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.

1 Riddick Bowe. Seen this guy regularly in the top 20 HW, a really weak reign, had one great win against Holyfield, lost it and was incredibly lucky not to be finished off by a well below par Evander, maybe had the tools but his record doesn't stand up.

2. Jake La Motta: Not one I'm really comfortable with placing simply down to movie having him as a superhuman. Just feel The best men who weighed 155lb+ all beat him, Marshall said all the best of the Murderer's Row would beat him after beating him.

3. Shane Mosley . A speedy brawler Masquerading as a boxer puncher. Everytime he fought someone with a decent jab and lateral movement.....he lost. Made a career of feasting on brawlers willing to stand toe to toe with him.

4. Harry Wills I think Wills gets a bit overhyped. His reputation was built largely from the notion that Dempsey was avoiding him (which very well may have been true). As you said, he made his name by beating Sam Langford multiple times, but Langford was a shopworn old vertern by that time, and Langford still knocked him out in a couple of their early fights before he simply got too old. IMO, Sharkey exposed him when he nearly chased him out of the ring

5 Oscar De La Hoya He was the Golden Boy a Media Darling and got a lot of hype because of it. His record in big fights can't be overlooked it's not good at all. And he has some very questionable decisions that went his way. In all a solid fighter that couldn't really beat the elite but could compete with them. HOF and a top 100 ATG and he deserves credit for the attention he brought to boxing that's really being what he should be remembered for..

Imperial Ghosty wrote: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.

I dont think you're struggling to see the difference. You simply refuse to because you put those old timers on a pedestal never to be reached by mere mortals.

One difference between now and then is that boxers have been taughtt how to throw punches correctly for maximum effect. Those guys were just swinging. Take a look at Lennox pre Manny Steward. His jab had more snap (still a poor jab) that in his Pep days. His footwork improved immensely (still poor) and he was less reliant on his cricket bowling overhand right.

Adamek is a more precise puncher than Jeffs and would hit him at the point of his chin. Even though he is a relatively light hitter in comparison to other active HW, his punch power would be superhuman in 1900s because he punches more correctly that those guys.

But carry on with the barbed comments. Its what I expect from you.

tcribb wrote:1 Riddick Bowe. Seen this guy regularly in the top 20 HW, a really weak reign, had one great win against Holyfield, lost it and was incredibly lucky not to be finished off by a well below par Evander, maybe had the tools but his record doesn't stand up.

2. Jake La Motta: Not one I'm really comfortable with placing simply down to movie having him as a superhuman. Just feel The best men who weighed 155lb+ all beat him, Marshall said all the best of the Murderer's Row would beat him after beating him.

3. Shane Mosley . A speedy brawler Masquerading as a boxer puncher. Everytime he fought someone with a decent jab and lateral movement.....he lost. Made a career of feasting on brawlers willing to stand toe to toe with him.

4. Harry Wills I think Wills gets a bit overhyped. His reputation was built largely from the notion that Dempsey was avoiding him (which very well may have been true). As you said, he made his name by beating Sam Langford multiple times, but Langford was a shopworn old vertern by that time, and Langford still knocked him out in a couple of their early fights before he simply got too old. IMO, Sharkey exposed him when he nearly chased him out of the ring

5 Oscar De La Hoya He was the Golden Boy a Media Darling and got a lot of hype because of it. His record in big fights can't be overlooked it's not good at all. And he has some very questionable decisions that went his way. In all a solid fighter that couldn't really beat the elite but could compete with them. HOF and a top 100 ATG and he deserves credit for the attention he brought to boxing that's really being what he should be remembered for..

The issue with Bowe is a case of "what if". He had it all in my opinion except for desire. Cripes anyone who puts a fridge in their bedroom has issues.

