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..

In what ways has it improved?

What featherweight has the defensive skill of Pep?
What Flyweight has the power of Wilde?
What Welterweight has Armstrongs stamina?
What Middleweight has La Mottas chin or grit?

I still don't see it if I'm honest what do you see Hopkins for example doing that Robinson did not do, or what does someone like Mosley do that an Armstrong, Mclarnin or Ross could not do. Not enough for me to simply say things have improved without justifying why that is the case. I have given examples as to things I believe have regressed as someone who does not see the opposing view or what it is that leads those who hold this view to do so would genuinely be interested to know what it is that makes you think the sport has improved.

Would also add I think defensively the sport has regressed. Only have to look at Winky Wright, he was held up as a defensive modern great but what did he actually do except hold a high guard, he rarely slipped a punch, or feinted to draw a mistake, these were skills the old time defensive greats like Pep and Burley could do in their sleep.

imperialghosty wrote:Unification means holding more than one belt at a time, believe Jones held 3 of them among 4 other minor titles

My point is that he didn't fight Darius M (cant spell his surname) who was considered the number 2 LHW.

imperialghosty wrote:In what ways has it improved?

What featherweight has the defensive skill of Pep?
What Flyweight has the power of Wilde?
What Welterweight has Armstrongs stamina?
What Middleweight has La Mottas chin or grit?

Boxers are faster, stronger with a more varied skillset, better footwork and throw more combinations.

Its easy to have great defensive skills when punches are telegraphed. Do you think Pep had the same defensive skills as say Wilfredo Benitez?

Pac has Armstrong's stamina.

Hagler would not only match La Motta buy beat him to a pulp.

Donnaire would destroy Pep and Sadler on the same night.....and he's not even a featherweight.

Old timers were only as good as those they fought.

Have had this debate more times than is healthy but this article from Coxs corner sums up pretty well where I stand on the whole debate

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html

So Pacquiao has to physically exert himself for 15+ minutes before a bout just to get his heart pumping?
Hagler could take 56 answered punches in the 13th round of fight and still be standing?
Don't think anyone would seriously give Donaire a chance against Pep and you really are showing yourself up

therowley wrote:Have had this debate more times than is healthy but this article from Coxs corner sums up pretty well where I stand on the whole debate

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html

Oh man, I dont have the time to read all that. But thanks anyway, I'll read it later. Yes expeience counts a lot. I dont think you will see fighters fighting weekly as many did way back when. The training regime is too severe. Wasn't a boxer given whskey between rounds during a title fight? Or is that an urban myth?

Post-SFW, Floyd hasn't really taken on the highest quality of opposition. He probably has not defeated enough ATG fighters to warrant a place in the top 20. The top 20 is a prized spot and it involves going above and beyond the norm. Floyd stayed within his comfort zone for to long, the Mitchell's, Corely's, Baldomir's are not difficult to beat for elite fighters. Its always difficult to rate modern fighters, often the dust from their careers needs to settle a little.

I'm sure if Tunney, Armstrong and Greb were around today they would be cleaning up. Class is timeless, plus across 80-300 fights what style are they not going to be experienced at fighting.

Sufice to say that I disagree wuth your first comment. The sport has improved in terms of overall ability and skill sets.
_______________________________________

I just dont get this, if I'm honest, it seems it the modern fan all rave about Mayweather being the greatest defensive fighter in history, have you seen the size of the grant gloves he wears. Lets put 4oz horsehair gloves on like the oldies and see if he is happy to defend and parry shots. I notice that many old time fighters who used a low guard normaly adopted a higher guard when they went into a crouch and their solar plexus was not at risk.

Add to the fact you'll be watching fighters when the camera capture was pretty awful, only certain amount of frames per second. You cant establish how quick these guys actually were.

Cheers Rodders

Rodney wrote:Sufice to say that I disagree wuth your first comment. The sport has improved in terms of overall ability and skill sets.
_______________________________________

I just dont get this, if I'm honest, it seems it the modern fan all rave about Mayweather being the greatest defensive fighter in history, have you seen the size of the grant gloves he wears. Lets put 4oz horsehair gloves on like the oldies and see if he is happy to defend and parry shots. I notice that many old time fighters who used a low guard normaly adopted a higher guard when they went into a crouch and their solar plexus was not at risk.

Add to the fact you'll be watching fighters when the camera capture was pretty awful, only certain amount of frames per second. You cant establish how quick these guys actually were.

Cheers Rodders

Well said Floyd defence relies on the big grant gloves, he catches a lot of shot on the gloves an partially block shot with them as well.

