WHY MAYWEATHER IS A TOP 10 ALLTIMER ALREADY!!

by TRUSSMAN66 Sun 20 Feb 2011, 18:22

First topic message reminder :

Unbeaten for over a decade and a wonderful defensive fighter perhaps only with Ray Robinson to touch him in that regard or even Michael Nunn....Ring fighter of the year countless times and winner of over five world titles at different weights I can't think of a modern fighter who can touch this record. Considering Chavez is a near top 10 alltimer and didn't reign as long and also didn't beat three current at the time top 5 p4pers then it goes without saying that this guy belongs in an alltime top 10 list!!

First guy to beat Hatton, Beat DelaHoya at a weight that suited Oscar, Mosley and Marquez convincingly.......It's a record that can only be compared to the best.

So come on guys give Floyd his due. No matter what he's done outside the ring..This guy is a modern genius and deserves respect..

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 17:29

88Chris05 wrote:
Steve Cruz didn't wilt and he fought in the same heat. Jim Watt fought in Nigeria (or Ghana) in similar heat but didn't wilt. Neither did Herol Graham. Obviously Barry did something wrong. His punches were never economical anyway.

But Cruz's opponent (who had the same modern training methods and nutritional knowledge that, as you keep reminding us, fifties greats didn't have) did, so that's that particular argument shot down in flames. The same goes for Bernard Taylor, who was felled by heat in his bout with McGuigan.

Heat exhaustion has ended fights as far back as the fight game goes, and will continue to do so in the future. [/quote]

Hi Chris

My argument is that he did not acclimatise enough or pace himself. He was a very busy fighter and ran out of steam. As for Taylor, I seem tio recall he was having weight problems anyway and gassed as a result of it. A fighter fighting in such heat would acclimatise. Weight loss unfortunately is a problem for many boxers boiling down to make weight. Also I doubt given weigh ins being 24 hours before a fight that Taylor would have gassed in that manner. Also give credit to BM. He was a murderous body puncher in him pomp when he fought Taylor.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 17:33

imperialghosty wrote:Mordern training didn't help Jermain Taylor last the distance against Froch did, even though he dominated large parts of the fight, his conditioning failed on him but I don't remember La Mottas, Graziano or Zales failing over 15 rounds.

You bring up Pascal but isn't this someone who was outlasted by a 46 year old Hopkins and is well renowned for having stamina issues

JT got caught and yes he was tiring also. Froch has excellent stamina as does Abrahams. BHop is a unique specimen. His style of fighting lends itself to longevity plus his lifestyle. He is always in shape and lives like a spartan. Also with the exception of Armstrong, old timers tended to throw less punches and posed more. Look at old Jack Johnson footage for examples.

by Rowley Tue 22 Feb 2011, 17:35

In all fairness Johnson was fighting in an era when fights were over 20 or 25 rounds. Stands to reason the longer the fight the less the pace will be. Only have to watch prizefighter for that. The first round of those fights are normally non stop as they are only three rounders

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 17:51

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:Human beings have moved on. Give Bob Hayes the same food, training etc as Bolt and he would run the same times or close to it. Give those old time boxers the same training food etc, they would probably be elite fighter's in today's game. As things stand, they wont hold a candle to today's fighters. Their talent is there for all to see. Just add today's training etc which obviously was lacking.

The quickest way for me to answer this is to reproduce a comment which I wrote at the old forum :

1. We shouldn't overlook the influence of money. Sponsorship has made modern athletics all but professional, with full time training, whereas in Owens' day athletes held down a job and only trained in their spare time. Due to this injection of money there are now far more athletes competing, which will automatically raise standards and break records. Athletics has been a growing sport since the second half of the twentieth century. By contrast, boxing has fewer registered pros and has been declining, due to sociological factors and lack of funding. Size of the talent pool dictates standards.

2. Training, for an athlete, is as good as competition, since he is still competing against the clock or a tape measure. Not so with boxing ; no amount of sitting on a rowing machine or some other piece of modern apparatus is going to be a substitute for a live opponent trying to hit a fighter with bad intentions. Fighting four or five times a year, against all styles and all comers, is better training than anything which happens in the gym.

3. These days, the best rarely fight the best, so standards will inevitably drop. Athletes cannot duck the clock or the measuring tape. The value of boxing world titles has been subject to a kind of inflation, and it could be argued that this represents the equivalent of a top athlete running against a slow clock.

4. Laws of physics dictate that one day Man will simply not be able to run any faster or throw a javelin any further. Boxing has been evolving since the Ancient Greeks, and perfecting the art of punching somebody in the face while avoiding being hit was probably achieved long ago.

5. In competing against a clock or a measuring tape, an athlete's ' competitors ' are represented in absolutes. In addition, they can go about their business unhindered. Not so with boxing, in which a fighter is facing an opponent whose actions are variable, and who is doing his best to prevent the other man from getting his work done. Have Jesse Owens and Usain Bolt sprint two hundred metres while someone randomly punches them in the face, shoves and manhandles them, butts them and tries to physically and psychologically overpower them, and the chances of a win for Owens increase dramatically.

6. Boxing isn't exclusively about athleticism. Skill, hand - to - eye coordination, timing, reflexes, toughness, heart, judgement of distances, etc., are every bit as important as physical prowess. If it were not so then Terry Marsh would be an all time great, Roly - Poly Witherspoon would never have beaten Bruno, Ken Norton would have been a better heavyweight than Larry Holmes, Galento would never have been a contender, 100 fags - a - day Monzon would never have been one of the greatest middles of all time, 46 years old Holyfield would not have pushed Valuev all the way, and most of today's heavies would be night club bouncers. The further we pursue the theory the more absurd it becomes, since we must logically arrive at a point at which Usain Bolt beats Sugar Ray Robinson in the boxing ring.

7. Skills do not automatically improve over time, but rather they must be nurtured and taught. A couple of hundred years ago just about everybody could ride a horse, and a couple of hundred years or so before that just about every man in Britain knew how to use a sword. How many of us are skilled at either, nowadays ? It isn't any different with boxing. Eddie Futch and Joe Frazier are just a couple of boxing insiders who bemoaned the deterioration in the teaching of old skills such as feinting and blocking. We need only consider the difference made by Manny Steward to the careers of both Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko, or Freddie Roach to Amir Khan's, and then to wonder why nobody had sorted it all out before Oliver McCall and Corrie Sanders came along.

We still have great trainers, and we still have great fighters, but we don't have as many as we used to, and some vague, unsubstantiated theory about evolution doesn't prove otherwise.