You really don't have a clue and it's so refreshing knowing your on the wind up, means I don't have to take you seriously. Can't really get a more precise puncher than Jack Johnson and it took him 15 rounds to get rid of a completely shopworn version of Jeffries yet a powder puncher like Adamek gets the job done in 2 rounds, go figure that one if you will.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You really don't have a clue and it's so refreshing knowing your on the wind up, means I don't have to take you seriously. Can't really get a more precise puncher than Jack Johnson and it took him 15 rounds to get rid of a completely shopworn version of Jeffries yet a powder puncher like Adamek gets the job done in 2 rounds, go figure that one if you will.

More glorification of old timers who although they deserve all the plaudits they get, in reality put them in with active fighters now, they'd struggle. The sport has moved on since then.

But please carry on and let your own eyes continue to deceive you. Its quite amusing.

I know the eras I talk about Az while you as noted by many of the more knowledgable on here don't have a clue, but carry on trying to bait me must grind that i'm not rising to it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I know the eras I talk about Az while you as noted by many of the more knowledgable on here don't have a clue, but carry on trying to bait me must grind that i'm not rising to it.

I'm not baiting you. You are the one using various adjectives to describe my opinions. I'm simply highlighting that fact.

You may have encyclopedic knowledge of that era. Credit to you. Still doesn't change certain basic facts that boxing has come on leaps and bounds since then. In fact it came on leaps and bounds 15 years after they were done. Great pioners, but that's what they were. Its like comparing a Model T to any ford built today.

I wont criticise those guys. They have my utmost respect. But they couldn't hang with guys of today.

I am a great fan of Royce Gracie. Some tim ago I wouldn't even contemplate the idea that any active MMA fighter could actually beat him. Until that is when Matt Hughes destroyed him in 2 rounds. Gravie is an ATG in MMA. But there is not a chance in hell he could hang with modern day MMA fighters. Not a chance. Its called reality.

McGuigan I can see where you're coming from but some fairly harsh lines drawn for the others imo. The fact that Tyson and RJJ weren't tested in their prime and Pacman by only one fighter in particular could be interpreted as a reflection of how each were/are exceptional fighters.

I think the better way to describe Tyson is as a top example of a fighter who seems to thrive off a 100% record and can seem genuinely indestructable while this record is intact but surely enough falls apart once he loses the '0'. A fighter that might invest so much into his own hype that once he's forced to swallow defeat he can't hold on to that self-belief. Something of a tragic story which is occasionally re-introduced to boxing in the form of different fighters.

Jeff Lacy ticks both this box and the overrated box for me. Another example of the latter case would be Andre Berto and in time another who could officially enter the overrated category is Lucian Bute, though I'll reserve judgement pending on his exploits once he faces a worthy name.

You never back up your opinions, simply come out with outlandish statements and falter when questioned about it.

MMA is a poor example as it's original concept was to pit experts of different martial arts against eachother, they're now all more jack of all trade fighters than a master of anything with GSP being an exception.

Going back to the original point, I'm not sure why Trinidad's defeat to Hopkins gets so heavily used as a rod to beat him with. This was a case of a great career Welterweight losing to a great Middleweight - no different, really, to Napoles losing to Monzon.

As strange as it may sound, I feel that Trinidad is perhaps a little underrated by some on here. Don't make the mistake of underestimating what he did at Welterweight - if he's not an all-time top ten man at 147 lb, he's something very, very close to it. I don't for one second think that he was the beneficiary of a scandalous decision against De la Hoya, either. I had that fight a draw (don't know what planet people are on when they think a fighter can throw away the last four rounds of the fight without it ever creeping in to their mind that maybe, just maybe, it might have an effect on the decision at the end of it).

Still, if I had to offer up some names, the ones I'd normally give would be:

Jack Dempsey. Windy, Jimmy Stuart and a few others have given me a proverbial kicking for this in the past, but still no matter which way I look at it, Dempsey's record simply doesn't warrant the status he's regularly given. His impact on the sport was beyond doubt, but his record in the ring wasn't in my eyes. Can't make him anything other than a very low end top ten Heavyweight.

