Deleted

First topic message reminder :

Deleted

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're happy to have Louis in your top 10 greatest Rowley!!!!

1911-30 dear oh dear..................

Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler,Holmes, Holy, Sanchez, Arguello, Ali, Foreman, Olivares, Gomez, Chavez, Nunn, Spinks, Frazier............etc


You've got more top 30 alltimers in that list than anyother era............

But 1911 was better.......................What a joke..

Yeah, Greb, Langford, Benny Leonard, Walker, Tunney, Wilde, 'Kid' Lewis, Dempsey, Gibbons, Loughran, Dillon, Flowers. A real joke, eh? 'Oh dear' indeed...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But i've seen Ali, Mayweather et al fight................

I'm not a sheep..I make my own mind up...with my own eyes....Newspapers do me a favor!!

Most American newspapers had Pazienza beating Mayweather....

Don't think the earth is round because someone told you!!..

And I've seen most lineal champions, at everything from heavyweight down to lightweight, all the way back to Jeffries' time. Nobody alive has seen Greb, but we HAVE seen some of his opponents on film.

Newspaper coverage of fights in Greb's day was markedly different to today's coverage. In the first place, newspaper and the wire were sometimes the ONLY means of telling the story of the fight. At other times, when a fight was broadcast on the radio, newspapers carried exact transcriptions of the radio commentary. Furthermore, Greb fought in the day of NEWSPAPER DECISIONS, which were deemed to be reliable enough for those who were betting on the fights to not cause a riot if things didn't go their way. Of course, there were anomalies, just as there are scoring anomalies in today's judging from ringside, but there just isn't any evidence that the newspaper accounts are flawed.

Nobody here is trashing the moderns, but you have a habit of trashing the old timers, most of whom you haven't even watched on film. In other words, you defeat your own argument about primary evidence.

Why can't you simply accept that EVERY generation spawns great fighters ?

The talent pool has actually got smaller not bigger but lets ignore the facts.

Who would you include in the top 20 then at the expense of who?

imperialghosty wrote:The talent pool has actually got smaller not bigger but lets ignore the facts.

Who would you include in the top 20 then at the expense of who?

Explain.

The IBRO is pretty much universally accepted as an authoritative body in matters boxing - related. They have among their number some of the most knowledgeable people alive today.

In 2006, they rated their all time greatest top twenty fighters this way :

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Harry Greb

3. Henry Armstrong

4. Muhammad Ali (Tie)

4. Joe Louis (Tie)

6. Sam Langford

7. Roberto Duran

8. Benny Leonard

9. Willie Pep

10. Bob Fitzsimmons

11. Joe Gans

12. Ezzard Charles (Tie)

12. Sugar Ray Leonard (Tie)

14. Jimmy Wilde

15. Eder Jofre

16. Mickey Walker

17. Archie Moore

18. Jack Dempsey

19. Jack Johnson

20. Gene Tunney

Personally, I'd quibble with a few things - Jofre is much too low for me, for example - but all in all I don't think anybody would shriek disapproval at this collection of names. I dare say that if ever Pacquiao and Mayweather get it on and the IBRO revise their list the winner will break the top ten, and I would certainly have him there.

The talent pool may have got smaller.......But it hadn't in the 70's and 80's and they still lose out to the 20's and 30's.............

I'd like to think Mallory climbed Everest with his poor climbing gear but evidence proves otherwise........

Romantic to die on Everest then...but now you're a chump if you do.....

Boxings talent pool larger now? Good Lord.

You have a choice of about of about 8 belts now within a 5 pound limit at some of those lower weights now.

Someone tell me Pacquiao/Mayweather would even be a three weight champion let alone eight weight champion in the 30s.

Puke poor list...Weighted to the oldtimers......

No pernell whittaker, Chavez etc.............but Jack Dempsey is on it......

Say's it all............

The talent pool had gotten bigger sinces the 30s-40s. it may be smaller in the USA in the last 10-20 years but is growing elsewhere. Boxing is always dieing according to the fans.

with your lots mythical standards and attitude the top 20 will always be dominated by pre 50s fighters. its sad.