8. Human beings in the western world are not as fit as they used to be. The incidence of obesity is higher in the US than it has ever been, and outdoor pursuits which kids practised thirty or forty years ago now compete with computer games and the Internet. In addition, for all the advances in available nutrients, etc., it is a commonly held belief that the air and the environment are far more toxic today than ever they were. It could also be argued that fighters will still, for the most part, come from poorer backgrounds in comparison to certain other sports, making it unlikely that they will have benefitted from the best nutritional advances during their formative years.

Point by point.

1) Agreed 100%. Proves my point also. In terms of talent, old timers were equal to todays fighters. But because of external factors and factors beyond their control or dare I say, knowledge, today's fighters are fitter, faster and stronger p4p imo.

2) Agreed. No argument there. Fighting 25 times a year is more a bum of the week contest and pointless. Active sparring as SRL did before Hagler is almost as good.

3) I dont eccessarily that standards have dropped because the best dont fight the best. Why standards have dropped is because there are less boxers around. And standards dropping is relative. It also means that there are fewer rivalries which gets more bums on seats.

4) Disagree. The art of not being hit will continuously evolve. So will the art of attempting to hit. New styles will emerge. For instance, Ali did everything wrong according to the 'manual'. Some skills cannot be taught. Who can emulate RJJ without looking like a fool. Or PBF's shoulder roll. Tyson adopted a peek-a-boo style a la Patteson, but incorporated a bob n weave a la frazier. Who is to say that another boxer will not use Ali#s reflexed with a peek-a-boo/bob n weave defence in future and make it more effective?

5) Agreed. Dont see the point of that argument though.

6) Boxing is not a body beautiful contest. Its better to carry body fat if you are a heavy that burn muscle as Bruno did. Lets also be honest here. Bruno was thick. I mean very thick. No boxing smarts. No nothing. So when tagged, he capitulated. Jumbo Cummings exposed that first. Conditioning also doesn't mean body shape as you pointed out. It doesn't mean how fast you can run also. Your Bolt analogy is ridiculous and bears little to what I was saying or meant.

7) Speed has improved over time. So has strength and human endurance. Diets have improved. Training equipment and styles of training. When did boxers start utilising the benefot of altitude training for example. Boxers of yesteryear did not have the benefits of all these new techniques. If the did I wouldn't have an argument.

8) Elite athletes of today are much fitter that their equivalent of yesteryear....because of better training, equipment and diet.

9, 10 and 11) Dont put me through this stress again :shooter:

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 17:54

rowley wrote:In all fairness Johnson was fighting in an era when fights were over 20 or 25 rounds. Stands to reason the longer the fight the less the pace will be. Only have to watch prizefighter for that. The first round of those fights are normally non stop as they are only three rounders

Even after the Johnson era they threw less punches. How anyone can put Rocky in their top 25 heavies of all time is beyond me. He practically asked his opponents it he could throw a punch. That is how unskilled he was. Most top 10 lightheavies active today. All cruisers in the top 10 and definately all top 10 heavies would slaughter him for fun and with absolute ease. Some SMW will beat him and many MW will give a good account of themselves. Bhop definately beats Rocky.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 17:56

azania wrote:Also with the exception of Armstrong, old timers tended to throw less punches and posed more. Look at old Jack Johnson footage for examples.

That just isn't the case, azania.

Check out the punch stats from Nelson v Gans, ( which went 42 rounds, ) Ketchel v Papke, ( all of their fights, ) and countless others. Have a look at Jack ' Kid ' Berg, Tony Canzoneri, or Tunney v Carpentier. Read the day after newspaper reports of Greb's fights. Or Mickey Walker's. Even at heavyweight, Sam Langford was a whirlwind, as was McVea, and later Dempsey. Most of today's heavyweights throw considerably less punches than men like these. Anybody familiar with the ringside reports of Johnson's fights knows that even he wasn't as pedestrian as the old footage suggests. Watch the Johnson v Willard fight. How many of today's heavies could fight at that ( pretty good, ) pace for twenty six rounds in 100 degree heat ? I'd wager that none of them could.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:02

For the sake of good manners, azania, I'll try to overlook your jibe about my point concerning Bolt, but I will point out that if you find it ' ridiculous, ' then perhaps you'll understand that many consider it to be equally ' ridiculous ' to compare track and field to boxing.

To be honest, I find your stance on this issue to be strange. No true fight fan would so casually dismiss great fighters in the manner in which you do.

by BoxingFan88 Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:08

aziana you think the mayweather check left hook was better than donaires on the weekend????????????????????????? Mayweather is a top 25, but top 10???? He could have been he just hasn't taken all the opportunities he could have had.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:11

HumanWindmill wrote:For the sake of good manners, azania, I'll try to overlook your jibe about my point concerning Bolt, but I will point out that if you find it ' ridiculous, ' then perhaps you'll understand that many consider it to be equally ' ridiculous ' to compare track and field to boxing.

To be honest, I find your stance on this issue to be strange. No true fight fan would so casually dismiss great fighters in the manner in which you do.

Windy. No insult or any disparaging comments were intended with by point concerning Bolt. Apologies if it came across in that manner.

Oldtimers were great...in their time. That is my main point. When I initially brought Bolt and Bob Hayes into the debate is because most considered Hayes to be the fastest human who ever lived on the basis that he ran the 100 yeard in under 10secs on a cinder track. A fete no human has ever achieved...until Lewis. Now 100 yeard on cinder in under 10 secs can be done by over 10 sprinters active today...forgetting about athletes over the past 20 years. Humans have moved on in terms of speed and speed endurance.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:13

BoxingFan88 wrote:aziana you think the mayweather check left hook was better than donaires on the weekend????????????????????????? Mayweather is a top 25, but top 10???? He could have been he just hasn't taken all the opportunities he could have had.

For me Mayweather's was better. Probably because of the hype around the fight. The buzz of a big fight etc etc etc. Donairre's fight barely made a rumble outside hard-core boxing fans. I'm not being very objective am I. Plus I saw Don's hook on a pc. FFS, what has happened to boxing?

by **oxring** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:14

Rocky Marciano does not get beaten by ANY supermiddleweight, ever and if he ran into Roy Jones I would genuinely fear for Roy's safety.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:22

oxring wrote:Rocky Marciano does not get beaten by ANY supermiddleweight, ever and if he ran into Roy Jones I would genuinely fear for Roy's safety.

A non PED RJJ schools him for me. Rocky was too slow, ponderous too predictable. Rocky weighed in at 183 against Jersey Joe. RJJ at the LH by a runaway UD or stopping him on cuts.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:26

azania wrote:

Windy. No insult or any disparaging comments were intended with by point concerning Bolt. Apologies if it came across in that manner.

