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:

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.

What is unacceptable is you making assumptions on what is written. Its very sinple. JJ had excellent defensive skills. I am not doubting that. Those skills were based on his time. My counter that many boxers in the pre-gloved and immediately after punched to the body more is common sense and I believe backed up by manos and others. You dont take exception to them saying that. But with my post you create some wierd fantasy and assumptions about my intent which quite frankly isn't there. You're making things up and attributing them to me. Ridiculous and totally unaceptable.

oxring wrote: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.

Fleisher also had Dempsey as the greatest ever. In his dreams. All subjective but too much nostalgia is placed on the oldies. I recall Tyson who regardless of his flaws is a far better historian of boxing than most, saying, when asked who would win between him and dempsey saying that its a different sportpractically between what dempsey did and what guys did after him.

JJ wouldn't see Ali's gloves land on him. Moreover Archie and Futch were not enamoured by Ali anyway.

So hang on - over 25 rounds no-one punched to the face, even though Scott pointed out that blood was reported as frequently flowing in fights of that era?

No one is saying that every old timer had amazing ability. Some did - and Johnson is one of them.

You have, over the past 2 days ignored or refused to accept evidence that went against your point - whilst refusing to give evidence in favour of your own.

The police gazette example - ignored.

Johnson's face and defence - ignored - until you give some half baked excuse saying that he was only fighting "crude sluggers". Which flies in the face of modern evidence.

Fitzsimmons beating o'brien - ignored.

Blackburn - written off on the grounds that he learnt most of it after he'd finished boxing. I'd love to know how a poor black man of limited means managed to see so much boxing in the days before television.

Choynski - never mentioned.

I post evidence az - and that is what your posts lack.

Not to get in the way of the debate, which is an excellent read by the way, but I am looking for a recommendation on a book on Harry Greb, and I assume you guys (azania notwithstanding) would have a recommendation for me?

sodhat wrote:Not to get in the way of the debate, which is an excellent read by the way, but I am looking for a recommendation on a book on Harry Greb, and I assume you guys (azania notwithstanding) would have a recommendation for me?

Sodhat the definitive book at the minute is Bill Paxton's the Fearless Harry Greb, expensive but excellent. Think it is reviewed on the book review thread by myself.

rowley wrote:
Think it is reviewed on the book review thread by myself.

But don't let that put you off buying it.

Only one really is The Fearless Harry Greb by Bill Paxton at the moment, but there is another one that's been in progress for about a decade and is nearish to completion. By Steve Compton.

Cheers guys, I will take a look at that one I think. After having read so much on here about him I thought my fascination had reached a point where I ought to do my own reading on him.

Unless you are desperate I say wait for the new book. I've seen snippets and know the detail he researches Greb in and I think it will be fantastic.

Scott any idea when it is due out?

Na, last I heard he was trying to decide whether to publish as one volume or two, I think it's about done. It's not being rushed though.

Scottrf wrote:Unless you are desperate I say wait for the new book. I've seen snippets and know the detail he researches Greb in and I think it will be fantastic.

I am desperate.

But back to the book, I can wait I think, I have one or two others that I need to get through first anyway so I can always reasses when I'm done. They make very handy recommendations to people for presents to me though, much better than a blank stare and a shrug.

oxring wrote:So hang on - over 25 rounds no-one punched to the face, even though Scott pointed out that blood was reported as frequently flowing in fights of that era?

No one is saying that every old timer had amazing ability. Some did - and Johnson is one of them.

You have, over the past 2 days ignored or refused to accept evidence that went against your point - whilst refusing to give evidence in favour of your own.

The police gazette example - ignored.

Johnson's face and defence - ignored - until you give some half baked excuse saying that he was only fighting "crude sluggers". Which flies in the face of modern evidence.

Fitzsimmons beating o'brien - ignored.

Blackburn - written off on the grounds that he learnt most of it after he'd finished boxing. I'd love to know how a poor black man of limited means managed to see so much boxing in the days before television.

Choynski - never mentioned.

I post evidence az - and that is what your posts lack.

