WHY MAYWEATHER IS A TOP 10 ALLTIMER ALREADY!!

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..

Hobo wrote:...
It comes down to skill and the quality of the opponents of your era.

I agree - this is the only thing we can measure objectively and is boxing's equivalent of times in athletics.

You misconstruing my argument....You don't honestly think I believe any modern fighter wipes out an oldtimer do you????

That's an ignorant summing up of my argument...

My argument is modern fighters have an advantage if they are of similar talent as you obviously already know...

If i'm in the minority so what...So was the guy who said Challenger shouldn't take off because of the cold weather..

bodybuilding has advanced, footballers are fitter, cricketers, American footballers...........
_______________________________________________________

Am always loath to post this because prefer to stick to boxing but the comment pre-supposes fitness is the bee all and end all. I actually agree cricketers have increased in fitness but this still does not allow for the fact that Don Bradman is still widely considered the finest batsman to ever pick up a bat, this is because like boxing cricket is about more than fitness at that level it requires concentration, timing, hand eye co-ordination, reading a bowlers actions footwork and a myriad other things which any number of hours in a gym or watching what you eat could never hope to give you.

I regard Ali as a modern fighter..............Modern era is anything from the sixties onwards.....Sixties was the start of the modern era.
________________________________________________________

He fought at the top level almost 50 years ago you consider that modern?? You lose the argument right there, This odious comparison of sprinting,cycling and weightlifting with boxing is ridiculous.

This delusional idea that progress/evolution is inevitable in a sport as multifaceted as boxing is tedious.

Boxing combines endurance,power,skill,intelligence and will power.
Does man as a rule become more intelligent and have more will-power as time goes along? A visit along boxing history shows that many eras/decades show a steep regression. Check out the general heavweights after Ali up until the tyson/holy/lewis era.
Check the middles after Monzon and Hagler. Or the welters after the Leonard era. And we havent even got into the Robinson/Armstrong/Greb/Charles days....
Why is it we had soo many great fighters in the 80s alone? (Hagler,Hearns,Duran,Leonard,Arguello,Pryor,Spinks,Holy,Tyson,Chavez,Whitaker,Benitez,Gomez,need i carry on?) Yet in the current decade we have Pac,Marquez,Hopkins and Mayweather only?

This is Progress??? Pull the other one.

it doesn't pre suppose anything if I took all the supplements Arnie did I wouldn't beat him......

Nothing beats talent...The fact however these days that Boxers are better coached and on better diets and fitness regimes seems to lead credence to the fact that dominating like mayweather has done for ten years should curry him more favor with some members on here...

Unfortunately I guess Jake Kilrain will always get more respect..

dominating like mayweather has done for ten years
__________________________

DOMINATING??

How many times has he fought since 2003 please??

Rodders

[/quote]

eggs are also bad for you....wait a minute, they are now okay again!

People do change their minds about the right and wrong way to do things. I think the question is nothing to do with nutrition in this instance though. The question I ask is:

Were past athletes fit and able to go the distance - yes
Are current boxers - yes

It comes down to skill and the quality of the opponents of your era.[/quote]

That's exactly it, the only thing that matters is the skillset

So going way back now, has any middleweight ever been able to hit as hard as Fitzsimmons since, who as has been alluded to already was an absolute freak, his physique was all wrong for power punching, big upper body and small lower body yet his technique in delivering a punch was so perfect he hit like a train. Mayweather looks good when he throws punches but isn't able to transfer his weight efficiently enough to get the power you'd expect from someone with such great technique.

You seem to disregard the old time brawlers without a second thought but completely ignore that the current P4P number one makes elementary mistakes all the time- can't jab, loops his punches, jumps into shots, can't parry and generally has a poor defence- where oh where is this improved skill set, not to mention the fact his stamina can't even compete with Armstrong who threw more punches over 15 rounds not 12.

88Chris05 wrote:Right, I'll try to be as succint and to the point as possible before getting as far away as I can from 606v2, as this thread is sapping my will to live.

Modern boxers are not in general more technically sound or refined than yesteryear's. For every Mayweather, we still have a Margarito and Froch, just as there was a Benny Bass and Mickey Walker for every slickster such as Gene Tunney or Benny Leonard back in the twenties. Each era has it's share of technicians and brawlers, and today is no different.