Abe Attell. If anyone manipulated circumstances whenever they could to keep hold of their title when they were not always deserving of it, it was him. No doubting he was a fine fighter, but seeing him placed alongside the likes of Sanchez, Dixon and Saldivar in the race for 126 lb supremacy outside of Pep and Saddler leaves me cold.

Georges Carpentier. Another who attracted a shedload of new fans to the sport during his pomp, but whose record sometimes gets more plaudits than it should as a result of this. Not a great Light-Heavyweight in my eyes, let alone a pound for pound great.

Marcel Cerdan. I think the theory that death can be a great marketing tool is very apt in his case. Can't agree with the idea that he was an elite Middleweight, and much like Tyson, there seem to be an array of excuses for his defeats.

Riddick Bowe. Don't think I've ever seen any other fighter given so much credit for a 'prime' which literally lasted for three fights at the most. Have seen many claim that his two wins over Holyfield (but naff all else before effectively being drummed out of the game at thirty) is enough to put him higher in the all-time stakes than the long-reigning and undeniably consistent Wladimir, which is outrageous in my mind.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You never back up your opinions, simply come out with outlandish statements and falter when questioned about it.

MMA is a poor example as it's original concept was to pit experts of different martial arts against eachother, they're now all more jack of all trade fighters than a master of anything with GSP being an exception.

My statements are backed up. You just dont agree with it hence you're ready to implode.

There you go. MMA is a poor example. To you maybe, but to me it shows how a combat sport has evolved from its primary stage. You just dont want to accept that boxing and indeed boxers have improved since the Queensbury rules were written down. They have and by a long way also.

Many MMA fighters have a solid foundation in one martial art. Dan Henderson was an Olympic wrestler. Daniel Cornier also an olympic wrestler. Randy couture was an olympic alternate. To saythey are jack of all trades andmaster of none is utterly wrong. Anderson SIlva was a BJJ practioner, GSP = karate and is now a world class wrestler. They practice all martial arts to be well rounded fighters. Similarly boxers are trained how to throw a punch properly with small details added to improve that basic.

Carry on baiting all you want Az, i'm not going to be the one pulled up on it.

You back up your opinions with absolutely no factual evidence other than using the same old newer is better, you cannot possibly comment on fighters when you haven't got the first clue about them.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Carry on baiting all you want Az, i'm not going to be the one pulled up on it.

You back up your opinions with absolutely no factual evidence other than using the same old newer is better, you cannot possibly comment on fighters when you haven't got the first clue about them.

Ha

Factual evidence on a hypothetical issue? You have read about these guys. Taken other people's opinions on them Nat Fliescher stated that Jeff was the best ever and claimed he would beat Louis. Nostalgia addled opinion that one.

You just disagree with my views. Its all good. Difference is good. It stimulates debate which should be done with respect on both sides and not insulting the opinion of the person you disagree. That's childish I'm sure you will agree.

Factual evidence as in using your knowledge of these fighters to base an opinion on, i'm done with this debate anyway.

On top of Chris' picks of Bowe, Attell and Carpenier will add a rather controversial one.

Sandy Saddler- Outside of his series with Pep and a victory over Elorde his record doesn't really shout out class to me, was the beneficiary of lax refereeing on more than occassion.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Factual evidence as in using your knowledge of these fighters to base an opinion on, i'm done with this debate anyway.

On top of Chris' picks of Bowe, Attell and Carpenier will add a rather controversial one.

Sandy Saddler- Outside of his series with Pep and a victory over Elorde his record doesn't really shout out class to me, was the beneficiary of lax refereeing on more than occassion.

I gave you my opinion, provided factual (video) evidence. All you have done is ask question and cry that I'm baiting you.

Saddler is not over-rated. Not a chance. Superb boxer with a fearsome punch.

