Are There Any "Perfect" Records

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon all,

I visit this site everyday when I'm in work and the constant of these topics is how a lot of the great fighters are missing particular names from their resume...I was wondering if there is a fighter with a near perfect or perfect resume? For example, everyone is in agreement that Sugar Ray Robinson is an ATG but there are still mentions of him not fighting EVERYBODY at the time that was deemed great around his weight class.

So my question, is there a near perfect or perfect resume and even if there is, would there still be fans picking holes in it?

(I'm sure there would be...)

Lets ignore what the experts are saying because they clearly don't know what they're talking about

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:So again, az, Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch are wrong ?

Not exactly. Those guys had certain skills which boxers now take as second nature (I'm talking elite boxers here). Boxers are more rounded athletes than their previous contemporaries.

Except that both Futch and Arcel claimed that fighters AREN'T being taught the old skills and don't fight often enough to learn them and practise them in the ring against various different styles. Joe Frazier said the same thing.

Why do you think they dont fight often enough?

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

Then explain why Burley isn't a genius.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:So again, az, Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch are wrong ?

Not exactly. Those guys had certain skills which boxers now take as second nature (I'm talking elite boxers here). Boxers are more rounded athletes than their previous contemporaries.

Except that both Futch and Arcel claimed that fighters AREN'T being taught the old skills and don't fight often enough to learn them and practise them in the ring against various different styles. Joe Frazier said the same thing.

Why do you think they dont fight often enough?

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4

Then explain why Burley isn't a genius.

He looks good. But all the analysis flattered him it seems. That's pretty standard for most world class fighters today.

You are seriously joking

Always thought INXS' Kick was pretty much perfect!

imperialghosty wrote:You are seriously joking

Nope.

Well seeing as only 2/3 boxers in the past 20 years have effectively used the philly shell you must be

imperialghosty wrote:Well seeing as only 2/3 boxers in the past 20 years have effectively used the philly shell you must be

Perhaps they prefer more traditional methods.

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Well seeing as only 2/3 boxers in the past 20 years have effectively used the philly shell you must be

Perhaps they prefer more traditional methods.

Or perhaps Burley was an exceptional talent, as hard as that may be for you to accept for some reason.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:Well seeing as only 2/3 boxers in the past 20 years have effectively used the philly shell you must be

Perhaps they prefer more traditional methods.

Or perhaps Burley was an exceptional talent, as hard as that may be for you to accept for some reason.

That could well be the case. In that era you could try anything and get away with it.

Sorry to stray off the current topic, but Ive always thought that ODLH has a really great cv. Its obviously not perfect because he lost a lot of his big fights, but as far as I know he didnt duck anyone.

Can anyone pick any holes in his cv (aside from the losses)? i.e. people who he should have fought or should have fought earlier?

joeyjojo618 wrote:Sorry to stray off the current topic, but Ive always thought that ODLH has a really great cv. Its obviously not perfect because he lost a lot of his big fights, but as far as I know he didnt duck anyone.

Can anyone pick any holes in his cv (aside from the losses)? i.e. people who he should have fought or should have fought earlier?

If you take away the losses from any boxer, they'd all have perfect records.

joeyjojo618 wrote:Sorry to stray off the current topic, but Ive always thought that ODLH has a really great cv. Its obviously not perfect because he lost a lot of his big fights, but as far as I know he didnt duck anyone.

Can anyone pick any holes in his cv (aside from the losses)? i.e. people who he should have fought or should have fought earlier?

Nope, not really, joey. In terms of continually taking on the best and never avoiding anyone, De la Hoya was like a beacon of shining light in a dark time for boxing where ducking certain fighters was considered the norm and, more than that, usually had people trying to justify it in some way. The only possible name that he missed off was Winky Wright, but that's scraping the barrel and no matter who the fighter is, there will generally be at least one fighter who they didn't face off against over a whole era.

Not true, and not my point.

Did he duck anyone is my question?

joeyjojo618 wrote:Not true, and not my point.

Did he duck anyone is my question?