Come on Oxy. You're intelligent. Can you point out where I wrote that they never punched the face? Mike McCallum was known as the body snatcher. He didn't steal dead bodied. He was a fearsome body puncher. But he did punch the face also as Mike Watson will testify. You seem to be taking my words and running with some ridiculous assumptions.

Also I didn't say Blackburn learned most of his trade when he finished. I can easily suggest that you claim Blackburn didn't learn anything after he stopped boxing and became a trainer. That would be equally ridiculous.

The difference here is that I am not making assumptions on what you have written. You on the other hand gho to extreme lengths with your assumptions based of what I wrote purely because what I write flies in the face of what I believe be be nostalgic fantasy.

Oldies were good. So was ther Model T. 30mph was considered too fast for people to drive once upon a time. Everything has their time. The pioneers deserve respect for what they brought to the sport. But lets not get ahead of ourselves. Boxing came on leaps and bounds to render their skills not obselete but a blue print to be worked on and improved. It was improved vastly within 20 years. Those are literally undeniable facts.

You just dont want to recognise certain facts about human ability.

I saw someone make a comment on a Greb fight being a robbery one way or the other quoting Paxton’s book. He then broke down every newspaper report by state to prove him wrong and that the comments in that book weren’t a true reflection. Has loads of unique photos etc, I have high expectations but it could be expensive. 700 pages long, with a lot of context of opponents and the times.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:So hang on - over 25 rounds no-one punched to the face, even though Scott pointed out that blood was reported as frequently flowing in fights of that era?

No one is saying that every old timer had amazing ability. Some did - and Johnson is one of them.

You have, over the past 2 days ignored or refused to accept evidence that went against your point - whilst refusing to give evidence in favour of your own.

The police gazette example - ignored.

Johnson's face and defence - ignored - until you give some half baked excuse saying that he was only fighting "crude sluggers". Which flies in the face of modern evidence.

Fitzsimmons beating o'brien - ignored.

Blackburn - written off on the grounds that he learnt most of it after he'd finished boxing. I'd love to know how a poor black man of limited means managed to see so much boxing in the days before television.

Choynski - never mentioned.

I post evidence az - and that is what your posts lack.

Come on Oxy. You're intelligent. Can you point out where I wrote that they never punched the face? Mike McCallum was known as the body snatcher. He didn't steal dead bodied. He was a fearsome body puncher. But he did punch the face also as Mike Watson will testify. You seem to be taking my words and running with some ridiculous assumptions.

Also I didn't say Blackburn learned most of his trade when he finished. I can easily suggest that you claim Blackburn didn't learn anything after he stopped boxing and became a trainer. That would be equally ridiculous.

The difference here is that I am not making assumptions on what you have written. You on the other hand gho to extreme lengths with your assumptions based of what I wrote purely because what I write flies in the face of what I believe be be nostalgic fantasy.

Oldies were good. So was ther Model T. 30mph was considered too fast for people to drive once upon a time. Everything has their time. The pioneers deserve respect for what they brought to the sport. But lets not get ahead of ourselves. Boxing came on leaps and bounds to render their skills not obselete but a blue print to be worked on and improved. It was improved vastly within 20 years. Those are literally undeniable facts.

You just dont want to recognise certain facts about human ability.

Were they facts, you would not hesitate to provide me with evidence to back up these facts. As far as can be told - we have provided evidence to the contrary and you are writing a slightly more erudite version of FACT! in response.

If we're talking the model T - as mentioned earlier - Johnny Ruiz beats Ali - as the 2003 focus was definitely better than the 70s prefect.

Were they facts, you would not hesitate to provide me with evidence to back up these facts. As far as can be told - we have provided evidence to the contrary and you are writing a slightly more erudite version of FACT! in response.

If we're talking the model T - as mentioned earlier - Johnny Ruiz beats Ali - as the 2003 focus was definitely better than the 70s prefect.

Jaysus. This is surreal. You wants facts to back up my facts? I've shown you videos but you dont want to believe your lying eyes. But you want to discount my videos and post videos which you tell me gives an opposing view. great. I'llw atch them when I get home.