Rodney wrote:Sufice to say that I disagree wuth your first comment. The sport has improved in terms of overall ability and skill sets.
_______________________________________

I just dont get this, if I'm honest, it seems it the modern fan all rave about Mayweather being the greatest defensive fighter in history, have you seen the size of the grant gloves he wears. Lets put 4oz horsehair gloves on like the oldies and see if he is happy to defend and parry shots. I notice that many old time fighters who used a low guard normaly adopted a higher guard when they went into a crouch and their solar plexus was not at risk.

Add to the fact you'll be watching fighters when the camera capture was pretty awful, only certain amount of frames per second. You cant establish how quick these guys actually were.

Cheers Rodders

I've been watching boxing for far too many years to remember... I dont think Floyd is the greatest defensive in history. From the boxers I've seen, I'd give that accolade to either Pernell Whittaker or Benitez. I'd add Duran to that list as his defensive sjills, ability to slip punches was vastly under-rated. But boxers of yesteryear telegraphed punches, threw obvious punches. But that is what they were taught at that time and a boxer with the ability to slip punches against a plodder will get great press due to it.

Pep's defensive skills didn't help him much against Saddler. A sharp boxer with a good jab. I also find it strange how Pep is ranker higher than Saddler....even though Sandy wiped the floor of him so often.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Rodney wrote:Sufice to say that I disagree wuth your first comment. The sport has improved in terms of overall ability and skill sets.
_______________________________________

I just dont get this, if I'm honest, it seems it the modern fan all rave about Mayweather being the greatest defensive fighter in history, have you seen the size of the grant gloves he wears. Lets put 4oz horsehair gloves on like the oldies and see if he is happy to defend and parry shots. I notice that many old time fighters who used a low guard normaly adopted a higher guard when they went into a crouch and their solar plexus was not at risk.

Add to the fact you'll be watching fighters when the camera capture was pretty awful, only certain amount of frames per second. You cant establish how quick these guys actually were.

Cheers Rodders

Well said Floyd defence relies on the big grant gloves, he catches a lot of shot on the gloves an partially block shot with them as well.

Of this generation of boxers, Floyd has the best defensive skills. That is beyond doubt. He doesn't make for the most exciting fighters in that his fights are not heart stopping a la Tyson or even Pac, but as a pure boxer, he is the best today bar none.

Probably because Pep has the better overall record maybe

Mayweather really relies on his Grant gloves especially when he fights wearing winning (asian company) gloves

ArchBritishchris wrote:Post-SFW, Floyd hasn't really taken on the highest quality of opposition. He probably has not defeated enough ATG fighters to warrant a place in the top 20. The top 20 is a prized spot and it involves going above and beyond the norm. Floyd stayed within his comfort zone for to long, the Mitchell's, Corely's, Baldomir's are not difficult to beat for elite fighters. Its always difficult to rate modern fighters, often the dust from their careers needs to settle a little.

I'm sure if Tunney, Armstrong and Greb were around today they would be cleaning up. Class is timeless, plus across 80-300 fights what style are they not going to be experienced at fighting.

No current boxer has defeated any ATG as other that Pac and Manny, there aren't any ATGs.

If Tunney et al were fighting today they probably would excell as they would benefit from modern training and skills. But comparing skillsets of yesteryear to today is like comparing a Ferrari to a mini. There isn;t any. Talent wise then probably.

Floyd looks to be within his comfort zone because he is head and shoulders above anyone else and doesn't get the credit for what he does. Always excuses. Look at what he said before he fought SSM. So obvious. After he beats Manny many will say Manny was smaller than Floyd (even after Manny juices up).

imperialghosty wrote:Probably because Pep has the better overall record maybe

Mayweather really relies on his Grant gloves especially when he fights wearing winning (asian company) gloves

No he doesn't. He relies on his skills.

Think I also have to take issue with this idea that modern training is so much better than the old timers. One of the best modern trainers is widely considered to be Freddie Roach and he would be the first to admit he learned his trade under Eddie Futch who was very much an old time trainer. Think a lot of what passes for development and innovation is largely snalke oil to be honest. Take pad work, have read it argued a lot of time these were never used in the past because if a trainer is holding the pads he cannot see if fighters are making mistakes and thus if these are not picked up on they become ingrained. In the old days punching was done on the heavy bag with the trainer stoo watching thus being in a position to see if mistakes were being made and thus correct them, kind of makes sense but pads are pretty much universally accepted as part and parcel of modern training techniques.

