Your Top 5 overrated fighters...

First topic message reminder :

Pretty simple, and should be a good way of revealing more on fighters the board may not have been aware of you not rating.

Mine, in order:

01) Roy Jones Jr: Unfortunately didn't stretch himself, looked good against pap opposition, fought bum after bum and almost bought boxing to its knees.

02) Manny Pacquiao: For someone so highly rated i find it a bit random that he has such a huge problem with a counterpuncher style of fighter.

03) Tito Trinidad: Stuffed by Bhop, robbed DLH and is still seen by some to be a great.

04) Mike Tyson: Prime this prime that. 2 years we should judge him on? I don't think so.

05) Barry Mcguigan: Seems to get rated as a great for his out of ring exploits rather than what he did in the ring.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Fitzsimmons was able to cut Jeffries to absolute shreds in their second fight and most were astounded he was able to continue, going by that he has more than enough to knockout Ruiz.

That was supposedly down to his wraps. Ruiz has only been stopped twice. If nothing else he is durable.

Never proven, only theorised.

Like Dempsey was loading against Willard.

Well Fitzsimmons nver denied it and its never been disproven either which seperates it from the Dempsey incident.

coxy0001 wrote: Still see you have zero appreciation for anyone who fought pre-1960. Thus rendering comments on the subject void.

Oh I do coxy. I appreciate many pre 1960 boxers. I appreciate pre 1900 boxers also. But I'm a realist and understand that the sport has moved on from carnival fight to what we have now. Comparing boxing then to now is like comparing rugby league to union. 2 different sports. Someone brought MMA/UFC and how its changed from the early days of bare knuckle all in fighting to the highly disciplined sport we have now. Canyou imagine Tank Abbot or Royce Gracie handing with GSP or Jon Jones?

Royce is an ATG MMA practicioner. GSP would murder him if they fought when Royce was in his pomp. GSP is far too well rounded.

The sport evolved. So did boxing. No slouch on Fitz et al. Good for their time. It says it all that he knocked out 7 guys in one night. It wouldn't be allowed now for many reasons. But Tyson could KO 9 guys in 9 minutes if they were dragged out of some local boozer.

Fitzsimmons had the punch of a good heavyweight but i'll never compare him to the likes of Shavers, Foreman or even Lewis but against someone like Ruiz who has never been difficult to hit i'd back him to eventually stop him. Ed Dunkhorst was even for the time a below average fighter but from what i've read of Jeffries he was a tough tough man and if anyone would know it would be him as Dunkhorst was his chief sparring partner. Jeffries admitted to never being able to hurt him but Fitz dispatched him in 2 rounds with a picture perfect body shot.

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Malignaggi could knock out 7 men in one night. Who were the men?

Malignaggi would have to prove that claim before you make it Scott.

This is taking postmodernist thinking too far. Are we really questioning the punch of a guy who could KO Sharkey, Ruhlin, Corbett whilst weighing in at only 160?

Jeffries struggled to stop Corbett in 23. Fitz stopped him in 14. Jeffries was known for having an excellent punch.

Not questioning his power p4p, or even in real terms. There is nothing wrong with asking if Fitz was able to easily Kayo a guy who is renowned for being very durable, and who has been in with some big hitters (such as Rahman who most definitely WAS a big hitter).

It seems as if it is taken as fact that Fitz could kayo pretty much any man in the history of the sport. Why? He couldn't get Jeffries out of there despite reportedly absolutely hammering him and landing at will round after round. Fitz was cleary a monstrous puncher but it seems to be sacrilege on here to even suggest that he doesn't easily knockout Ruiz, and by extension 95% of heavyweights throughout history.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Malignaggi could knock out 7 men in one night. Who were the men?

Malignaggi would have to prove that claim before you make it Scott.

This is taking postmodernist thinking too far. Are we really questioning the punch of a guy who could KO Sharkey, Ruhlin, Corbett whilst weighing in at only 160?

Jeffries struggled to stop Corbett in 23. Fitz stopped him in 14. Jeffries was known for having an excellent punch.

No his punch isnt being questioned but I think its being overrated if the argument is he is one of the ten heaviest punchers in history. Its nothing to do with postmodernist anyway I dont see where thats relevant.

Postmodernism, an approach which supports the view that there is no absolute truth. The absolute truth in question is that Fitz had one of the hardest punches of all time p4p. Jeffries was supposed to have a punch for the ages - yet he struggled mightily to put Corbett away, first time out. Fitz did it with a body shot 10 rounds sooner, after working the body to slow him down for the previous 5 rounds.