As for Ruiz/Ali. First it was Klit/Ali. I responded to that and asnwered it. Now you come up with more rubbish. Do you really expect me to answer that? Come on son. Smell the coffee.

Its not rubbish. Stop being childish - you haven't responded.

If Louis>Johnson due to time and evolution - then Ali>Louis>Johnson due to time and evolution and all the champions of the 2000s >ali>louis>johnson for the same reason. Except you draw the line and say the evolution of styles stopped.

And that line conveniently begins with the advent of good quality film.

This is the film that you posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM

For a good 1 minute of the fight - you can hardly see hands of either party.

1:12 - Corbett lands a quality left hook, rocks fitz. 1:22 good series of left jabs followed by a left hook going backwards - a check hook. Nothing wrong with the way that Corbett put fitz down. 3:16 - beautiful series of body shots from Fitzsimmons. 4:01 - perfect body shot from fitzsimmons.

Now - for the most part, the film is so hopeless that you can hardly see the hands of the 2 fighters - which really spoils watching boxing. They jerk around because there are breaks and gaps in the series of film - but it is your mind that makes them off balance.

I wouldn't say that film is sufficient evidence to prove either boxer's class - the film offers glimpses of genius but no more. Equally - you couldn't say that proves either boxer is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnYcZBm55w

The cavalry charge here doesn't look that impressive but I wouldn't want to stand in the way of one.

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

People appear to be reeling as they walk around. But I don't think there's been vast improvements in the balance of pedestrians over the past 100 years.

Nor would I make the stupid assumption that 2.5 minutes of appalling quality of footage qualifies me to make judgements and assumptions of those boxers abilities.

You really need to do some proper reading and research on this stuff.

Please note - it was Charley Rose - not Nat Fleischer I was quoting - but doubtless, it was someone else biased and stupid.

Amazing really - any evidence is false if it disagrees with your ludicrous assertions.

Whereas your evidence is nonexistant.

PS - for the record - surreal is arguing Greb and Kilrain lose to Tony Sibson.

Charlie Chaplin used to walk really funny

rowley wrote:Charlie Chaplin used to walk really funny

I wonder - do you reckon that everyone spontaneously started to walk properly in 1935? Or were there only a couple who could walk properly by then amidst a see of people reeling about like drunks.

Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

rowley wrote:Charlie Chaplin used to walk really funny

I know, I'm currently reading a book on the sudden quantum leap in walking techniques of the fifties and sixties. Chaplin's skills would be rudimentary in this era.

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

We agree, Bamber. We agree entirely.

Funnily enough, this comparison wasn't initially mine. It may surprise you.

oxring wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

We agree, Bamber. We agree entirely.

Funnily enough, this comparison wasn't initially mine. It may surprise you.

No I know - I have been reading the thread, just couldn't be bothered to quote.

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

The average Heavyweight is a fair bit bigger.

oxring wrote:Its not rubbish. Stop being childish - you haven't responded.

If Louis>Johnson due to time and evolution - then Ali>Louis>Johnson due to time and evolution and all the champions of the 2000s >ali>louis>johnson for the same reason. Except you draw the line and say the evolution of styles stopped.

And that line conveniently begins with the advent of good quality film.

This is the film that you posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM

For a good 1 minute of the fight - you can hardly see hands of either party.

1:12 - Corbett lands a quality left hook, rocks fitz. 1:22 good series of left jabs followed by a left hook going backwards - a check hook. Nothing wrong with the way that Corbett put fitz down. 3:16 - beautiful series of body shots from Fitzsimmons. 4:01 - perfect body shot from fitzsimmons.

Now - for the most part, the film is so hopeless that you can hardly see the hands of the 2 fighters - which really spoils watching boxing. They jerk around because there are breaks and gaps in the series of film - but it is your mind that makes them off balance.

I wouldn't say that film is sufficient evidence to prove either boxer's class - the film offers glimpses of genius but no more. Equally - you couldn't say that proves either boxer is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnYcZBm55w

The cavalry charge here doesn't look that impressive but I wouldn't want to stand in the way of one.

