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.

I duly noted Marquez as having a pretty sound defence and to be honest I watch a fair bit of current boxing but i'm very selective over who I watch mainly being the top ranking british fighters and the top ranking world level fighters. There's the occassional promising up and comer like Quillin or Russell Jnr. so not as if i'm completely blind to the subject.

Haye can duck and slip punches but he rarely gets himself into a position to counter straight back as a Charley Burley or Floyd Mayweather, so how you then judge such a defence is relative.

Should I judge the career of Roy Jones on his KO losses only or should I try and delve deeper and come up with a more considered opinion, there is such a paucity of footage of the old timers that it doesn't give any real indication to there overall ability.

Have made this point countless times but by the very nature of the fact the technology was in its infancy what we tend to have for the very old timers tends to be at the tail end of their career. Now if all we had to base Ali on was some footage of the Berbick and Holmes fight would we be happy to accept he was the greatest heavy of all time and possessed the speed of a middleweight as reports of his early fights attested to?

My guess is we would not, and I am certain we would be even less willing to accept it if said footage was made on black and white hand held cameras running at about four frames a second that had had suffered around 100 years of degeneration.

To be honest we probably aren't a million miles apart on the subject. When someone asks for evidence but doesn't accept thinks like footage (to prove certain areas, not everything) or the infancy of gloved boxing, time to adapt to rules etc there's not really anything you can provide.

In barely anything subjective from music to film to art etc, do people admit something has got better so witness testimony from people who have seen both era's isn't particularly reliable. It's a bit of a stalemate.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Should I judge the career of Roy Jones on his KO losses only or should I try and delve deeper and come up with a more considered opinion, there is such a paucity of footage of the old timers that it doesn't give any real indication to there overall ability.

there are world title footages of old timers in action. Enough of them to have a considered opinion on their techniques. I have read here some posters blaming the speed of the camera and even the cameraman. But when I see Johnson literally chasing Sharkey I am left to wonder what is going on when people claim that these guys would be anything other than simply boxers were they to fight now.

I'll repeat, that is not to criticise their ability but to criticize their technique. But that in itself is no criticism on them as they fought as they were taught.

It seems that the oldies are beyond criticism in some quarters. Reality goes out of the window.

rowley wrote:Have made this point countless times but by the very nature of the fact the technology was in its infancy what we tend to have for the very old timers tends to be at the tail end of their career. Now if all we had to base Ali on was some footage of the Berbick and Holmes fight would we be happy to accept he was the greatest heavy of all time and possessed the speed of a middleweight as reports of his early fights attested to?

My guess is we would not, and I am certain we would be even less willing to accept it if said footage was made on black and white hand held cameras running at about four frames a second that had had suffered around 100 years of degeneration.

In the Berbick fight you can see Ali had the style and technique of a classy boxer.

Moreover many here are talking about defensive and offensive styles. When did anyone see Ali go to the body or infight? He was utterly at infighting. I suppose that makes him a lousy boxer.

oxring wrote:...And the inability of a boxer to throw more than 2 punches and the ability of a different boxer to get inside...

Hit nail head. The word there is ability. He doesn't have it or didn't have it in that fight. maybe because Wlad didn't allow him to or maybe Haye just cant do it.

My memory may be failing me but when did Johnson fight Sharkey?

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Have made this point countless times but by the very nature of the fact the technology was in its infancy what we tend to have for the very old timers tends to be at the tail end of their career. Now if all we had to base Ali on was some footage of the Berbick and Holmes fight would we be happy to accept he was the greatest heavy of all time and possessed the speed of a middleweight as reports of his early fights attested to?

My guess is we would not, and I am certain we would be even less willing to accept it if said footage was made on black and white hand held cameras running at about four frames a second that had had suffered around 100 years of degeneration.

In the Berbick fight you can see Ali had the style and technique of a classy boxer.

Moreover many here are talking about defensive and offensive styles. When did anyone see Ali go to the body or infight? He was utterly at infighting. I suppose that makes him a lousy boxer.

So based on Berbick you would happily accept Ali was the fastest heavy of all time who it was virtually impossible to catch cleanly, as the reports of say the Cleveland Williams fight would suggest to us?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:My memory may be failing me but when did Johnson fight Sharkey?