Oldtimers were great...in their time. That is my main point. When I initially brought Bolt and Bob Hayes into the debate is because most considered Hayes to be the fastest human who ever lived on the basis that he ran the 100 yeard in under 10secs on a cinder track. A fete no human has ever achieved...until Lewis. Now 100 yeard on cinder in under 10 secs can be done by over 10 sprinters active today...forgetting about athletes over the past 20 years. Humans have moved on in terms of speed and speed endurance.

No probs, azania. Sometimes the written word, by itself, can be a wee bit unreliable.

I agree that in Man against Nature humans are FASTER, ( generally, ) today, but I certainly disagree about the endurance aspect. Many, many sociologists agree that preceding generations were innately ' tougher ' than we are today. Also, I'm not entirely sure that the dynamic speed of track and field translates directly to the kind of speed required by a boxer.

Furthermore, we must presuppose that any improvements would only apply if the raw athletic material is of a similar standard. I truly believe that boxing has lost many of its best potential competitors with the growth of other, less dangerous, but equally financially rewarding sports. Ken Norton is one of the finest athletic talents of the modern boxing era. He was, at one time, contemplating a career in football.

I say again that Jeffries could sprint 100 yards in under eleven seconds and could high jump six feet. I dare say a good few of today's basketball players could emulate that, ( maybe even beat it, ) and also American football players, but I doubt very much that today's heavyweight boxers could do it.

Nurture is important, but I believe that ultimately nature trumps it.

by D4thincarnation Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:27

azania wrote:
BoxingFan88 wrote:aziana you think the mayweather check left hook was better than donaires on the weekend????????????????????????? Mayweather is a top 25, but top 10???? He could have been he just hasn't taken all the opportunities he could have had.

For me Mayweather's was better. Probably because of the hype around the fight. The buzz of a big fight etc etc etc. Donairre's fight barely made a rumble outside hard-core boxing fans. I'm not being very objective am I. Plus I saw Don's hook on a pc. FFS, what has happened to boxing?

Mayweather does one check hook KD where his opponent his just running head first towards him and his tired and frustrated.

While Donaire does 3 in his last few fights which his opponents are fresher and have a tighter defence and his shots carried more power.

by BoxingFan88 Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:31

D4thincarnation wrote:
azania wrote:
BoxingFan88 wrote:aziana you think the mayweather check left hook was better than donaires on the weekend????????????????????????? Mayweather is a top 25, but top 10???? He could have been he just hasn't taken all the opportunities he could have had.

For me Mayweather's was better. Probably because of the hype around the fight. The buzz of a big fight etc etc etc. Donairre's fight barely made a rumble outside hard-core boxing fans. I'm not being very objective am I. Plus I saw Don's hook on a pc. FFS, what has happened to boxing?

Mayweather does one check hook KD where his opponent his just running head first towards him and his tired and frustrated.

While Donaire does 3 in his last few fights which his opponents are fresher and have a tighter defence and his shots carried more power.

Totally agree with D4, donaire fractured montiels jaw, he also countered while rolling with a punch which was absolutely sensational. Hatton had taken a beating for 10 rounds and was extremely tired.

by **oxring** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:32

His punches weren't slow. His stoppage of walcott may be the best ever and walcotts defence was much better than RJJ

by D4thincarnation Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:34

BoxingFan88

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img291/8334/nonitodonairevicdarchin.gif

http://home.comcast.net/~antwuanmax/boxing/montiel-ktfo.gif

https://2img.net/h/oi56.tinypic.com/r8xkex.gif

Take a look at these.

by BoxingFan88 Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:38

I've been following donaire for a while now so I've watched all his recent fights. He was always on the under card with the setanta fight cards =) Donaire is a special fighter but I don't think he is going to be as popular as pacquiao. I think donaire is more skilled however pacquiao appeals to the masses because he is so exciting to watch. Donaire dismatles his opponents with his strategies. Pacquiao is just a whirlwind that if you can't get out of the way of him your going to be ending the fight on your back.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:39

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:

Windy. No insult or any disparaging comments were intended with by point concerning Bolt. Apologies if it came across in that manner.

Oldtimers were great...in their time. That is my main point. When I initially brought Bolt and Bob Hayes into the debate is because most considered Hayes to be the fastest human who ever lived on the basis that he ran the 100 yeard in under 10secs on a cinder track. A fete no human has ever achieved...until Lewis. Now 100 yeard on cinder in under 10 secs can be done by over 10 sprinters active today...forgetting about athletes over the past 20 years. Humans have moved on in terms of speed and speed endurance.

No probs, azania. Sometimes the written word, by itself, can be a wee bit unreliable.

I agree that in Man against Nature humans are FASTER, ( generally, ) today, but I certainly disagree about the endurance aspect. Many, many sociologists agree that preceding generations were innately ' tougher ' than we are today. Also, I'm not entirely sure that the dynamic speed of track and field translates directly to the kind of speed required by a boxer.

Furthermore, we must presuppose that any improvements would only apply if the raw athletic material is of a similar standard. I truly believe that boxing has lost many of its best potential competitors with the growth of other, less dangerous, but equally financially rewarding sports. Ken Norton is one of the finest athletic talents of the modern boxing era. He was, at one time, contemplating a career in football.

I say again that Jeffries could sprint 100 yards in under eleven seconds and could high jump six feet. I dare say a good few of today's basketball players could emulate that, ( maybe even beat it, ) and also American football players, but I doubt very much that today's heavyweight boxers could do it.

Nurture is important, but I believe that ultimately nature trumps it.

Especially when I'm doing the writing. :-)

I'll five you a question to ponder over. Imagine the 50s version of SRR fighting with a clone of his today with all the benefits of modern techniques. Who do you think would win?

Interesting that Donairre does sprint wotk now. He lauds its benefits in making him faster in the ring. I imagine more elite boxers will be employing track and field coaches in their team soon enough.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:42

D4thincarnation wrote:
azania wrote:
BoxingFan88 wrote:aziana you think the mayweather check left hook was better than donaires on the weekend????????????????????????? Mayweather is a top 25, but top 10???? He could have been he just hasn't taken all the opportunities he could have had.

For me Mayweather's was better. Probably because of the hype around the fight. The buzz of a big fight etc etc etc. Donairre's fight barely made a rumble outside hard-core boxing fans. I'm not being very objective am I. Plus I saw Don's hook on a pc. FFS, what has happened to boxing?

Mayweather does one check hook KD where his opponent his just running head first towards him and his tired and frustrated.

While Donaire does 3 in his last few fights which his opponents are fresher and have a tighter defence and his shots carried more power.

I dont doubt what you sy. I am aware I am not being very objective and acknowledge the hype surrounding the fight, staying up late with my son and mates etc etc etc. The buzz of a big fight is amazing and nothig beats it. Don's hook was probably better. You wont get much of an argument from me on that.