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

People appear to be reeling as they walk around. But I don't think there's been vast improvements in the balance of pedestrians over the past 100 years.

Nor would I make the stupid assumption that 2.5 minutes of appalling quality of footage qualifies me to make judgements and assumptions of those boxers abilities.

You really need to do some proper reading and research on this stuff.

Please note - it was Charley Rose - not Nat Fleischer I was quoting - but doubtless, it was someone else biased and stupid.

Amazing really - any evidence is false if it disagrees with your ludicrous assertions.

Whereas your evidence is nonexistant.

PS - for the record - surreal is arguing Greb and Kilrain lose to Tony Sibson.

It is rubbish. Worse than rubbish in fact. Who is bringing time and evolution into the argument. I have maintained that they are better because they learned what the innovators knew and more. Blackburn for one. He learned. Futch learned over time. So did Arcel, Dundee and all great trainers learn from all boxers. Cripes, once again you are projecting and assuming things based on god knows what. Your first line renders the rest of your post meaningless because its pointless reading things you attribute to me which are grossly innacurate.

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

Genetic? My goodness. You guys seem unable to understand basic analogies yet have deep faith on 3rd party accounts.

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

The average Heavyweight is a fair bit bigger.

Sure but that's nutrition not evolution. There is no fundamental change in the average human genome.

Cars are fundamentally different. It's a pointless analogy. Much better to point the finger at athletics and cart out the usual nutrition and "super advanced training methods" baloney than make spurious analogies.

fearlessBamber wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

The average Heavyweight is a fair bit bigger.

Sure but that's nutrition not evolution. There is no fundamental change in the average human genome.

Cars are fundamentally different. It's a pointless analogy. Much better to point the finger at athletics and cart out the usual nutrition and "super advanced training methods" baloney than make spurious analogies.

So you explain that by nutrition and then ridicule 'super dooper nutrition' in the same post?

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

The average Heavyweight is a fair bit bigger.

Sure but that's nutrition not evolution. There is no fundamental change in the average human genome.

Cars are fundamentally different. It's a pointless analogy. Much better to point the finger at athletics and cart out the usual nutrition and "super advanced training methods" baloney than make spurious analogies.

So you explain that by nutrition and then ridicule 'super dooper nutrition' in the same post?

It's not 'me' that explains height increases by nutrition, it is the scientific consensus.

I would assume nutrition certainly does impact on a fighter's performance and we can only dream of what Joe Louis would have achieved with a 40'' waist courtesy of access to Burger King, KFC, Wendy's and McDonald's.

Perhaps your genius is lost on us Az.

And on the rest of the boxing world as far as we can tell. You should email some of the people from the IBRO - who've spent more years watching boxing footage than you've watched fights with your views. I'd love to know how they'd go down.

Here's my previous point - because you couldn't be bothered to respond earlier.
[quote="oxring"]If Louis>Johnson due to "learning what the innovators did and more" - then Ali>Louis>Johnson due to learning what the innovators did and what the next generation did - and more. Leading me to have to conclude Klit>Ali>Louis>JJ.

Except you draw a line, where they stop learning what the innovators did and more

And that line conveniently begins with the advent of good quality film.

This is the film that you posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM

For a good 1 minute of the fight - you can hardly see hands of either party.

1:12 - Corbett lands a quality left hook, rocks fitz. 1:22 good series of left jabs followed by a left hook going backwards - a check hook. Nothing wrong with the way that Corbett put fitz down. 3:16 - beautiful series of body shots from Fitzsimmons. 4:01 - perfect body shot from fitzsimmons.

Now - for the most part, the film is so hopeless that you can hardly see the hands of the 2 fighters - which really spoils watching boxing. They jerk around because there are breaks and gaps in the series of film - but it is your mind that makes them off balance.

I wouldn't say that film is sufficient evidence to prove either boxer's class - the film offers glimpses of genius but no more. Equally - you couldn't say that proves either boxer is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnYcZBm55w

The cavalry charge here doesn't look that impressive but I wouldn't want to stand in the way of one.