I'm not arguing that Fitz stops Ruiz - but stopping someone isn't the only definition of good power. In my opinion - Fitz's punch is good enough to make Ruiz respect its force. No way Ruiz walks through it without noticing.

There seems to be an attitude that anything but absoluteglorification ofoldies is a crime against boxing. A dose of reality is needed. Let the nostalgia go. Most of these guys wouldn't make it past 2 round against most competant and active heavyweights fighting today. That is no slight on their ability either. Just that the sport has moved on.

No one knocked Oscar out before Hopkins put him out with a body shot. Is Hopkins an ATG puncher? Bigger than Chavez, Mosley etc?

So modern fighters are magically more durable than their counterparts from the 1890's? Anything to back up that statement?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So modern fighters are magically more durable than their counterparts from the 1890's? Anything to back up that statement?

Creosote.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So modern fighters are magically more durable than their counterparts from the 1890's? Anything to back up that statement?

They don't drink brandy between rounds.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote: Still see you have zero appreciation for anyone who fought pre-1960. Thus rendering comments on the subject void.

Oh I do coxy. I appreciate many pre 1960 boxers. I appreciate pre 1900 boxers also. But I'm a realist and understand that the sport has moved on from carnival fight to what we have now. Comparing boxing then to now is like comparing rugby league to union. 2 different sports. Someone brought MMA/UFC and how its changed from the early days of bare knuckle all in fighting to the highly disciplined sport we have now. Canyou imagine Tank Abbot or Royce Gracie handing with GSP or Jon Jones?

Royce is an ATG MMA practicioner. GSP would murder him if they fought when Royce was in his pomp. GSP is far too well rounded.

The sport evolved. So did boxing. No slouch on Fitz et al. Good for their time. It says it all that he knocked out 7 guys in one night. It wouldn't be allowed now for many reasons. But Tyson could KO 9 guys in 9 minutes if they were dragged out of some local boozer.

Did you watch the Jon Jones-Jackson fight? Jackson was champ - what 2 years ago? And yet was wide open on the floor throughout - chin waving in the air like a flag. Time does not always = improvement.

I mentioned this before. We've had 200 years - but no symphonies to improve upon Beethoven 3/5/7/9 (or Mozart 40), or Dvorak 9.

Of course - if time does = improvement, I will have to not only change my mind about modern music, but I will have to finally accept that the Klitschko's would outbox Ali. They've had 40 more years to perfect their styles.

azania wrote:There seems to be an attitude that anything but absoluteglorification ofoldies is a crime against boxing. A dose of reality is needed. Let the nostalgia go. Most of these guys wouldn't make it past 2 round against most competant and active heavyweights fighting today. That is no slight on their ability either. Just that the sport has moved on.

A dose of reality? I need a dose of vodka after reading some of your posts on the subject to be honest.

rowley wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So modern fighters are magically more durable than their counterparts from the 1890's? Anything to back up that statement?

Creosote.

Its made my fence last 10 years longer. Think what it must do to your chin!

but I will have to finally accept that the Klitschko's would outbox Ali. They've had 40 more years to perfect their styles.

Game set match, who fancies a beer?

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Malignaggi could knock out 7 men in one night. Who were the men?

Malignaggi would have to prove that claim before you make it Scott.

This is taking postmodernist thinking too far. Are we really questioning the punch of a guy who could KO Sharkey, Ruhlin, Corbett whilst weighing in at only 160?

Jeffries struggled to stop Corbett in 23. Fitz stopped him in 14. Jeffries was known for having an excellent punch.

No his punch isnt being questioned but I think its being overrated if the argument is he is one of the ten heaviest punchers in history. Its nothing to do with postmodernist anyway I dont see where thats relevant.

Postmodernism, an approach which supports the view that there is no absolute truth. The absolute truth in question is that Fitz had one of the hardest punches of all time p4p. Jeffries was supposed to have a punch for the ages - yet he struggled mightily to put Corbett away, first time out. Fitz did it with a body shot 10 rounds sooner, after working the body to slow him down for the previous 5 rounds.

I'm not arguing that Fitz stops Ruiz - but stopping someone isn't the only definition of good power. In my opinion - Fitz's punch is good enough to make Ruiz respect its force. No way Ruiz walks through it without noticing.

Noboday has questioned his punch. It might be the single most powerful pound for pound in history. But the argument has been made that its one of the ten most powerful of all time in any weight class. This is highly disputable and unlikely in my view. Ruiz has been in with big hitters and proven he can take a shot.

