Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks

First topic message reminder :

Saw this elsewhere and seemed like a good idea.

Basically you pick someone who you think would be able to upset a superior boxer. The idea is you can justify it based on styles/precedents and you should try and be as controversial as possible.

Good idea if we stick to roughly similar eras I think.

I'll start. I think Forrest gives Mayweather nightmares with his reach, jab and power.

Are you suggesting that the majority believe that Rocky would beat Tyson?

But you are a funny boy. I'll give you that. Persistant, attention seeking and sometimes an irritant with nothing worthwhile saying, but funny nevertheless and willing to learn. Read on lad.

superflyweight wrote:

I put Rocky on par with Chuvalo, Wepner, Cobb.

The shark is just a distant dot to you now, Az. Miles below and no longer a threat as you soar into orbit towards your home planet. God speed, Az.

And Bonavena also. Similar styles but ultimately short of elite status.

azania wrote:Are you suggesting that the majority believe that Rocky would beat Tyson?

And why would that be so shocking (rhetorical question, please don't take another 13 pages to explain)?

We are talking about Tyson, the guy who lost most of his biggest fights.

I put Rocky on par with Chuvalo, Wepner, Cobb.

You're the only one in the world who'd probably say that, which makes you a bit special. And not in a good way.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Nah, he just had a gripe towards the best HW who ever lived.

Appeared to also have a gripe with Frazier, his conqueror....

You dont say? He evidently had a gripe against the modern boxers of his day. Much like many here do. In 10 years time the next generation including yourself when you've grown up, will start rating the K bros very highly and perhaps the lower end of the top 20 HW ATG.

And much like Nat may have ranked Marciano higher based on the above statement.

Thanks Az for clearing that one up.

Yep. Allowing nostalgia to overcome common sense. Thankfully I'm not infected with that mental illness.

If it's not mental it's obviously a hormonal problem that allows you to come out with some of the things you say.

Here's the number for NHS Direct - 0845 4647

Young lad, you try to be funny but you often sound like you belong in a 6th firm common room. Dont you have re-sits to study for?

Must try harder.

Facts are Rocky is not good enough to be ranked as highly as you all have him. An undefeated record is meaningless if you are beating old men who were pass their sell by date.

Fact is that you are beginning to sound extremely arrogant, ignorant and ill mannered.

There are opinions on both sides of this argument, and there are very weighty facts to support both sides ( Rocky's overall ability and status, I mean, ) while your track record in assessing oldies has been proven to be insular, ill - informed, prejudicial and utterly bereft of fact or boxing logic.

A little humility and the capacity to respect the opinions of others, whether or not you agree, would serve you and the forum better.

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

azania wrote:Are you suggesting that the majority believe that Rocky would beat Tyson?

And why would that be so shocking (rhetorical question, please don't take another 13 pages to explain)?

We are talking about Tyson, the guy who lost most of his biggest fights.

The guy whose opposition were all as old and past it as Rocky's - (difference being they weren't as good as Rocky's opposition in the first place). The guy that didn't hear the final bell in his losses. Never outpointed was Tyson - always stopped. The same Tyson whose mythical prime lasted about 2 minutes. Who doesn't get anywhere near a decent top 10 list.

Meanwhile - Rocky, down for less than 10 seconds his whole career, phenomenally powerful, good chin, better will and heart, better punch output. If Rocky survives the first 4 - and there is every reason to believe that he could - he'd wear Tyson down and stop him.

Windy, of course I respect the opinions of others. And I show respect to those who show me respect. For instance you never see me being disrespectful towards yourself, Oxy, Balti etc. But when met with a barrage of abuse, personal insults and Ghosty telling me to F off, I am permitted to show a little disrespect towards them. Human nature and all that.

I have my views on Rocky. They have been noted from day 1 since the two of us engaged on this subject. Total respect was shown there. No quarters asked or given but a debate where views and opinions were exchanged in a civil manner.

Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

azania wrote:Are you suggesting that the majority believe that Rocky would beat Tyson?

And why would that be so shocking (rhetorical question, please don't take another 13 pages to explain)?

