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...)

imperialghosty wrote:Guys, are we not bored of proving this fanciful theory wrong yet?

Awwwww.

Surely the 'modern nutrition and training methods' argument can be dealt with in just two words : Tyson Fury

Didn't SRR have a perfect amateur record, something like 80 fights and 80 wins?

Didn't he beat Pep as an amateur.

imperialghosty wrote:What struck me was that despite the fact i've had an extra 20 years of evolution on Kerry King (slayer guitarist) I couldn't physically get my fingers to move quick enough to play it. Surely with modern nutrition, training methods and evolution I should be able to play it far quicker than the ponderous guitarists of the 80's.

You'll get there, mate.

The old guitarists telegraphed their arpeggios and never used the Lydian mode.

It really is funny watching someone try and debate something they clearly know nothing about

rowley wrote:RJJ and Tunney being debated on the same thread, where's Coxy when you need him

Haven't even read to the bottom of it yet and if anyone has said RJJ beats Tunney i'll torch the place.

Seriously, RJJs record is based on what? Toney? Mike Mac?

Doesn't even deserve to be in the urinal of Tunneys career.

He's one of the main reasons for DLH having to drag boxing through one of its darkest hours. Such was the "level" of oppo he trotted through. How many times did he beat the "recognised man"?

Can't build a legacy or say he would've beaten anyone based on Toney, who had weight issues (and still has to be fair)

Rant over

Basically then, az, Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch, to name but two, who saw these guys in the flesh and lived and worked in the modern era, are wrong, and you are right ?

Well, glad that's settled.

After all that exercise and excitement I need a protein shake, a rub down with coconut oil, a Mars bar, couple swigs of creosote, ( or whatever it's called, ) and a re run of Mike Tyson's greatest knockouts.

See, you CAN teach an old dog new tricks.

coxy0001 wrote:

rowley wrote:RJJ and Tunney being debated on the same thread, where's Coxy when you need him

Haven't even read to the bottom of it yet and if anyone has said RJJ beats Tunney i'll torch the place.

Seriously, RJJs record is based on what? Toney? Mike Mac?

Doesn't even deserve to be in the urinal of Tunneys career.

He's one of the main reasons for DLH having to drag boxing through one of its darkest hours. Such was the "level" of oppo he trotted through. How many times did he beat the "recognised man"?

Can't build a legacy or say he would've beaten anyone based on Toney, who had weight issues (and still has to be fair)

Rant over

I'll get the fire extinguishers.

imperialghosty wrote:It really is funny watching someone try and debate something they clearly know nothing about

Very true.

HumanWindmill wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:What struck me was that despite the fact i've had an extra 20 years of evolution on Kerry King (slayer guitarist) I couldn't physically get my fingers to move quick enough to play it. Surely with modern nutrition, training methods and evolution I should be able to play it far quicker than the ponderous guitarists of the 80's.

You'll get there, mate.

The old guitarists telegraphed their arpeggios and never used the Lydian mode.

If boxing has taught me anything, things improve very very quickly

Nutrition and modern nutrition for the win

Calm Coxy calm, it was a black day in the history of 606 when that traversty of a vote was passed, we're in a new happy place now

Futch and Arcel are a pair of dewy eyed old nostalgics Windy, there either senile or on the WUM.

I really don't get this debate, struggle to see how in a sport where less people participate and those that do do so less frequently than at any time in the past anyone can argue that is an environment where standards will have improved. It goes against any kind of logic.

Azania if you can highlight one instance when i've proven not to know what i'm talking about, please let me know and i'll then conform to this theorem that new is always better.

Calm Coxy calm, it was a black day in the history of 606 when that traversty of a vote was passed, we're in a new happy place now

------------------------------

Quite possibly the most shambolic and disgraceful outcome of a vote the world has ever seen. Ever.

coxy0001 wrote:

rowley wrote:RJJ and Tunney being debated on the same thread, where's Coxy when you need him

Haven't even read to the bottom of it yet and if anyone has said RJJ beats Tunney i'll torch the place.

Seriously, RJJs record is based on what? Toney? Mike Mac?

Doesn't even deserve to be in the urinal of Tunneys career.

He's one of the main reasons for DLH having to drag boxing through one of its darkest hours. Such was the "level" of oppo he trotted through. How many times did he beat the "recognised man"?

Can't build a legacy or say he would've beaten anyone based on Toney, who had weight issues (and still has to be fair)

Rant over

Never heard of Tunney

coxy0001 wrote:Calm Coxy calm, it was a black day in the history of 606 when that traversty of a vote was passed, we're in a new happy place now

------------------------------

Quite possibly the most shambolic and disgraceful outcome of a vote the world has ever seen. Ever.