My memory fails me. Wjoever that boxer who kindly decided to leave his teeth embedded in JJ's gloves.

azania wrote:So watching Lewis and his improved jab will suffice but watching old timers and their techniques will not suffice. We have to take the word of a 3rd party for more info on 3rd timers

It's probably safer to take the word of said 3rd party.

azania wrote:Oh i get it. The footage of old timers is poor so we should discount that.

Well - it is isn't it?

http://orphanfilmsymposium.blogspot.com/2008/05/pathex-95-mm-fight-picture.html

1/3 of the way down the page. Here is a prime Tunney sparring with a 60 year old Corbett in a suit. Almost every punch Corbett throws - he's on perfect balance. When he throws a left hook - his right glove is up and open to catch the attempted counter right from Tunney. The jab is a thing of beauty - and Tunney, not someone who did much in the way of praising old timers praised Corbett's ability, even at 60, very highly indeed.

azania wrote: Of course Blackburn was a great trainer. Do you think he stopped learning boxing after he hung up his gloves and all he taught Louis was what the oldied did? Get real hombre. He saw other fighters and how their techniques developed and applied them to a model pro in Louis. You seem to believe that a new sport has stood still since its inception. Plainly ridiculous.

You know - this whole thing would be much easier if you actually read the whole of my responses instead of picking upon one name.

Look at the evidence provided by the National Police Gazettes. All the punches are in there as well, as it happens.

So what is this revolutionary leap forward in technique provided by Louis? People watching at the time didn't see some revolutionary leap.

There have been stylistic changes throughout the history of the sport - for sure. But the idea of some epoch changing improvement in technique is a fallacy, pure and simple.

You mean Stanley Ketchel in a fight that was no more than a glorified exhibition?

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Have made this point countless times but by the very nature of the fact the technology was in its infancy what we tend to have for the very old timers tends to be at the tail end of their career. Now if all we had to base Ali on was some footage of the Berbick and Holmes fight would we be happy to accept he was the greatest heavy of all time and possessed the speed of a middleweight as reports of his early fights attested to?

My guess is we would not, and I am certain we would be even less willing to accept it if said footage was made on black and white hand held cameras running at about four frames a second that had had suffered around 100 years of degeneration.

In the Berbick fight you can see Ali had the style and technique of a classy boxer.

Moreover many here are talking about defensive and offensive styles. When did anyone see Ali go to the body or infight? He was utterly at infighting. I suppose that makes him a lousy boxer.

So based on Berbick you would happily accept Ali was the fastest middle of all time who it was virtually impossible to catch cleanly, as the reports of say the Cleveland Williams fight would suggest to us?

Yes I would. Likewise if someone told me that SRR was the greatest ever after the Dou Jones fight I would accept it as I saw a 40 year old man with some style. It wouldn't be such a leap of faith to see that he was something special and must have been in his pomp.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Have made this point countless times but by the very nature of the fact the technology was in its infancy what we tend to have for the very old timers tends to be at the tail end of their career. Now if all we had to base Ali on was some footage of the Berbick and Holmes fight would we be happy to accept he was the greatest heavy of all time and possessed the speed of a middleweight as reports of his early fights attested to?

My guess is we would not, and I am certain we would be even less willing to accept it if said footage was made on black and white hand held cameras running at about four frames a second that had had suffered around 100 years of degeneration.

In the Berbick fight you can see Ali had the style and technique of a classy boxer.

Moreover many here are talking about defensive and offensive styles. When did anyone see Ali go to the body or infight? He was utterly at infighting. I suppose that makes him a lousy boxer.

So based on Berbick you would happily accept Ali was the fastest middle of all time who it was virtually impossible to catch cleanly, as the reports of say the Cleveland Williams fight would suggest to us?

Yes I would. Likewise if someone told me that SRR was the greatest ever after the Dou Jones fight I would accept it as I saw a 40 year old man with some style. It wouldn't be such a leap of faith to see that he was something special and must have been in his pomp.

Then watch a 60 year old Corbett spar with Tunney. Clearly must have been something impressive in his heyday.

I stand corrected. Yes it was more or less an exhibition until one party renaged and JJ was decked. But their fundermentals in companrison to now looked flawed.

azania wrote:Yes I would. Likewise if someone told me that SRR was the greatest ever after the Dou Jones fight I would accept it as I saw a 40 year old man with some style. It wouldn't be such a leap of faith to see that he was something special and must have been in his pomp.