Aside from Pep and Elorde what is there on his record to suggest he's a superb boxer?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Aside from Pep and Elorde what is there on his record to suggest he's a superb boxer?

He doesn't need to. Aside from Frazier, what qualifies Foreman to be an ATG?

Norton, Lyle, Chuvalo and then returning to win the title in his 40's.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Norton, Lyle, Chuvalo and then returning to win the title in his 40's.

They were good boxers, but with the execption of Norton, not big names. Horses for courses really. But I'd say that Saddler's resume is better than George's resume. Brown, Lalas and carter are better names that the ones George has.

Moreover I'd pick Ruiz to beat Moorer.

Are my eyes playing tricks on me, or did Azania just give full credit to a fighter from before the sixties and acknowledge that they were an all time great!? Someone needs to make this thread a sticky for that alone.

That said, though, I agree fully with him here. Don't think Saddler is overrated at all. I'm the first to admit that I don't care much for the style he had, but his record speaks for itself. There's more than enough of on his ledger to warrant great status - he had the wood on Pep, perhaps the best Featherweight of the lot, split a pair of fights with the man who single-handedly revived the 130 lb weight class, beat a great Lightweight champion in Brown - admittedly very early on - and, come to think of it, did away with a few other good men who were bigger than him such as Carter and De Marco.

Oh, and there's the little matter of being probably the hardest-hitting Featherweight of all time, too. Pep was the only man who managed to beat him in a world title fight. Everything about Saddler screams genuine, elite and truly all-time great to me, but that's just how I see it.

88Chris05 wrote:Are my eyes playing tricks on me, or did Azania just give full credit to a fighter from before the sixties and acknowledge that they were an all time great!? Someone needs to make this thread a sticky for that alone.

That said, though, I agree fully with him here. Don't think Saddler is overrated at all. I'm the first to admit that I don't care much for the style he had, but his record speaks for itself. There's more than enough of on his ledger to warrant great status - he had the wood on Pep, perhaps the best Featherweight of the lot, split a pair of fights with the man who single-handedly revived the 130 lb weight class, beat a great Lightweight champion in Brown - admittedly very early on - and, come to think of it, did away with a few other good men who were bigger than him such as Carter and De Marco.

Oh, and there's the little matter of being probably the hardest-hitting Featherweight of all time, too. Pep was the only man who managed to beat him in a world title fight. Everything about Saddler screams genuine, elite and truly all-time great to me, but that's just how I see it.

Good fighters are good fighters regardless. Those pre 1910 fighters were good fighters. Transfer Saddler to today's boxing and he'd rip them apart in double quick time. Bring Jognson, Fitz et al to todays boxing and they wouldn't even be contenders. Most would not even win golden gloves. They didn;t have the boxing knowledge that came later.

Won't get dragged in to that tired old debate yet again Azania, as you and Ghosty are already going back and forth on it. We agree that Saddler is worth his all-time great billing, let's leave it at that, eh?

Its pretty difficult to determine what exactly overrated is unless theres some kind of context to it or benchmark to set against it.

Saddler might be overrated in the context of beng a top 15 or 20 of all time fighter for instance, but probably not if you are talking top 40 or 50.

I'd have him at the lower end of a top twenty personally, Manos, so in that sense maybe some would think I'm overrating him.

I cant really think where I would place him off hand, was just saying that its difficult to ascertain what overrated is unless its measured against some kind of "rating".

I do seem to be alone in not being overawed by his wins over Pep, despite winning the series 3-1, it was abundantly clear who the better boxer was in 3 out of the four fights (Pep for the record), then it must come down to under-appreciating the other fighters he beat. Just think he was a tad fortunate more than anything.

manos de piedra wrote:I cant really think where I would place him off hand, was just saying that its difficult to ascertain what overrated is unless its measured against some kind of "rating".