Similarly lots of modern fighters use weights in the misguided belief there is a correlation between strength and punching power, weights were never used in old school gyms and the likes of Wilde, Louis, Dempsey and Saddler all seemed to hit hard enough. Could argue as many have excessive weight training causes muscles to contract which is all wrong for boxing as surely extending your arms and flexibility and suppleness are the key abilites one needs in punching. Personally given a choice between having Enzo Calzaghe in my corner or Ray Arcel think i'll take Ray every day of the week.

therowley wrote:Think I also have to take issue with this idea that modern training is so much better than the old timers. One of the best modern trainers is widely considered to be Freddie Roach and he would be the first to admit he learned his trade under Eddie Futch who was very much an old time trainer. Think a lot of what passes for development and innovation is largely snalke oil to be honest. Take pad work, have read it argued a lot of time these were never used in the past because if a trainer is holding the pads he cannot see if fighters are making mistakes and thus if these are not picked up on they become ingrained. In the old days punching was done on the heavy bag with the trainer stoo watching thus being in a position to see if mistakes were being made and thus correct them, kind of makes sense but pads are pretty much universally accepted as part and parcel of modern training techniques.

Similarly lots of modern fighters use weights in the misguided belief there is a correlation between strength and punching power, weights were never used in old school gyms and the likes of Wilde, Louis, Dempsey and Saddler all seemed to hit hard enough. Could argue as many have excessive weight training causes muscles to contract which is all wrong for boxing as surely extending your arms and flexibility and suppleness are the key abilites one needs in punching. Personally given a choice between having Enzo Calzaghe in my corner or Ray Arcel think i'll take Ray every day of the week.

Of course Futch was a great trainer. He moved with the times, learning the new techniques and adapting them to each boxer. For instance he wouldn't train Frazier the same way he trained Bowe. He adapted his training to suit each individual boxer. Interesting though that all Futch fighters were great on the inside. The key is adapting the old tsyle to new regimes. Nowadays you have dieticians, conditioners...a specialist in every field of health, speed and technique.

Even Donnaire is using a sprint coach now. In a few years time it will be common practice to do that.

Boxing is continuing to evolve in terms of training etc. Hence why you cannot compare old timers to today's boxers. Talent wise probably. But put Johnson/Louis in front of haye and Haye would destroy both of them. But in terms of talent, they probably had more that Haye.

Old fighters were allowed to clinch for a long time giving them time to suck up air. Also for anybody to say that Boxers aren't more compact at their weights or have a higher skill threshold must be ready for a retirement home because they've lost it.

No one is saying he's the best defensive fighter of alltime but being unbeaten for over a decade and beating modern greats means he's justified in being put there with the best.

I don't disagree re: Ray Arcel vs Enzo jeff -

Just to be a pedant - of course, you are aware that none of Enzo's fighters ever lifted weights. He wanted to be "old school" you see.

Trainers are overrated. Boxers are naturally talented or they are not. Leonard would have made it with Brendan Ingle or anybody else. Hatton ditto.

Look what happened to Lockett against Pavlik...Dundee's Berbick against Tyson!!!

Trainers get too much credit....

Only been on here 5 minutes Rowley and we have a WUSSMAN66 already...

Unbelievable.

You do seem to attract them Truss, you have a stalker and d4 has about 300 Manny Floyd articles on the go, some things never change

You've taken the time to write all that rubbish out????

You're very sad aren't you!!

Sorry about that gents, he is now banned.

Any further problems, just shout!

Cheers,

KB

Loving the moderation on here. Me and Truss don't always see eye to eye but he does want to talk boxing and the stalking gets tired in a hurry.

No worries guys!

His IP address is now banned so should stop him coming back!

Bloody hell That was rapid.....well done :friend:

Nice moderating now, combined with the foe button I don't need to read any rubbish on here now

imperialghosty wrote:Nice moderating now, combined with the foe button I don't need to read any rubbish on here now

Hope you keep on reading my rubbish

azania wrote:

Sufice to say that I disagree wuth your first comment. The sport has improved in terms of overall ability and skill sets.

Ray Arcel would have disagreed with you.

Arcel trained countless world champions from the 1920s, when he was in Benny Leonard's corner, through the 1970s, when he trained Roberto Duran. In an interview which I have, Arcel bemoans the fact that old school skills such as feinting, elbow blocking and ' catching ' punches are no longer properly taught to the extent to which they were. Eddie Futch, who at the time was Riddick Bowe's trainer, said exactly the same thing, and Joe Frazier said that there aren't so many good teachers nowadays.