We are talking about Tyson, the guy who lost most of his biggest fights.

Yep. That Tyson. It would be shocking because Rocky had nothing (other than a punchers chance) to beat Tyson. All over in 1 round.

coxy0001 wrote:

I put Rocky on par with Chuvalo, Wepner, Cobb.

You're the only one in the world who'd probably say that, which makes you a bit special. And not in a good way.

Maybe so. But opinions are like rear ends. We all have one.

azania wrote:Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

So Hopkins/Jermain Taylor beat SRR/Hagler

WladiK and VitiK beat Ali and Frasier.

Pongolsiasek Wongjongkam beats Jimmy Wilde.

We're talking World Champs v World Champs here, just that 1 of these groups has access to your "fast twitch muscle" training and creosote.

azania wrote:Windy, of course I respect the opinions of others. And I show respect to those who show me respect. For instance you never see me being disrespectful towards yourself, Oxy, Balti etc. But when met with a barrage of abuse, personal insults and Ghosty telling me to F off, I am permitted to show a little disrespect towards them. Human nature and all that.

I have my views on Rocky. They have been noted from day 1 since the two of us engaged on this subject. Total respect was shown there. No quarters asked or given but a debate where views and opinions were exchanged in a civil manner.

Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

I would dispute that.

Many times you have debated fighters of whom you patently have had no knowledge. You have even admitted as much. Furthermore, if you have read about and seen Jack Johnson and can conclude that he had flawed fundamentals then you cannot expect too many to have confidence in your opinions, although we are more inclined to respect your right to those opinions than you are inclined to respect ours.

As to "heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker," you cannot possibly see this on film, and it is a theory of limited value, since neither you nor any man alive can tell us how significant these benefits are in a boxing ring. If fitness were everything, Bruno and Ken Norton would be nailed on all time greats, Holmes would be an also ran and today's fat boys would be working in a car wash. As I say, it is an argument utterly bereft of boxing logic.

azania wrote: Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

In boxing they also fight less frequently and against less threatening challengers to protect the over valued unbeaten records, and almost certain that the number of people who take part is drastically reduced from previous eras, equally as foolish to dismiss these as irrelevant or capable of having an impact on the quality of the sport.

azania wrote:Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, jump higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker.

Ask the best weight lifter in the world to do the Clean and Jerk whilst someone throws an uppercut at him/her. As Usain Bolt to run the 100 metres as someone stands in front of him throwing left hooks to the body. Ask the world record holding high-jumper to do the Fosbury Flop as someone sticks a jab in his/her face on the run up.

Boxing is not as easy to stick in the same basket as running in a straight line or jumping over a pole.

Get with the picture Tino!

We've got creosote now. It means that the left hook, the right uppercut - all these punches in fact have made some as yet undefined leap forward in technique and technology. They are clearly much better now than before.

Obvious old boy when you think about it no?

The fact that it goes against every bit of received wisdom we have about boxing is neither here nor there - this is azworld.

azania wrote:

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

azania wrote:Are you suggesting that the majority believe that Rocky would beat Tyson?

And why would that be so shocking (rhetorical question, please don't take another 13 pages to explain)?

We are talking about Tyson, the guy who lost most of his biggest fights.

Yep. That Tyson. It would be shocking because Rocky had nothing (other than a punchers chance) to beat Tyson. All over in 1 round.

You're on the wind-up, must be.

Either that or starved of attention.

oxring wrote: - this is azworld.

Makes Terry Pratchetts Discworld seem like a walk in the park...

trottb wrote:

oxring wrote: - this is azworld.

Makes Terry Pratchetts Discworld seem like a walk in the park...

Up is down, dogs mate with cats, black is white, Coxy and Onetwo move in together....

Welcome to AzWorld.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote: Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

In boxing they also fight less frequently and against less threatening challengers to protect the over valued unbeaten records, and almost certain that the number of people who take part is drastically reduced from previous eras, equally as foolish to dismiss these as irrelevant or capable of having an impact on the quality of the sport.