But your comment belies the thing of poetry and beauty in which PBF caught Hatton with.

by BoxingFan88 Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:43

Anyone trying to ponder a way on how to beat donaire? Montiel threw a perfect right hook and got knocked out, sidorenko did the same thing. You can get countered if you miss and you get countered if you land.... Donaire is extremely fast as well and has excellent boxing skills.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:46

oxring wrote:His punches weren't slow. His stoppage of walcott may be the best ever and walcotts defence was much better than RJJ

Not only his punches, but his footwork was terrible, He looked like he was walking in mud. RJJ schools him for me and pretty easily.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:47

BoxingFan88 wrote:Anyone trying to ponder a way on how to beat donaire? Montiel threw a perfect right hook and got knocked out, sidorenko did the same thing. You can get countered if you miss and you get countered if you land.... Donaire is extremely fast as well and has excellent boxing skills.

His athletic/sprint training has made him faster also.

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 22 Feb 2011, 18:49

What modern techniques? You keep saying it over and over again but haven't said what todays boxers do that differs from the old timers.

To even suggest Marciano gets beaten by any of todays 168lber-200lbers really does show your knowledge up, he is naturally stronger and tougher than of the boxers in that region. Walcott and Charles were no slouches and had very good defences but he still managed to catch up with them in the end. Put someone like Jones in with him who is widely considered the best Light Heavyweight of the past 20 years and he'd get butchered, he may have speed but he wouldn't be able to hurt him nor would he be able to take the punches coming back. Marciano had a style that negated speed, he relied on his toughness and punching power, things you simply cannot teach or train.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 19:00

azania wrote:

Especially when I'm doing the writing. :-)

I'll five you a question to ponder over. Imagine the 50s version of SRR fighting with a clone of his today with all the benefits of modern techniques. Who do you think would win?

Interesting that Donairre does sprint wotk now. He lauds its benefits in making him faster in the ring. I imagine more elite boxers will be employing track and field coaches in their team soon enough.

For a supreme athlete such as Robinson was, I doubt that modern nutrition would make a great deal of difference. Boxing - specific improvements derived from modern nutrition would be measured by pretty small margins, I would have thought, and according to growth statistics evolution wouldn't have made more than an inch in height and about eight pounds in weight, making him a natural middle, as opposed to a welter who moved up.

My old dad was the same age as Robinson. I came along in the mid fifties and my kids arrived late seventies / early eighties. One of my sons was a county class swimmer, and we made sure that he had the supplements, etc., which his coach recommended. Was he fitter than I had been at a similar age ? In all honesty, he probably was, a little. Tougher and stronger ? No. And neither was I tougher and stronger than my dad had been. I can't give you measurable proof, of course, ( just as nobody can provide measurable proof to the contrary, ) but my lad would admit that he was no stronger than I, and I certainly reckon that my dad's - and Robinson's - generation had a harder life, with fewer conveniences, than ever I did and were, as a consequence ' tougher. '

by skidd1 Tue 22 Feb 2011, 19:10

Nutrition has improved but not by huge amounts.It is more scientific.Less margins for error but guys in Robinsons era had the basics of nutrition right.That applies to many other sports as well
I would think that the Robinson of the 50's beats the Robinson of today
Why ? Well greater ringcraft and possibly fitness since he would inevitably fight far less in todays era. Sugar Ray liked the high life as well and fighting only once or twice a year might not be enough to keep even the greatest in shape and ring sharp

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 19:14

skidd1 wrote:Nutrition has improved but not by huge amounts.It is more scientific.Less margins for error but guys in Robinsons era had the basics of nutrition right.That applies to many other sports as well
I would think that the Robinson of the 50's beats the Robinson of today
Why ? Well greater ringcraft and possibly fitness since he would inevitably fight far less in todays era. Sugar Ray liked the high life as well and fighting only once or twice a year might not be enough to keep even the greatest in shape and ring sharp

Superb points, skidd, and I reckon you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

by Rowley Tue 22 Feb 2011, 19:46

Agree this is an excellent point Skidd to add tot it would also have to ask would a star amateur like Robinson was be matched against a fighter of the quality and with the reputation Fritzie Zivic within a couple of years of going pro. Hell Amir Khan was pulling out of purse bids for Jon Thaxton at a similar stage of his career.

Talent is talent but inactivity and wrapping him in cotton wool would mean the modern Robinson would not be a match for the version that actually existed.

by skidd1 Tue 22 Feb 2011, 20:25

Jeffrey..Windy..I just think that a loss meant a bit less and rightly so.
Zivic would be a nightmare for anyone any era but fight him and the learning curve and experience just accelerates
I am rubbish at stats and who fought who etc but when Burley,Williams ,Armstrong ,Zivic,Zale etc etc were fighting every month you would need to be very special to have even have a 50 50 ratio against the top guys.
Robinson was the cream of that crop but the guys need to be pushed or tested . Robinson and his era were and that makes them genuine ATG's

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 20:46

imperialghosty wrote:What modern techniques? You keep saying it over and over again but haven't said what todays boxers do that differs from the old timers.

To even suggest Marciano gets beaten by any of todays 168lber-200lbers really does show your knowledge up, he is naturally stronger and tougher than of the boxers in that region. Walcott and Charles were no slouches and had very good defences but he still managed to catch up with them in the end. Put someone like Jones in with him who is widely considered the best Light Heavyweight of the past 20 years and he'd get butchered, he may have speed but he wouldn't be able to hurt him nor would he be able to take the punches coming back. Marciano had a style that negated speed, he relied on his toughness and punching power, things you simply cannot teach or train.

Lets not question one another's boxing knowledge just because we disagree eh? But you asked me that after you asked me about modern techniques. Your knowledge? Nah, lets not go down that route just because we disagree.

I'll stress again, Rocky was a plodder (with a bomb for fists). Good at what he did given his physical and stylistic limitations (Calzaghe beats him also). But techniques in training for elite athletes (boxers) are light years ahead of those in Rocky's times. You have strength and physical conditioners, speed trainers, trainers for every part of a boxer's body (except for chin), monitoring pulse rates, dieticians, new practically space age equipment. Yes sparring, roadwork and all other aspects in boxing are still being used, but that is complimented by things, including medical and diet technology making the boxer with lets say equal ability to SRR (an SRR clone as my post above) a superior athlete and therefore boxer to SRR. I put forward earlier that SRR now will beat SRR in his pomp (for windy) at the same weight. SRR now would be faster (god help his opponents), stronger with more power.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:01

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:

Especially when I'm doing the writing. :-)

I'll five you a question to ponder over. Imagine the 50s version of SRR fighting with a clone of his today with all the benefits of modern techniques. Who do you think would win?

Interesting that Donairre does sprint wotk now. He lauds its benefits in making him faster in the ring. I imagine more elite boxers will be employing track and field coaches in their team soon enough.

