Boxing Fight What If's ?

Question

In this sport you always wonder what would have happened if this fight ended like this, so I will ask questions to see what answers I get.

1. Tate vs Weaver - What if Tate won?

2. DeLa Hoya vs Trinidad - What if De La Hoya won?

3. Walcott vs Marciano I - What if Walcott won?

4. Hopkins vs Taylor I - What if Hopkins won?

5. Robinson vs Maxim - What if Robinson did not pass out?

6. Tyson vs Douglas - What if Tyson won?

7. Whitaker vs Chavez - What if Whitaker did win?

8. Norton vs Ali II - What if Norton won?

9. Louis vs Walcott I - What if Walcott won?

10. Leonard vs Hagler - What if Hagler won?

These are some fights I think would have turned a new leaf for fighters who either orignally won the fight or got by on a draw, some of these fights the loser was dominating the fight but got caught or just plain robbed out of a decision. What is your answers?

Answer 1

Great question and thumbs up to my boxing friend blogbaba for his usual great answer.  I cannot add any more to what he said.  As most on here know, I am a big Marciano fan, but a loss would have definetly hurt his status a great deal.

Answer 2

Good Question about some good fights. While I agree with you & know what you are saying.....I think that, as in the case of Louis vs. Walcott I, the winner turned out to be the loser because If Louis had lost ( as he should have ) he would or at least should  have realized that it was time to hang it up. If Walcott had won ( as he should have ) it would have been better for Walcott & better for Louis because he might not have continued to fight as the shell of the once great champ that he was.

Answer 3

Great Question, and the truth is 2, 4, 7, 9 & 10 were mistakes: DeLa Hoya in fact won 7 of 12 rounds against Tito, Hopkins the same against Taylor, Whitaker won every round against Chavez and was totally robbed, Walcott did beat Louis the first time, even Joe admitted it and yeah, I agree Sugar Ray Leonard was a great fighter but I will never agree that he beat Marvin Hagler.

1. Historically the Tate/Weaver fight was with all due respect to both relatively minor, the outcome differing wouldn't have had much historical impact.  Tate's first round KO loss to Tefelio Stevenson as an amature was probably more significant from a historical stand point than his title reign ending to Weaver.

2. DeLa Hoya needed the win over Trinidad, and to this day has doubters to his legitimacy as a truly all time great champion.  A win over Tito would have silenced any DeLa Hoya critics to Oscar's status as pertaining to historical greatness.  If was a huge loss in that respect for Oscar, and a significant but not career defining win for Tito's own hall of fame career.

3. on your list is going to get me in trouble with all the Marciano fans.  There is no doubt to Rock's status as an elite all time great heavyweight.  Had Rock lost, even once there would have been a great deal of controversy.  He didn't so the point is moot, but even one loss, and Rock's historical status is seriously degraded.  Even with a perfect record and wins against Charles, Walcott and Moore Rock rates in my historical top ten below several fighters with losses.  A loss would have been a serious historical blow to Marciano's legacy.  

4. Hopkins will be considered a historically great top ten middleweight regardless, but getting recognition for the win over Taylor instead of getting his title stolen by judges would have added more luster and shine to an already hall of fame career.

5. The same holds true with Sugar Ray Robinson, and had Ray held on to win a light heavyweight title, he would have simply added one more trophy to a room full of them.  I don't know if any boxer in history has been more universally applauded, appreciated or honestly deserved the recognition Ray Robinson so justly receives and if a loss was ever incidental in a fighters career it was this one.  Either way, win or lose with Maxim and Sugar Ray Robinson is still the best boxer pound for pound of all time anyway.

6. A KO of Douglas by Mike just would have meant Mike would have been exposed soon enough by the next fighter to stand up to him.  Obviously it would have helped Mike's historical legacy, loosing in your prime to a B level heavyweight is not a positive thing, and it is like a scar on a tree, it looks worse with time not better, but Mike was destined to be Mike regardless of who derailed him, the train wreck was going to happen with or without Douglas.

7. Pernell Whitaker truly beat both Chavez and DeLa Hoya and should be listed right under the name of Dave Tiberi as the second most shamelessly ripped off fighter to ever have a victory stolen by corrupt judges.   Truly fights like these are why boxing's reputation is so stained.

8. A lot of people thought Norton did win the second one, and Ric is correct in his point, Ali got a lot of decision's that were highly questionable, this one included.  I am part of that Ali fan club, I love Muhammad Ali but I honestly believe Jimmy Young beat Ali and got robbed as well.  I have watched the Ali/Norton fights many times, and Ken was at his best against Ail.  A second loss to Norton is the single biggest loss on your list.  It would have meant the difference between Ali then Louis or Louis then Ali, that's how important all those razor thin, highly questionable close decision's meant to Ali's legacy.

9. It is a given Joe Louis was out boxed in the first Walcott fight, and I put this one right there next to Whitaker/Chavez in the annuals of great champions getting the nod because of their name instead of their ring performance.  It wouldn't have tarnished Joe's legacy that much, he would still have been very near the top and a notch above all but Ali, but it would have certainly elevated Walcott's historical status.

10.  The Hagler decision cemented Ray Leonard's dominace over the most talented era of non heavyweight boxing in history and elevated Ray to boxing immortality.  It was also my single least favorite decision of my life, and it still bothers me to this day.  I thought then, and still feel today that a fighter of the stature of Marvin Hagler should have been given more respect, but such is history.

Great question, thanks for the memories, it is questions like this that make yahoo boxing a joy to frequent.