Likewise, the same goes for this strange idea that boxing is always fought at a faster pace now. The Klitschkos, categorically, do not fight at a faster pace than Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis. Likewise, there are not many past greats who Mayweather boxes at a faster pace than. As with the above, neither the modern nor old generations can claim to be on top in that department. Some fighters of today fight at a higher pace than ones of older times, but there are just as many cases were the exact opposite is true, too.

I'm hearing about modern nutrition, creotine and so on. If these factors lead to fat, out of shape, unconditioned and plodding Heavyweight 'champions' such as Peter, Chagaev, Valuev, Ibragimov, Arreola, Chambers and Tyson Fury then I'd rather be without them, thanks.

Nobody, as of yet, has actually explained what they mean by 'modern training methods.' I think though, that whatever these methods apparently are, they would not help with the mental aspect of boxing (just as vital as the physical side). Moreover, comparisons with the progression of track and field records are pointless. To deny that there are far more intracacies and vagaries in boxing than there is in those sports is lunacy, as there is nothing that an opponent can do in track and field to effect another competitor. And even more crucially, boxing is not, never has been and never will be a sport which is measured against a clock or by distance.

Azania, while being courteous and polite (which is welcome, of course) has contradicted himself a few times. Claiming that modern fighters punch faster by virtue of better training, but then claiming that Ali is the fastest Heavyweight puncher of all time, simply does not fit with his own argument. Neither does his claim that only in this day and age and thanks to modern training and nutrition can a fighter still perform well in his forties like Hopkins, as Archie Moore and Bob Fitzsimmons remained excellent world champions in to their forties. Not a personal attack on Azania, but at the end of the day we are having a boxing debate, and there are some holes in his theory.

That's it from me, I'm off. Good luck to the rest of you fighting it out.

Modern nutirtion is pointless without training. Ben Johnson could have taken a shed load of roids,but if he didn't train he would just have gone fat.

My arument in not that ALL heavies now are faster than before. I specifically mentioned Louis and Johnson and stated that if they had the benefit of modern techniques, they would be far better than they were back then. To deny that is to deny the plethora of evidence that has proven that the benefit of modern training has made man faster and stronger with more speed endurance. There is abundant emperical evidence simply by looking at record books.

Your argument in using Ali is similar to one asking if people are faster now, why is it that Jesse Owen can run faster than 99% of the world's population. It doesn't fit.

More boxers are performing at elite level as they get older. Hop is but one example. Both Klits are another. Ali was finished at 34 whilst WK is improving at the same age. Care to explain that? SRR was finished at 33. Pac is still going strong.

Not being funny burt if someone thinks like Jimmy that Louis was the greatest... and we all think Ali was!!!

He should apologise!

What perverse creatures we have on here.

Truss

Azania has disagreed with us for two days, yet hasn't brought cheap one lined insults in to it. Been very polite and debated like a gent.

Don't see why you're carrying this huge atittude around with you, no one is bothered about your physique.

Take your wife out, play with the kids, have a chat with your boss. You're acting like a prat mate I'm sorry to say.

Cheers

Rodders

How many times did Jack Johnson and Dempsey fight?? and they dominated their eras...

Sounds like an owning to me..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Funny how guys that are saying it should be based on the opposition.....rank Louis so highly????

If we take Louis' prime to be from the Carnera fight in 1935 to his retirement in 1949, his opponents' average records were 49 - 11 - 3, which is about 86.5%. Ten of his fights for the period were against HOFers.

Similar analysis conducted for some of the other greats shows that Louis' opposition is stronger than Jeffries' ( 85.5% with seven HOF fights, ) Johnson ( 74.6% with 17 HOF fights, ) Dempsey ( 81% with ten HOF fights, ) Marciano ( 78.9% with six HOF fights, ) Liston, ( 81% with four HOF fights, ) Frazier ( 85.5% with four HOF fights, ) and Foreman ( 73.4% with four HOF fights. )

It's the fact that Louis defended twenty five times which determines that some of his opposition was less than stellar. Check out the fighters Holmes defended against and you'll find a few gimmes there, also.

How many times had Robinson fought by 33 and how many times has Pacquiao fought? Age is irrelevant for instance Ricky Hatton was finished by the time he was 30 whereas Moore hadn't even hit his peak by 40.

Ali fought far better opposition than Wlad so it's only to be expected that he'd show a fair bit of wear and tear but despite that he still never got knocked senseless by a load of nobodies.

Your now clutching at straws

I wouldn't have thought that any analysis based on records would be any good...