I cannot for the life of me see how any person who claims to be an authority on boxing will tie Ali and Louis. Ali would beat him by a runnaway decision. If Conn can give Louis issues, I'd hate to think what a faster, bigger, stronger Ali would do to him, especially seeing as Louis had problems with right over the top.

And SRL all the way down there? Sorry but that is ridiculous.

No Larry HOlmes who had probably the best ever heavyweight jab? In all honesty, I wouldn't put Louis in my top 5 heavyweights. Ali, Holmes, Frazier,Foreman, Tyson, Holy and Lewis all beat him for me. Even Haye beats him forgetting about the K bros.

Louis was too slow on his feet to compete adequately.

Why wouldn't they be...........Thirties fighters never saw the skills of Mayweather........It was all formulaic....

So if Mayweather gets battered then I guess Leonard was crud too......

All the best.........

Only Fitz had been a three weight champ before then anyway...and the Corbett fight showed he wasn't as technically adept as Floyd..

You don't know what you are talking about.......

Why isn't floyd on that list....Fought more quality than Dempsey and has ruled longer with greater skill............Should be higher than Louis as should Leonard

Colonial Lion wrote:Boxings talent pool larger now? Good Lord.

You have a choice of about of about 8 belts now within a 5 pound limit at some of those lower weights now.

Someone tell me Pacquiao/Mayweather would even be a three weight champion let alone eight weight champion in the 30s.

whats that got to do with talent pool?

No your so wrong

There are far less profressional boxers in the world now than there were, think Chris has the specific numbers, why don't you give an opinion yourself then instead of just bad mouthing others?

There are far less Boxers now.............Because necessity isn't as strong!!

Now we have Healthcare provision, benefits and life is easier...........

Back then you had to fight to eat as employers wouldn't employ blacks or would pay them slave wages....

It's obvious that unskilled men will turn to the fight game to feed their families..

Come on!!

It is a fact that there are fewer registered pros than there were up to the beginning of the sixties. Also less funding, poorer infrastructure, fewer amateur clubs, and fewer teachers of old school skills.

Evidence a - plenty here, for those who dispute it :

http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=2221

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

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

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/hunnicut1.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/hunnicut2.html

Great fighters today are as good as great fighters of yesterday, but there aren't so many of them, in my opinion.

imperialghosty wrote:No your so wrong

There are far less profressional boxers in the world now than there were, think Chris has, why don't you give an opinion yourself then instead of just bad mouthing others?

Proof? I know there were in the USA a top of 10k licensed, active boxers in some years in the 20's/30's whereas just 2,850 in 2006. However, I've never seen worldwide figures, and in 2008 there were 17k active boxers worldwide, so it's possible from them that participation has just shifted in area. Those 10k Americans made up the vast majority of world champions, much fewer now.

Azania is that the same Ali who got knocked down by that world beater Henry Cooper? Don't think Louis would have let that happen to himself, using pityful explanations like that work both ways

"Pitiful".........No he got banged out by Max Schmelling and decked off the great Tony Galento..

Ali was no1 Ghosty..........Don't belittle him. Louis was great too but not as good.

Azania

To say an average fighter from todays day and age, say someone like Eddie Chambers, could beat a top tier fighter from 'back in the day' is a bit extreme to say the least.

To use the nickname of a guy who posts here - the Human Windmill was called that for a reason. Boxing has come on since then, the amount of rounds have been shortened, knockdown rules changed etc etc. Do you not think the "style" you might've seen on youtube of an old fight is legitimately comparable to a fight from the modern era? Bearing in mind you've got guys prepared to go god knows how many rounds vs guys that can train for 12 max?

So, De la Hoya could've taken say Barney Ross? And DLH is above an "average" fighter in my books yet would still get his bottom handed to him in quite an emphatic way.

