Fights that have "changed" over the years ??

Look at JFK...Useless Obama type compared to LBJ now all these years later one of America's greatest Presidents...Mainly because like Garfield,Jackson,Lincoln and Mckinley he got shot..

Reminds me how fights have changed....To hear how Duran schooled Leonard in their fight one would think he hadn't nicked it by a round....You read how Farr gave Louis a great fight when in reality he lost a lopsided decision..

The word "robbery" is way overused....It's common to say Hagler was robbed against Vito however I thought Hagler won by a slight margin and at the time some experts had Vito winning...

History has a habit of changing reality and none more so than in Boxing...

You not think that the card which only had Duran a point up in Montreal was just a wee bit kind to Leonard though, Truss? It was an extremely competitive fight, and pretty close overall....But not that close.

There's a few Duran fights where I think the picture has become a little distorted over time, actually. Namely, I think he beat Buchanan a lot more handily than some others do (maybe this one is helped by the fact that Duran described Buchanan as his toughest opponent at Lightweight) and I also think that the 'No Mas' return wasn't as competitive and close before his meltdown as others, too.

I tend to think that the supposed injustice of the first Watson-Eubank fight gets very much overblown as well, maybe because of what tragically happened to Watson in the return. It's often described as a stone wall robbery but having scored it a couple of times in the past I just can't get my head around that. To me it was just a close fight, close enough for a case to be made for either man to have won it by a slither. Personally I thought a draw was the least Eubank deserved.

Appreciate that some at the time thought it was a robbery, but was it considered so by the large majority like it seems to be now? If you watch the ITV recording of the fight, all three of the commentators (Barry McGuigan, Jim McDonnell and somebody else whose name eludes me right now!) were saying at the end that they couldn't call a winner and wouldn't like to be in the position of the judges for this one. That stance seems a lot more understandable and on the money for me than saying that Watson won it clearly.

Definitely close enough to warrant a rematch (and yep, in that one Watson did absolutely banjo Eubank up until the twelfth, no myth there)....But never an outright robbery in my eyes.

I thought the general consensus with fans and the media alike was that leonard fought the wrong fight and tried to out macho the hands of stone, and in the process was out fought. Ive never read duran schooled him...apart from by duran fans on forums!

Agree with the premise though, once witnesses are dead and gone, writers can change history at the drop of a hat.

Believing what you read in boxing is both lazy and silly. Theres plenty of video out there.

Must say Chris, I had Watson a clear winner. Admittedly I havent scored the fight in a good while, but remember Eubank having a good start and fading if memory serves me right. Must agree not a robbery, but didn't think Eubank deserved to leave with his unbeaten record intact.

Cheers
Rodders

Agree that Watson definitely took over from the midway point on, Rodders. Often better to end strongly after an indifferent start than to start well (albeit most of the rounds, especially early, were quite dull ones) and fade like Eubank did. No issue with what you're saying insofar as you had Watson ahead, but personally just couldn't see it being any better than, say, 7-5 in rounds.

Watson gave Eubank an awful lot of time and space in the first fight....Definitely learned his lesson in the rematch, though. All over him from the off and going to the body a lot, if I remember rightly, whereas I don't think I remember seeing him punish Eubank's body once in the first fight.

Yeah Watson certainly turned the heat up and went into hunter mode in the rematch. 7-5 seems about right Chris, like I mentioned I havent scored it for a while so would like to revisit it, however maybe something in Eubanks work I dont give credit for, I also had him losing against Ray Close, Schommer, Benn 2 and Watson.

Cheers Rodders

I thought Watson edged the first fight, not a robbery for me either though.

I watched the second fight in a packed pub in South London. Me and two mates cheering for Eubank. Everyone else cheering for Watson. That gives you an indication of their respective popularity at the time, and might therefore explain why there was the level of discontent at the result. Not unlike bugner cooper in that respect.

I often hear how herol graham battered Jackson round the ring and the ref was on the verge of stopping the fight when the Hail Mary landed. Graham was well on top, yes, but it wasn't quite like that, and some winging right hands had whistled past Graham's chin earlier in that fateful round.

I don't want to offend truss... But I didn't see curry mccallum as the one way traffic we often hear about either

How is Obama useless???

If he is useless then what was George W Bush?

Too late Milky...I'm offended..

Nobody could be as bad as Bush....Then again Warren Harding and Millard Fillmore might want to argue..

Think in years to come we may well see Froch/Groves I become a "close run thing before the perfectly legitimate stoppage by Howard Foster". Thankfully I don't frequent pubs any more so am unlikely to fly into a rage an crack someone over the noggin with a pool cue

milkyboy wrote:I thought Watson edged the first fight, not a robbery for me either though.

I watched the second fight in a packed pub in South London. Me and two mates cheering for Eubank. Everyone else cheering for Watson. That gives you an indication of their respective popularity at the time, and might therefore explain why there was the level of discontent at the result. Not unlike bugner cooper in that respect.

I often hear how herol graham battered Jackson round the ring and the ref was on the verge of stopping the fight when the Hail Mary landed. Graham was well on top, yes, but it wasn't quite like that, and some winging right hands had whistled past Graham's chin earlier in that fateful round.

I don't want to offend truss... But I didn't see curry mccallum as the one way traffic we often hear about either

With regards to Graham Jackson,Graham was totally dominating the fight and virtually hitting Jackson every time he threw a punch,it was so one sided,and the ref told Jacksons corner the fight would be stopped if Jackson was in anymore trouble.

I watched it again a few weeks ago. Like I said, herol was well on top, but hardly like Jackson wasn't firing back... It was the doctor that made the comment re stoppage because of eye swelling. It was a hell of a punch for a guy who was apparently out on his feet.

Fair enough, you see it differently.