Jack Callaghan was unbeaten when he fought hilton and got trashed as was Navarro when he lost in a minute to Canizales...

Do alot of Navarro's put Canizales above Olivares???

Me I like to use my eyes to see how good a guy was....Walcott he was good and if we are honest went 1-1 with Louis...

Schmelling sucked in the films i've seen..


I don't want to upset you so we'll agree you're right!

Look DAVE I thought you were sticking to insulting me on another thread.......
*************************************************
Not insulting you at all. Merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your comment and your barbed quip re Windy being sensitive suggests this forum will quickly disintegrate like it's previous incarnation.

Something tells you'll believe yourself to be blameless in it all.

You're not a fool...........You should know I don't regard you as one...

I was generally speaking.........

Not like you this..........cheer up.

Schmelling sucked in the films i've seen.
_________________________________________________

Well experts at the time who seen him in the flesh tend to disagree, no offence but I'll trust them, since the footage you're watching is sketchy to say the least.

Cheers

Rodders.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't want to upset you so we'll agree you're right!

Truss, it's not your disagreeing with me that pushed my buttons, but rather the ' fool ' jibe. You and I have exchanged enough times in the past to know that I've always treated you and your opinions with respect, and have never entered into the baiting and witch hunting stuff. However, you can't expect folks to put up with personal insult without biting back.

For the record, I feel as you do that Ali is the best heavy of the lot, but I don't believe Louis was far behind.

May help if you stopped passing off your opinion as fact

Come on Rodney he was your typical straight up European fighter...He was outboxed by Jack Sharkey!!!

Left jab..straight right hand..plodding footwork.

But you know what the heck.....

Okay guys a couple of things:

Firstly things are getting personal so can we all take a chill pill and then if need be, all make friends and hug. If the personal insults keep flying around continue, the thread will be locked. We allow debate and a certain amount of passion but dont over step the mark guys.

Secondly, congratulations - this is now officially the most commented article on 606v2.

Hobo wrote:Okay guys a couple of things:

Firstly things are getting personal so can we all take a chill pill and then if need be, all make friends and hug. If the personal insults keep flying around continue, the thread will be locked. We allow debate and a certain amount of passion but dont over step the mark guys.

Secondly, congratulations - this is now officially the most commented article on 606v2.

Apologies, Hobo.

It's a great thread and it would be a pity to spoil it.

When have I passed my opinion off as fact....I back my opinions up and fight hard for my view....But I don't think any less of anybody elses opinion!!

Bostonians love feisty debate and when it's over there are no hard feelings...Should know me by now.

As for "Fools" I should have tempered my language better.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bostonians love feisty debate and when it's over there are no hard feelings...Should know me by now.

None my end either, Truss.

Schmeling was hardly a ' typical stand up European, ' mind. He fought out of a pronounced crouch most of the time, with his left hand extended. Very much like Jeffries in stance.

Agree with you about Sharkey, though. On his day the ' Boston Gob ' was a darned good boxer / fighter and was the best of the bunch between Tunney and Louis, in my opinion. Trouble is that Sharkey had the concentration span of a housefly, and hasd as many bad days at the office as good ones.

Dreadful waste of talent

imperialghosty wrote:

eggs are also bad for you....wait a minute, they are now okay again!

People do change their minds about the right and wrong way to do things. I think the question is nothing to do with nutrition in this instance though. The question I ask is:

Were past athletes fit and able to go the distance - yes
Are current boxers - yes

It comes down to skill and the quality of the opponents of your era.[/quote]

That's exactly it, the only thing that matters is the skillset

So going way back now, has any middleweight ever been able to hit as hard as Fitzsimmons since, who as has been alluded to already was an absolute freak, his physique was all wrong for power punching, big upper body and small lower body yet his technique in delivering a punch was so perfect he hit like a train. Mayweather looks good when he throws punches but isn't able to transfer his weight efficiently enough to get the power you'd expect from someone with such great technique.

You seem to disregard the old time brawlers without a second thought but completely ignore that the current P4P number one makes elementary mistakes all the time- can't jab, loops his punches, jumps into shots, can't parry and generally has a poor defence- where oh where is this improved skill set, not to mention the fact his stamina can't even compete with Armstrong who threw more punches over 15 rounds not 12.[/quote]

Style and techniques have changed from Fitz's time insofar as his famed solar plexus punch would not even land on today's boxers. Boxers then were wide open for everything thrown at them. It was more of a fight that a boxing match from foorages I've seen. Tunney was described as a fancy dan boxer and was disliked in preference to maulers like Dempsey. fans then wanted more UFC style 'stand up' matched with wild punches thrown instead of skilled fighters like Tunney.