Point is it's a sweeping statement, question: Which 5 fighters would win who you would classify as average from this era versus 5 top tiered fighters from the "back then" era..? Just out of mild curiosity

How is stating he got knocked by the less than average Cooper belittle him, far less derisory than the comments you make about some people.

imperialghosty wrote:Azania is that the same Ali who got knocked down by that world beater Henry Cooper? Don't think Louis would have let that happen to himself, using pityful explanations like that work both ways

The very same. Are you comparing the Louis who got schooled by a slow and ponderous Schmelling? The Louis who fought a bum a month? There is simply no comparison. Look at Louis footwork and compare it to Holmes Tyson, Jimmy Young or even Larry Donald. Louis had nothing to worry today#s heavies unfortunately. I have seen countless of his fights and my opinions are based on that. Most upper echelon heaies of the 70s would beat him. Yes he had the talent, but his opposition was weak and he fought accordingly. That Conn schooled him is very telling.

tHe question to ask is how good would the Dempsey's be with the modern training used these days and how would they adapt to the styles...

Have no doubt guys like Johnson and Louis would be much improved fighters had they been around now and would have attained great success..

But a slugger like Dempsey who didn't have much skill to work with??????

Hard to assess but the technicians would do well!!!!!!!!!

However to suggest that they could cope with their modern counterparts as they were back then is folly in my opinion...

Boxing is better skilled now.

The same Conn that is a top 15 all time great Light Heavyweight, think it's about time you start showing a bit more respect towards the old timers as the way you portray your views isn't really befitting a moderator now is it. Your opinion to me has no worth compared to those who actually know about the sport, you say he's slow and ponderous, no he wasn't. Some of his opposition was weak but when you defend a title 20 times it's bound to have some average opponents in there.

coxy0001 wrote:Azania

To say an average fighter from todays day and age, say someone like Eddie Chambers, could beat a top tier fighter from 'back in the day' is a bit extreme to say the least.

To use the nickname of a guy who posts here - the Human Windmill was called that for a reason. Boxing has come on since then, the amount of rounds have been shortened, knockdown rules changed etc etc. Do you not think the "style" you might've seen on youtube of an old fight is legitimately comparable to a fight from the modern era? Bearing in mind you've got guys prepared to go god knows how many rounds vs guys that can train for 12 max?

So, De la Hoya could've taken say Barney Ross? And DLH is above an "average" fighter in my books yet would still get his bottom handed to him in quite an emphatic way.

Point is it's a sweeping statement, question: Which 5 fighters would win who you would classify as average from this era versus 5 top tiered fighters from the "back then" era..? Just out of mild curiosity

By today I am referring to the fighters from my generation ie 70s and beyong. I'm not saying Tyson Fury or Derek Chisora would beat the old timers.

Yes OLDH to take out Ross. Different times different class.

Your right Barney Ross is in a completely different class to De La Hoya

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Pitiful".........No he got banged out by Max Schmelling and decked off the great Tony Galento..

Ali was no1 Ghosty..........Don't belittle him. Louis was great too but not as good.

Truss, I agree with you that Ali was the greatest heavy of the lot. Shouldn't be forgotten, though, that he beat Liston the first time forty five years ago. Now, let's not go down a side alley with those who will scream for Tyson or Vitali, or whomsoever, but rather let's just agree that Ali is STILL one of the greatest heavies of all time. If progress were moving along at the rate which you and others imply Ali would have slipped out of a top ten by now, and the fact that he hasn't proves that talent is talent and athleticism is athleticism, regardless of the year of a fighter's birth.

I have NEVER disputed that Mayweather or Pacquiao are great fighters. Nor have I EVER disputed that the same applies to Hopkins, Jones Junior, etc., etc. On the contrary, it is YOU, along with a few others, who trash the oldies, forcing some of us to spring to their defence.

Except, of course, that you claim that Johnson would beat Joe Louis. That's entirely possible, ( though I'd favour Louis, ) but doesn't that weaken your argument ?

All this modern training this and that. Where is the proof I its better I ask? Where even is the evidence?

