all over him. He couldn't have boxed as he did second time around, though, and admitted as much.

The real myth is that Leonard dropped the ball but put it right by switching styles. He didn't fight the same Duran in the rematch.

I think Leonard did fight the wrong fight in Montreal. But, and this is key, I don't think it was because he actually decided to fight that way, if that makes any sense.

What I mean is, Leonard didn't so much pick those tactics in Montreal. Rather, they just came naturally to him. It's a bit of a misconception that Leonard had been a mover who utilised his foot speed but became an in-fighter the night he first boxed Duran. If anything, it was closer to being the other way round; the young Leonard usually took it to his opponents and was happy to stand in close and trade with them (the Benitez fight being the exception).

If there was a switch in his usual style and tactics, it came as a result of losing the Brawl in Montreal, rather than Duran's antics beforehand. And it didn't last long, either; once he'd humiliated Duran in New Orleans, Leonard was right back to fighting aggressively and carrying the fight to his opponent against Bonds and Kalule, fights in which he didn't show too much regard for defence.

So yes, Leonard fought the wrong fight, but not simply because Duran dragged him in to it. I suspect Leonard would have fought the same way in that first fight even if Duran had been a perfect gentleman in the build up and Leonard hadn't felt the need to teach him a lesson.

With regards to who, head to head, was the better of the pair overall, or who'd have the upper hand more often than not if they were both at their very best, I'd have to go with Leonard.

I think Duran beating Ray was the exception rather than the rule. Having an in-fight where they collided head on, Leonard lost, but not by much of a margin. When he kept it at range, though, Leonard ran away with it. Now I know people will argue that Duran wasn't his normal self in New Orleans, but ultimately if you're going to pour scorn on Leonard's excuse that he was thrown off by Duran's conduct in Montreal, then I think it's only fair that you don't place too much emphasis on Duran claiming he was under cooked for the rematch, either. As others have said, it's not as if the interim between June and November 1980 was the only time in his career that Duran ballooned up in weight and partied like it was 1999.

What's more, while the idea that Duran couldn't handle boxers is over-blown (particularly at 135, his best weight where he beat some excellent technicians and even a 'runner' in Fernandez), Leonard II and Benitez demonstrated that at the higher weights of 147 / 154, a really exceptional and naturally bigger boxer who defends well, counters and uses the ring would often be a bridge too far for him.

Leonard, despite losing the first fight, at least took that lesson from the defeat and made the adjustments, and if they'd boxed again in 1981 at Welterweight, with Duran in tip-top shape and with no excuses, I tend to think that Leonard would have outboxed him and taken a decision.

Duran had a history of ballooning up in weight (to a degree) but the Leonard fight was the apex of his career -- he was a national hero and he struggled mightily to come back down to 147 -- reports he was up to 10 pounds adrift a few days before, taking laxatives etc. More importantly, the fire had gone out. He was never the same fighter (save for in spots).

If they'd rematched in the same condition they were in first time around then Leonard could possibly have edged the rematch -- he was an all-time great and in matches between other all-timers I believe fights can go either way depending on whose night it is on that particular occasion.

Duran's feat was astonishing, though. A great lightweight (the greatest) defeating a great welterweight (when fighters were actually that -- rather than natural cruiserweights taking potions to beat middleweights etc).

It speaks volumes about the greatness of Duran.

No arguments that Montreal was the pinnacle for Duran. He had effectively been at welter for a couple of years though and he didn't look blown up. At that stage in their respective careers both were genuine welters...Notwithstanding this Leonard was obviously the naturally bigger man. You would expect the great welter to beat the great lightweight and he didn't. Duran just had relentless intensity that night.

Of course it was the pinnacle...His whole top 10 joke of a legacy is based on it.

Not sure how somebody dragging forward a rematch means a guy doesn't go toe to toe against a guy who "made" the weight..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Of course it was the pinnacle...His whole top 10 joke of a legacy is based on it.

Not sure how somebody dragging forward a rematch means a guy doesn't go toe to toe against a guy who "made" the weight..

More bias.

Leonard admitted that he dragged forward the rematch because he knew how out of condition Duran was and that he'd catch him unprepared (which he did). Great gamesmanship but not as good a win as Duran's over Leonard.

Duran is a true master -- shame you're too biased to acknowledge that. Maybe if he was American and had sidestepped Leonard......

He might have dragged it forward......but Duran made the weight and Leonard chose not to engage....

No brawl in new orleans.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He might have dragged it forward......but Duran made the weight and Leonard chose not to engage....

No brawl in new orleans.....

And?

It was Leonard's tactics that won the fight and not the lay off....That was irrelevant and to show how smart Leonard was mentally.

Or are you suggesting he bucks his trend with smart boxers...and with longer between fights does Leonard..

He didn't seem to enjoy Benitez.

Duran was never the same fighter after the Leonard win.

Leonard admitted that -- against the Duran from the first fight -- he couldn't have boxed any other way -- Duran wouldn't have let him do what he did second time around the block.

Duran was the never the same fighter and he says I'm biased.....

Leonard's win was garbage in the rematch...

Hearns got lucky...Davey moore was a trialhorse...

and he beats Hagler If he'd fought him in 1980.......

glad we sorted that out.

Leonard has also said on countless occasions that he fought the wrong fight in Montreal. I'm not sure you can take either Leonard or Duran at their word on anything to do with their fights.

I agree but we can also say that brawling with a guy who struggled with slick boxers isn't exactly the right thing to do.......