For a supreme athlete such as Robinson was, I doubt that modern nutrition would make a great deal of difference. Boxing - specific improvements derived from modern nutrition would be measured by pretty small margins, I would have thought, and according to growth statistics evolution wouldn't have made more than an inch in height and about eight pounds in weight, making him a natural middle, as opposed to a welter who moved up.

My old dad was the same age as Robinson. I came along in the mid fifties and my kids arrived late seventies / early eighties. One of my sons was a county class swimmer, and we made sure that he had the supplements, etc., which his coach recommended. Was he fitter than I had been at a similar age ? In all honesty, he probably was, a little. Tougher and stronger ? No. And neither was I tougher and stronger than my dad had been. I can't give you measurable proof, of course, ( just as nobody can provide measurable proof to the contrary, ) but my lad would admit that he was no stronger than I, and I certainly reckon that my dad's - and Robinson's - generation had a harder life, with fewer conveniences, than ever I did and were, as a consequence ' tougher. '

For a supreme athlete/boxer which SRR was, with today's diet and training facilities, he would be much better. I came along in the 1970s. I still look at boxers of that era with a great deal of nostalgia. I grew up when the world stood still when Ali fought. When SRL, Hagler, Hearns, Duran et al were tearing it up. I recall the 1976 Olympics and said Howard Davis would be a superstar (how wrong I was), and Leo (forget hislast name) would galvanise the lower division (wrong again). I thought the Spinks would end up no-where with no world titles (wrong) and hated SRL then because I thought he wanted to be a poor man's ali and wanted everyone he fought to kick him as well as punch him and wipe that smile off his face.

My son plays footie (born in 1993). Is he fitter than I was at his age? No for the reason that I didn't have x-box and played games outside always. No wall to wall tv and none before 4pm. I probably had more grit for the reason that nothing ever came easy so hard work was never an anathema to me as it is for most kids of my son's generation. Mentally stronger I mean. But....the will to win is another matter. My son hates losing with a passion. So did I. I played indivisual sports (boxing, sprints, tennis) so will to win could be factored in earier than in team sports. Boxers of today, when in the ring are just as mentally tough as those of yesteryear.

I'm rambling and apologise for that. One advantage boxers of yesterday have over those of today is the willingness to accept defeat as part of the game. The next big thing who Canzaghe destroyed, capitulated after that defeat. Why? Was it mental? IMO it is because he believed his own hype and being such a finely tunes athlete simply lost confidence in his own ability. Then again, you have "old school" fighters like Steve Robinson, a virtual journeyman who go this shot and took it. How many losses did he have on his record before Naz? He also capitulated after the beating naz gave him. But was La Motta the same after the St Valentine's Massacre? Nope, he wasn't.

Enough rambling.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:06

skidd1 wrote:Nutrition has improved but not by huge amounts.It is more scientific.Less margins for error but guys in Robinsons era had the basics of nutrition right.That applies to many other sports as well
I would think that the Robinson of the 50's beats the Robinson of today
Why ? Well greater ringcraft and possibly fitness since he would inevitably fight far less in todays era. Sugar Ray liked the high life as well and fighting only once or twice a year might not be enough to keep even the greatest in shape and ring sharp

I beg to differ. They would have equal skill. but today's version would be much faster and stronger, hit harder but with equal guile and ring smarts. Also with greater finesse. Many of SRR opponents in fights were nothing more that glorified sparring sessions. Boxers fought more often because of money.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:17

azania wrote:You have strength and physical conditioners, speed trainers, trainers for every part of a boxer's body (except for chin), monitoring pulse rates, dieticians, new practically space age equipment. Yes sparring, roadwork and all other aspects in boxing are still being used, but that is complimented by things, including medical and diet technology making the boxer with lets say equal ability to SRR (an SRR clone as my post above) a superior athlete and therefore boxer to SRR. I put forward earlier that SRR now will beat SRR in his pomp (for windy) at the same weight. SRR now would be faster (god help his opponents), stronger with more power.

That's well and good in theory, azania, but we need to ask ourselves a few questions to test the theory :

Why was Robinson faster than Hopkins ?

Why did Robinson clearly hit harder ?

Why would Robinson annihilate Felix Sturm if they fought today?

Is Vitali Klitschko faster than Ali ?

Does Wlad hit harder than Foreman did ?

Could any of today's heavies match Jeffries' athletic feats which I mentioned earlier ?

Would Pacquiao beat Tommy Hearns or Mike McCallum at lightmiddle ?

Why are many of today's heavies gassed after three or four rounds ?

In addition, we should ask ourselves how many weeks of the year a successful modern fighter spends in the gym. Old school fighters who were in the ring six, seven or more times a year were CONSTANTLY in fighting trim and were CONSTANTLY honing their skills because opponents were trying to hit them with bad intentions. No amount of modern equipment can substitute for the real heat of battle, which is precisely the argument put forward by Eddie Futch.

by skidd1 Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:18

azania.. care to quantify that with any evidence.Nutrition differences,quality of opponents? Better middleweights recently.Pavlik held the title the longest recently.Do you rate him?.Anyone on his record to trouble Sugar Ray Robinson
Or Leonard
Or Hagler
Or Monzon
That dismises Burley ,Lamotta'Greb etc etc

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:28

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:You have strength and physical conditioners, speed trainers, trainers for every part of a boxer's body (except for chin), monitoring pulse rates, dieticians, new practically space age equipment. Yes sparring, roadwork and all other aspects in boxing are still being used, but that is complimented by things, including medical and diet technology making the boxer with lets say equal ability to SRR (an SRR clone as my post above) a superior athlete and therefore boxer to SRR. I put forward earlier that SRR now will beat SRR in his pomp (for windy) at the same weight. SRR now would be faster (god help his opponents), stronger with more power.

That's well and good in theory, azania, but we need to ask ourselves a few questions to test the theory :

Why was Robinson faster than Hopkins ?

Why did Robinson clearly hit harder ?

Why would Robinson annihilate Felix Sturm if they fought today?

Is Vitali Klitschko faster than Ali ?

Does Wlad hit harder than Foreman did ?

Could any of today's heavies match Jeffries' athletic feats which I mentioned earlier ?

Would Pacquiao beat Tommy Hearns or Mike McCallum at lightmiddle ?

Why are many of today's heavies gassed after three or four rounds ?

In addition, we should ask ourselves how many weeks of the year a successful modern fighter spends in the gym. Old school fighters who were in the ring six, seven or more times a year were CONSTANTLY in fighting trim and were CONSTANTLY honing their skills because opponents were trying to hit them with bad intentions. No amount of modern equipment can substitute for the real heat of battle, which is precisely the argument put forward by Eddie Futch.

I feel like I'm being cross examined lol.