Thank you

Rocky's unbeaten record is over-valued.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

So Hopkins/Jermain Taylor beat SRR/Hagler

WladiK and VitiK beat Ali and Frasier.

Pongolsiasek Wongjongkam beats Jimmy Wilde.

We're talking World Champs v World Champs here, just that 1 of these groups has access to your "fast twitch muscle" training and creosote.

The gulf in human development and achievement is not so stark between the eras you refer to. For instance imo the fastest human (potentially) who ever lived isn't Bolt but Bob Hayes who ran 10.00 on a cinder track. That woul dtranslate to 9.70 on a "supreme" running track. Now if he had the professional training Bolt and his contemporaries had the world record would have been his and would have stood since the mid 1960s. Still he would beat most sprinters today with his training regime. He was that good in terms of cadence and technically. He had all the facets of sprinting down to a T. The same principal applies to Ali vs Wlad et al.

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

trottb wrote:

oxring wrote: - this is azworld.

Makes Terry Pratchetts Discworld seem like a walk in the park...

Up is down, dogs mate with cats, black is white, Coxy and Onetwo move in together....

Welcome to AzWorld.

Azworld = Narnia OD'ing on magic mushrooms, acid and heroine.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Windy, of course I respect the opinions of others. And I show respect to those who show me respect. For instance you never see me being disrespectful towards yourself, Oxy, Balti etc. But when met with a barrage of abuse, personal insults and Ghosty telling me to F off, I am permitted to show a little disrespect towards them. Human nature and all that.

I have my views on Rocky. They have been noted from day 1 since the two of us engaged on this subject. Total respect was shown there. No quarters asked or given but a debate where views and opinions were exchanged in a civil manner.

Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

I would dispute that.

Many times you have debated fighters of whom you patently have had no knowledge. You have even admitted as much. Furthermore, if you have read about and seen Jack Johnson and can conclude that he had flawed fundamentals then you cannot expect too many to have confidence in your opinions, although we are more inclined to respect your right to those opinions than you are inclined to respect ours.

As to "heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker," you cannot possibly see this on film, and it is a theory of limited value, since neither you nor any man alive can tell us how significant these benefits are in a boxing ring. If fitness were everything, Bruno and Ken Norton would be nailed on all time greats, Holmes would be an also ran and today's fat boys would be working in a car wash. As I say, it is an argument utterly bereft of boxing logic.

Of course you're welcome to dispute that. You would anyway.

Compared to many top HW that followed JJ's fundermentals were flawed. Ali had many flaws also, but that does not detract from what he was and how good he was. But invent a time machine and transport even Vit or Wlad back to JJ's time and they would clean up. For one he would have studied them, prepared a game plan and have the ability to carry it out. Ignore the size differential also. Just on ability alone.

As for Bruno, Norton etc being fit. Fitness isn't a body beautiful thing. Ali wasn't ripped either. Weaver was and so is Haye. Your point is moot.

As for boxing logic, I fail to see how the benefits of science, diet etc hasn't benefitted boxing. Its to what degree has it benefitted boxing. To say it hasn't had an effect is flying in the face of logic.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

So Hopkins/Jermain Taylor beat SRR/Hagler

WladiK and VitiK beat Ali and Frasier.

Pongolsiasek Wongjongkam beats Jimmy Wilde.

We're talking World Champs v World Champs here, just that 1 of these groups has access to your "fast twitch muscle" training and creosote.

The gulf in human development and achievement is not so stark between the eras you refer to. For instance imo the fastest human (potentially) who ever lived isn't Bolt but Bob Hayes who ran 10.00 on a cinder track. That woul dtranslate to 9.70 on a "supreme" running track. Now if he had the professional training Bolt and his contemporaries had the world record would have been his and would have stood since the mid 1960s. Still he would beat most sprinters today with his training regime. He was that good in terms of cadence and technically. He had all the facets of sprinting down to a T. The same principal applies to Ali vs Wlad et al.

And the fastest sprinter in heavyweight history is James J. Jeffries, who clocked under eleven seconds for a hundred yard dash. He also high jumped six feet.