I dont see Floyd making elementary mistakes Pac maybe. But he compensates for the sheer volume and accuracy....much like Armstrong. I have to say that I have not seen much of Armstrong to make a case for or against him but have read of his windmill style and often read that he compares with Aaron Pryor.

PBF's KO ratio has declined as he increases in weight. After all he is more a natural LW or LWW imo. Never a natural WW.

You did say in no uncertain terms that boxers have a better skillset nowadays which I think is codswallop personally, whether we know you or not it's help to be more respectful, it's what we do here in England.

Left jab..straight right hand..plodding footwork.
_______________________________________________

Don't think so Truss dont agree.

I cant really think of any other fighter to compare Schmeling to stylistically, from any era.

He was a chimera of diferent styles who superposed the boxing book.

Certainly not a plodder.

Rodders

I am not as knowledgable as you all but heres a good read i found...

http://theboxingmagazine.com/2010/10/10/comparing-great-fighters-of-the-past-and-present/

Comparing Great Fighters of the Past and Present.

A lot has been written about how the greats of today would fare against the greats of the past. Although the sport has gone through many small changes over the years… it remains essentially the same. Boxing is an individualistic sport. Fighters are products of their environment as much as anything else. They are also a product of their time period. If you transport a fighter from out of the past and place him in the present, the conditions that made him the fighter he was are immediately erased.

Jim Braddock is a good example of a man who was greatly influenced by the circumstances of the Great Depression. Negative circumstances drove him to heights he may have otherwise never attained.

Rocky Marciano is another example. His parents were Italian immigrants. As a young man he learned firsthand the value of discipline and hard work. Immigrants of the early 1900’s (Italian or otherwise) were hardworking people who had no illusions of striking it rich overnight in America. They had a different type of discipline that’s not commonly seen in our country today. The original Great Depression left an indelible mark upon those who lived through and were affected by it. Rocky and others fighters who lived, fought or grew up in that era became products of that era.

Had Rocky Marciano been born in the 1960’s and fought during the 1980’s era, it’s quite possible that he would have developed much differently than he did during the 1950’s.

Of course, this is all conjecture.

When it comes down to comparing the greats of today against the greats of the past, you would have to remove them from their respective eras and place them in an imaginary ring. From there, each would carry their real world experience into the fantasy world, where (all things being equal) the best man would win.

If we compare the football players of today against the football players of the past, the first immediate distinction that becomes evident between the two would be the size disparity. Today’s players are much larger, faster and overall – more athletic than players of the past. The same holds true for other sports.

In boxing, however, heavyweights aside… the weights remain virtually the same today as they did a hundred years ago. A welterweight, whether we’re talking about Oscar DeLaHoya, Ray Leonard, Ray Robinson or Barney Ross… still weigh about 147lbs.

Unlike most other sports, the tools or gear associated with boxing haven’t changed much over the years, either. The gloves and hand wraps used today aren’t that much different than the gloves and wraps used in the past. When I use the phrase “that much different” – I’m referring glaring differences evident with the equipment used in other sports. Golf clubs, baseballs, bats, tennis rackets, football equipment, etc., have all changed drastically over the years – keep pace with technology.

FIGHTERS – THEN AND NOW

While considering fighters from the early 1900’s such as James Jeffries, Jack Johnson and Bob Fitzsimmons, it’s difficult to gauge their “talent” based upon the old, grainy films. Due to inconsistencies with film speeds and other factors, the fluidity of movement is choppy and cartoonish. The ability to gauge punching technique is lost. Slow motion replays are the closest one can get to assessing the style and technique of an individual fighter. And that would be as accurate as assessing a fighter from today based upon 30-seconds or less of recorded action from a single round.

Even so, there are many eyewitness accounts from fans, trainers, fighters and reporters over the years who saw the fighters in action. These accounts can be used to further assess a fighter’s ability and how they might fare against fighters from other eras. One such person was Nat Fleischer, the founder of Ring Magazine. According to Fleischer, Bob Fitzsimmons was probably the greatest pound-for-pound knockout puncher in the history of the sport. Fitzsimmons held the Heavyweight title while barely weighing over the middleweight limit of 160lbs. While Fitzsimmons was undoubtedly a great puncher and terrific infighter, it should also be noted that he had problems with boxers or “movers.”