He actively sought out the best and fought them. He fought the best in 5 weight divisions. I dont think there are many who can claim that ever in boxing.

Thing is Azania the Philly shell is the hardest of the stances to master which is why it isn't used much and never really has been during previous eras.

Mayweather, Hopkins and Toney all use it and they are all among the best of their generation so when only the best of the best can master shows up your comment of everyone being able to.

And another few,

Friday "the 13th" ahunanya
"Smokin' Joe Frazier
Jermain "Bad Intentions" Taylor
Ike"Bazooka" Quartey
Donovan "Razor" Ruddock
James "Bonecrusher" Smith
Riddick "Big Daddy" Bowe
''Beast from the East'' Nikolay Valuev
''The Black Assassin'' Stanley Ketchel
''Two Ton'' Tony Galento

Sorry wrong thread

imperialghosty wrote:Thing is Azania the Philly shell is the hardest of the stances to master which is why it isn't used much and never really has been during previous eras.

Mayweather, Hopkins and Toney all use it and they are all among the best of their generation so when only the best of the best can master shows up your comment of everyone being able to.

The think is, RJJ didn't use it and he is better than all those you mention. Ali didn't use it. Tyson, Holmes, Pernell, Chavez, JMM and many others more talented that Floyd, Hop and toney. Horses for courses.

Well Jones jr. will feature considerably lower than either Mayweather or Hopkins not to mention Tyson, Holmes or JMM.

Like I said it's the hardest stance to master so it's a sweeping comment to say that everyone could do what Burley did when so few actually can.

imperialghosty wrote:Well Jones jr. will feature considerably lower than either Mayweather or Hopkins not to mention Tyson, Holmes or JMM.

Like I said it's the hardest stance to master so it's a sweeping comment to say that everyone could do what Burley did when so few actually can.

I take it you dont like RJJ. How can you suggest that only the second man in history to ever capture belts from mid to HW will feature lower down that Hop who he owned, JMM who really has achieved nothing much other than "beat" Pac. RJJ actually beat live opponents and not slow lumbering face first bar room brawlers.

I don't value a win over Ruiz as worthy of being up there with Fitzsimmons beating Corbett, picking the weakest champion in the history of a division doesn't out rank the dominance of Hopkins at middleweight. You like to point to people being past their best, Hopkins was very green at the time of the Jones and hadn't developed into the fighter who dominated for 10 years. Jones beat Hopkins, Toney and Hill but not much else at the top level.

I meant Tyson, Holmes and JMM rate lower than Mayweather and Hopkins

imperialghosty wrote:I don't value a win over Ruiz as worthy of being up there with Fitzsimmons beating Corbett, picking the weakest champion in the history of a division doesn't out rank the dominance of Hopkins at middleweight. You like to point to people being past their best, Hopkins was very green at the time of the Jones and hadn't developed into the fighter who dominated for 10 years. Jones beat Hopkins, Toney and Hill but not much else at the top level.

I meant Tyson, Holmes and JMM rate lower than Mayweather and Hopkins

I tend to agree on the talent of Ruiz. But the record books tell another story.

RJJ dominated and near on shut out Hop at middleweight. Then he our grew the division. From 1992-2000 he was untouchable. Hop wasn't green. He was 28 and a world champ.

Holmes and Tyson would rate higher than Hop and Holmes definately over Floyd.

The record books show that Fitzsimmons was THE heavyweight champion whereas Jones merely held a strap, worlds apart.

He wasn't a world champion at the time of the Jones fight and regardless of age he was very very green, he was a late developer.

Tyson and Holmes haven't beaten enough names to be rated higher than eithter Hopkins or Mayweather, they were great but they never proved their greatness against other top fighters.

imperialghosty wrote:The record books show that Fitzsimmons was THE heavyweight champion whereas Jones merely held a strap, worlds apart.

He wasn't a world champion at the time of the Jones fight and regardless of age he was very very green, he was a late developer.

Tyson and Holmes haven't beaten enough names to be rated higher than eithter Hopkins or Mayweather, they were great but they never proved their greatness against other top fighters.