Roy Jones after the Lebedev or Green fights?

You're talking absolute drivel, what you've just said is so contradictory its laughable.

You wont accept the word of Gene Tunney based on grainy old footage but would accept the word of someone saying that Ali was the greatest if all you had to go on was the Berbick fight, you need to stop BSing.

azania wrote:I stand corrected. Yes it was more or less an exhibition until one party renaged and JJ was decked. But their fundermentals in companrison to now looked flawed.

Flawed compared to who's?

Ox

Who is denying that they weren't special in their heyday? But you guys seem to be in denial that they had nothing to learn. Newer guys learned from them and improved on their skillsets. Is that so difficult to accept.

As far as I am concerned the most skilled boxer ever is SRL. Hated the bloke. But he could do it all. Fight on the inside as well as box on the outside. Speed, power, athleticism. Ali didn't have a patch on his skillset. He had it all. He sets the benchmark for pure pboxing. No-one since or before (including SRR) is or has been as good as him. Time hasn't stood still though, but I reckon it will take a couple of generations before anyone gets close to him.

In fairness the Ketchel v Johnson fight was billed as alot more than a glorified exhibition. Its was a dodgy, rigged fight that ripped off the paying public.

Its exactly the sort of thing that if it happened now would spawn twenty or thirty threads declaring boxing is officially dead.

azania wrote:I stand corrected. Yes it was more or less an exhibition until one party renaged and JJ was decked. But their fundermentals in companrison to now looked flawed.

Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals?????

The world is upside down today. I don't think I have come across a more ridiculous assertion on these boards for a very, very long time.

Every report on him states that he was up on his toes, defensively astute. Hardly ever marked, in spite of 6oz gloves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUqhJzgSj4M

0:40. lateral movement. Excellent ring pace for a big man. 1:12 - parry with the open glove. Lateral footwork. 1:14 - jab, right cross. Perfect balance. 1:17 - power punching, hooks and straight punches. 1:20 - jab and slip the opponent rush. 1:26 - textbook uppercut. 1:30 - perfect right hook. 1:58 - perfect left to the body. 2:28 - left uppercut. 2:37 - right uppercut. 2:43 left hook, 2:44 right hook. 3:01 - avoidance + footwork.

I could wander through the entire fight film picking out the moments of genius - but that would spoil your fun.

Watch and learn. That was a genius at work.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You're talking absolute drivel, what you've just said is so contradictory its laughable.

You wont accept the word of Gene Tunney based on grainy old footage but would accept the word of someone saying that Ali was the greatest if all you had to go on was the Berbick fight, you need to stop BSing.

Are you being deliberately illiterate. And English is not my first language. I base it on what I see. I see enough in the Berbick to believe that Ali was something special. Its based on what I see. I've seen enough of Dempsey to realise that he was special even though the footage is not the best.

Dont get angry now ok? People have opinions that differ from yours and it is legal to hold differing opinions.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:I stand corrected. Yes it was more or less an exhibition until one party renaged and JJ was decked. But their fundermentals in companrison to now looked flawed.

Flawed compared to who's?

Compared to many boxers who came 20 yrs later. Joe Louis for one.

PS. 4:36 - that's an old timer using a speedbag.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You're talking absolute drivel, what you've just said is so contradictory its laughable.

You wont accept the word of Gene Tunney based on grainy old footage but would accept the word of someone saying that Ali was the greatest if all you had to go on was the Berbick fight, you need to stop BSing.

Are you being deliberately illiterate. And English is not my first language. I base it on what I see. I see enough in the Berbick to believe that Ali was something special. Its based on what I see. I've seen enough of Dempsey to realise that he was special even though the footage is not the best.

Dont get angry now ok? People have opinions that differ from yours and it is legal to hold differing opinions.

When you say such tripe like knowing Ali was special just from the Berbick fight, do you ever wonder why no one takes your opinion on the old timers seriously?

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You're talking absolute drivel, what you've just said is so contradictory its laughable.

You wont accept the word of Gene Tunney based on grainy old footage but would accept the word of someone saying that Ali was the greatest if all you had to go on was the Berbick fight, you need to stop BSing.

Are you being deliberately illiterate. And English is not my first language. I base it on what I see. I see enough in the Berbick to believe that Ali was something special. Its based on what I see. I've seen enough of Dempsey to realise that he was special even though the footage is not the best.