The answers to all your questions are very obvious. Bhop would lose to SRR but make him look bad in the process. SRR was a one off. Much like Bob Hayes (sprinter). His type will never be seen again.

Haye beats Jeffreys and every other Heavy backwards from Rocky (includning rocky). Haye is a superb athlete. Trained in Brazilian Ju Jitsu and a good basketball player.

Why do they gas? They are simply unfit and lazy often cutting corners. You dont see the K brothers gassing, Hiolmes, Frazier, Ali, Tyson (pre jail), Riddick Bowe, Holy etc all gassing. They are/were trained athletes who knew what would happen if they didn't train properly. Ali was gassing in the llast frazier fight because he took frazier lightly and cut corners. Many heavies ignore corners and just dont train right and yes, do not keep themselves in shape. Only heavies can afford that luxury though in coming into a fight out of shape and a stone overweight.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:34

skidd1 wrote:azania.. care to quantify that with any evidence.Nutrition differences,quality of opponents? Better middleweights recently.Pavlik held the title the longest recently.Do you rate him?.Anyone on his record to trouble Sugar Ray Robinson
Or Leonard
Or Hagler
Or Monzon
That dismises Burley ,Lamotta'Greb etc etc

What sort of evidence are you looking for? The only evidence would be for SRR of 1950 to fight SRR of 2011 and well.....! Pavlik? Do me a favour please. The division was and still is poor. SRR beats them all. Hagler would have given him the toughest fight and Hearns a very strong test. But is guys like Basillio and Turpin could turn him over, so could Hagler. He won the middleweight title 5 times, meaning he lost it 5 times also. Why did he lose? Not enought time preparing for fights imo.

by **HumanWindmill** Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:46

azania wrote:

Haye beats Jeffreys and every other Heavy backwards from Rocky (includning rocky). Haye is a superb athlete. Trained in Brazilian Ju Jitsu and a good basketball player.

Why do they gas? They are simply unfit and lazy often cutting corners. You dont see the K brothers gassing, Hiolmes, Frazier, Ali, Tyson (pre jail), Riddick Bowe, Holy etc all gassing. They are/were trained athletes who knew what would happen if they didn't train properly. Ali was gassing in the llast frazier fight because he took frazier lightly and cut corners. Many heavies ignore corners and just dont train right and yes, do not keep themselves in shape. Only heavies can afford that luxury though in coming into a fight out of shape and a stone overweight.

Haye would outpoint Jeffries over twelve rounds, but over fifteen to twenty Jeff would flatten him. Haye has stamina issues, as we saw against Carl Thompson. Jeff was immensely strong, hit like a mule and was almost impossible to hurt. Joe Louis would counter Haye silly and knock him out. Haye doesn't slip and counter, but rather he pulls back from a jab. Absolutely fatal against a man like Louis. Dempsey kayos him, also, and Tunney boxes his ears off. Jack Johnson would have picked off Haye's punches like catching a baseball and would have punished him with counters. Little tiny Sam Langford's workrate and ferocious punching would have put Haye to sleep.

Wlad Klitschko doesn't gas ? How about the first Brewster fight, or the Sam Peter one ? I've seen Holyfield gas a few times, also.

Ali and Frazier were both past their best in Manila, and went fourteen rounds in one of the most brutal slugfests in history. Everybody agrees that their performances approached the superhuman.

At the beginning of the debate you implored us to use our eyes. Well, this is what I see, and any number of unproven theories can't change the fact that I see that the Klitschkos are slower than Ali, Robinson hit harder than Hopkins, Holyfield has questionable stamina, and yet still, at forty six years old, pushes the younger, bigger and stronger Valuev all the way to the brink.

by Shantel Jackson Boyfriend Tue 22 Feb 2011, 21:55

Human Windmill give it a rest

I will buy you a time machine so you can go back in time to relive the 60s

by Adam D Tue 22 Feb 2011, 22:00

what exactly is wrong with HW's comment?

He has backed up his comment with views that are clearly thought over. So what if he prefers boxers from another era?

No need for telling people to give it a rest - expecially if they appear to have a point. If you dont like his comments, come up with reasons as to why he is wrong.

by Rodney Tue 22 Feb 2011, 22:05

I dont get why many argue use the old sprint argument his is what I've always argued. Boxing is far more than tuning the body to execute a set procedure (eg. a sprint, a throw etc.). It's about making the right moves, mental and physical, against another individual human mind and body that is interacting with you in an adversarial manner.

Usain Bolt gets on the track and sprints in a straight line, at the sound of the pistol. He knows his opponents will be doing exactly the same thing. He cannot trick them into doing something else, he cannot even lessen their speed, he cannot really prevent them from successfully running as fast as they are capable of. Boxing is largely about not allowing the other guy to do what he wants to do, and that's about doing the right thing at the right time, over and over, and being better at choosing the right moves than the other guy.

Azania you mention haye would clean out the old greats, yet he only squeaked past the most awful of champions in Valuev, to have him as a shoo in to beat the past champions is a bit far fetched Imo.

Shantel this is a grown ups argument, it's a bit past your bed time.

Cheers Rodders

by Shantel Jackson Boyfriend Tue 22 Feb 2011, 22:15

David Haye would beat Evander Holyfield in my eyes, too fast for Holyfield to land his headbutts Wink

I just don't buy this argument that modern day boxers can't be as good as old timers. Only in the Heavyweight scene that is true yet I think the Klitschko brothers and Haye would give good account of themselves against the past legends. Floyd Mayweather is the most skilful boxer of all time and Bernard Hopkins shows age is only a number, he would easily outbox Hagler.

Rodney how did he squeak past Valuev he beat him with ease. Wait aren't you the one who though Berto would beat Mosley. I forgotten more about boxing then you know. Berto will never be a elite boxer he got beat by Collazo what chance would he have against Shane Mosley.

Hobo I was just having some banter with Human Windmill

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 22:23

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:

Haye beats Jeffreys and every other Heavy backwards from Rocky (includning rocky). Haye is a superb athlete. Trained in Brazilian Ju Jitsu and a good basketball player.

Why do they gas? They are simply unfit and lazy often cutting corners. You dont see the K brothers gassing, Hiolmes, Frazier, Ali, Tyson (pre jail), Riddick Bowe, Holy etc all gassing. They are/were trained athletes who knew what would happen if they didn't train properly. Ali was gassing in the llast frazier fight because he took frazier lightly and cut corners. Many heavies ignore corners and just dont train right and yes, do not keep themselves in shape. Only heavies can afford that luxury though in coming into a fight out of shape and a stone overweight.