He was clearly being outpointed in a one-sided contest against Jim Corbett before scoring he infamous – solar plexus knockout… and was defeated by Philadelphia Jack O’Brien’s similar style at Light Heavyweight. According to eyewitness accounts of the fight, O’Brien completely neutralized Fitzsimmon’s offense by alternating between moving and clinching until Fitzsimmon’s had punched himself out in an attempt to get to O”Brien.

If you match Fitzsimmon’s early 1900’s style with many of today’s “hit and run” styled boxers, it’s not very difficult to imagine him being outpointed over the 10-round distance. On the other hand, it’s difficult and takes a lot of stamina to keep on the move for 10, 12 or even 15 rounds. Modern fighters like Roy Jones Jr. combined speed, power and awkwardness very effectively during his prime years. Fighters from the early 1900’s did not have to deal with very many opponents who used hand and foot speed to pot shot their opponents from the outside.

The earlier fighters would almost certainly have an advantage, however, once the fight moved to the ropes or while fighting on the inside.

A good example of how these styles would mesh would be Roy Jones’ fight against James Toney. Toney was often considered to be a “throwback,” style-wise, to the fighters of old. In the Jones/Toney matchup, Roy’s “speed kills” style of hitting, moving and giving odd angles had Toney a full step behind all night long.

Another element to take into consideration is a fighter’s overall experience. In some cases, fighters from the early 20th century differ greatly in this area. Jim Corbett and Jim Jeffries had very short careers as compared to Jack Johnson. It would be easier to make a case for the abilities of Jack Johnson, Joe Gans or Abe Attell (based upon a body of actual historical evidence) than it would for either Corbett or Jeffries.

Jim Corbett – 25 bouts

Jim Jeffries – 21 bouts

Jack Johnson – 104 bouts

Joe Gans - 188 bouts

Abe Attell – 172 bouts

Had Corbett or Jeffries fought in the 2000’s, they probably would have been accused of being moved too quickly or having fought for a title before they had time to be properly developed as fighters..

Some believe the fighters from the early 1900’s did not throw combination punches as modern fighters do… but rather – threw one punch at a time. While reading through early newspaper accounts, it’s true – you will not see the wording “combination punches, punching or combinations” anywhere in print. That doesn’t mean, however, that fighters from the early 1900’s only threw one punch at a time. The writers of the period used words and phrases such as – “fast, swift, quick, rights and lefts” when referring to punches delivered in bunches (or in combinations).

Some have asked if how the fighters of old would deal with the “athleticism” of the fighters of modern times. Perhaps a better question would be, how would the fighters of modern times adapt to the tricks and infighting skills of the fighters of old? What would happen when speed or movement wasn’t enough?

Fighters such as Jack Johnson, Joe Gans and Abe Attell weren’t the type of fighters against whom you could carelessly flick a jab and move around the ring with your hands down by the side as many of today’s fighters do. It was from this generation of fighters that the old boxing axiom was born – “Kill the body and the head will die.”

Muhammad Ali and Roy Jones are examples of two modern fighters who were able to break a lot of the basic rules of fighting due to their above average speed and agility. Once they lost their speed, however, much of their magic went with it. Ali was able to prolong his career due to his ability to take a punch and soak up damage. Jones wasn’t so lucky. He suffered several crushing defeats once his physical speed and agility began to wane.

Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Ray Leonard are great examples of fighters who possessed above average hand speed as well as accurate combination punching ability. All three men were excellent counterpunchers as well. Even so, each man faced opponents who styles forced them to stand their ground and slug it out. In such cases, it takes a lot more than just speed and athleticism to emerge victorious. It takes, heart, guts and the ability to come back from adversity.

Taking a closer look at the sport of boxing over the decades, it becomes obvious that certain fighters would excel – regardless of the decade in which they fought. A fighter like Marvin Hagler or Bernard Hopkins wouldn’t have held the record for number of title defenses at Middleweight had they fought in the 1930’s or 1940’s. If we look at the last 100 years of boxing on a chart, there are definite points in which the competition and depth of talent in certain divisions is noticeably lacking. During those times, many fighters fought opponents who outweighed them greatly – just to keep active and earn enough money to keep moving forward. In recent years, we again see fighters moving up in weight in search of opponents who will draw bigger paydays.