Go figure, and then come back and tell me how many of today's fat boys and their twitch fibres could match that.

As to your point about fitness being a ' body beautiful ' thing. Norton was tremendously fit, and Bruno was clearly fitter than Witherspoon, who handed him his backside. Marciano, by the way, is widely figured to be the best conditioned heavyweight of all time.

Of course, you will simply dismiss that uncomfortable little fact.

oxring wrote:Get with the picture Tino!

We've got creosote now. It means that the left hook, the right uppercut - all these punches in fact have made some as yet undefined leap forward in technique and technology. They are clearly much better now than before.

Obvious old boy when you think about it no?

The fact that it goes against every bit of received wisdom we have about boxing is neither here nor there - this is azworld.

What is ridiculous is asusming that everything has moved on except boxing. Any ideas why boxers employ conditioning specialists, dieticians and others. I mean this isn't the days when Archie Moore used to chew a prime steak and spit the meat out after sucking the juices from it (read up on that).

For instance imo the fastest human (potentially) who ever lived isn't Bolt but Bob Hayes who ran 10.00 on a cinder track. That woul dtranslate to 9.70 on a "supreme" running track. Now if he had the professional training Bolt and his contemporaries had the world record would have been his and would have stood since the mid 1960s.

Recent finding suggest that pre-historic man could reach speeds up to 40 mph - the kind of speeds that would leave Usain Bolt and Bob Hayes looking like me attempting to catch a bus after 7 pints of Guiness whilst trying to swallow the last of my chicken pakora.

coxy0001 wrote:

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

trottb wrote:

oxring wrote: - this is azworld.

Makes Terry Pratchetts Discworld seem like a walk in the park...

Up is down, dogs mate with cats, black is white, Coxy and Onetwo move in together....

Welcome to AzWorld.

Azworld = Narnia OD'ing on magic mushrooms, acid and heroine.

Shoo. Back to the common room young lad.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

So Hopkins/Jermain Taylor beat SRR/Hagler

WladiK and VitiK beat Ali and Frasier.

Pongolsiasek Wongjongkam beats Jimmy Wilde.

We're talking World Champs v World Champs here, just that 1 of these groups has access to your "fast twitch muscle" training and creosote.

The gulf in human development and achievement is not so stark between the eras you refer to. For instance imo the fastest human (potentially) who ever lived isn't Bolt but Bob Hayes who ran 10.00 on a cinder track. That woul dtranslate to 9.70 on a "supreme" running track. Now if he had the professional training Bolt and his contemporaries had the world record would have been his and would have stood since the mid 1960s. Still he would beat most sprinters today with his training regime. He was that good in terms of cadence and technically. He had all the facets of sprinting down to a T. The same principal applies to Ali vs Wlad et al.

And the fastest sprinter in heavyweight history is James J. Jeffries, who clocked under eleven seconds for a hundred yard dash. He also high jumped six feet.

Go figure, and then come back and tell me how many of today's fat boys and their twitch fibres could match that.

As to your point about fitness being a ' body beautiful ' thing. Norton was tremendously fit, and Bruno was clearly fitter than Witherspoon, who handed him his backside. Marciano, by the way, is widely figured to be the best conditioned heavyweight of all time.

Of course, you will simply dismiss that uncomfortable little fact.

Holmes was a better boxer. Simple. Point argued. My point which you dont seem to understand for now is that fitness doesn't translate to body building physique. In fact it could be a huge hinderance. Lactics and all that.

So what if Jeffs was a fast runner. How does that disprove my point?

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Get with the picture Tino!

We've got creosote now. It means that the left hook, the right uppercut - all these punches in fact have made some as yet undefined leap forward in technique and technology. They are clearly much better now than before.

Obvious old boy when you think about it no?

The fact that it goes against every bit of received wisdom we have about boxing is neither here nor there - this is azworld.

What is ridiculous is asusming that everything has moved on except boxing. Any ideas why boxers employ conditioning specialists, dieticians and others. I mean this isn't the days when Archie Moore used to chew a prime steak and spit the meat out after sucking the juices from it (read up on that).

