What we believe and what is true regarding fighters and fights.

[billeau2]

So... watch the Louis Schmelling fight on youtube. Pretend no one told you how Schmelling beat Louis. What conclusion would you draw? To me I think Schmelling connected that first KO and it put Joe in a tailspin. It was not so much a constant error on Louis' part, it was getting hit and never really being able to totally recuperate. Schmelling was not a passive participant in this, he made that situation occur, and was a masterful tactitican in so doing, but his success was not a constant shot over Louis slow punch (legend calls it a right and a jab at times).

Can you think of other examples of such a historical truth in boxing that can be challenged on the basis of what one can observe?

[DeeMoney]

I know I'll catch a lot of heat for this, be put on ignore by many, and possibly banned, but here it goes.

Pacquiao v Bradley 1 was not the robbery that so many argued it was.

There, I said it, its out there. I accept all the insults and torment coming my way. But here were my thoughts:

I remember watching it live in a bar, and most everyone around me was certain Pac was gonna get a clear decision when the final bell rang. I told people they had to remember its scored round by round, and for many rounds Pac would be silent for most of the time, only throwing a flurry near the end. That Bradley's overall work throughout given rounds could be enough to carry them. Rewatched it several times and still feel the same way.

[billeau2]

I know I'll catch a lot of heat for this, be put on ignore by many, and possibly banned, but here it goes.

Pacquiao v Bradley 1 was not the robbery that so many argued it was.

There, I said it, its out there. I accept all the insults and torment coming my way. But here were my thoughts:

I remember watching it live in a bar, and most everyone around me was certain Pac was gonna get a clear decision when the final bell rang. I told people they had to remember its scored round by round, and for many rounds Pac would be silent for most of the time, only throwing a flurry near the end. That Bradley's overall work throughout given rounds could be enough to carry them. Rewatched it several times and still feel the same way.

No one should ever feel like they will be ostracized for an opinion. At least I'm not an excellent poster.

[DeeMoney]

No one should ever feel like they will be ostracized for an opinion. At least I'm not an excellent poster.

I appreciate that, I wrote that intro mostly tongue-in-cheek, as Ive gotten into a few arguments (including that night) for having that opinion.

[billeau2]

I appreciate that, I wrote that intro mostly tongue-in-cheek, as Ive gotten into a few arguments (including that night) for having that opinion.

Lol, meant to say " least of all an excellent poster."

There are times when scoring is very particular and different then what appears. I have found there are certain things I don't do in boxing. I never score a fight and declare my scoring to be an expert opinion. I only deal with what appears to be happening in the ring. I also seldom make lists. I just feel like lists are an ever evolving concept.

[Willie Pep 229]

So... watch the Louis Schmelling fight on youtube. Pretend no one told you how Schmelling beat Louis. What conclusion would you draw? To me I think Schmelling connected that first KO and it put Joe in a tailspin. It was not so much a constant error on Louis' part, it was getting hit and never really being able to totally recuperate. Schmelling was not a passive participant in this, he made that situation occur, and was a masterful tactitican in so doing, but his success was not a constant shot over Louis slow punch (legend calls it a right and a jab at times).

Can you think of other examples of such a historical truth in boxing that can be challenged on the basis of what one can observe?

OK first I am going to make sure I got my head wrapped around your question.

You're saying that because of whom Joe Louis became, legend wise, we have been taught to believe that Joe Louis lost the fight, not that Schmelling won the fight.

I think the Dempsey 'out of the ring,' against Firpo has taken on that hue.

Firpo caught Dempsey with a good right hand that backed Dempsey up against the ropes, but Firpo pushed Dempsey through the ropes.

Had Firpo actually knocked Dempsey out of the ring I wonder if Dempsey gets back in the ring before the count.

One of the most famous KDs in prize fighting was really just an illegal push. Disappointing.

[DeeMoney]

Lol, meant to say " least of all an excellent poster."

There are times when scoring is very particular and different then what appears. I have found there are certain things I don't do in boxing. I never score a fight and declare my scoring to be an expert opinion. I only deal with what appears to be happening in the ring. I also seldom make lists. I just feel like lists are an ever evolving concept.

I get that, I don't ever think my scoring to be perfect either (well at least not publicly). And if someone wanted to score that fight for Pacquiao, I can see their logic in doing so. But all the vitriol that was spewed after that one was off base. I'm pretty sure Bradley went into a mild depression after the fight because of all the hate he was catching.

[billeau2]

OK first I am going to make sure I got my head wrapped your question.

You're saying that because of who Joe Louis became, legend wise, we have been taught to believe that Joe Louis lost the fight, not that Schmelling won the fight.

I think the Dempsey 'out of the ring,' against Firpo has taken on that hue.

Firpo caught Dempsey with a good right hand that backed Dempsey up against the ropes, but Firpo pushed Dempsey through the ropes.

Had Firpo actually knocked Dempsey out of the ring I wonder if Dempsey gets back in the ring before the count.

One of the most famous KDs in prize fighting was really just an illegal push. Disappointing.

That's actually a perfect one. The logic that Dempsey was knocked out of the ring with a punch does not make sense because Dempsey climbed back in the ring.

[billeau2]

OK first I am going to make sure I got my head wrapped around your question.

You're saying that because of whom Joe Louis became, legend wise, we have been taught to believe that Joe Louis lost the fight, not that Schmelling won the fight.

I think the Dempsey 'out of the ring,' against Firpo has taken on that hue.

Firpo caught Dempsey with a good right hand that backed Dempsey up against the ropes, but Firpo pushed Dempsey through the ropes.

Had Firpo actually knocked Dempsey out of the ring I wonder if Dempsey gets back in the ring before the count.

One of the most famous KDs in prize fighting was really just an illegal push. Disappointing.

I also wanted to say: Often language reflects contradictions that show how little we pay attention to the words we use: First an example of word use... Horus comes across the night sky, to rise again in the morning, and when we divide his ride we get Houreses, or: "Hours." Or another great Egyptian example: The Pharoah had a similar problem to the Amish today. He could only leave his kingship (land for the Amish) to one son... What of the other sons? Amish farmers could divide land when it was cheaper, but same problem, what do you give the other sons when the land runs out?

In the case of the Pharoah? the Pharoahstocracracy was created, what we know as the Aristocracy. This group is a separate group from the king with all kinds of privaleges.

Now, right along with understanding the often hidden meaning of words comes overlooking contradictions that show up in verbal reasoning. I will just use one great example that KafKod and company just neglect... "There are champions in boxing because there are different weight classes." This is a true statement. "There are heavyweight (submit any division here) champions in every division." This really is not a true statement. A champion is the undisputed best... How can there be more than one? This is the main reason for the lineal BTW. The lineal is willing to live with a contradiction that shall resolve (retirement, scheduling a fight) with the understanding there will be one champion.

Alphabet soup exists because of a fallicy in logic that people are willing to accept. Sometimes we have no choice. College should not be a farm system for professional sports so, the best college teams are voted for, without a playoff... Ok that is fair. But why is it we have a superbowl champ, a world series winner, etc etc and no champion in boxing's premier division?

[Anomalocaris]

An excellent post, there is real knowledge away from boxing on here.