Oh I agree. Too many alphabets. So now are you saying that to be the world champ you have to unify all the belts?

I can use that argument about Rock yet you rate him highly. Who did he beat who wasn't old and near dead? Holmes reigned for 8 years beating all commers. Tyson for 4 destroying all commers. RJJ for 9 years beating among others Hopkins who was a belt holder. Now the excuse is him being green. Ah well.

Hopkins first title fight was against Jones for the VACANT IBF middleweight title and yes he was green, he didn't develop into a top class fight until his mid 30's.

Do you even know where I rate Marciano or even how much I rate him?
Age is merely a number just ask Hopkins, Moore, Duran amongst others

Damn it man! Again - Marciano was frequently outweighed in the ring. Many of his opponents continued at the top level after fighting him. And the Rock beat ALL challengers and was the undisputed champion.

RJJ wasn't even the undisputed champion at LHW - great though he was.

Anyone who tries to claim that Gene Tunney wasn't a a highly skilled, pure boxer of the highest order based purely on the fact that he boxed in the 1920's has absolutely no credibility in my eyes.

This debate has been done to death, but there is absolutely no logic in any claim that Tunney is automatically a less skilled boxer than someone like, say, Antonio Tarver, based entirely on an absolutely baseless presupposition that it is simply impossible for people from 80 years ago to have skills that are even comparable to todays crop of fighters. I mean everyone is entitled to their opinions and all that, but how ridiculous is that claim?!? I mean, what on earth could it be based on, if, presumably, it is not based on actual footage of Tunney? The footage of course revealing him to be a master boxer. That is to say, he could hit his opponents without being hit back.

I fail to see how that science can be so thoroughly different today??

Either way, Azania, I do like you generally and I reading your posts, you do seem, at time, to really know your boxing, but after implying that Tunney cannot be the equal in terms of skill to modern fighters, I just can't take you seriously anymore..

Gentleman01 wrote:Anyone who tries to claim that Gene Tunney wasn't a a highly skilled, pure boxer of the highest order based purely on the fact that he boxed in the 1920's has absolutely no credibility in my eyes.

This debate has been done to death, but there is absolutely no logic in any claim that Tunney is automatically a less skilled boxer than someone like, say, Antonio Tarver, based entirely on an absolutely baseless presupposition that it is simply impossible for people from 80 years ago to have skills that are even comparable to todays crop of fighters. I mean everyone is entitled to their opinions and all that, but how ridiculous is that claim?!? I mean, what on earth could it be based on, if, presumably, it is not based on actual footage of Tunney? The footage of course revealing him to be a master boxer. That is to say, he could hit his opponents without being hit back.

I fail to see how that science can be so thoroughly different today??

Either way, Azania, I do like you generally and I reading your posts, you do seem, at time, to really know your boxing, but after implying that Tunney cannot be the equal in terms of skill to modern fighters, I just can't take you seriously anymore..

I'll make a comparison. Its like saying Henry Ford's cars are just as good as cars made today. They are not because technology has improved.

Tunney was skilled for his time. He was an innovator. Not the face first brawlers who prided themselves on their ability to dish out more punishment than they received. But the sweet science has moved on with many boxers possessing the moves Tunney innovated. That is my point.

Tv's of 10 years ago aren't any where near as good as are today, does that mean boxers of today are better than those from then?

azania wrote:I'll make a comparison. Its like saying Henry Ford's cars are just as good as cars made today. They are not because technology has improved.

The science of building cars is relatively new, so OF COURSE improvements have been rapid. Boxing has been evolving for literally thousands of years.

Can you use a sword, by the way ?

The reason I ask is that four hundred years or so ago just about every man in Britain was skilled with a sword. Few are today, because it isn't being practised. Many old school boxing techniques are also no longer WIDELY practised, and at anything below elite level, boxing has declined.

Many, many trainers subscribed to this view, including true giants such as Futch and Arcel.

Regardless, I'd seriously question your judgement if you believe that Pascal is better than Tunney.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I'll make a comparison. Its like saying Henry Ford's cars are just as good as cars made today. They are not because technology has improved.