Even more ridiculous to suppose that things improve without nurture.

As jeff pointed out, there are fewer pros now. Also, according to Joe Frazier, Ray Arcel and countless others, fewer trainers teaching the subtle fine arts of boxing.

Can you use a sword? Ride a horse?

Couple or three hundred years ago every man in Britain could do those things. How many can, today?

superflyweight wrote:

For instance imo the fastest human (potentially) who ever lived isn't Bolt but Bob Hayes who ran 10.00 on a cinder track. That woul dtranslate to 9.70 on a "supreme" running track. Now if he had the professional training Bolt and his contemporaries had the world record would have been his and would have stood since the mid 1960s.

Recent finding suggest that pre-historic man could reach speeds up to 40 mph - the kind of speeds that would leave Usain Bolt and Bob Hayes looking like me attempting to catch a bus after 7 pints of Guiness whilst trying to swallow the last of my chicken pakora.

azania wrote:

What is ridiculous is asusming that everything has moved on except boxing. Any ideas why boxers employ conditioning specialists, dieticians and others. I mean this isn't the days when Archie Moore used to chew a prime steak and spit the meat out after sucking the juices from it (read up on that).

No this is the era when Hatton drinks 15 pints a night. Lets not do this can cite as many examples of modern guys who have appaling diets as I can examples of old timers who lived like monks (Freddie Welsh would be a good starting point) and visa versa.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

So Hopkins/Jermain Taylor beat SRR/Hagler

WladiK and VitiK beat Ali and Frasier.

Pongolsiasek Wongjongkam beats Jimmy Wilde.

We're talking World Champs v World Champs here, just that 1 of these groups has access to your "fast twitch muscle" training and creosote.

The gulf in human development and achievement is not so stark between the eras you refer to. For instance imo the fastest human (potentially) who ever lived isn't Bolt but Bob Hayes who ran 10.00 on a cinder track. That woul dtranslate to 9.70 on a "supreme" running track. Now if he had the professional training Bolt and his contemporaries had the world record would have been his and would have stood since the mid 1960s. Still he would beat most sprinters today with his training regime. He was that good in terms of cadence and technically. He had all the facets of sprinting down to a T. The same principal applies to Ali vs Wlad et al.

And the fastest sprinter in heavyweight history is James J. Jeffries, who clocked under eleven seconds for a hundred yard dash. He also high jumped six feet.

Go figure, and then come back and tell me how many of today's fat boys and their twitch fibres could match that.

As to your point about fitness being a ' body beautiful ' thing. Norton was tremendously fit, and Bruno was clearly fitter than Witherspoon, who handed him his backside. Marciano, by the way, is widely figured to be the best conditioned heavyweight of all time.

Of course, you will simply dismiss that uncomfortable little fact.

Holmes was a better boxer. Simple. Point argued. My point which you dont seem to understand for now is that fitness doesn't translate to body building physique. In fact it could be a huge hinderance. Lactics and all that.

So what if Jeffs was a fast runner. How does that disprove my point?

Considering that you were making a song and dance about sprinting I'd say the point is apt and valid. Notice you didn't mention Marciano's fitness.

Bottom line is that your ridiculous prejudice against old timers is not founded in boxing logic but in pharmaceutical issues. Where do skill, eyesight, reflexes, hand to eye coordination, timing, guts, strategy, generalship, judgement of distances, toughness, hunger, determination figure on your Creatine prescription?

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

trottb wrote:

oxring wrote: - this is azworld.

Makes Terry Pratchetts Discworld seem like a walk in the park...

Up is down, dogs mate with cats, black is white, Coxy and Onetwo move in together....

Welcome to AzWorld.

Azworld = Narnia OD'ing on magic mushrooms, acid and heroine.

Shoo. Back to the common room young lad.

Just because you're getting your arse handed to you by everyone here there's no need for what is an appallingly bad attempt at a put down.