Dont get angry now ok? People have opinions that differ from yours and it is legal to hold differing opinions.

Ok Azania, substitute the Berbick fight for Holmes, still willing to accept on second hand testimonials the guy getting pasted from pillar to post was the fastest, most difficult to hit heavyweight ever to walk the earth?

Did Toney look special against Lebedev az? Apparently he was a pretty slick boxer 15 years ago. Were we to pretend that Lebedev was all we'd seen - how slick would we think he was?

Anyway - could you watch the 2 sections of film I put up. I'd especially love you to show me the examples of poor technique from Johnson. He leaves himself open at one point and gets put down. Gets up and delivers the perfect right cross to end the fight - so I'm not holding that against him...

I think there has to be some recognition that there was an evolutionary leap in the sport between 1900 and 1920 (the reasons for which are noted above) and it's something that has (perhaps unwittingly) been recognised on this board and on 606.

To my recollection, anytime that we have done one of the fantasy tournaments pre 1910 fighters have been excluded or have been included by exception (Joe Gans (because of the evolutionary nature of his style) in the lightweight tournament being one of them). Generally the reason given is that the styles of fighting and the figting conditions are too dissimilar to allow meaninful comparison.

That's not to say that the pre 1910 fighters weren't great in their own way, it just makes it really difficult to assess where they would stand in the modern game.

superflyweight wrote:I think there has to be some recognition that there was an evolutionary leap in the sport between 1900 and 1920 (the reasons for which are noted above) and it's something that has (perhaps unwittingly) been recognised on this board and on 606.

To my recollection, anytime that we have done one of the fantasy tournaments pre 1910 fighters have been excluded or have been included by exception (Joe Gans (because of the evolutionary nature of his style) in the lightweight tournament being one of them). Generally the reason given is that the styles of fighting and the figting conditions are too dissimilar to allow meaninful comparison.

That's not to say that the pre 1910 fighters weren't great in their own way, it just makes it really difficult to assess where they would stand in the modern game.

I think its more to do with it being very tricky to pinpoint the weights for guys like Fitzsimmons and Langford given so few existed back then.

Jeffries usually features in heavyweight hypotheticals and he was pretty much pre 1910.

Jeffries has been included Manos and usually the consensus on the outcome of any head to head is that he loses over 12 or 15 but wins over 25. That in itself is an acknowedgement of the evolution of the sport.

More an acknowledgement of Jeffries who was very much set up for the long haul.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You're talking absolute drivel, what you've just said is so contradictory its laughable.

You wont accept the word of Gene Tunney based on grainy old footage but would accept the word of someone saying that Ali was the greatest if all you had to go on was the Berbick fight, you need to stop BSing.

Are you being deliberately illiterate. And English is not my first language. I base it on what I see. I see enough in the Berbick to believe that Ali was something special. Its based on what I see. I've seen enough of Dempsey to realise that he was special even though the footage is not the best.

Dont get angry now ok? People have opinions that differ from yours and it is legal to hold differing opinions.

When you say such tripe like knowing Ali was special just from the Berbick fight, do you ever wonder why no one takes your opinion on the old timers seriously?

Well rowley understood that 'tripe'. Perhaps you should be open to view that challenge your rather narrow opinions. Interestingly, from the responses on this thread, more people are actually seeing things slightly more from my perspective that before. At least they are not stick in the mud type who have acknowledged that boxers and boxinig has moved on from the pre gloved era and its immediate aftermath.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You're talking absolute drivel, what you've just said is so contradictory its laughable.

You wont accept the word of Gene Tunney based on grainy old footage but would accept the word of someone saying that Ali was the greatest if all you had to go on was the Berbick fight, you need to stop BSing.

Are you being deliberately illiterate. And English is not my first language. I base it on what I see. I see enough in the Berbick to believe that Ali was something special. Its based on what I see. I've seen enough of Dempsey to realise that he was special even though the footage is not the best.

Dont get angry now ok? People have opinions that differ from yours and it is legal to hold differing opinions.

Ok Azania, substitute the Berbick fight for Holmes, still willing to accept on second hand testimonials the guy getting pasted from pillar to post was the fastest, most difficult to hit heavyweight ever to walk the earth?

No. That would be too much of a leap in the dark.