The science of building cars is relatively new, so OF COURSE improvements have been rapid. Boxing has been evolving for literally thousands of years.

Can you use a sword, by the way ?

The reason I ask is that four hundred years or so ago just about every man in Britain was skilled with a sword. Few are today, because it isn't being practised. Many old school boxing techniques are also no longer WIDELY practised, and at anything below elite level, boxing has declined.

Many, many trainers subscribed to this view, including true giants such as Futch and Arcel.

Regardless, I'd seriously question your judgement if you believe that Pascal is better than Tunney.

Guys learnt off Tunney. Studied his moves, mastered them and improved on them. They were good.....in their time.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I'll make a comparison. Its like saying Henry Ford's cars are just as good as cars made today. They are not because technology has improved.

The science of building cars is relatively new, so OF COURSE improvements have been rapid. Boxing has been evolving for literally thousands of years.

Can you use a sword, by the way ?

The reason I ask is that four hundred years or so ago just about every man in Britain was skilled with a sword. Few are today, because it isn't being practised. Many old school boxing techniques are also no longer WIDELY practised, and at anything below elite level, boxing has declined.

Many, many trainers subscribed to this view, including true giants such as Futch and Arcel.

Regardless, I'd seriously question your judgement if you believe that Pascal is better than Tunney.

Guys learnt off Tunney. Studied his moves, mastered them and improved on them. They were good.....in their time.

So Pascal is a better lightheavy than Tunney, then ?

Give up the argument, it's one you simply can't win based on mere generalisation

Tunney developed his style from the likes of Corbett and Johnson, in fact in the lower divisions you had guys like Gans who were already fighting in a more measured way. It was different at the time for the Heavyweight division but had been done numerous times before.

az, I don't mean to be rude, but by your own admission you don't know much about the old timers and haven't watched them in great detail.

Don't you think that men who saw them from ringside, such as Arcel, are better placed to offer an informed opinion ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I'll make a comparison. Its like saying Henry Ford's cars are just as good as cars made today. They are not because technology has improved.

The science of building cars is relatively new, so OF COURSE improvements have been rapid. Boxing has been evolving for literally thousands of years.

Can you use a sword, by the way ?

The reason I ask is that four hundred years or so ago just about every man in Britain was skilled with a sword. Few are today, because it isn't being practised. Many old school boxing techniques are also no longer WIDELY practised, and at anything below elite level, boxing has declined.

Many, many trainers subscribed to this view, including true giants such as Futch and Arcel.

Regardless, I'd seriously question your judgement if you believe that Pascal is better than Tunney.

Guys learnt off Tunney. Studied his moves, mastered them and improved on them. They were good.....in their time.

So Pascal is a better lightheavy than Tunney, then ?

If they fought, I believe Pascal would win. That doesn't make Pascal a better or more talented fighter. Transplant Tunney into the 21stC and give him all the benefits of modern techniques in training, diets etc he would probably be a middleweight.

HumanWindmill wrote:az, I don't mean to be rude, but by your own admission you don't know much about the old timers and haven't watched them in great detail.

Don't you think that men who saw them from ringside, such as Arcel, are better placed to offer an informed opinion ?

Nah, you're never rude. Just too damned curious.

Of course they are better placed to give a better and more informed analysis than I am. But the facts are inescapable. They may have all the tricks of the trade then, but boxers today are fitter, stronger, faster and that imo means that 9 out of 10 times they will win.

It doesn't mean that today's boxers are more talented. I have never argued that.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Give up the argument, it's one you simply can't win based on mere generalisation

Tunney developed his style from the likes of Corbett and Johnson, in fact in the lower divisions you had guys like Gans who were already fighting in a more measured way. It was different at the time for the Heavyweight division but had been done numerous times before.

Its not an argument. Its a debate where different opinions are exchanged and discussed. Its not a question of "winning". Why does one have to "win" an argument? Perhaps thats why you get your nix in a twist with me. You see every debate as something you must win.

The fact is you have a nonsensical point of view that is in contrast to what the actual experts know, being fitter, stronger and faster is a generalisation again.