I have seen more bloated heavyweights today than at any other time and fighters that ballon up in weight by 3 stone in between fights yet Im supposed to believe that their diet is superior to earlier eras.

I have seen David Haye gasping for air having punched himself out in 7 rounds against a 40 year old Carl Thompson and Wladamir Klitschko dead on his feet after 10 rounds against a journeyman like Purrity yet Im told to believe their stamina and conditioning is better.

I suppose they use heavy bags that make them hit harder now or jump ropes that make their feet quicker?

These are the numbers active in the last 12 months, anyone have any facts on active worldwide boxers from a previous generation to compare, out of interest?

Minimumweight 315
Light Flyweight 440
Flyweight 702
Super Flyweight 627
Bantamweight 872
Super Bantamweight 922
Featherweight 1243
Super Featherweight 1097
Lightweight 1544
Light Welterweight 1448
Welterweight 1399
Light Middleweight 1211
Middleweight 1122
Super Middleweight 862
Light Heavyweight 826
Cruiserweight 921
Heavyweight 1087
Total 16638

Scott, I don't have the exact numbers but have some articles by Gilbert Odd knocking about somewhere which have records from many years between the forties and eighties, will try and dig them out.

I've seen Jack's style and the way he lures them in and then lands punches....He was a shrewd fighter........

I wouldn't bet the house on him beating Louis....just think if Louis found conn awkward..Johnson punched harder and was just as elusive......

I wouldn't argue with anyone that picked the brown bomber......

Tunney would make Louis struggle............

Horses for courses..

Anyhow I'm off to get moaned at by a fiery pregnant red head.....

See you're a moderator now..good job we had the argument the other day before you attained this lofty status...

Take care old boy..

Colonial Lion wrote:All this modern training this and that. Where is the proof I its better I ask? Where even is the evidence?

I have seen more bloated heavyweights today than at any other time and fighters that ballon up in weight by 3 stone in between fights yet Im supposed to believe that their diet is superior to earlier eras.

I have seen David Haye gasping for air having punched himself out in 7 rounds against a 40 year old Carl Thompson and Wladamir Klitschko dead on his feet after 10 rounds against a journeyman like Purrity yet Im told to believe their stamina and conditioning is better.

I suppose they use heavy bags that make them hit harder now or jump ropes that make their feet quicker?

Thank Heavens for this post.

I have made PRECISELY the same points so often that my keyboard can pretty much type the post by itself. There have never been so many unfit, overweight, unskilled, slow, plodding, gasping oafs inhabiting the top ten rankings in the heavyweight division. No amount of fancy theories about nutrition can challenge that assertion.

Yes OLDH to take out Ross. Different times different class.

-------------------

At this point i think it's time to give up with a long winded reply and head down the pub for a few!

Really - DLH to beat Ross? I'm sorry, as much as i like Oscar (i give him massive kudos for dragging boxing through one of its darkest hours almost single handedly) he'd be on the wrong end of a UD. IMO of course. Naturally that opinion would be shared by most!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've seen Jack's style and the way he lures them in and then lands punches....He was a shrewd fighter........

I wouldn't bet the house on him beating Louis....just think if Louis found conn awkward..Johnson punched harder and was just as elusive......

I wouldn't argue with anyone that picked the brown bomber......

Tunney would make Louis struggle............

Horses for courses..

Anyhow I'm off to get moaned at by a fiery pregnant red head.....

See you're a moderator now..good job we had the argument the other day before you attained this lofty status...

Take care old boy..

You too, Truss.

Kindest regards to Mrs Truss and Rob.

Isnt it funny also that everyones cut off point for the point that boxing suddenly became better is generally when they began watching it. There is 40 years between the 30s and the 70s. Precisely the same as between the 70s and nowadays. Yet the differences are supposed to be great betwen the 30s and 70s. By this logic 70s and 80s fighters would be behind current ones even more than the 30s were behind ones from the 70s with all these improvements.

HumanWindmill wrote:Thank Heavens for this post.