Might be a good idea to use the results of the Captains hall of fame to create a 606 ATG rankings. that way we can put it in context and have something to rate each fighter against. Think that might keep us occupied till 3011

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I do seem to be alone in not being overawed by his wins over Pep, despite winning the series 3-1, it was abundantly clear who the better boxer was in 3 out of the four fights (Pep for the record), then it must come down to under-appreciating the other fighters he beat. Just think he was a tad fortunate more than anything.

Thats like saying Kirkland Laing was a better boxer that Colin Jones despite being sparked twice by him. Boxing is a results game. SS had Pep's number. But he also had the number of a list of other very good fighters. I wouldn't call that fortunate. He was a very good boxer.

Personally don't agree with the manner in which victory was obtained, the cleanest of the four bouts ended with a decisive Pep points victory, he had his number in the sense he got away with fouls that changed the course of the fights.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Personally don't agree with the manner in which victory was obtained, the cleanest of the four bouts ended with a decisive Pep points victory, he had his number in the sense he got away with fouls that changed the course of the fights.

As Ricky Hatton, its not tickling. Cut out Bhop's dirty boxing and spoiling then he becomes less effective. Many call it guile. Personally I call it cheating. But rules are often liberal and boxers exploit them. Its all part of the game.

Then there's taking that to the extreme whereby you rip your opponents shoulder from it's socket when down on the cards resulting in him having to quit, can't really accept that as a fully legitimate victory.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Then there's taking that to the extreme whereby you rip your opponents shoulder from it's socket when down on the cards resulting in him having to quit, can't really accept that as a fully legitimate victory.

There is that. But that wasn't the only fight where he used 'extreme' methods to win. Other fights he wasn't less that honourable but didn;t resort to tearing parts out of sockets. Those wins are more legit and correct also.

As I said earlier, Ghosty, I'm no fan of Saddler's style, but we shouldn't pretend that Pep was a stranger to using foul play now and then. In their series, while Saddler may have been the chief culprit, Pep bent the rules plenty of times, too. Obviously two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but I maintain that Saddler's hold over Pep shouldn't be overlooked.

I think it's more when a foul leads directly to a victory that I take issue with it, niggly little indiscretions here and there aren't much to talk about but winning a fight because you've literally ripped your opponents shoulder out does lead to a fair bit of scrutiny.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I think it's more when a foul leads directly to a victory that I take issue with it, niggly little indiscretions here and there aren't much to talk about but winning a fight because you've literally ripped your opponents shoulder out does lead to a fair bit of scrutiny.

You seem to be giving Pep a free pass for his indescretions.

His indiscrections didn't lead to a result that may otherwise not have happened.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:His indiscrections didn't lead to a result that may otherwise not have happened.

Both fighters were fouliing one another in all their fights. SS's foul resulted in Pep being unable to continue. Pep's fouling may also have resulted in SS being behind on the cards.

When both are playing outside of the rules you really cant complain when your favourite comes out 2nd best in that area of the game. If SS was the only one fouling I can see why you are somewhat aggrieved. But both were at it. All's fair etc etc etc

Well Az it's a series of fights I took a lot of interest in and while Pep tried fighting fire with fire it was clear that Saddler was the one initiating all the dirty play and personally think yanking your opponents shoulder is taking it a step too far.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Well Az it's a series of fights I took a lot of interest in and while Pep tried fighting fire with fire it was clear that Saddler was the one initiating all the dirty play and personally think yanking your opponents shoulder is taking it a step too far.

Of course it is. Fouling, whether deliberate or not, has always been part of boxing. When both are at it and one gets shafted, too bad. I always maintain that when fouled, get your own back to ensure your opponent knows the reason and the effect. JCC was always one for that. Against Rosario, if memory serves me right, he responded to low blows that he practically hit Edwin on his knees the retaliation was that low. Rosario fought a clean fight after....and lost.

Deliberately injuring your opponent so he's unable to continue simply isn't on as far as i'm concerned.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Deliberately injuring your opponent so he's unable to continue simply isn't on as far as i'm concerned.