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

People appear to be reeling as they walk around. But I don't think there's been vast improvements in the balance of pedestrians over the past 100 years.

Nor would I make the stupid assumption that 2.5 minutes of appalling quality of footage qualifies me to make judgements and assumptions of those boxers abilities.

You really need to do some proper reading and research on this stuff.

Please note - it was Charley Rose - not Nat Fleischer I was quoting - but doubtless you will claim it was someone else biased and stupid.

Amazing really - any evidence is false if it disagrees with your ludicrous assertions.

Whereas your evidence is nonexistant.

PS - for the record - surreal is arguing Greb and Kilrain lose to Tony Sibson.

Re: Blackburn "learning from all boxers" (you still haven't responded re:Choynski and JJ) - how was he able to keep up to date with all this stylistic development?

He was a poor black boxing trainer in Chicago. There wasn't sky+. So how did he witness all these innovations and more.

As for Futch - I'll back his opinion on Johnson re:Ali. I appreciate you won't given he has achieved mythical status with you - but being realistic - Futch trained 2 different guys to beat Ali - I'd back his knowledge of Ali's style over yours.

fearlessBamber wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:Humans are not technology - they are genetically unchanged from Sullivan to Wlad - comparing humans to cars is absurd.

The average Heavyweight is a fair bit bigger.

Sure but that's nutrition not evolution. There is no fundamental change in the average human genome.

Cars are fundamentally different. It's a pointless analogy. Much better to point the finger at athletics and cart out the usual nutrition and "super advanced training methods" baloney than make spurious analogies.

So you explain that by nutrition and then ridicule 'super dooper nutrition' in the same post?

It's not 'me' that explains height increases by nutrition, it is the scientific consensus.

I would assume nutrition certainly does impact on a fighter's performance and we can only dream of what Joe Louis would have achieved with a 40'' waist courtesy of access to Burger King, KFC, Wendy's and McDonald's.

Awful generalisation based on footnotes in an unlimited weigh division.

True Scott but no less a generalisation than saying old timers drank brandy between rounds or were all alcoholics, both of which we see bandied about pretty regularly. Generalisations abound on both sides of the debate and do little to move it forward.

rowley wrote:True Scott but no less a generalisation than saying old timers drank brandy between rounds or were all alcoholics, both of which we see bandied about pretty regularly. Generalisations abound on both sides of the debate and do little to move it forward.

Touche. Has been a decent debate to say its been done 100 times before.

I've enjoyed it, nice to see Oxy getting wound up as well, doesn't happen too often but is kind of fun.

Fitz was still a skinny balding alcoholic blacksmith though.

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:It's not 'me' that explains height increases by nutrition, it is the scientific consensus.

I would assume nutrition certainly does impact on a fighter's performance and we can only dream of what Joe Louis would have achieved with a 40'' waist courtesy of access to Burger King, KFC, Wendy's and McDonald's.

Awful generalisation based on footnotes in an unlimited weigh division.

Seriously though what's your point ?

Childhood nutrition makes people on average taller and as a result makes them better boxers ?

OR

Fighters eat a special diet that allows them to train harder or more efficiently ?

OR

something else ?

I just don't see it. For me, heavyweight boxers from 2000 onwards are the worst I've seen on tape. Even the Klitschkos, who are decent, and in great shape look awkward and off balance at times. The rest are terrible: overweight, poor technique, low work rate and limited ambition.

I think it's because participation in boxing is at an all time low. (Is that even true ? I would love to see a reference backing that up if anyone has one.)

Scottrf wrote:Fitz was still a skinny balding alcoholic blacksmith though.

__________________________________
On a different note - Scott - you seem computer literate - need a favour - how does one download a google book?