In a time when the sport seems lacking in terms of “super fights,” it’s not uncommon to see a fighter suddenly touted as “the next superstar” based upon one or two fights. It’s also not uncommon to see the same fighter suddenly exposed and brutally kayoed by someone we’ve never heard of before. In a time when being undefeated counts for more than ever before in the eyes of the promoters, most fighters not only fight infrequently, they also avoid taking serious risks until the “money is right.” As a result, a fighter’s development takes longer. Many will never reach their full potential – having peaked experience-wise after their physical primes have passed.

Floyd Mayweather is a good example of a 21st century fighter. He’s currently 33 years of age and has fought 41 times. By contrast Ray Robinson had over 130 fights by the time he’d reached the same age. And he’d already fought and defeated many all-time greats between Welterweight and Middleweight during that time.

This isn’t a knock on Floyd Mayweather. He’s a product of our time.

Not sure what to make of Sharkey....Was he unlucky or something more sinister...

Was the Primo uppercut just another bout where the gods were against as they were with Schmelling and Dempsey???

Or was there more to it....Pretty telegraphed uppercut for a top boxer to fall into....

Sharkey was good but no cigar..Maybe he wasn't the best Sharkey in heavy history!

So techniques have changed so much that in the 110 years since Fitzsimmons no Middleweight has come close to his punching power, you disregard his solar plexus as being easily avoidable but Bob could work an opening like no other boxer of the time, rest assured if Jones, Pavlik, Hopkins or anyone else left an opening it would be over and done with.

I'm sure you've seen the film of the Fitzsimmons/Corbett fight but using that to say he had slow hands isn't doing him justice, the film itself was slow not the boxer.

I'm sure Fitzsimmons could work an opening but his solar plexus fight probably isn't the right example for you to be making..

He was soundly outboxed, decked and bleeding in that fight........

If anyone was technical it was Corbett..

imperialghosty wrote:How many times had Robinson fought by 33 and how many times has Pacquiao fought? Age is irrelevant for instance Ricky Hatton was finished by the time he was 30 whereas Moore hadn't even hit his peak by 40.

Ali fought far better opposition than Wlad so it's only to be expected that he'd show a fair bit of wear and tear but despite that he still never got knocked senseless by a load of nobodies.

Your now clutching at straws

My point exactly. Someone asked what type of a fighter Hop would have been if he had the experience he has now but at aged 25. My response was that he would be brain damaged or finished by 30. Giving the body a rest, specific training, nutrition etc have all contributed to many boxers fighting at elute levels at a much older age. Of course some old timers would defy that logic, but look at the facts here. How many elite fighters are at their peak post 30? Listen to the surprise at Harry Carpenter's voice after Ali KO foreman. "World Champ at 32!!!" he was amazed in that 32 was considered old. Lewis was still the best at 36/7. proper conditioning and trainig/diet helped him big time to prolong his career.

Yep I'm sure better healthcare products and training regimens are helping longevity!

Your very right Truss but I was using it as an example of his punching power, despite being outboxed he was still able to knock out a world class opponent in the 14th round. I'm not saying he was an all round technician but not many have been able to surpass his delivery of a punch.

MGould that was a cracking read. Thanks for sharing.

Truss, hard to say about Sharkey isn't it ? Even the film of the kayo loss to Carnera is inconclusive, since the punch ' landed ' blindside of the camera. Odd, though, that a guy supposedly felled by a hefty uppercut should fall forward.

One thing is for certain. The Sharkey who wiped the floor with Carnera first time out was nowhere to be seen in the second fight, even though he was handily up on the cards.

If his psyche had matched his skills, Sharkey would have done you Bostonions proud and would have rubbed shoulders with John L, Rocky and Hagler, in my opinion.

No less fights helped him prolong his career, you fight less you can fight for longer but at the same time you actually end up fighting less overall anyway so it's not of any real benefit. Being a 5 time world champion, being 131-2-2 having beaten 10 or so hall of famers across two weights is far more impressive than being 41-0 having beaten 3/4 hall of famers wouldn't you agree?

imperialghosty wrote:No less fights helped him prolong his career, you fight less you can fight for longer but at the same time you actually end up fighting less overall anyway so it's not of any real benefit. Being a 5 time world champion, being 131-2-2 having beaten 10 or so hall of famers across two weights is far more impressive than being 41-0 having beaten 3/4 hall of famers wouldn't you agree?

Less fighting and better conditioning prolonged their respective careers. Plus the added benefit of today's boxers having the ability to tie their shoelaces themselves and not some punch drunk vegetable.

