Never in a million years?

Following on from Haz's assertion that Liston threw the first fight with Clay (an opinion he's entitled to hold) it brought up the idea for a topic.

Are there any opinions that you hold which may or may not go against the grain/against the popular opinion that you will never change despite numerous arguments put forward and repeated attempts to sway you?

Conversely, are there opinions that you've clung onto steadfastly for years only to have them eroded away due to a combination of time, re-examination or finally taking off those rose-tinted glasses?

As I mentioned on the same thread Dave I am seemingly in a minority of one in believing the stoppage in the second Ali Liston fight was legit. Have read extensively on the subject and have seen the fight countless times. It was also debated on the old 606 more times than was healthy and despite all this, despite the countless sensible arguments put forward by people I respect I still believe the fight to be on the level. Have to think was I going to see common sense on this issue I would have done so by this point.

I was convinced Hagler beat SRL for years as did a mate of mine, we just went on convincing each other and neither of us could be swayed. I eventually admitted to him that we may have been wrong, however, he is still adamant that Hagler won.

Rowley wrote:As I mentioned on the same thread Dave I am seemingly in a minority of one in believing the stoppage in the second Ali Liston fight was legit. Have read extensively on the subject and have seen the fight countless times. It was also debated on the old 606 more times than was healthy and despite all this, despite the countless sensible arguments put forward by people I respect I still believe the fight to be on the level. Have to think was I going to see common sense on this issue I would have done so by this point.

Despite Liston's assertion's to the contrary?

I've had people constantly telling me that Vitali beat Lewis that night. Sorry, but no. He didn't. He may have won the first 4 rounds, but Lewis was starting to hurt Vitali, I'm sick of people saying that the cut was due to a headbutt, it wasn't.

I have no issue admitting that had the fight gone to the cards at the point of the stoppage that Vitali was winning, but Lewis was a notoriously slow starter and although he did seem unfit, he was starting to find Vitali with good shots. Vitali would likely have lasted the full distance, but the cut aside I think Lewis dominates from round 6 onwards. It looked like tat was what was going to happen.

Rowley wrote:As I mentioned on the same thread Dave I am seemingly in a minority of one in believing the stoppage in the second Ali Liston fight was legit. Have read extensively on the subject and have seen the fight countless times. It was also debated on the old 606 more times than was healthy and despite all this, despite the countless sensible arguments put forward by people I respect I still believe the fight to be on the level. Have to think was I going to see common sense on this issue I would have done so by this point.

A minority of two at least. Never been convinced that it was anything but shambolic refereeing from Walcott and a distinct lack of interest from Liston.

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:As I mentioned on the same thread Dave I am seemingly in a minority of one in believing the stoppage in the second Ali Liston fight was legit. Have read extensively on the subject and have seen the fight countless times. It was also debated on the old 606 more times than was healthy and despite all this, despite the countless sensible arguments put forward by people I respect I still believe the fight to be on the level. Have to think was I going to see common sense on this issue I would have done so by this point.

Despite Liston's assertion's to the contrary?

To be fair Haz Liston's position on what happened that night changed about as frequently as Haye's plans for the future. From what I have read more often than not he flat out refused to discuss the subject, but as also denied the fix as often as he has admitted it. Also boxers have a tendency to say whatever they need to to satisfy their ego or audience. Johnson went to great lengths to claim he threw the Willard fight, a view most everyone agrees is nonsense, despite Jack insisting it was a fix.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Rowley wrote:As I mentioned on the same thread Dave I am seemingly in a minority of one in believing the stoppage in the second Ali Liston fight was legit. Have read extensively on the subject and have seen the fight countless times. It was also debated on the old 606 more times than was healthy and despite all this, despite the countless sensible arguments put forward by people I respect I still believe the fight to be on the level. Have to think was I going to see common sense on this issue I would have done so by this point.

Despite Liston's assertion's to the contrary?