Jack Nicklaus could drive (and did so) the 18th at St Andrews, and that was using a persimon headed driver and balls that were about as basic as they came. Not to mention he didn't do weights and was hardly all that fit as golfers weren't putting in the hours or the diet back then.

As above, Marciano is considered one of the best conditioned heavies of all time. So stop it. Can i ask what has changed in a training regime? Did they not have speed bags, heavy bags and sparring back then? What scientific training methods are there? And has stuff like protein, carbs etc been around for only a few years? Because last time i checked those guys were stuffing their faces full of everything a modern boxer eats nowadays.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

What is ridiculous is asusming that everything has moved on except boxing. Any ideas why boxers employ conditioning specialists, dieticians and others. I mean this isn't the days when Archie Moore used to chew a prime steak and spit the meat out after sucking the juices from it (read up on that).

No this is the era when Hatton drinks 15 pints a night. Lets not do this can cite as many examples of modern guys who have appaling diets as I can examples of old timers who lived like monks (Freddie Welsh would be a good starting point) and visa versa.

And look how quickly he went downhill. Forget his losses to Floyd and Pac. They were not surprising. But his struggles with the average Urango and Collazo suggests that if he had looked after himself better he would have fared better against them.

coxy0001 wrote:

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:

Sir. badgerhands wrote:

trottb wrote:

oxring wrote: - this is azworld.

Makes Terry Pratchetts Discworld seem like a walk in the park...

Up is down, dogs mate with cats, black is white, Coxy and Onetwo move in together....

Welcome to AzWorld.

Azworld = Narnia OD'ing on magic mushrooms, acid and heroine.

Shoo. Back to the common room young lad.

Just because you're getting your arse handed to you by everyone here there's no need for what is an appallingly bad attempt at a put down.

Jack Nicklaus could drive (and did so) the 18th at St Andrews, and that was using a persimon headed driver and balls that were about as basic as they came. Not to mention he didn't do weights and was hardly all that fit as golfers weren't putting in the hours or the diet back then.

As above, Marciano is considered one of the best conditioned heavies of all time. So stop it. Can i ask what has changed in a training regime? Did they not have speed bags, heavy bags and sparring back then? What scientific training methods are there? And has stuff like protein, carbs etc been around for only a few years? Because last time i checked those guys were stuffing their faces full of everything a modern boxer eats nowadays.

I haven't argued against Rocky being well conditioned. In fact quite the opposite. I said he was supremely fit and very determined, strong and heavy handed and very durable. All said by me because it is a fact that Rocky was all of those.

But that would only serve to prolong the beating Tyson would have dished out on him.

Not the point I was making though Az you mentioned Moore to suggest old time fighters knew nothing about nutrition, I was simply illustrating there are plenty of modern guys who show similar disregard for good housekeeping fitness wise. Good and bad on this score in both eras.

Sorry.....late comer....

Is Azania not a WUM? Is this honestly being disputed that Rocky Marciano would lose in ONE round to Mike Tyson?

Have you even WATCHED him fight? The man was awesome. Awesome. One of the very best.

He had an undefeated record, he was made of iron.

Haven't you got homework to do?

Azania, you're really not very smart or funny.

It is currently 12:29. If i were a school kid i would therefore be in lessons at this present time. Homework is done at home in after school hours. School kids who have home work to do would currently be at school.

And bearing in mind you're the most ignorant boxing "fan" (and i use that term extremely loosely when it's levelled at you) with the most amount of bias i've ever come across tends to suggest you're either immature for your age or haven't finished puberty.. Such is your view on most guys pre 1960 who you haven't watched or read about. If it aint in color you don't seem to give much kudos.

Is Azania not a WUM

He'll get himself banned again, don't worry. Pretty sure Windy's patience is being tested.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Also my views on old timers is based on what I see and read. I dont make excuses by blaming the footage and sound quality. I look at their skills and base my opinion on that.Plus include novel ideas like better training and other facilities, better diets and that knowledge has improved over time. That is dismissed as arrogant and incorrect. Humans now lift heavier weights, run faster, just higher, improve their fast twitch muscles so reaction is fractionally quicker. All this has had an effect on boxing. It is impossible to claim that it hasn't given that we are now taller than those who lived 3 generations ago. Thats a simple fact yet dismissed as irrelevant to boxing. Every other sport has moved on yet people claim boxing has stood still. It hasn't.