Haye would outpoint Jeffries over twelve rounds, but over fifteen to twenty Jeff would flatten him. Haye has stamina issues, as we saw against Carl Thompson. Jeff was immensely strong, hit like a mule and was almost impossible to hurt. Joe Louis would counter Haye silly and knock him out. Haye doesn't slip and counter, but rather he pulls back from a jab. Absolutely fatal against a man like Louis. Dempsey kayos him, also, and Tunney boxes his ears off. Jack Johnson would have picked off Haye's punches like catching a baseball and would have punished him with counters. Little tiny Sam Langford's workrate and ferocious punching would have put Haye to sleep.

Wlad Klitschko doesn't gas ? How about the first Brewster fight, or the Sam Peter one ? I've seen Holyfield gas a few times, also.

Ali and Frazier were both past their best in Manila, and went fourteen rounds in one of the most brutal slugfests in history. Everybody agrees that their performances approached the superhuman.

At the beginning of the debate you implored us to use our eyes. Well, this is what I see, and any number of unproven theories can't change the fact that I see that the Klitschkos are slower than Ali, Robinson hit harder than Hopkins, Holyfield has questionable stamina, and yet still, at forty six years old, pushes the younger, bigger and stronger Valuev all the way to the brink.

Hoye beats Jeffries over any amount of rounds for the simple reason being that Haye would adapt his training to suit the length of the fight. Yes he gassed against Thomson. He wasa novice and went hell for leather until he got knackered. He expected to get rid of Carl quickly and had no plan B or pace himself. That is an example of a defeat being the best thing that could have happened to a fighter. Brought him down a few pegs. Haye was too fast for Jeffs. No boxer is impossible to hurt. Hit them right and they go. Haye would have hit him right because of his speed and with Jeff's telegraphing his punches, Haye wouldn't be hit by power punches. I'd say though that if Jeff connects, its goodnight Haye.

Come on, Dempsey was a poor man's Rocky. A better comparison would be who wins out of those 2. All of them were too slow and also smaller and less skilled that Haye at 230lbs.

Yes Ali and Frazier were passed their best. But if you saw the C4 doc, it said that Ali took the fight lightly thinking Frazier was done. Boy was he wrong. Frazier trained like a maniac. To be fair I dont think that both of them at their peak would not have gassed under the ferocity of that fight. I remember that fight well when it happened. Again the world stood still...the bus doesn't even stop for Haye or K's.

How long ago was the first Brewster fight? The point is, WK (and Haye) learnt from their mistakes and have corrected it. Ditto Holy. After the 3rd Bowe fight everyone thought him finished. He adapted (with chemical aid I reckon) and proved his stamina and skill which have not depreciated to the extent that he cannot be competitive in today's game.

If those old greats were around and punching today, they would wipe the floor off most active fighters today. Add their grit, determination, talent with today's technique, they would be devestating.

I am not doubting their shill or talent. It's just that today's fighters....less skilled maybe, but better trained and stronger human beings (largely) would win 9 times out of 10.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 22:25

Shantel Jackson Boyfriend wrote:David Haye would beat Evander Holyfield in my eyes, too fast for Holyfield to land his headbutts

I just don't buy this argument that modern day boxers can't be as good as old timers. Only in the Heavyweight scene that is true yet I think the Klitschko brothers and Haye would give good account of themselves against the past legends. Floyd Mayweather is the most skilful boxer of all time and Bernard Hopkins shows age is only a number, he would easily outbox Hagler.

Rodney how did he squeak past Valuev he beat him with ease. Wait aren't you the one who though Berto would beat Mosley. I forgotten more about boxing then you know. Berto will never be a elite boxer he got beat by Collazo what chance would he have against Shane Mosley.

Hobo I was just having some banter with Human Windmill

Sorry but Holy of 10 years ago even, beats any haye you can bring up. Ray Leonard, although it pains me to say it, would wipe the floor of PBF. Hearns would KO him inside 5. Hagler mauls Bhop to a painful beating.

by azania Tue 22 Feb 2011, 22:51

Rodney wrote:I dont get why many argue use the old sprint argument his is what I've always argued. Boxing is far more than tuning the body to execute a set procedure (eg. a sprint, a throw etc.). It's about making the right moves, mental and physical, against another individual human mind and body that is interacting with you in an adversarial manner.

Usain Bolt gets on the track and sprints in a straight line, at the sound of the pistol. He knows his opponents will be doing exactly the same thing. He cannot trick them into doing something else, he cannot even lessen their speed, he cannot really prevent them from successfully running as fast as they are capable of. Boxing is largely about not allowing the other guy to do what he wants to do, and that's about doing the right thing at the right time, over and over, and being better at choosing the right moves than the other guy.

Azania you mention haye would clean out the old greats, yet he only squeaked past the most awful of champions in Valuev, to have him as a shoo in to beat the past champions is a bit far fetched Imo.

Shantel this is a grown ups argument, it's a bit past your bed time.

Cheers Rodders

Rodders, sprinting is not as simple as that. There are 4 stages in sprinting and each is very different from one another. Just thought I clarify that.

by Imperial Ghosty Wed 23 Feb 2011, 00:36

I simply don't buy how a modern boxer would be necessarily be stronger, fitter and more skillful for the simple reason they train far less.

Granted take Robinson of the 60's and make him train 7 weeks twice a year for 2 fights and take the slightly more developed (larger) Robinson of today with the same training regime then modern version would be fitter, stronger but not necessarily more skillful.

by **Seanusarrilius** Wed 23 Feb 2011, 01:09

by **HumanWindmill** Wed 23 Feb 2011, 08:05

Hobo wrote:what exactly is wrong with HW's comment?

He has backed up his comment with views that are clearly thought over. So what if he prefers boxers from another era?

Thank you very much, Hobo.

It's nice to see that potentially unpleasant situations can be promptly nipped in the bud. Many good debates fell by the wayside at the old forum when personal spats were allowed to hijack threads.

by **HumanWindmill** Wed 23 Feb 2011, 08:45

azania wrote:
Come on, Dempsey was a poor man's Rocky. A better comparison would be who wins out of those 2. All of them were too slow and also smaller and less skilled that Haye at 230lbs.

Haye was a natural cruiser who, apart from in the issue of height, was actually SMALLER, in many ' tale of the tape ' statistics, ( in his natural state, ) than were Louis, Dempsey and Johnson, and he was CONSIDERABLY smaller than Jeffries. Besides, size isn't the be all and end all, or Haye would never have beaten Valuev. It cuts both ways. Dempsey and Louis made mincemeat of considerably bigger and more durable opponents than Haye. Buddy Baer, brother of former champ Max, was as big as the Klitschkos, was a sound boxer with a solid technique, possessed an excellent jab, longer reach than the Klitschkos, and a proven punch. Louis, despite an early scare in the first fight, absolutely decimated him twice. If you watch the fights, you will see Louis give a master class in blocking and countering, slipping, and awesome combination punching. David Haye, ( whom I like, by the way, ) would do well to last five rounds with Louis.