To be fair Haz Liston's position on what happened that night changed about as frequently as Haye's plans for the future. From what I have read more often than not he flat out refused to discuss the subject, but as also denied the fix as often as he has admitted it. Also boxers have a tendency to say whatever they need to to satisfy their ego or audience. Johnson went to great lengths to claim he threw the Willard fight, a view most everyone agrees is nonsense, despite Jack insisting it was a fix.

"That guy was crazy. I didn't want anything to do with him. And the Muslims were coming up. Who needed that? So I went down. I wasn't hit." - Sonny Liston's comments to Mark Kram of Sports Illustrated.

Even Ali and Dundee couldn't keep up the pretence when quizzed over whether the punch was legit without smirking.

That's the worst dive in history -- worse even than Bruce Seldon's against Tyson.

I don’t recall arguing he had never admitted it Haz, quite the opposite. My argument was he denied it or refused to comment just as many times so any quote from Liston can be countered with comfortably as many that hold the completely contrary perspective on what actually happened.

I think Ray Robinson is overrated (still great, mind), Like the Sydney Barnes of boxing.

Ali lost the third Norton fight, and I appreciate that you've all stopped trying to prove me otherwise.

Ali lost the the second Norton fight, and I appreciate that admitting Ali was shut out (3-0) against a limited Hercules is going to take longer to come to terms with.

I'll never change my belief that Herol Graham would have beaten Haglar, had Haglar faced him rather than Leonard.
With regard Kingrafs post above, I agree that noone could have any real compliants had Nortion got all three decisions over Ali- Ali's second reign may have hit some real highs- Foreman, and Frazier 3, but also had some real lows, the fights against Norton being a case in point. Norton was highly thought of pretty much solely on the basis of hs fights against Ali, but in my mind it's the wrong way round- Ali shouldn't get a free pass for losing /struggling with Norton, who's record against Foreman, Holmes and Clooney shows that he didn't belong at the top table of the division.

horizontalhero wrote:I'll never change my belief that Herol Graham would have beaten Haglar, had Haglar faced him rather than Leonard.
With regard Kingrafs post above, I agree that noone could have any real compliants had Nortion got all three decisions over Ali- Ali's second reign may have hit some real highs- Foreman, and Frazier 3, but also had some real lows, the fights against Norton being a case in point. Norton was highly thought of pretty much solely on the basis of hs fights against Ali, but in my mind it's the wrong way round- Ali shouldn't get a free pass for losing  /struggling with Norton, who's record against Foreman, Holmes and Clooney shows that he didn't belong at the top table of the division.

Norton struggled against punchers, however, he did marvellously well against both Ali and Holmes.

A few little things which I've been in a very, very small minority on against other v2ers. First off, that Larry Big Pants didn't rob Witherspoon, and that in fact the clearly won an admittedly close fight. Plenty of dissenters!

Another one is my conviction that Whitaker has just as strong a claim as both Duran and Benny Leonard, and an outright better one than Gans, to being the greatest Lightweight of all time. And I've clashed in a good-spirited manner plenty of times with a certain poster (I won't say who as I don't want to stir up any more arguments, but it's milkyboy) on a couple of points concerning James Toney, namely that he should have been awarded an outright win against McCallum in their first fight and that he wasn't as outclassed or as far behind on points (or at least shouldn't have been anywhere near as far behind as the judges had him) before he knocked out Nunn.

Although I think milky kind of half conceded just a shade of ground once upon a time on that second point, which was a momentous occasion for me!

hazharrison wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:I'll never change my belief that Herol Graham would have beaten Haglar, had Haglar faced him rather than Leonard.
With regard Kingrafs post above, I agree that no-one could have any real compliants had Nortion got all three decisions over Ali- Ali's second reign may have hit some real highs- Foreman, and Frazier 3, but also had some real lows, the fights against Norton being a case in point. Norton was highly thought of pretty much solely on the basis of hs fights against Ali, but in my mind it's the wrong way round- Ali shouldn't get a free pass for losing  /struggling with Norton, who's record against Foreman, Holmes and Clooney shows that he didn't belong at the top table of the division.