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z5iMals-Cj0C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=bob+fitzsimmons+alcoholic&source=bl&ots=eSgC85FVp-&sig=N0L40MOAK62nksVE80DzkvL_TNk&hl=en&ei=PYDOTsvYNoe_8gONlqH6Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bob%20fitzsimmons%20alcoholic&f=false

I've got a kindle and calibre - so would prefer to read this on that - rather than through my web browser ad infinitum...

fearlessBamber wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:It's not 'me' that explains height increases by nutrition, it is the scientific consensus.

I would assume nutrition certainly does impact on a fighter's performance and we can only dream of what Joe Louis would have achieved with a 40'' waist courtesy of access to Burger King, KFC, Wendy's and McDonald's.

Awful generalisation based on footnotes in an unlimited weigh division.

Seriously though what's your point ?

Childhood nutrition makes people on average taller and as a result makes them better boxers ?

OR

Fighters eat a special diet that allows them to train harder or more efficiently ?

OR

something else ?

I just don't see it. For me, heavyweight boxers from 2000 onwards are the worst I've seen on tape. Even the Klitschkos, who are decent, and in great shape look awkward and off balance at times. The rest are terrible: overweight, poor technique, low work rate and limited ambition.

I think it's because participation in boxing is at an all time low. (Is that even true ? I would love to see a reference backing that up if anyone has one.)

Both of those points to a degree.

For participation I'm not sure I've seen reliable figures and am not sure it's true worldwide.

I'm not kindle literate oxy, do they read pdfs? I'll have a look from a pc later, on the phone now.

fearlessBamber wrote:

I think it's because participation in boxing is at an all time low. (Is that even true ? I would love to see a reference backing that up if anyone has one.)

Bamber, think Alexd made reference to the figures being in his Nipper book, if you can wait till Christmas day I will be able to confirm this for you. There are figures in the Arc of Boxing but they are from different sources and seem a little contradictory, my understanding was in Britain and USA the numbers were down but would guess in the far east it is up so who knows.

Yeah I think they are down in the USA with even the most conservative estimates. But the emphasis on US fighters in divisional lists has shifted too.

I've got a program which will convert the file from epub/pdf etc. Its the actual process of downloading the file which I am struggling with.

I'll look. Normally depends if it's a preview or the full book.

[quote="oxring"]Perhaps your genius is lost on us Az.

And on the rest of the boxing world as far as we can tell. You should email some of the people from the IBRO - who've spent more years watching boxing footage than you've watched fights with your views. I'd love to know how they'd go down.

Here's my previous point - because you couldn't be bothered to respond earlier.

oxring wrote:If Louis>Johnson due to "learning what the innovators did and more" - then Ali>Louis>Johnson due to learning what the innovators did and what the next generation did - and more. Leading me to have to conclude Klit>Ali>Louis>JJ.

Except you draw a line, where they stop learning what the innovators did and more

And that line conveniently begins with the advent of good quality film.

This is the film that you posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOFdL5VkcQM

For a good 1 minute of the fight - you can hardly see hands of either party.

1:12 - Corbett lands a quality left hook, rocks fitz. 1:22 good series of left jabs followed by a left hook going backwards - a check hook. Nothing wrong with the way that Corbett put fitz down. 3:16 - beautiful series of body shots from Fitzsimmons. 4:01 - perfect body shot from fitzsimmons.

Now - for the most part, the film is so hopeless that you can hardly see the hands of the 2 fighters - which really spoils watching boxing. They jerk around because there are breaks and gaps in the series of film - but it is your mind that makes them off balance.

I wouldn't say that film is sufficient evidence to prove either boxer's class - the film offers glimpses of genius but no more. Equally - you couldn't say that proves either boxer is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnYcZBm55w

The cavalry charge here doesn't look that impressive but I wouldn't want to stand in the way of one.

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

People appear to be reeling as they walk around. But I don't think there's been vast improvements in the balance of pedestrians over the past 100 years.

Nor would I make the stupid assumption that 2.5 minutes of appalling quality of footage qualifies me to make judgements and assumptions of those boxers abilities.

You really need to do some proper reading and research on this stuff.

Please note - it was Charley Rose - not Nat Fleischer I was quoting - but doubtless you will claim it was someone else biased and stupid.