Being a 5 time WC means he lost numerous times also.

Plus the added benefit of today's boxers having the ability to tie their shoelaces themselves and not some punch drunk vegetable.
______________________________________________________

Azania, you're better than this mate this is just distasteful. Archie Moore fought to a ripe old age and a veritable whos who of 1940s light heavies and was as sharp as a tack to his death. Greg Page, Michael Watson and Gerald Mclellan were not. Boxing is a dangerous sport injuries happen as frequently now as they ever did.

What does losing matter? In fact Robinson had only lost titles once by the time he was over the hill to Randy Turpin

So how many of the old timers were punch drunk vegetables then, they prolonged there careers time wise but competetively they cut it down significantly. Time doesn't equal quality, fights equal quality

No but he'd lost to the limited Lamotta............which was a big crime.

Limited but very effective, most major boxing publications have him as a consensus top 10 middleweight and your also ignoring the fact he was significantly outweighed and also avenged the loss 4 times culminating in the famous Valentines day Massacre

People are outeighed constantly at a heavy so what...Lamotta was a limited middle and that is a fact

The fight wasn't at Heavyweight though was it, La Motta was limited granted but was an absolute nightmare to fight for anybody.

Think it is safe to say most of us on here would agree Emmanuel Steward is a top trainer and pretty much respected. This is what he has to say about conditioning coaches and strength coaches in general

"Many weight trainers and conditioners confuse the training techniques needed for boxing with the strength training needed for football and other physical sports in which strength training has been utilised for many years."

"I am very upset with having these strength coaches involved with professional boxers. Shannon Briggs had a weight lifting coch that messed his shoulders up. You can throw 95% of them in the alley as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to boxing they don't know what the hell they're doing"

This is not to say the whole idea of strength and conditioning has no place but what Steward is arguing is at the minute people have assumed you can lift what has worked in other sports such as football and baseball into boxing and this will work and at the minute they are making the age old mistake of confusing strength and a rippling physique with power and in the large part these new innovations are doing more harm than good.

When someone of Steward's standing and experience has concerns you have to question such methods effectiveness

That's just one guy....Steward had Hearns using weights for Andries!!!

Truss could have provided quotes from countless guys, there is a whole chapter on this kind of stuff in a book I have chose Steward because he is a guy pretty much everyone has heard of and respects and as he is still pretty active in the game cannot be readily dismissed as a sentimental old timer.

I think though he makes a valid point. Think a lot of what is being passed off as innovation at the minute is nothing of the sort and in the case of such things as excessive weight training probably does more harm than good.

Some of the comments here are utterly hilarious. Particularly enjoyed the idea that modern boxers are fitter than old timers.

Lets look at the leading current HW challengers. Haye runs out of stamina after 8 rounds and Fat Eddie Chamber or Chris "4 spare tyres" Arroela are just a disgrace. Remember the old timers were fighting 15 rounds (or if preWW1 20-25 round fights). Put Arreola into a 25 round fight and the only result will be him needing the St John Ambulance. In fact looking at the current crop of HW over 15-20 rounds they only fighters who would stand any chance against any HW champion since Sullivan would be Haye, the K brothers and probably Chagaev - Sam Peter and the fat boys might be able to hug floyd patterson to death I suppose.

The problem is that the change to 12 rounds fights has changed boxing, volume of punches is now more important than quality. Comparing 12 round fighters to 25 round fighters is a bit like comparing an 1500m runner from today to a marathon runner from 40 years ago and saying that runners are clearly faster now

Nutrition and training have certainly improved; but somtimes this can be to the detriment of talent and skill.

Volume in some cases has replaced quality; this means that fighters are athletes rather than fundamentally skilled boxers.

When used properly, strength and condition coaches are essential. Look at manny and Khan as prime examples. This applies mainly to the non heavies. Does anyone here believe that Calzaghe would have been a SMW(assuming it existed back then) withou a proper diet and retaining his strength and condition? He would hae been a small LHW as opposed to a huge SMW.

Does anyone here believe that Calzaghe would have been a SMW(assuming it existed back then) withou a proper diet and retaining his strength and condition? He would hae been a small LHW as opposed to a huge SMW
_____________________________________________________

He also has the benefit of weighing in the day before the fight which old timers didn't would argue this is easily as big a factor, with a full 24 hours to rehydrate fighters can put them selves through the wringer more to make weights than ever before.