When the argument is made that he hits harder than many hard hitting heavyweights then it you get into danger of starting to overrate someone I think.

For me, its been made out that beating Ruiz for a middleweight is all too easy. Its never been done before either. Fitzsimmons seems to get all the credit in the world for beating Corbett while Jones gets comparitively little for beating Ruiz. "All you have to do is dance around him and jab". Well all anyone needs to do is whack Corbett in the solar plexus. Im sure you would agree its a bit harder than that.

In practical terms the two acheivements arent massively apart in my view and in both cases it was a matter of favourable circumstances combined with the talent of the two fighters which allowed them to win.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Malignaggi could knock out 7 men in one night. Who were the men?

Malignaggi would have to prove that claim before you make it Scott.

This is taking postmodernist thinking too far. Are we really questioning the punch of a guy who could KO Sharkey, Ruhlin, Corbett whilst weighing in at only 160?

Jeffries struggled to stop Corbett in 23. Fitz stopped him in 14. Jeffries was known for having an excellent punch.

No his punch isnt being questioned but I think its being overrated if the argument is he is one of the ten heaviest punchers in history. Its nothing to do with postmodernist anyway I dont see where thats relevant.

Postmodernism, an approach which supports the view that there is no absolute truth. The absolute truth in question is that Fitz had one of the hardest punches of all time p4p. Jeffries was supposed to have a punch for the ages - yet he struggled mightily to put Corbett away, first time out. Fitz did it with a body shot 10 rounds sooner, after working the body to slow him down for the previous 5 rounds.

I'm not arguing that Fitz stops Ruiz - but stopping someone isn't the only definition of good power. In my opinion - Fitz's punch is good enough to make Ruiz respect its force. No way Ruiz walks through it without noticing.

He wouldn't get close enough to Ruiz to land anything. By the time he gets close he would be hit so often he wouldn't know what hit him.

The way I see it Manos is that for Jones it was a carefully managed career move to go for Ruiz whereas Fitzsimmons had no option but to go for Corbett, Jones had been campaigning for years at light heavyweight but never looked like moving up while Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson were on the scene. Suddenly Ruiz gets hold of a portion of the title and bingo he has a crack.

I don't and won't denigrate RJJs win over Ruiz - fantastic win. I will question anyone who suggests that Fitz also couldn't beat Ruiz (hence dance + jab (although that is an awful paraphrasing of my statement)).

Nor do I suggest he's a HW heavy hitter - he himself didn't think he was any more than a MW - and that tells a story. Foreman, Shavers etc - they carried a punch that could stop a tank.

However - as long as we accept that Fitz's punch was also very hard, p4p one of the hardest ever, and Ruiz would notice it - ie not just keep walking through it, I have no further comment.

Put further - Fitz doesn't do a Tua to Ruiz in my opinion.

RJJ talked about going after Holyfield actually but Holyfield didn't show interest.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Malignaggi could knock out 7 men in one night. Who were the men?

Malignaggi would have to prove that claim before you make it Scott.

This is taking postmodernist thinking too far. Are we really questioning the punch of a guy who could KO Sharkey, Ruhlin, Corbett whilst weighing in at only 160?

Jeffries struggled to stop Corbett in 23. Fitz stopped him in 14. Jeffries was known for having an excellent punch.

No his punch isnt being questioned but I think its being overrated if the argument is he is one of the ten heaviest punchers in history. Its nothing to do with postmodernist anyway I dont see where thats relevant.

Postmodernism, an approach which supports the view that there is no absolute truth. The absolute truth in question is that Fitz had one of the hardest punches of all time p4p. Jeffries was supposed to have a punch for the ages - yet he struggled mightily to put Corbett away, first time out. Fitz did it with a body shot 10 rounds sooner, after working the body to slow him down for the previous 5 rounds.

I'm not arguing that Fitz stops Ruiz - but stopping someone isn't the only definition of good power. In my opinion - Fitz's punch is good enough to make Ruiz respect its force. No way Ruiz walks through it without noticing.

He wouldn't get close enough to Ruiz to land anything. By the time he gets close he would be hit so often he wouldn't know what hit him.

Are you and I debating from the same planet? This is the same Johnny Ruiz who barely threw 100 punches in a fight? With hands slower than cold treacle? With footwork that looked like he was moving underwater in steel toecapped boots? That Johnny Ruiz?