I'm not claiming its on either. Just that sh.t happens when you start fouling one another.

Which is why I rate Pep higher, he was beating Saddler without the need of fouling, Saddler on the other hand couldn't beat Pep in a clean fight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Which is why I rate Pep higher, he was beating Saddler without the need of fouling, Saddler on the other hand couldn't beat Pep in a clean fight.

Apparently they were both fouling each other. Just that SS was better at it. That was only one fight. SS beat him in 2 other fights.

It was largely Saddler committing the fouls when he was able to get in close enough, for the most part of their four fights Pep tried to keep it strictly boxing and got a lot of success through doing that, winning the majority of rounds between the pair.

Right Az.

You say that Jeffries couldn't jab, couldn't duck, couldn't defend, couldn't punch in combinations. How do we know? You've got a spitting image of him fighting? Improvements in footage would make me look like an ATG. As I mentioned earlier - clearly all these old timers needed was Sky HD.

As also mentioned earlier - clearly the Klitschko's would beat Ali - they've had 40 more years to perfect the skillset of boxing. Clearly things are in linear evolution. You wouldn't expect a ford prefect (Ali - 60s and 70s) to out perform the 2011 Focus (klit).

I now accept that the model T (Dempsey) < ford prefect (Ali) <Ford focus (Klit)

I can only wish I'd realised this before. I seem to have wasted a lot of my life learning about old time boxers and fully appreciating and understanding the range of abilities they had - including the sometimes more advanced defensive skills they have with respect to today. Odd in an era in which you claim it was "unsporting to duck" that the boxers tend to be renowned either for defence or ability to avoid a clean shot.

oxring wrote:Right Az.

You say that Jeffries couldn't jab, couldn't duck, couldn't defend, couldn't punch in combinations. How do we know? You've got a spitting image of him fighting? Improvements in footage would make me look like an ATG. As I mentioned earlier - clearly all these old timers needed was Sky HD.

As also mentioned earlier - clearly the Klitschko's would beat Ali - they've had 40 more years to perfect the skillset of boxing. Clearly things are in linear evolution. You wouldn't expect a ford prefect (Ali - 60s and 70s) to out perform the 2011 Focus (klit).

I now accept that the model T (Dempsey) < ford prefect (Ali) <Ford focus (Klit)

I can only wish I'd realised this before. I seem to have wasted a lot of my life learning about old time boxers and fully appreciating and understanding the range of abilities they had - including the sometimes more advanced defensive skills they have with respect to today. Odd in an era in which you claim it was "unsporting to duck" that the boxers tend to be renowned either for defence or ability to avoid a clean shot.

Your analogy re Klits/ Ali is off because during the time of Ali's pomp boxing wasn't exactly in its infancy. If you're talking the difference between boxing in 1900 and 1920 you will see a marked difference in styles and punching method.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Right Az.

You say that Jeffries couldn't jab, couldn't duck, couldn't defend, couldn't punch in combinations. How do we know? You've got a spitting image of him fighting? Improvements in footage would make me look like an ATG. As I mentioned earlier - clearly all these old timers needed was Sky HD.

As also mentioned earlier - clearly the Klitschko's would beat Ali - they've had 40 more years to perfect the skillset of boxing. Clearly things are in linear evolution. You wouldn't expect a ford prefect (Ali - 60s and 70s) to out perform the 2011 Focus (klit).

I now accept that the model T (Dempsey) < ford prefect (Ali) <Ford focus (Klit)

I can only wish I'd realised this before. I seem to have wasted a lot of my life learning about old time boxers and fully appreciating and understanding the range of abilities they had - including the sometimes more advanced defensive skills they have with respect to today. Odd in an era in which you claim it was "unsporting to duck" that the boxers tend to be renowned either for defence or ability to avoid a clean shot.

