WHY MAYWEATHER IS A TOP 10 ALLTIMER ALREADY!!

rowley wrote:Personally will believe the evidence of my own eyes. I happily watch guys like Ross, Mclarnin and Benny Leonard and unless my eyes are deceiving me I can see absolutely no reason why they would not be more than competitve in todays era.

If anyone can genuinely tell me what they see in a guy like Berto that suggests he walks through those guys I would be fascinated to be enlightened, as I simply don't see it.

88Chris05 wrote:Windy, Jeff (sorry, you'll always be 'Jeff' to me!), I think that most would agree you've had the better of this thread. I'm usually champing at the bit when it comes to this kind of debate but to be honest I'm tired of having to make the same points over and over, so kudos to you fellas for getting the job done.

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.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's folly for people to suggest old timers are as skilled or as fit as modern fighters. Nutrition and training techniques have come on a bomb in the last few decades.

People forget about all the holding that went on in the old days...Huddles for ten seconds at a time for fighters to get a blow. These days break gets called immediately and fights are generally paced quicker..

As for the Mcguigan- cruz argument...mcguigan wasn't used to that kind of heat and he still went 15 rounds.....


Alright saying the Grebs etc are alltime greats but to say they are skilled as fighters these days is ridiculous...times have moved on...

When it comes to rankings oldtimers have a huge advantage as they are rose-tintedly worshipped...as the past is always better because it isn't now!!

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.

Rodney wrote: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.
______________________________________________________

Considering I haven't posted in two years I think you're mistaking me for someone else, but Berto could beat Mosley they haven't fought, I think Berto would start favourite.

Azania, whether sprinting is in 10 stages it makes no difference as Dave alluded, you can't stop your opponent applying his gameplan, trying to relate that to modern day boxing is wrong on so many levels.


Ifind this whole strength training debate to be silly anyway since fighters should be spending more time training for speed, endurance, and sports-specific skill. And you see the best fighters doing that. Look at Pacquiao's workouts in, he does some calisthenics and isometric drills with ariza, spars and does rounds of spar, bag and pad work, and then cross trains in basketball for fun. How is that so absurdly different or more effective than other fighters routines in the past?

I'm not saying sports science is irrelevant to boxing or to the discussion. Supplements/Nutrition and greater understanding of CNS and muscular interaction will always be relevant to athletic development. My point is that those advances are not making for specifically better boxers or boxing. With greater emphasis on conditioning we have seen a drop in sports-specific teaching(skills, strategy) and endurance training. That's why the klits can 1-2 their opponents in the face for 12 rounds and their opponent can't figure out what to do. That's why David Haye gasses in the first 3 rounds throwing haymakers and then drops his work rate. It's why Chad Dawson backs people up to the ropes with 7-punch combinations and then starts daydreaming about what he had for lunch the previous evening.


Cheers Rodders

azania wrote: I'm not going to argue too much against Arcel, but people will have some element of nostalgia for their time. My time in boxing was the 1970s and 1980s. I look at that period with rose tinted eyes. But looking at things rationally I would have to say that Vit K would probably beat a peak Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle and most others except for Ali and Foreman and Holmes.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Whittaker, Taylor, Camacho, Dela Hoya, Mayweather all kick Leonard's butt........Who did he beat who was like any of these guys??

Turpin beats Robbo then for me Jones jr and even Michael Nunn give him plenty of trouble...

As for mClarnin your guess is as good as mine as to how good he was..

Claptrap Rowley..........

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote: I'm not going to argue too much against Arcel, but people will have some element of nostalgia for their time. My time in boxing was the 1970s and 1980s. I look at that period with rose tinted eyes. But looking at things rationally I would have to say that Vit K would probably beat a peak Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle and most others except for Ali and Foreman and Holmes.

Arcel can't be accused of having been influenced by nostalgia if his three picks as best heavies span from 1919 to 1964.

Rodney wrote:I'm denying that in athletics Azania, but running in a straight line compared to someone applying a strategy and throwing leather at you is worlds apart. For those fond of comparing other sports with boxing to show progression. Seb Coe, Steve Ovett,Said Aouita and Steve Cram would probably still dominate the vast majority of distances from 800m to 5000m. (in other words those races where tactics and strategy matter as much as physical skill.)