So Hopkins/Jermain Taylor beat SRR/Hagler

WladiK and VitiK beat Ali and Frasier.

Pongolsiasek Wongjongkam beats Jimmy Wilde.

We're talking World Champs v World Champs here, just that 1 of these groups has access to your "fast twitch muscle" training and creosote.

The gulf in human development and achievement is not so stark between the eras you refer to. For instance imo the fastest human (potentially) who ever lived isn't Bolt but Bob Hayes who ran 10.00 on a cinder track. That woul dtranslate to 9.70 on a "supreme" running track. Now if he had the professional training Bolt and his contemporaries had the world record would have been his and would have stood since the mid 1960s. Still he would beat most sprinters today with his training regime. He was that good in terms of cadence and technically. He had all the facets of sprinting down to a T. The same principal applies to Ali vs Wlad et al.

And the fastest sprinter in heavyweight history is James J. Jeffries, who clocked under eleven seconds for a hundred yard dash. He also high jumped six feet.

Go figure, and then come back and tell me how many of today's fat boys and their twitch fibres could match that.

As to your point about fitness being a ' body beautiful ' thing. Norton was tremendously fit, and Bruno was clearly fitter than Witherspoon, who handed him his backside. Marciano, by the way, is widely figured to be the best conditioned heavyweight of all time.

Of course, you will simply dismiss that uncomfortable little fact.

Holmes was a better boxer. Simple. Point argued. My point which you dont seem to understand for now is that fitness doesn't translate to body building physique. In fact it could be a huge hinderance. Lactics and all that.

So what if Jeffs was a fast runner. How does that disprove my point?

Considering that you were making a song and dance about sprinting I'd say the point is apt and valid. Notice you didn't mention Marciano's fitness.

Bottom line is that your ridiculous prejudice against old timers is not founded in boxing logic but in pharmaceutical issues. Where do skill, eyesight, reflexes, hand to eye coordination, timing, guts, strategy, generalship, judgement of distances, toughness, hunger, determination figure on your Creatine prescription?

Come on windy. Give me a break. I havementioned Rocky's supreme fitness and stamina. That is beyond doubt. I'm not like you guys who would deny the obvious to score silly points.

But my point about sports science etc (pls note the etc) is that it would make those oldies into better athletes/boxers. They would have conditioners, dieticians, specialised sparring and so much more which was not available then to improve on their obvious talent.

But unfortunately nothing could have been done for Rocky. No amount of creatine could make that guy a better boxer. Perhaps a bigge rpuncher. He was as co-ordinated as a new born baby.

day 9 in the big brother house and the natives are still restless

JabMachine wrote:Sorry.....late comer....

Is Azania not a WUM? Is this honestly being disputed that Rocky Marciano would lose in ONE round to Mike Tyson?

Have you even WATCHED him fight? The man was awesome. Awesome. One of the very best.

He had an undefeated record, he was made of iron.

And he could fly whilst rescuing grannies in his spare time. Awesome he was certainly not.

Azania, I suggest stepping away from the keyboard before you get banned for being a WUM.

Are you suggesting that Jack Johnson would have a tough time against Tyson Fury?

Are you saying that Joe Louis would be schooled by a prime Shannon Briggs?

You know nothing. Diet, training regimes etc are only going to take you so far. For gods sake they only fight for 10/12 rounds now. They used to fight for 15 for a title. 15 rounds! You're telling me that most modern heavyweights who tire and get sluggish after 4/5 rounds would be able to mix it with Rocky marciano who will have been on full speed for 9 rounds getting punched repeatedly and still standing? The referees didn't stop fights back then unless it was actually going to kill the other, so I suppose now Marciano may lose to Tyson based on MODERN REFEREEING because marciano would take say, 5,6 punches of Tysons - think nothing of it and the referee would probably call it based on Marciano not defending.