You seem to read what you want to read.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to read what you want to read.

Agreed. No-one has changed their stance as far as we can tell.

But do tell me more about Jack Johnson's flawed fundamentals.

azania wrote:I stand corrected. Yes it was more or less an exhibition until one party renaged and JJ was decked. But their fundermentals in companrison to now looked flawed.

Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals?????

The world is upside down today. I don't think I have come across a more ridiculous assertion on these boards for a very, very long time.

Every report on him states that he was up on his toes, defensively astute. Hardly ever marked, in spite of 6oz gloves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUqhJzgSj4M

0:40. lateral movement. Excellent ring pace for a big man. 1:12 - parry with the open glove. Lateral footwork. 1:14 - jab, right cross. Perfect balance. 1:17 - power punching, hooks and straight punches. 1:20 - jab and slip the opponent rush. 1:26 - textbook uppercut. 1:30 - perfect right hook. 1:58 - perfect left to the body. 2:28 - left uppercut. 2:37 - right uppercut. 2:43 left hook, 2:44 right hook. 3:01 - avoidance + footwork.

I could wander through the entire fight film picking out the moments of genius - but that would spoil your fun.

Watch and learn. That was a genius at work.

oxring wrote:Did Toney look special against Lebedev az? Apparently he was a pretty slick boxer 15 years ago. Were we to pretend that Lebedev was all we'd seen - how slick would we think he was?

Anyway - could you watch the 2 sections of film I put up. I'd especially love you to show me the examples of poor technique from Johnson. He leaves himself open at one point and gets put down. Gets up and delivers the perfect right cross to end the fight - so I'm not holding that against him...

So now all the footages on you tube of the old timers are when they were past it and old. How convenient. Any more excuses?

Cant watch the links you sent now. At work.

Fitzsimmons was in his mid 30's by the time of the Corbett fight and the fights which are said to fully demonstrate his skill aren't on film, twist that any which way you want but that's the reality of the situation.

superflyweight wrote:I think there has to be some recognition that there was an evolutionary leap in the sport between 1900 and 1920 (the reasons for which are noted above) and it's something that has (perhaps unwittingly) been recognised on this board and on 606.

To my recollection, anytime that we have done one of the fantasy tournaments pre 1910 fighters have been excluded or have been included by exception (Joe Gans (because of the evolutionary nature of his style) in the lightweight tournament being one of them). Generally the reason given is that the styles of fighting and the figting conditions are too dissimilar to allow meaninful comparison.

That's not to say that the pre 1910 fighters weren't great in their own way, it just makes it really difficult to assess where they would stand in the modern game.

Correct. Its very sad that you have to write that in that the assumption if you hadn't written is that those guys were carp.

No...do follow the argument old boy.

The Lebedev Toney point was in response to your outlandish suggestion that Ali looked clearly class against Berbick and that SRR looked clearly class in one of his later defeats. Merely - one snapshot in time doesn't show much. As JBW pointed out - there's footage of Pernell Whittaker being punched in the face - still didn't happen too often.

Secondly, whilst related to the first - watch a 60 year old Corbett in a suit spar with Tunney. Judging by your Ali point - you must therefore accept Corbett was class - by how good his sparring was aged 60 and in a suit.
___________________________

Second point - Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals.

Discuss.

Edify us, what did he do wrong?

You did write the other day that Greb and Ketchel would lose to Tony sibson Az, is hardly surprising people don't take your views on old timers too seriously, because that is the singularly most stupid thing that has been written on this or any boxing forum ever.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to read what you want to read.

Clever boy.

Oxy you should know by now that these outlandish statements are based on no real knowledge and are never backed up, can't be any coincidence that Manos' opinion is accepted while Az's isn't.

rowley wrote:You did write the other day that Greb and Ketchel would lose to Tony sibson Az, is hardly surprising people don't take your views on old timers too seriously, because that is the singularly most stupid thing that has been written on this or any boxing forum ever.

And Byrd and Akinwande to beat Rocky Marciano. Along with Jack Johnson's flawed fundamentals.

I would agree - Greb and Ketchel losing to Sibson is worse - but Johnson's flawed fundamentals has really riled me.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to read what you want to read.

Clever boy.

Sorry that's unacceptable. I have, for the last 2 days, trawled through every single line of your posts, trying to understand the logic behind your baffling and outlandish assertions. I have watched you twist your analogies every which way to suit your point but crucially avoid actually discussing logic or prevailing evidence.