I grew up with Ali from the first Cooper fight on, so I was able to see some great fighters pretty much first hand. Many of today's lot are clueless by comparison, though modern greats such as Jones, Pacquiao, Mayweather and the fab four would be among the notable exceptions.

Anybody who has studied Joe Louis can see that he had every punch in the book, and was nigh on perfect, technically. Go back to the early 1900s and we see Joe Gans, ( against Kid Herman, ) demonstrating superb skills and fighting in a ' modern ' style, throwing combinations and employing every trick in the book.

Skills don't ' evolve, ' but rather they must be taught. Four or five hundred years ago every man in Britain could use a sword, for example, whereas few can today. Neither do heart, guts, will to win, etc., etc., evolve over time.

A great fighter is a great fighter, regardless of when he was born.

Windy

Thanks for the link. Very interesting read. Anyway, old trainers will always bemoan old times. But I go by what I see. Even most fighters in the 1950s will not hold a candle to today's fighters. Fighters now are simply too fast and powerful as they have conditioners, dieticians and an army of specialist trainers working on every facet of their bodies. I saw a documentary on SRR last night which proved my point. Robbo was throwing tripple left hooks to body and head on a hapless opponent who loked totally clueless. SRR had that effect on most guys granted. But the quality of opposition was woeful with most telegraphing punches and some hitting SRR.

It just wouldn't happen to semi-elite fighters of today or even of the 1970s.

Azania, by semi-elite fighters of today I'm assuming you mean the likes of Andre Berto, Jean Pascal, Amir Khan etc.

Now let me get this straight; in those three (or fighters in a similar bracket) you see three fighters who are faster, more skilled and hit harder than the likes of Ray Robinson, Archie Moore and Kid Gavilan, for argument's sake?

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, by semi-elite fighters of today I'm assuming you mean the likes of Andre Berto, Jean Pascal, Amir Khan etc.

Now let me get this straight; in those three (or fighters in a similar bracket) you see three fighters who are faster, more skilled and hit harder than the likes of Ray Robinson, Archie Moore and Kid Gavilan, for argument's sake?

SRR would take them all out in his sleep. he was unique and transplant him into this era he would still win. His style etc was that superior.

Imo Pascal would take apart Moore. Haven't seen much of Gavilan to comment. 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.

Imo Pascal would take apart Moore.
_____________________________________________________

I'll get my coat

azania wrote:Windy

Thanks for the link. Very interesting read. Anyway, old trainers will always bemoan old times. But I go by what I see. Even most fighters in the 1950s will not hold a candle to today's fighters. Fighters now are simply too fast and powerful as they have conditioners, dieticians and an army of specialist trainers working on every facet of their bodies. I saw a documentary on SRR last night which proved my point. Robbo was throwing tripple left hooks to body and head on a hapless opponent who loked totally clueless. SRR had that effect on most guys granted. But the quality of opposition was woeful with most telegraphing punches and some hitting SRR.

It just wouldn't happen to semi-elite fighters of today or even of the 1970s.

Thanks, azania

I also go by what I have seen and, to reiterate, I've been watching boxing since 1963.

However, it's foolish to dismiss the opinions of legendary trainers who have crossed three or four generations of boxing and have been as close to the action as the ring corners.

Athleticism is only a small part of boxing. Were it not so then Holmes would never have beaten Weaver, Witherspoon would never have beaten Bruno, 46 years old Holy wouldn't have come close to beating Valuev, etc., etc. Besides, James J Jeffries could sprint 100 yards in under ten seconds and high jump six feet. How many of today's heavies could do that ?

I've yet to see how modern nutritional advances benefit coordination, reflexes, chin, guts, heart, aggression, balance, timing, judgement of distances, etc. If we are going to invoke science then it should be done scientifically. Where's the proof, regarding the qualities I've just mentioned ?

Joe Louis fought at a very measured pace and was as dangerous in the fifteenth round as he was in the second. Most of today's heavies are gassed after three rounds. That is what I see with my own eyes, which is what you advocate. I've also, with my own eyes, seen plenty of the pre war fighters and in many cases I see them employing skills every bit as good as the best of today's bunch and considerably better than the run - of - the - mill current crop.

I'm not suggesting that the old timers are necessarily better - on the contrary, I believe that the greats of today are as good as the greats of yesterday - but the reverse is also true.