And Fitzsimmons - you know, the MW, then HW, then LHW champion of the world, whilst weighing in at 160lbs, who moved pretty swiftly (not as swiftly as Greb, I agree) but swiftly enough to catch up with all manner of quick and slick boxers - that Fitzsimmons?

The real risk for Bob in this fight is that Ruiz catches hold of him and crushes the life out of him with a hug. That seemed to be Ruiz' most effective weapon.

Not sure this adds anything to the debate but when he won the middleweight title from Dempsey Fitzsimmons weighed in at 151 and Dempsey insisted on the weigh in being five minutes before the fight started so was very much his in the weight ring. Not sure it is relevant but does make his acheivement in annexing the heavy belt all the more remarkable when one considers most welters will weigh heavier than that entering the ring nowadays.

Rowley, what ever you do don't read up. You may end up having a mishap with your ticker!

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Malignaggi could knock out 7 men in one night. Who were the men?

Malignaggi would have to prove that claim before you make it Scott.

This is taking postmodernist thinking too far. Are we really questioning the punch of a guy who could KO Sharkey, Ruhlin, Corbett whilst weighing in at only 160?

Jeffries struggled to stop Corbett in 23. Fitz stopped him in 14. Jeffries was known for having an excellent punch.

No his punch isnt being questioned but I think its being overrated if the argument is he is one of the ten heaviest punchers in history. Its nothing to do with postmodernist anyway I dont see where thats relevant.

Postmodernism, an approach which supports the view that there is no absolute truth. The absolute truth in question is that Fitz had one of the hardest punches of all time p4p. Jeffries was supposed to have a punch for the ages - yet he struggled mightily to put Corbett away, first time out. Fitz did it with a body shot 10 rounds sooner, after working the body to slow him down for the previous 5 rounds.

I'm not arguing that Fitz stops Ruiz - but stopping someone isn't the only definition of good power. In my opinion - Fitz's punch is good enough to make Ruiz respect its force. No way Ruiz walks through it without noticing.

He wouldn't get close enough to Ruiz to land anything. By the time he gets close he would be hit so often he wouldn't know what hit him.

Are you and I debating from the same planet? This is the same Johnny Ruiz who barely threw 100 punches in a fight? With hands slower than cold treacle? With footwork that looked like he was moving underwater in steel toecapped boots? That Johnny Ruiz?

And Fitzsimmons - you know, the MW, then HW, then LHW champion of the world, whilst weighing in at 160lbs, who moved pretty swiftly (not as swiftly as Greb, I agree) but swiftly enough to catch up with all manner of quick and slick boxers - that Fitzsimmons?

The real risk for Bob in this fight is that Ruiz catches hold of him and crushes the life out of him with a hug. That seemed to be Ruiz' most effective weapon.

Yeah but to be fair Ruiz would have been taking protein shakes and creatine and stuff in training, so...

rowley wrote:Not sure this adds anything to the debate but when he won the middleweight title from Dempsey Fitzsimmons weighed in at 151 and Dempsey insisted on the weigh in being five minutes before the fight started so was very much his in the weight ring. Not sure it is relevant but does make his acheivement in annexing the heavy belt all the more remarkable when one considers most welters will weigh heavier than that entering the ring nowadays.

Yeah but its relative. Jones gave away more weight to Ruiz than Fitzsimmons did to Corbett for instance. No heavyweight is going weight 180 pounds these days.

Then again Corbetts skillset was more relative to Fitzsimmons which more than makes up for the difference in weight disparity or we may as well throw out the Dunkhorst bout.

Have to agree with Trinidad. I view the Hopkins / Trinidad fight as the most overrated ever due to Hopkins being like a ripped machine and Trinidad like a schoolboy. Also robbed ODLH. Also agree with Pacquiao - the most overrated ATG of our times due to the fact he can't handle certain styles and is 1D and the whole catchweights fiascos, suspicioud weight gain issues etc. Can't stand him to be honest and hope Floyd batters him.

I think you're talking through your tory ringhole about the others though.

Take a look at Fitz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM

Is any right minded person, not with a mind addled with nostalgia, please be serious and tell me if this chap fighting in neo-thongs would stand a chance against many MWs let alone LHW or active HW.

Does this even look like boxing as we know it? Forget the show pony stuff RJJ did, in terms of pure boxing ability, they're each from different planets. You cant compare the two.

I'm not saying that Fitz et al are useless. Far from it. They just didn't have the skillsets or know about them to even consider a fight between one of them and an active yet small HW would be competitive. These guys wouldn't last 30 seconds with Tyson (Fury) after he's punched himself.