Are you telling this board that Rocky Marciano was not one of the greatest heavyweights of all time?

Is that your FINAL answer?

Because you should know, that you're annoying a lot of boxing there.

coxy0001 wrote:

Haven't you got homework to do?

Azania, you're really not very smart or funny.

It is currently 12:29. If i were a school kid i would therefore be in lessons at this present time. Homework is done at home in after school hours. School kids who have home work to do would currently be at school.

And bearing in mind you're the most ignorant boxing "fan" (and i use that term extremely loosely when it's levelled at you) with the most amount of bias i've ever come across tends to suggest you're either immature for your age or haven't finished puberty.. Such is your view on most guys pre 1960 who you haven't watched or read about. If it aint in color you don't seem to give much kudos.

So you're playing truant again. Tut tut.

First you claim that I haven't mentioned Rocky's stamina etc. When you see I have you call me ignorant. Is it ignorant to say that Rocky had bags of stamina, hard puncher, determined etc?

Manos is saying pretty much what I am saying (more eloquently obviously). You dont disagree with him.

Jab

Yes I am. read the thread. I've named 50 HW who would beat his hands down. Over-hyped club fighter.

milkyboy wrote:day 9 in the big brother house and the natives are still restless

They are so stubborn innit

As much as his views on Marciano / many other pre-sixties fighters rile me, Azania's views aren't ban-worthy. Lads, why not just boycott any article / thread in which Azania starts to bang his drum in a desperate plea for attention? He'll get bored if nobody rises to the bait. If he posts a comment akin to 'Marciano would be brutalised by Pele Reid', just leave him be and he'll soon toddle off.

Manos is saying pretty much what I am saying (more eloquently obviously). You dont disagree with him.

Because Manos accepts other peoples points and can debate properly. You on the other hand seem to struggle with the concept.

Windy, and others, say no heavyweight has gone undefeated in arguably weaker eras.. Other than Marciano. To label him as a "club fighter" is pretty laughable to be honest, club fighters don't go undefeated when you go up against the likes of Moore, Charles and co even if they were a few % under where they were at at their 'absolute' (please note that word, as you think there's only peak or totally shot) peak.

Again, you won't address the above point so don't know why i bothered writing it. I'm just expecting some immature little barb about "being at school, talk to girls" or something equally pathetic.

88Chris05 wrote:As much as his views on Marciano / many other pre-sixties fighters rile me, Azania's views aren't ban-worthy. Lads, why not just boycott any article / thread in which Azania starts to bang his drum in a desperate plea for attention? He'll get bored if nobody rises to the bait. If he posts a comment akin to 'Marciano would be brutalised by Pele Reid', just leave him be and he'll soon toddle off.

When opinions become ban worthy then it will be pointless posting.

Please feel free for anyone to ignore/boycott my posts. I for one am not wumming or whatever when it comes to Rocky. I do believe it is an over-rated fighter whose achievements have bene inflated to make him appear a man of steel as alluded above.

In any othe rera Rocky would be a contender. Today he would be a cruiser contender.

coxy0001 wrote:

Manos is saying pretty much what I am saying (more eloquently obviously). You dont disagree with him.

Because Manos accepts other peoples points and can debate properly. You on the other hand seem to struggle with the concept.

Windy, and others, say no heavyweight has gone undefeated in arguably weaker eras.. Other than Marciano. To label him as a "club fighter" is pretty laughable to be honest, club fighters don't go undefeated when you go up against the likes of Moore, Charles and co even if they were a few % under where they were at at their 'absolute' (please note that word, as you think there's only peak or totally shot) peak.

Again, you won't address the above point so don't know why i bothered writing it. I'm just expecting some immature little barb about "being at school, talk to girls" or something equally pathetic.

What about Rocky have I not accepted? And what arguments have I not accepted? I have praised Rocky but maintain that he was made for Tyson. Hence one round blowout.

Coxy I adress every point of every post directed at me. What weaker eras have there been than Rocky's era?

Captain Huck beats anyone and everyone. Fact. End of.