Imo Pascal would take apart Moore

Imo you have been smoking class A drugs if you believe that
Maybe thats when you saw the Greb fights or Haye taking apart Louis as well !

lol. Leave your coat behind. Moore was slower than most light heavies. Too slow in fact. But definately more talented than Pascal. But because Pascal is stronger and faster he would win easily imo. In terms of skils, there is no comparison. Today's advances in training and conditioning equalises everything.

Look at how SRR collapsed when he moved up to LHW? Did Hearns when he moved to cruiser? Is hearns anywhere near equal to SRR?

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.

In all fairness Robbo was fighting in 100+ degree heat and was coming into that fight on the back of 100+ fights Barry Mcguigan wilted in the heat at his own weight despite being the beneficiary of modern training techniques and nutritional knowledge, and he did it against a damned sight poorer fighter than Joey Maxim.

Azania

I shall point out that if Boxing has moved forward so much, how did an ancient George Foreman & Larry Holmes mix it with the elite guys in the 90's. Foreman wasnt near the force he was in the mid 70's, ditto with Holmes. A fighter is born special regardless which year, which era that maybe.

Cheers Rodders

Mayweather has many detractors - mostly due to his personality and behaviour rather than his skill. However, he is unbeaten in 43 fights and has fought and beat some great names whilst moving up the weights. Definite top 20 ATG for me, and could just sneak into the top 10 if he beat Pacman.
http://www.konkura.com/

That's an absolutely shocking example, if I'm being honest Azania. I know you're looking for reasons supporting the modern fighter's 'superiority' but using an isolated case of heat exhaustion isn't much of a way to go about it. It was 104 degrees at ringside. Robinson also came through gruelling battles over thirteen to fifteen rounds against fighters such as La Motta and Basilio in similar heat, a test of stamina and endurance that no currently active fighter has ever come close to passing.

Paula Radcliffe, with her modern training methods and nutritional knowledge, still quit half way through an Olympic marathon in 2004. And this was at a time when she was universally regarded as the best female distance runner on the planet. Sorry, but that example has zero use here.

owever, he is unbeaten in 43 fights and has fought and beat some great names whilst moving up the weights.
_____________________________________

Undoubtely he has Geoff, the problem for me I cant put him the top 25 as he has missed too many names off in his era, if we take Pacquiao into consideration you've got Cotto,Margarito,Tyszyu obviously I don't know the ins and outs of why these haven't happened but to be a top 20 fighter you must have dealt with the best of your era IMO, he also has been incredibly inactive even by todays standards. Don't get me wrong he is a superb fighter how good he is and seriously don't know, if the fight with Pacquiao comes off we'll find out how special I guess.

I will argue in terms of out and out wins, does Mayweather have a victory greater than the win against a raging Barerra like Pacquiao has ??

Neither good enough for top 20 IMO as of yet anyway.

Cheers

Rodders

FFS Windy, now I'm going to respond to your LENGTHY response when I get home. Excellent post btw and food for thought. But seeing as I'm heading home in 10 minutes I don't want to insult your post with a hurried response.

rowley wrote:In all fairness Robbo was fighting in 100+ degree heat and was coming into that fight on the back of 100+ fights Barry Mcguigan wilted in the heat at his own weight despite being the beneficiary of modern training techniques and nutritional knowledge, and he did it against a damned sight poorer fighter than Joey Maxim.

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.

azania wrote:FFS Windy, now I'm going to respond to your LENGTHY response when I get home. Excellent post btw and food for thought. But seeing as I'm heading home in 10 minutes I don't want to insult your post with a hurried response.

Thanks for the kind words, azania.

I look forward to reading your response.

Rodney wrote:Azania

I shall point out that if Boxing has moved forward so much, how did an ancient George Foreman & Larry Holmes mix it with the elite guys in the 90's. Foreman wasnt near the force he was in the mid 70's, ditto with Holmes. A fighter is born special regardless which year, which era that maybe.

Cheers Rodders

That shows how good both of them were. Holmes jab is the best I have seen at heavyweight. Better that Ali's jab by miles. Even now he would give most heavies a run for his money. He was that good in terms of skill. GF landed a punch that would flatten an elephant. Add that MM was chinny, then ending was inevitable. Wasn't MM ahead on the cards before that ending?

Appreciate all this Az the point I was making was you cannot uphold Robbo wilting against Maxim as some sort of proof that old timers did not possess the conditioning or fitness of their modern counterparts when there are examples of modern fighters doing exactly the same, in circumstances regarding weight class, age and stage of their career which were far more favourable as was the case with Barry.

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.[/quote]


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.

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