Ed Moses,Colin Jackson, Carl Lewis,powell and Roger Kingdom would still dominate the 110m/400m/long jump. (again hurdles and jumping demand technique and strategy more than pure athleticism.)

Maradona,Best,Cruyff,Pele etc all would still dominate modern football,because it doesnt just involve measuring how far you can kick a ball.

Its with the onset of new technology,drugs and such like that sprint times have become better. Really only Usain Bolt and Michael Johnson have taken sprint times to new levels.(who are once in a lifetime kind of sprinters.)

For me, it all comes down to the film. I can say with confidence that the likes of Freddie Steele, Kid Chocolate, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Panama Al Brown, John Henry Lewis, etc., etc.(guys who competed in the late 20's and/or 30's) were modern era caliber. I can say with even more confidence that the fighters (not all of them, mind you) from the past 15 years or so are of a much lesser quality than their predecessors from 30, 40, 50 years past. This is my opinion based on viewing and studying a lot of film.

Judging handspeed and power is one thing but have a firm grasp on/a keen eye for the technical aspects of the game when trying to decipher the differences in this sort of thing.

Cheers Rodders

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote: I'm not going to argue too much against Arcel, but people will have some element of nostalgia for their time. My time in boxing was the 1970s and 1980s. I look at that period with rose tinted eyes. But looking at things rationally I would have to say that Vit K would probably beat a peak Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle and most others except for Ali and Foreman and Holmes.

Arcel can't be accused of having been influenced by nostalgia if his three picks as best heavies span from 1919 to 1964.

Actually he can. With the exception of Ali (who no one can deny) he looks at his period with nostalgia. His period being the inter war period and shortly after WW2.

imperialghosty wrote:You seem to be tripping over yourself now, so despite the fact that they don't necessarily have more skill and there's no way of proving in isolation if La Motta from the 60's was weaker than say Pavlik from today (just an example). So in short all we have to go on is an opinion of who's better just because someone was born in the past 10 years they definitely beat someone born in 1950.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote: I'm not going to argue too much against Arcel, but people will have some element of nostalgia for their time. My time in boxing was the 1970s and 1980s. I look at that period with rose tinted eyes. But looking at things rationally I would have to say that Vit K would probably beat a peak Frazier, Norton, Shavers, Lyle and most others except for Ali and Foreman and Holmes.

Arcel can't be accused of having been influenced by nostalgia if his three picks as best heavies span from 1919 to 1964.

Actually he can. With the exception of Ali (who no one can deny) he looks at his period with nostalgia. His period being the inter war period and shortly after WW2.

Well, he picked Ali, so you can't make the exception.

Furthermore, he reckoned Duran to have been as good a fighter as Benny Leonard, the two of them being his best lightweights of all time. They were separated by roughly fifty years.

azania wrote:Boxers of today, as are athletes of today, faster and stronger.

azania wrote: Who wouldn't pick Ali? Or Duran? Or SRL? Or Floyd?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote: Who wouldn't pick Ali? Or Duran? Or SRL? Or Floyd?

Who wouldn't pick Louis as a better fighter than Haye ?

88Chris05 wrote:Christ Almighty, has it really come down to suggesting that Samuel Peter, Chris Arreola, Vitali Klitschko and John Ruiz are faster than Muhammad Ali, Floyd Patterson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis, or stronger than Jim Jeffries, George Foreman and Jack Johnson?

Jesus H Christ, honestly...I'm done with this thread, it simply can't get any worse.

azania wrote: So much so that a boxer he fought was drinking whiskey between rounds (or is that someone else against Jack Johnson). Transport Louis in his peak and put him against Haye then haye wins imo. That is not to say that Haye is a better boxer. He isn't. He just benefits from being more advanced in terms of training etc. Humans have moved on...or more accurately, the science of athletes has moved on enabling humans to utilise their bodies better than ever before. That is the only advantage Haye owns over Louis and that is why haye wins.