I don't think I agree with those at all! What's underwhelming is when guys vacate or are stripped for no reason, then the title is decided between two guys who haven't done anything much. These days it's refreshing just to see a legit lineal title fight period, though I assume you were limiting it to them anyways.
I rooted for Hopkins at the time, and was probably among the people saying he should have kept his tile(was so long ago now and I hadn't been into boxing long) but if you watch it back, there is literally no way to score it for him without cheer leading, he mounted virtually no offence in 7 or 8 rounds, and never knocked Taylor down or sustained enough to have any of the late rounds 10-8.
You can certainly score the fight for Hagler, but similarily to the last fight in some ways, he gave most of the first half away and it wasn't a robbery, plus it was entertaining and a good story. Holyfield vs Moorer isn't far off either, whatever you thought of either guys overall performance, it picked up late and became a good fight, and again no robbery! Bruno McCall I'm not sure I've ever watched all the way through, but it's the one I can agree with, as I don't think anyone considered them the best two HW's going in the first place, neither would have beaten Holyfield or Bowe at the time for instance.
One that stands out for me is Briggs over George Foreman, although Axel Schulz did deserve to beat Foreman a while earlier, it was technically for the lineal championship and was a bad fight and decision imo.
Bookmarks