Scottrf wrote:RJJ talked about going after Holyfield actually but Holyfield didn't show interest.

He even talked about fighting Tyson.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:There seems to be an attitude that anything but absoluteglorification ofoldies is a crime against boxing. A dose of reality is needed. Let the nostalgia go. Most of these guys wouldn't make it past 2 round against most competant and active heavyweights fighting today. That is no slight on their ability either. Just that the sport has moved on.

A dose of reality? I need a dose of vodka after reading some of your posts on the subject to be honest.

I appreciate your honesty.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So modern fighters are magically more durable than their counterparts from the 1890's? Anything to back up that statement?

If this is for me I dont know why seeing as I have never said anything about durability.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So modern fighters are magically more durable than their counterparts from the 1890's? Anything to back up that statement?

If this is for me I dont know why seeing as I have never said anything about durability.

Or you have by saying that men like Jeffries wouldn't last two rounds against the current crop which is quite ridiculous, given that you don't have a clue what you're talking about don't think we expect anything less from you.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote: Still see you have zero appreciation for anyone who fought pre-1960. Thus rendering comments on the subject void.

Oh I do coxy. I appreciate many pre 1960 boxers. I appreciate pre 1900 boxers also. But I'm a realist and understand that the sport has moved on from carnival fight to what we have now. Comparing boxing then to now is like comparing rugby league to union. 2 different sports. Someone brought MMA/UFC and how its changed from the early days of bare knuckle all in fighting to the highly disciplined sport we have now. Canyou imagine Tank Abbot or Royce Gracie handing with GSP or Jon Jones?

Royce is an ATG MMA practicioner. GSP would murder him if they fought when Royce was in his pomp. GSP is far too well rounded.

The sport evolved. So did boxing. No slouch on Fitz et al. Good for their time. It says it all that he knocked out 7 guys in one night. It wouldn't be allowed now for many reasons. But Tyson could KO 9 guys in 9 minutes if they were dragged out of some local boozer.

Did you watch the Jon Jones-Jackson fight? Jackson was champ - what 2 years ago? And yet was wide open on the floor throughout - chin waving in the air like a flag. Time does not always = improvement.

I mentioned this before. We've had 200 years - but no symphonies to improve upon Beethoven 3/5/7/9 (or Mozart 40), or Dvorak 9.

Of course - if time does = improvement, I will have to not only change my mind about modern music, but I will have to finally accept that the Klitschko's would outbox Ali. They've had 40 more years to perfect their styles.

Rampage is from the old school. You would be amazed how much MMA has moved on in the past 5 years. Bones is part of the new breed of ultra versatile MMA artists. Anderson, GSP are others who are well rounded both stand up and on the mat. Rampage was very one dimensional.

As for music, what do you mean improve? I could say no group could ever improve on the harmonies of Ladysmith Black Mombazo. Its subjective. Nothing could improve on the rifts of Hendrix etc etc etc.. Music when good is timeless. My son will swear blind that Jay Z and MnM are the best rappers ever. Give me KRS1, Public enemy and Grandmaster Flash anyday. Subjective.

But matching old timers against newer boxers is not all that subjective. The sport evolved rendering the old timers almost obselete.

Give me a Mondeo over a Model T anyday (well the Model T would fetch more money in a sale) as I'd get a better performance out of it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So modern fighters are magically more durable than their counterparts from the 1890's? Anything to back up that statement?

If this is for me I dont know why seeing as I have never said anything about durability.

Or you have by saying that men like Jeffries wouldn't last two rounds against the current crop which is quite ridiculous, given that you don't have a clue what you're talking about don't think we expect anything less from you.

Nothing to do with their durability. Duran was very durable but was rolling like a drunk. DeJesus also had him on the deck. Hit any boxer right and they'll go.

I know exactlyt what I'm talking about. The difference is that my opinions are not clouded or jaded with nostalgia for old timers or anyone else for that matter.

You don't have much of a clue think we established that a fair time ago, which of todays heavyweights do you honestly think would take Jeffries out within 2 rounds?

Duran was a lightweight facing a big punching light middleweight who would later knock out light heavyweights, very poor example.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You don't have much of a clue think we established that a fair time ago, which of todays heavyweights do you honestly think would take Jeffries out within 2 rounds?

Duran was a lightweight facing a big punching light middleweight who would later knock out light heavyweights, very poor example.

All the current top 10 would take out Jeffries in quick time. Jeffries was a fighter. Today's guys are boxers.