Your analogy re Klits/ Ali is off because during the time of Ali's pomp boxing wasn't exactly in its infancy. If you're talking the difference between boxing in 1900 and 1920 you will see a marked difference in styles and punching method.

Most of us don't actually, that's because we're not wearing goggles to suit our view and we're smart enough to appreciate that the footage that does exist was being filmed using a technology that had barely been born.

Fact is you're ignorant on the subject, it's not that most here will stick up for the old timers it's that one minute you say "the sport evolves" and then when confronted with KBros beating Ali saying "yes but the sport hasn't evolved for 40 years"

Your statements are muddled, full of contradictions and to be honest i'm done with you on the subject.

coxy0001 wrote:It's not that most here will stick up for the old timers it's that one minute you say "the sport evolves" and then when confronted with KBros beating Ali saying "yes but the sport hasn't evolved for 40 years"

Exactly so.

As was pointed out earlier - boxing is as old as time. In terms of who invented the jab - as mentioned earlier also, Mendoza is widely credited and he died in 1836. There is no magic moment where a couple of guys have new styles and beat the hell out of old boxers and are lauded for it. There is no rapid evolution of styles where a new breed of boxers larrup the older boxers around the ring.

Footage is hopeless given its before the rise of film. I keep saying it - but as far as I can tell - the biggest thing you're suggesting old timers lacked was Sky+HD.

Furthermore - there is no logical reason for evolution to stop or slow.
So I'll take the 2011 Focus (Klitschko) over the ford Prefect (Ali) which must be quicker than the model T (pick an old timer)

I really like your car analogy Az. Glad you brought it up.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Right Az.

You say that Jeffries couldn't jab, couldn't duck, couldn't defend, couldn't punch in combinations. How do we know? You've got a spitting image of him fighting? Improvements in footage would make me look like an ATG. As I mentioned earlier - clearly all these old timers needed was Sky HD.

As also mentioned earlier - clearly the Klitschko's would beat Ali - they've had 40 more years to perfect the skillset of boxing. Clearly things are in linear evolution. You wouldn't expect a ford prefect (Ali - 60s and 70s) to out perform the 2011 Focus (klit).

I now accept that the model T (Dempsey) < ford prefect (Ali) <Ford focus (Klit)

I can only wish I'd realised this before. I seem to have wasted a lot of my life learning about old time boxers and fully appreciating and understanding the range of abilities they had - including the sometimes more advanced defensive skills they have with respect to today. Odd in an era in which you claim it was "unsporting to duck" that the boxers tend to be renowned either for defence or ability to avoid a clean shot.

Your analogy re Klits/ Ali is off because during the time of Ali's pomp boxing wasn't exactly in its infancy. If you're talking the difference between boxing in 1900 and 1920 you will see a marked difference in styles and punching method.

Most of us don't actually, that's because we're not wearing goggles to suit our view and we're smart enough to appreciate that the footage that does exist was being filmed using a technology that had barely been born.

Fact is you're ignorant on the subject, it's not that most here will stick up for the old timers it's that one minute you say "the sport evolves" and then when confronted with KBros beating Ali saying "yes but the sport hasn't evolved for 40 years"

Your statements are muddled, full of contradictions and to be honest i'm done with you on the subject.

Once again coxy playes to the galleries in a manner he cant do in actual life. Are you seriously suggesting that those guys who are the pioneers of gloved boxing as as good as those guys who came later? Even 20 years later. If you are then you are the one being ridiculous. It is basic common sense that in a new sport performances will improve as more is learnt about it and skills develop. But hey ho.

The ALi issue is a non issue because much has been learnt about boxing and its skills less than 10 years after the gloved era began. Plus Klits do not have as much skill and talent as Ali.

So when did the gloved era begin?

When did Fitzsimmons win the HW title?

When did this new evolution start? And more importantly - when did the evolution stop?

It seems convenient to me that the evolution seems to have stopped at the same time that decent fight film footage came along.

Funny that.