Amazing really - any evidence is false if it disagrees with your ludicrous assertions.

Whereas your evidence is nonexistant.

PS - for the record - surreal is arguing Greb and Kilrain lose to Tony Sibson.

Re: Blackburn "learning from all boxers" (you still haven't responded re:Choynski and JJ) - how was he able to keep up to date with all this stylistic development?

He was a poor black boxing trainer in Chicago. There wasn't sky+. So how did he witness all these innovations and more.

As for Futch - I'll back his opinion on Johnson re:Ali. I appreciate you won't given he has achieved mythical status with you - but being realistic - Futch trained 2 different guys to beat Ali - I'd back his knowledge of Ali's style over yours.

If only it were that simple. But such an equation ignores several intangibles which you have not factored in. Namely talent. Klit may be quicker, stronger, faster, bounds over buildings for fun and climb over everest in one afternoon. But he lack the talent of Ali. Boxing had reached a stage by the 1930s (this is my opinion and have no emperical evidence to back it up with) that the edges were being tweaked. Seeing as it was new in the pre1900 and early 1900, it stands to reason that many styles which are simply basic were new. YOu mentioned mendoza employing a jab as a novelty. That is the first punched I learned when I tried boxing. Its the first punch any novice learned. Most boxers spend hours practicing the jab. Obviously some better that others because they are more talented and better at it. Even Tyson who many see as a slugger had a very good jab when he decided to utilise it.

Seeing as mendoza used the jab and no-one knew about it, dont you question why that is and maybe, possibly maybe other boxers who followed learned how to jab and were better at jabbing than Mendoza? Or do you maintain that Mendoza had a jab that is equal to Hearns going by 3rd party accounts.

Plus seeing as it was a new weapon in boxing, it stands to reason that hardly any boxers knew how to defend against it let alone counter it. It took a while before others learned how to jab and importantly how to evade/counter it.

As for the you tube links, no I dont imagine that the herky jerky movements is attributed to the boxers. Yes its the film itself. But from the evidence there, I simply dont rate them. Yes here are some nice shots as you mentioned. But if that's the best of the bunch (they were world champs after all - not belt holders) then I fail to see how any of them can beat a second rate HW let alone become a HW champ. Dempsey would tear them a new a-hole.

I would say that Tunney would beat JJ pretty easily as he had more fundermentals and more arsenal going into a match. Why? Is he more talented than JJ? Possible equal in terms of talent, but Tunney knew more, had more and that made his better. He probably learned from guys like Mendoza thru to JJ and others who followed and developed the style thta would beat Dempsey 9 out of 10 times.

Would JJ beat Ruiz if someone made HG Well's time machine and brought JJ into this era? Not a chance. Is Ruiz more talented than JJ. Absolutely no way. You can see that from the videos of JJ that are available.

Re Futch. Do you think he just sat in his gym using the same techniques he learned in the 1930s or an accumulation of knowledge gained from the 1930s thru to the 1990s? Where do you think he got that knowledge from? The ether or by studying several boxers, their strength and weaknesses and teaching them how to improve on them?

Boxing was not new in 1900!

Mendoza died in 1834 ffs - and as has pointed out, learned half his skill from Humphries. Yes there was a rule change - but the later boxers of the 1910s and 20s were still being defeated by boxers from the turn of the century.
You simply cannot say

azania wrote:But from the evidence there, I simply dont rate them

its 3 minutes of herky jerky footage where you can barely see the punches thrown. And you reckon that's better than the avowed testimony of witnesses. Weird.

Tunney - more fundamentals and more arsenal than JJ? Tunney knew more? Which offensive punch did JJ lack? Which defensive trick didn't he know?

Look at the point from the "how to box" manual - there are dozens of techniques from the turn of the century that simply aren't present in the modern manual. It isn't as though the modern manuals have more techniques, or newer moves than old manuals - that simply isn't what we see.

oxring wrote:Boxing was not new in 1900!