Yesterday you said that every top level boxer can do what Burley did but simply put they can not, with the exception of possibly Hopkins and Mayweather the boxers of today lack the subtlety of many of the old timers. You have Robinson on a pedastal as being almost perfect but at his time he was very vulnerable to what you describe as face first brawlers, so he can't have been that good either.

The Mighty Atom wrote:The fact is you have a nonsensical point of view that is in contrast to what the actual experts know, being fitter, stronger and faster is a generalisation again.

Yesterday you said that every top level boxer can do what Burley did but simply put they can not, with the exception of possibly Hopkins and Mayweather the boxers of today lack the subtlety of many of the old timers. You have Robinson on a pedastal as being almost perfect but at his time he was very vulnerable to what you describe as face first brawlers, so he can't have been that good either.

I'm not going down this route again with you. More cheap jibes. Chill out a little.

Where are these cheap jibes, i've watched as much footage as is physically possible of the fighters I talk about so I know what they can and can't do.

Pascal cannot fight like Tunney, why? Because he's skill isn't even comparable, Hopkins would give him a very stern test though.

Why do I bring up Hopkins all the time you're probably thinking, well it's simple he's an old school fighter who knows every trick in the book and he got that through experience, getting in the ring and implementing what he'd trained to do, thus knowing it works.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Where are these cheap jibes, i've watched as much footage as is physically possible of the fighters I talk about so I know what they can and can't do.

Pascal cannot fight like Tunney, why? Because he's skill isn't even comparable, Hopkins would give him a very stern test though.

Why do I bring up Hopkins all the time you're probably thinking, well it's simple he's an old school fighter who knows every trick in the book and he got that through experience, getting in the ring and implementing what he'd trained to do, thus knowing it works.

I've not said Pascal can fight like Tunney.

I'm not thinking why you bring up Hop.

So being stronger, faster and fitter which is debatable considering Pascals poor conditioning isn't necessarily the be all and end all as he hasn't got the same level of skill.

What does Pascal do that would beat Tunney?

The Mighty Atom wrote:So being stronger, faster and fitter which is debatable considering Pascals poor conditioning isn't necessarily the be all and end all as he hasn't got the same level of skill.

What does Pascal do that would beat Tunney?

Boxing was slower then. Much slower. More hugs and posturing before they flailed away like threshing machines until the next hug.

Tunney would be too small anyway. He would probably boil down to middleweight if he were fighting today. Pascal's speed, strength and fitness would force more mistakes from Tunney before KOing him. But if the likes of Tunney were active today, Pascal et al would not stand a chance.

Pascals fitness? What fitness?

You haven't watched Tunney fight have you clearly?

azania wrote:He would probably boil down to middleweight if he were fighting today.

The mature Tunney weighed 192 without an ounce of fat. You reckon he should cut off a leg to fight at middle ?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Pascals fitness? What fitness?

You haven't watched Tunney fight have you clearly?

Boxing is more intense today.

I have watched Tunney recently. Over the course of the past debates, I have been spending some time looking at these guys. They were good, but it actually cemented my opinions.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Pascals fitness? What fitness?

You haven't watched Tunney fight have you clearly?

Boxing is more intense today.

I have watched Tunney recently. Over the course of the past debates, I have been spending some time looking at these guys. They were good, but it actually cemented my opinions.

Just loved the intensity of Klitschko v Arreola.

I was breathless !

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:He would probably boil down to middleweight if he were fighting today.

The mature Tunney weighed 192 without an ounce of fat. You reckon he should cut off a leg to fight at middle ?

That was his walking weight. I wonder what his BMI was (its modern stuff windy - way too advanced for you. Got your Woodbines yet?). :-)

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Pascals fitness? What fitness?

You haven't watched Tunney fight have you clearly?

Boxing is more intense today.

I have watched Tunney recently. Over the course of the past debates, I have been spending some time looking at these guys. They were good, but it actually cemented my opinions.

Just loved the intensity of Klitschko v Arreola.

I was breathless !

He would beat most of Louis' opponents. Two Ton Galento anyone?