Norton struggled against punchers, however, he did marvellously well against both Ali and Holmes.

Putting Ali to the side for a minute, yes the Holmes fight was a great fight. Carl Williams Tim Witherspoon- also performed well against Holmes but lost , but Norton gets rated highter than these two on the back of his triliogy with Ali, and let's be honest -it was a poor version of Ali. the problem I have with the rating of Ali and his opponents in the 70's is that in some cases, such as Norton, it's self referential- How good was Ali? great he beat Norton, how good was Norton- great he beat Ali. Unless you factor in how Norton did against other top HWs he fought, it's not that helpful.

For years after the Clay Cooper fight I was conviced that Cooper had been robbed by Dundee ripping Clay's glove but over the years I've realised that He lost because Clay was playing with him until he had a wake up call.On the contrary I'll never believe that Ali was the winner of Ali Norton 3 and Ali Norton 2 could have gone either way.

I'll never be convinced the 2nd Liston fight wasn't a dive. He couldn't even wait until a half decent punch was thrown.

88Chris05 wrote:A few little things which I've been in a very, very small minority on against other v2ers. First off, that Larry Big Pants didn't rob Witherspoon, and that in fact the clearly won an admittedly close fight. Plenty of dissenters!

Another one is my conviction that Whitaker has just as strong a claim as both Duran and Benny Leonard, and an outright better one than Gans, to being the greatest Lightweight of all time. And I've clashed in a good-spirited manner plenty of times with a certain poster (I won't say who as I don't want to stir up any more arguments, but it's milkyboy) on a couple of points concerning James Toney, namely that he should have been awarded an outright win against McCallum in their first fight and that he wasn't as outclassed or as far behind on points (or at least shouldn't have been anywhere near as far behind as the judges had him) before he knocked out Nunn.

Although I think milky kind of half conceded just a shade of ground once upon a time on that second point, which was a momentous occasion for me!

"Milky in conceding ground shocker". Hold the back page. In other news, truss gives credit to honeyghan for the curry win.

The obvious one for me, I guess is Leonard hagler. I've battled all comers for many many years, but no-one will convince me it was a robbery.

I'm probably similarly entrenched in my views on the relative mediocrity (at world level) of Ricky hatton.

The above are not uncommon views. My 'against the grain' one is probably sal Sanchez. Not that he wasn't great, which he clearly was, but that:
-its not a given that his star would be brighter were it not for his sad early death... He could have done a benitez
- its not a given he wins a nelson rematch
- he gets a free pass for some average performances... Fighting down to the opposition etc.

Funnily enough, I think I might have got just a smidgen of movement from chris on this one... Not many other takers  though! 

Oh yeah, the old Sanchez debate. Have to admit you put me in my place on that one, milky. I think I can remember you saying that one comment I made regarding Sanchez fighting to the level of his opponent was akin to something Waingro would come out with, which cut pretty deep!

As you said yourself, I can see why people still go for that excuse for some of Sanchez's more workmanlike performances, but it'd be easier to fully buy it if those performances hadn't consistently come against the same kind of fighter, those awkward, cagey and rangy ones. I remember after we had that debate I took another look at the Pat Ford fight. Ouch.

I firmly believe that no matter how many duds the Klitschkos beat they are not much more than solid pros in a talentless era of heavyweights.

88Chris05 wrote:Oh yeah, the old Sanchez debate. Have to admit you put me in my place on that one, milky. I think I can remember you saying that one comment I made regarding Sanchez fighting to the level of his opponent was akin to something Waingro would come out with, which cut pretty deep!