Mendoza died in 1834 ffs - and as has pointed out, learned half his skill from Humphries. Yes there was a rule change - but the later boxers of the 1910s and 20s were still being defeated by boxers from the turn of the century.
You simply cannot say

azania wrote:But from the evidence there, I simply dont rate them

its 3 minutes of herky jerky footage where you can barely see the punches thrown. And you reckon that's better than the avowed testimony of witnesses. Weird.

Tunney - more fundamentals and more arsenal than JJ? Tunney knew more? Which offensive punch did JJ lack? Which defensive trick didn't he know?

Look at the point from the "how to box" manual - there are dozens of techniques from the turn of the century that simply aren't present in the modern manual. It isn't as though the modern manuals have more techniques, or newer moves than old manuals - that simply isn't what we see.

Good grief. I'm not comparing Mendoza to anyone. My point was that the jab was new when he first used it. Others who followed used it, improved on it etc and those who followed learned how to evade and counter. Correct or not?

A boxing manual? Published by whom? Ladybird? Does it come with a Punto manual also.

Tunney was faster, had a better jab, threw more combinations, had better footwork. He was ahead of his times. He was disliked because he was not a brawler but a thinking boxer, plus he beat America's hero. He outpoints JJ with ease. JJ may have been a defensive wizard in his times but he never faced someone like Tunney. Tunney was an excellent defensive fighter and would be able to counter JJ's rushes whilst countering JJ, In many ways Tunney revolutionised boxing. He took on the style of another oldie in Corbett and improved on it. Does this make Corbett useless. Of course not. It simply puts him in the category of an innovator where others came along and inproved on his techniques. Do you think Fitz would get anywhere near Tunney to land his body punches without being countered to pieces?

i feel shane mosley is vastly overrated, was number 3 p4p shortly before the mayweather fight and end year p4p number 1 for 2 years in teh early 2000s

Struggling to download that book oxy as it's only a preview.

rowley wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

I think it's because participation in boxing is at an all time low. (Is that even true ? I would love to see a reference backing that up if anyone has one.)

Bamber, think Alexd made reference to the figures being in his Nipper book, if you can wait till Christmas day I will be able to confirm this for you. There are figures in the Arc of Boxing but they are from different sources and seem a little contradictory, my understanding was in Britain and USA the numbers were down but would guess in the far east it is up so who knows.

Cool - look forward to it.

I wonder if it's possible to use boxrec to have a stab at participation numbers - just download all the boxers and sort them by date of birth. I suspect it would be useless for old timers but we might get a go at the last 30 years ?

Actually, looking at their site looks like you can download each one by ID (the bold number in the URL). Amir Khan is 314558, so it might be doable if someone is feeling very nerdy.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=500&cat=boxer

fearlessBamber wrote:

rowley wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

I think it's because participation in boxing is at an all time low. (Is that even true ? I would love to see a reference backing that up if anyone has one.)

Bamber, think Alexd made reference to the figures being in his Nipper book, if you can wait till Christmas day I will be able to confirm this for you. There are figures in the Arc of Boxing but they are from different sources and seem a little contradictory, my understanding was in Britain and USA the numbers were down but would guess in the far east it is up so who knows.

Cool - look forward to it.

I wonder if it's possible to use boxrec to have a stab at participation numbers - just download all the boxers and sort them by date of birth. I suspect it would be useless for old timers but we might get a go at the last 30 years ?

Actually, looking at their site looks like you can download each one by ID (the bold number in the URL). Amir Khan is 314558, so it might be doable if someone is feeling very nerdy.

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=500&cat=boxer

You can do it for current participation. Using the ID wont be accurate though, not every one is populated, they sometimes have aliases etc.

I did it in March of this year, and the number of active boxers (fought within the year) was:

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

16638

Scottrf wrote:
You can do it for current participation. Using the ID wont be accurate though, not every one is populated, they sometimes have aliases etc.

I did it in March of this year, and the number of active boxers (fought within the year) was:

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

16638

Yeh - I meant use the id as a way of getting everyone's profile - then clean and sort once downloaded (or start rival site )

Now we need those numbers for 2000, 1990, 1980, ...