For example - Johnson has good defence - ref the fact he was hardly cut in 6oz gloves. Your counter implies that was because people weren't trying to punch him in the face.

You can't talk to someone who won't listen and it is pointless to debate when the time and consideration that has been given to your opinions is not reciprocated.

Unacceptable.

oxring wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You seem to read what you want to read.

Agreed. No-one has changed their stance as far as we can tell.

But do tell me more about Jack Johnson's flawed fundamentals.

azania wrote:I stand corrected. Yes it was more or less an exhibition until one party renaged and JJ was decked. But their fundermentals in companrison to now looked flawed.

Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals?????
The world is upside down today. I don't think I have come across a more ridiculous assertion on these boards for a very, very long time.

Every report on him states that he was up on his toes, defensively astute. Hardly ever marked, in spite of 6oz gloves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUqhJzgSj4M

0:40. lateral movement. Excellent ring pace for a big man. 1:12 - parry with the open glove. Lateral footwork. 1:14 - jab, right cross. Perfect balance. 1:17 - power punching, hooks and straight punches. 1:20 - jab and slip the opponent rush. 1:26 - textbook uppercut. 1:30 - perfect right hook. 1:58 - perfect left to the body. 2:28 - left uppercut. 2:37 - right uppercut. 2:43 left hook, 2:44 right hook. 3:01 - avoidance + footwork.

I could wander through the entire fight film picking out the moments of genius - but that would spoil your fun.

Watch and learn. That was a genius at work.

Incredible. Completely missed the remainder of what was said in that same sentence. In comparison to active fighters who came after yes his fundermentals were somewhat flawed. I cant watch the vid now to give you a better analysis but I will when I get home.

Yes he was defensively astute, wonderful balance etc. But that is for his time. When facing crude sluggers who make Rocky look like the Ali in white skin, he is bound to look brilliant. He was brilliant. But everything has its place and time. His time and place was then. The sport moved on and adapted to what he brought to the table. Lennox threw text book jabs when he won the gold in Soeul. But he threw them more frequently when Manny showed him how to do so with greater regularity.

rowley wrote:You did write the other day that Greb and Ketchel would lose to Tony sibson Az, is hardly surprising people don't take your views on old timers too seriously, because that is the singularly most stupid thing that has been written on this or any boxing forum ever.

Yess I did and I stand by that. Too many take the oldies and inflate their skills which were basic because they were new. Brink Ketchel, Greb (if he existed) with their talent and train them with all the facilities and knowledge available now and they would tear aa strip through their division. That is the only reason why Sibbo would win. Not because he is more talented or even better than they are.

What is your prediction of Sibson beating Greb based upon, you surely aren't trying to suggest he's as capable as Gene Tunney who went through hell and back in order to beat him, Tunneys ability does stand the testament of time.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:What is your prediction of Sibson beating Greb based upon, you surely aren't trying to suggest he's as capable as Gene Tunney who went through hell and back in order to beat him, Tunneys ability does stand the testament of time.

I've just given it.

So bring some evidence? The footage is there - showing textbook brilliance - fantastic defence and offence - and the best you can say is "for his time".

Well those who watched him at his time picked him to beat everyone afterwards.

Charlie Rose (along with Archie Moore and Eddie Futch) all picked Johnson in a fight with Ali. That's not because he was good "for his time" - but because he was good period.

Rose' memorably said - "Johnson would have caught Clay's jabs like Willie Mays catches a baseball"

And he's probably correct. Ref 1:12, ref 1:20.

Who the hell do you think he was beating? Blokes who bought the wrong ticket for the fight and found themselves in the ring by mistake?

He was beating the best in the world - including the likes of Jeanette and Langford. Were they crude sluggers? McVea, Kaufman - were they just random men?

Utterly ridiculous - they were incredible technicians. Jeanette is supposed to have been one of the greatest technicians ever to set foot in a ring. Langford was an utter genius and probably the best fighter never to win a title (shamefully avoided by Johnson, of course, in his later career). And why would Johnson be avoiding anyone if he stood so head and shoulders ahead of them?

Ludicrous.

Does Sibson therefore give Gene Tunney trouble also, you've given a half arsed reason but at no point have you said what Sibson does to beat Greb.