As you said yourself, I can see why people still go for that excuse for some of Sanchez's more workmanlike performances, but it'd be easier to fully buy it if those performances hadn't consistently come against the same kind of fighter, those awkward, cagey and rangy ones. I remember after we had that debate I took another look at the Pat Ford fight. Ouch.

You dissing waingro  . Did i really say that, must have been a bad day, and I hereby formally retract it!

I found this a balanced piece on Sanchez...

http://theboxingmagazine.com/salvador-sanchez-one-fight-made-all-the-difference/

catchweight wrote:I firmly believe that no matter how many duds the Klitschkos beat they are not much more than solid pros in a talentless era of heavyweights.

I agree.

I would be firmly in the camp that Wlad post Stewart would not be able to get away with his grabbing and leaning tactics against the ATG's. They would be too good to not be able to avoid that tactic and they would land on the younger brothers chin to devastating effect.

For this reason Vitali will always rank higher for me. There is a devoted Klitscko fan base across the net who have Wlad beating just about every great including Ali largely based on the size difference. Virtual paper never refused virtual ink.

I dont buy the "too big" argument for the Klitschkos either. What they gain in size they lose in mobility. They look ok in against the sort of crap heavyweights around now but against better quality they would struggle.

I have been watching a lot of Joe Louis lately as part of a box set I got at Christmas. He beat the big huge guys even easier than he did the small ones. He would take out the Klitschkos. Nearly all the best heavyweights in history have weighed under 220lbs at their best. There is a range which offers the right balance between speed, power, agility and exposiveness.

I'll never believe Steve Collins was a world beater. Extremely fortunate to catch Eubank and Benn (especially) when he did.

kingraf wrote:I think Ray Robinson is overrated (still great, mind), Like the Sydney Barnes of boxing.

Ali lost the third Norton fight, and I appreciate that you've all stopped trying to prove me otherwise.

Ali lost the the second Norton fight, and I appreciate that admitting Ali was shut out (3-0) against a limited Hercules is going to take longer to come to terms with.

Silly comment from someone who should not interfare in boxing matters altogether.

Benn beat Eubank twice, the first fight between them is probably the most difficult one for me to argue now though, what with people haven't seen, heard or at least read about that fight.

huw wrote:Benn beat Eubank twice, the first fight between them is probably the most difficult one for me to argue now though, what with people haven't seen, heard or at least read about that fight.

?

Yes, I can see why thinking benn won the first Eubank fight, is a left field belief huw.

I've had similar issues convincing people that mike spinks beat Tyson. Some people just won't listen to reason.

talking of Benn and Eubank, I'm never going to believe the oft repeated opinion that Eubank was the superior technician of the two. I don't remember Benn practically falling over everytime he threw abn overhand right.

milkyboy wrote:Yes, I can see why thinking benn won the first Eubank fight, is a left field belief huw.

I've had similar issues convincing people that mike spinks beat Tyson. Some people just won't listen to reason.

Some blinkered people out there, prefer to use facts in debates.

The thing that lets me down in most arguments are facts and memories, since I can never remember anything I'm at a major disadvantage whenever the wife tries to have a row. As soon as she says 'ah but you said....' I have to concede to defeat.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Silly comment from someone who should not interfare in boxing matters altogether.

Pot, kettle

Women have an annoying ability to recall everything you've ever said to them, remove all context, and throw it back at you. Like you huw, I can't remember what I had for breakfast, so resistance is futile.

milkyboy wrote:Women have an annoying ability to recall everything you've ever said to them, remove all context, and throw it back at you. Like you huw, I can't remember what I had for breakfast, so resistance is futile.

It's like arguing with a solicitor

'what did you say on January 3rd at 10.27am with regards to my weight'
'I don't remember'
'I'd like to draw your attention to my diary where I have drawn a picture of you calling me fat, are you saying this isn't you in this illustration?'