He was dropped by DeJesus also. JCC was dropped by Randall. Ali by Frazier. All were durable but when hit right they will drop. Bio mechanics. Continue with the barbed comments. You cant help yourself I know.

Based on what would any of todays heavyweights take him out in quick time? Give me an educated thought provoking response doesn't include one of your many generalisations?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Based on what would any of todays heavyweights take him out in quick time? Give me an educated thought provoking response doesn't include one of your many generalisations?

Take a look at the link I posted. Fitz and Corbett were fighting. I wouldn't describe what they were doing as boxing as I know boxing to be.

Still doesn't answer my question does it Azania, what makes you think Jeffries gets taken out by the likes of Povetkin or Adamek?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Still doesn't answer my question does it Azania, what makes you think Jeffries gets taken out by the likes of Povetkin or Adamek?

Because Jeff was simply not good enough to hang with boxers 25 years after he retired let along post war boxers. His skillset was rudimentary at best. Lack of adequate headmovement, jab, etc.

Why does that mean he gets knocked out.

Skillset wise LaMotta wasn't a patch on Robinson but it took the great man 65 rounds to force a referee stoppage, not sure how having a worse skillset means he gets knocked out by chaff, please enlighten me?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why does that mean he gets knocked out.

Skillset wise LaMotta wasn't a patch on Robinson but it took the great man 65 rounds to force a referee stoppage, not sure how having a worse skillset means he gets knocked out by chaff, please enlighten me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZh--rmNfxk&feature=related

Take a look at that vid. Are you telling me those guys have the same level of skills as today's boxers? These were (very) toughmen but not boxers as we know boxers to be.

In terms of skillset, not many had the same as SRR. Your comparison is ridiculous. But what LaMotta did have was excellent footwork and style (his crouch) which got him into range to throw punches. He was very skilled in what he did.

You still aren't answering the question, what makes you think Jeffries gets knocked out by the likes of Povetkin or Adamek?

I could show you a video of Roy Jones jnr getting knocked out left right and centre, in isolation it means whatever I want it to me mean to back up my point.

Surely Robinson is the most perfect example to bring up here, despite his brilliance and unsurpassed skill not even he could knock out every opponent regardless of how limited they were.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You still aren't answering the question, what makes you think Jeffries gets knocked out by the likes of Povetkin or Adamek?

I could show you a video of Roy Jones jnr getting knocked out left right and centre, in isolation it means whatever I want it to me mean to back up my point.

Pov and Adamek would hit him. That's how knock outs usually happen.

The difference between your vid and mine if that yours is showing the worst of RJJ and mine is the best available of Jeffs et al. Somewhat different dont you think.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Surely Robinson is the most perfect example to bring up here, despite his brilliance and unsurpassed skill not even he could knock out every opponent regardless of how limited they were.

LaMotta wasn't exactly limited was he. YOu dont become a world champ in that period by being limited. Moreover Cerdan was no slouch either.

Yours is the only available in rather poor quality video so how much you can draw from it is down to your own preference.

Robinson hit LaMotta but never knocked him out, how does the light punching Adamek hurt Jeffries?

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Surely Robinson is the most perfect example to bring up here, despite his brilliance and unsurpassed skill not even he could knock out every opponent regardless of how limited they were.

LaMotta wasn't exactly limited was he. YOu dont become a world champ in that period by being limited. Moreover Cerdan was no slouch either.

LaMotta was one of many rather limited fighters who became world champion during that period, the best fighters with the exception of Robinson weren't world champions.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Yours is the only available in rather poor quality video so how much you can draw from it is down to your own preference.

Robinson hit LaMotta but never knocked him out, how does the light punching Adamek hurt Jeffries?

LaMotta was a big MW compared to SRR who was a small MW who regularly weighed in at 156. Plus Jake was incredible chin.

Taking a punch from a 200lber is somewhat different. Plus Jeff would give Adamek so much time to him him that hit him he will. And hit him very often to KO him.

Funny thread we've got one side endowing super human powers on a balding carrot top and Azania comparing humans to technology and concluding that one of the most durable fighters in the history of the sport would get blasted out by a feather fisted contender who got mullered by a 40 yo last time out.

Imagine if Fitz was born today and then sent back in time - he could lay waste to the whole planet.

I'm struggling to see the difference here

LaMotta was bigger but far less skilled than Robinson, was given regular poundings by a proven heavy hitter but never hit the floor thanks to his incredible chin

Jeffries bigger and stronger but less skilled than Adamek gets knocked out by a proven light hitter

Please fill in the gaps for me because you're talking absolute cack again.