I have made PRECISELY the same points so often that my keyboard can pretty much type the post by itself. There have never been so many unfit, overweight, unskilled, slow, plodding, gasping oafs inhabiting the top ten rankings in the heavyweight division. No amount of fancy theories about nutrition can challenge that assertion.

The point shouldn't be about the shape of the average or worst boxers, but the potential. That said training techniques haven't improved in any significant way in relation to boxing technique. In relation to fitness, the proof is in the output and plenty of old timers could maintain a high pace for 12, 15 or more rounds so it's hardly relevant.

Colonial Lion wrote:Isnt it funny also that everyones cut off point for the point that boxing suddenly became better is generally when they began watching it. There is 40 years between the 30s and the 70s. Precisely the same as between the 70s and nowadays. Yet the differences are supposed to be great betwen the 30s and 70s. By this logic 70s and 80s fighters would be behind current ones even more than the 30s were behind ones from the 70s with all these improvements.

Absolutely, Colonial Lion.

I was born in the mid fifties, less than thirty years after Dempsey's and Greb's careers ended. It's twenty five years since Tyson beat Berbick, yet Greb and Dempsey are regarded by some as having plied their trade alongside dinosaurs.

Time can be a very elastic phenomenon.

Scottrf wrote:The point shouldn't be about the shape of the average or worst boxers, but the potential.

That said training techniques haven't improved in any significant way in relation to boxing technique. In relation to fitness, the proof is in the output and plenty of old timers could maintain a high pace for 12, 15 or more rounds so it's hardly relevant.

I believe that, with regard to point one it IS relevant, Scott, if somebody is insisting that - by way of example - Joe Louis couldn't compete with today's heavies, which I find absolutely absurd.

Your second point is one with which, unsurprisingly, I completely agree.

I'm away for the rest of the evening fells, so will pick this one up again tomorrow. It's been a cracking debate so far, so thanks for the fun.

Have a great evening, one and all.

HumanWindmill wrote:I believe that, with regard to point one it IS relevant, Scott, if somebody is insisting that - by way of example - Joe Louis couldn't compete with today's heavies, which I find absolutely absurd.

I doubt they mean the contender level guys with no self discipline. Presumably they are referring to the champions, who are in good shape.

Deleted

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:I believe that, with regard to point one it IS relevant, Scott, if somebody is insisting that - by way of example - Joe Louis couldn't compete with today's heavies, which I find absolutely absurd.

I doubt they mean the contender level guys with no self discipline. Presumably they are referring to the champions, who are in good shape.

Scottrf

The current heavyweight champions (assume we mean the Klitschko boys and Mr Haye) may be in decent shape compared to the rest. Better shape than say Louis, Johnson, Ali, Dempsey etc? I am told they are because they eat better, train better and all the rest of these modern theories of superiority. Yet I have seen Wladamir and Haye punched out within 10 rounds against average opposition. Vitalis body has given out on him requiring a 4 year abscence from the ring which he put down to needing to recover physically. I just cant see how these fighters are meant to be better conditioned than guys like Joe Louis or Jack Johnson who fought longer round fights, and more regularly.

Didn't say they were. But it also isn't fair to compare the most out of shape guys right now with the best of a generation from the past.

Scottrf wrote:Didn't say they were. But it also isn't fair to compare the most out of shape guys right now with the best of a generation from the past.

The problem these out of shape guys now are often contenders and thus if people are going to claim that modern conditioning and training has lead to all these improvements then how is it every year we are seeing these flabby heavyweights fighting for world titles?

The logic that fighters now are in better condition when they fight less rounds and less often is bizzare to me, be it contender or champion. I cant think of a heavyweight era where conditioning has been poorer overall across the top rated heavyweights.

Colonial Lion wrote:All this modern training this and that. Where is the proof I its better I ask? Where even is the evidence?

I have seen more bloated heavyweights today than at any other time and fighters that ballon up in weight by 3 stone in between fights yet Im supposed to believe that their diet is superior to earlier eras.