The worst part is when you can't even be bothered and as soon as a row starts you take the moral high ground
'look I'm not sure what I have done to upset you, but whatever it was I'm sorry and I love you'
'you slept with my sister!'
'someone said she was better than you in bed and I had to defend your honour'

Just can't win with women no matter how hard you try.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Silly comment from someone who should not interfare in boxing matters altogether.

Pot, kettle

Your just a little boy to me jab.

I know more and seen more, stick to making up fantasy sparring matches.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Silly comment from someone who should not interfare in boxing matters altogether.

Pot, kettle

Your just a little boy to me jab.

I know more and seen more, stick to making up fantasy sparring matches.

You boys shouldnt play so rough...somebody is gonna end up crying  

I'll try another one on for size.....Is it just me, or is the idea that Mike McCallum is underrated a little bit of a myth these days? I mean certainly during his career he slipped under the radar a little, I won't dispute that. But the underrated drum has been banged frequently and loudly enough for most people these days to change their views accordingly. I think he gets enough praise, for what it's worth - which might not be much!

I don't think Calzaghe beats Froch if he fights him. Get tagged too often by Froch who throws he wild shots which find the target over and over.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I don't think Calzaghe beats Froch if he fights him. Get tagged too often by Froch who throws he wild shots which find the target over and over.

                

Steffan wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I don't think Calzaghe beats Froch if he fights him. Get tagged too often by Froch who throws he wild shots which find the target over and over.

                

Brilliant.

Maybe you can tell is how much you hate Froch, England and anything that isn't Welsh?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Your just a little boy to me jab.

I know more and seen more, stick to making up fantasy sparring matches.

"You're" not "your" - if you're going to belittle someone then as I've said countless times (maybe you should go back to school) you really should use proper grammar.

Maybe you've taken too many spinning back fists to the face? Or do you not teach other people your patented maneuver?

Funny how you only have one thing to throw at me yet you keep on giving me excuses to ridicule you with the absolute garbage you spout.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Steffan wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I don't think Calzaghe beats Froch if he fights him. Get tagged too often by Froch who throws he wild shots which find the target over and over.

                

Brilliant.

Maybe you can tell is how much you hate Froch, England and anything that isn't Welsh?

Have you actually got enough time?

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Your just a little boy to me jab.

I know more and seen more, stick to making up fantasy sparring matches.

"You're" not "your" - if you're going to belittle someone then as I've said countless times (maybe you should go back to school) you really should use proper grammar.

Maybe you've taken too many spinning back fists to the face? Or do you not teach other people your patented maneuver?

Funny how you only have one thing to throw at me yet you keep on giving me excuses to ridicule you with the absolute garbage you spout.

Cool it fellas. This is a happy forum

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Your just a little boy to me jab.

I know more and seen more, stick to making up fantasy sparring matches.

"You're" not "your" - if you're going to belittle someone then as I've said countless times (maybe you should go back to school) you really should use proper grammar.

Maybe you've taken too many spinning back fists to the face? Or do you not teach other people your patented maneuver?

Funny how you only have one thing to throw at me yet you keep on giving me excuses to ridicule you with the absolute garbage you spout.

I think that pretend bang to the head is making you a bit angry, Jabby. And pompous.

I think you're a complete and utter joke with pretty poor opinions and its utterly disgusting to make fun of something that almost killed me, but you're the one who has to look in the mirror at yourself thankfully, not me.

Oh no...

Once again, one line tripe from someone who puts as much weight behind their opinion as Paulie puts behind his punches.

Listen pal, you need to have a good hard think about why you frequent these boards, because if its to wade into other peoples arguments with poorly thought out one liners and offer nothing but blatent wummery, you may be in the wrong place.

Stop trying to be like Truss.

Not cool Jabby.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I think you're a complete and utter joke with pretty poor opinions and its utterly disgusting to make fun of something that almost killed me, but you're the one who has to look in the mirror at yourself thankfully, not me.

It's, you are abbreviating it is, as such an apostrophe is required.

This game is fun.

You know what, sod you all. I did alright without this place when I was ill.