Jack Dempsey's style was completely different to that of Marciano. Dempsey was all coils and springs, bobbing and weaving, using subtle footwork to create angles, and his punches were short. He was a much better boxer than often given credit for, as Tunney pointed out. Master boxer Tommy Gibbons made Dempsey look a bit silly for a round or three while Jack tried to bomb him out, but then Dempsey settled down and boxed his way to a decision win. Marciano, by comparison, relied on incredible conditioning, durability, ( apart from his tendency to cut, ) and walking through his man to land his own punches. His hooks and swings tended to be looped, and though he carried a mighty wallop there is absolutely no similarity between his punching style and that of Dempsey. Dempsey's style was something of a forerunner to Tyson's, whereas Marciano's was more akin to Frazier's, though Frazier had better head movement.

Again, I would refer you to Ray Arcel, who saw Dempsey from ringside, was in the opposite corner to Joe Louis a dozen times, and lived to see all the greats up to Tyson. Arcel reckoned Dempsey, Louis and Ali to be the three best heavies of all time but refused to put them in order. With all due respect, Arcel knew a lot more about boxing than you and I do.

Almost every respected historian agrees that in a twenty rounder, ( or longer, ) Jeffries beats just about everybody in history. In a modern ring his lack of subtle skills would cost him against a slick boxer, but over twenty five rounds or more his incredible stamina, strength and punching power, together with a chin as good as Ali's, would make him almost impossible to beat. Only men like Louis and Johnson, who fought at a very measured pace, would be a match for him.

I have NEVER said that old timers are necessarily better than modern greats. Every generation spawns great fighters, ( though previous generations, with a greater number of registered pros, better infrastructure and deeper talent pool, produced them more often, ) and that these fighters would always be competitive against each other. A Mayweather v Arguello fight at superfeather, or Mayweather v Saddler at the same weight, would be absolute thrillers. So would Duran v Benny Leonard at lightweight, Michael Spinks v Ezzard Charles at lightheavy, the two Sugar Rays at welter, etc., etc.

We can't just write the oldies off on the basis of flimsy theories which cannot be proven in boxing - specific terms. If we take the trouble to watch the oldies in action and really study the film with an open mind there is a mountain of evidence to support the view that the greats of yesteryear were every bit as good as the greats of today.

by Guest Wed 23 Feb 2011, 08:48

Rodders, sprinting is not as simple as that. There are 4 stages in sprinting and each is very different from one another. Just thought I clarify that.
************************************************************
Whether or not sprinting is made up of four stages or it's as basic as "run as fast as you can to the end of the track", Rodders' argument is valid in that there is nothing one sprinter can do mid-race to affect what any of the other runners do.

by Jamson Wed 23 Feb 2011, 09:07

HumanWindmill wrote:
azania wrote:
Come on, Dempsey was a poor man's Rocky. A better comparison would be who wins out of those 2. All of them were too slow and also smaller and less skilled that Haye at 230lbs.

Haye was a natural cruiser who, apart from in the issue of height, was actually SMALLER, in many ' tale of the tape ' statistics, ( in his natural state, ) than were Louis, Dempsey and Johnson, and he was CONSIDERABLY smaller than Jeffries. Besides, size isn't the be all and end all, or Haye would never have beaten Valuev. It cuts both ways. Dempsey and Louis made mincemeat of considerably bigger and more durable opponents than Haye. Buddy Baer, brother of former champ Max, was as big as the Klitschkos, was a sound boxer with a solid technique, possessed an excellent jab, longer reach than the Klitschkos, and a proven punch. Louis, despite an early scare in the first fight, absolutely decimated him twice. If you watch the fights, you will see Louis give a master class in blocking and countering, slipping, and awesome combination punching. David Haye, ( whom I like, by the way, ) would do well to last five rounds with Louis.

Jack Dempsey's style was completely different to that of Marciano. Dempsey was all coils and springs, bobbing and weaving, using subtle footwork to create angles, and his punches were short. He was a much better boxer than often given credit for, as Tunney pointed out. Master boxer Tommy Gibbons made Dempsey look a bit silly for a round or three while Jack tried to bomb him out, but then Dempsey settled down and boxed his way to a decision win. Marciano, by comparison, relied on incredible conditioning, durability, ( apart from his tendency to cut, ) and walking through his man to land his own punches. His hooks and swings tended to be looped, and though he carried a mighty wallop there is absolutely no similarity between his punching style and that of Dempsey. Dempsey's style was something of a forerunner to Tyson's, whereas Marciano's was more akin to Frazier's, though Frazier had better head movement.

Again, I would refer you to Ray Arcel, who saw Dempsey from ringside, was in the opposite corner to Joe Louis a dozen times, and lived to see all the greats up to Tyson. Arcel reckoned Dempsey, Louis and Ali to be the three best heavies of all time but refused to put them in order. With all due respect, Arcel knew a lot more about boxing than you and I do.

Almost every respected historian agrees that in a twenty rounder, ( or longer, ) Jeffries beats just about everybody in history. In a modern ring his lack of subtle skills would cost him against a slick boxer, but over twenty five rounds or more his incredible stamina, strength and punching power, together with a chin as good as Ali's, would make him almost impossible to beat. Only men like Louis and Johnson, who fought at a very measured pace, would be a match for him.

I have NEVER said that old timers are necessarily better than modern greats. Every generation spawns great fighters, ( though previous generations, with a greater number of registered pros, better infrastructure and deeper talent pool, produced them more often, ) and that these fighters would always be competitive against each other. A Mayweather v Arguello fight at superfeather, or Mayweather v Saddler at the same weight, would be absolute thrillers. So would Duran v Benny Leonard at lightweight, Michael Spinks v Ezzard Charles at lightheavy, the two Sugar Rays at welter, etc., etc.

We can't just write the oldies off on the basis of flimsy theories which cannot be proven in boxing - specific terms. If we take the trouble to watch the oldies in action and really study the film with an open mind there is a mountain of evidence to support the view that the greats of yesteryear were every bit as good as the greats of today.

Agreed about the greats of yesteryear. I actually think there's an argument for boxers not being as fit as they used to be in years gone. You look at fights like Duran vs Leonard or Pryor vs Arguello and they're still fighting at a high level and intensity going into the championship rounds (13,14,15)... however some of the top fighters at those weights of this era like De la Hoya or Cotto can't seem to maintain a decent pace for more than 8 rounds.. let alone 12 or 15.

I actually think the real big difference is with the heavies.. Guys like Lewis woulook huge compared to the heavies of yesteryear... a fully fit focused lewis would be favourite against any of the heavies from any ear IMO.

by Sponsored content