I have seen David Haye gasping for air having punched himself out in 7 rounds against a 40 year old Carl Thompson and Wladamir Klitschko dead on his feet after 10 rounds against a journeyman like Purrity yet Im told to believe their stamina and conditioning is better.

I suppose they use heavy bags that make them hit harder now or jump ropes that make their feet quicker?

The evidence? Man runs faster, lifts heavier weights, has greater stamina, works at a far quicker rate. Fast twitch muscles are more honed. All scientifically proven and tested. Take a football team from the 1970s or a rugby since professionalism and match them today and see who wins. Better training techniqies, use of better chemists (legal PEDs - started in the mid 1970s), better equipment etc all make man a far better athlet that those of yesteryear.

I have seen footage of Louis hitting a speedball. He almost had to think before hitting it. I've seen old time heavies hitting the heavy bag. Please spare me. Wide looping hooks which reminded me of Ali taking the P out of the Mummy Forman. There simply is no comparison between the boxers of the 1930s, 40s and 50s to those of today. Yes there have been supreme boxers who given their time and training had skills which transcended everything. SRR and Ali are two such fighters.

That is not to say guys like Louis didn't have the skill to match today;s (or 70s/80s/90s) fighters. But todays guys are simply too sharp. I personally believe Louis was over-rated and that Liston would have murdered him.

azania wrote:I have seen footage of Louis hitting a speedball. He almost had to think before hitting it.

What complete tripe.

Colonial Lion wrote:Isnt it funny also that everyones cut off point for the point that boxing suddenly became better is generally when they began watching it. There is 40 years between the 30s and the 70s. Precisely the same as between the 70s and nowadays. Yet the differences are supposed to be great betwen the 30s and 70s. By this logic 70s and 80s fighters would be behind current ones even more than the 30s were behind ones from the 70s with all these improvements.

The 1970s is when sports science really took off, so its no great surprise that improvements in speed, strength etc occurred then. Also bear in mind that TV made a huge impact bringing in more money into sports generally making improvement almost increase beyond belief. Boxers are not just fighters anymore. They are well tunes fighting athletes.

Someone mentioned Hatton burning out earlier. Well his style doesn't bring about longevity. Using your face as a defencive tool if not a good idea for a prolonged career in boxing. But more importantly, drinking 10 pints of guiness and balooning to 14 stone is extremely bad for a long career in any sports. White lines dont help much either.

Then we have to believe that Haye would have murdered Liston which simply wouldn't have happened

There is a comparison which is why most in the know do compare different eras, skill is all that matters especially when you consider that boxers today aren't stronger, they aren't bigger punchers, they don't have better stamina and in no way are they automatically better.

Using others sports as examples is pointless, they aren't boxing, you can't train someone to take a punch, you can't train someone to be tough and most of all you can't train someone to know what to do and when that comes from experience.

Boxers like Moore and Foreman show up your argument for what it is, baseless.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:I have seen footage of Louis hitting a speedball. He almost had to think before hitting it.

What complete tripe.

Compare him to Ali, Frazier, Biggs even who did that instinctively. Or Floyd who does it blindfolded or looking away. FFS even the shape of the heavy bags have changed to ape the human body. Everything has changed. It wasn't until the 1970s that people realised the benefit of altitude training in any meaningful way. It wasn't until the 1960s that giving a swig of booze between rounds was frowned upon.

Those guys were bar-room brawlers (albeit skilled) compared to todays athletes.

Man Utd lost - happy days

Right.

I can hit a speed bag quickly and consistently without thinking about it. I guess modern nutrition has made me better than Joe Louis too.

If you truly believe some of what you are writing there is no hope for you.

There might be merit to some of your points if you weren't quite so extreme.

In no shape or form were Tunney, Leonard, Pep, Johnson or various others bar room brawlers, do you need to insist on showing such disrespect

Answer this why are 4 of the hardest hitters of all time from before 1920?

Fitzsimmons got his unparalleled power from blacksmithing
Wilde got his from coal mining

Something here tells me modern training doesn't make you punch harder, how many concussive one punch boxers are they around today, not that many