Bit harsh Coxy, Thatcher won three elections

HumanWindmill wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:What struck me was that despite the fact i've had an extra 20 years of evolution on Kerry King (slayer guitarist) I couldn't physically get my fingers to move quick enough to play it. Surely with modern nutrition, training methods and evolution I should be able to play it far quicker than the ponderous guitarists of the 80's.

You'll get there, mate.

The old guitarists telegraphed their arpeggios and never used the Lydian mode.

Ghosty, you need to bear in mind that for all the advances in nutrition and guitar string manufacture, the main factor is that Kerry King's guitar playing has increased in proportion to his receding hairline over the years.

I modelled my own hairline on it...sadly, my guitar playing has remained consistently non-existent

Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent. Guys of whenever just fought. Had gloved will fight attitude. Its like watching the undercard fighters slug it out and comparing it to the main event. Totally different skill sets. FFS didnt one of them fight a kangaroo? It was like watching kids in a playground flail at one another.

They were good for their times. Highly skiled for their times. Good at slipping punches and parrying punches. Nice. Good but no cigar.

RJJ hands Tunney a lesson in my book......and before anyone mentions it, the book has only a few pictures.

coxy0001 wrote:Quite possibly the most shambolic and disgraceful outcome of a vote the world has ever seen. Ever.

At least until some of you voted for me to moderate here.

You should have known that we old 'uns were only good for our time.

azania wrote:Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent.

Absolutely !

I just LOVE to watch Solis, Peter and Arreola. What athletes ! What technicians ! What talent !

Oops ! That should be :

What athletes ? What technicians ? What talent ?

Without using specific examples your just talking on the assumption that new is better

How does Jones for instance beat Tunney? Let me guess because he's quicker?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent.

Absolutely !

I just LOVE to watch Solis, Peter and Arreola. What athletes ! What technicians ! What talent !

Oops ! That should be :

What athletes ? What technicians ? What talent ?

KBros negated their tactics and Solis injured himself. Arreola has the same speed as the fastest HW in that era.

DAVE667 wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:What struck me was that despite the fact i've had an extra 20 years of evolution on Kerry King (slayer guitarist) I couldn't physically get my fingers to move quick enough to play it. Surely with modern nutrition, training methods and evolution I should be able to play it far quicker than the ponderous guitarists of the 80's.

You'll get there, mate.

The old guitarists telegraphed their arpeggios and never used the Lydian mode.

Ghosty, you need to bear in mind that for all the advances in nutrition and guitar string manufacture, the main factor is that Kerry King's guitar playing has increased in proportion to his receding hairline over the years.

I modelled my own hairline on it...sadly, my guitar playing has remained consistently non-existent

I've gone the other way I decided to grow my hair long in the hope it would make me rock and improve, having this argument time and again is going to make my hair recede

imperialghosty wrote:Azania if you can highlight one instance when i've proven not to know what i'm talking about, please let me know and i'll then conform to this theorem that new is always better.

What are you on about now? I haven't said or insinuated that you dont know what you are talking about. We have different opinions and like it or not, any debate about old timers and todays guys is all about opinions....based on evidence.

azania wrote:
RJJ hands Tunney a lesson in my book......and before anyone mentions it, the book has only a few pictures.

Thank god there's only 59 minutes left of work

Same RJJ who at LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT finally ran into half decent opposition who promptly knocked 7 bells out of him.

And sorry, i don't class Kelly, Woods, Hall and co as anything more than average contedners.

This is LHW, Tunney beat guys that are a level or three above what RJJ did at the WEIGHT

Breathe Coxy, breathe

Calderon was probably quicker than most flys 'back in the day', doesn't mean he wouldn't have got his head clean ripped off by Wilde, Villa etc

Arreola? Someone, if you're able to through mystic powers, please give me strength!

Coxy you have to remember though that despite what we may think, Calderon actually punches harder than both Wilde and Villa

rowley wrote:Jimmy Adam Pollack goes through this whole subject in detail in one of his books and he outlines so many reasons the footage of the real old timers does more harm than good it is unreal, as you rightly say rounds were often merged. Cameras were hand wound so speed was variable and inconsistent, it was also not uncommon for film to decay to such a degree fairly quickly that the fighters would meet up and re-enact the missing action, so in many cases you can't even be sure your watching the original fight.

Cheers Jeff It may have even been Pollack where I read it from mate.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent.

Absolutely !

I just LOVE to watch Solis, Peter and Arreola. What athletes ! What technicians ! What talent !

Oops ! That should be :

What athletes ? What technicians ? What talent ?

KBros negated their tactics and Solis injured himself. Arreola has the same speed as the fastest HW in that era.

So Solis, Peter and Arreola are good athletes. then ?

And Sam Peter can slip a jab ? Block with his elbows ? Feint ? Parry while simultaneously countering ?

Oh, and Futch and Arcel are STILL wrong ?

Give me that old time nutrition
Give me that old time nutrition
Give me that old time nutrition
It's good enough for me

It was good enough for Dempsey
It was good enough for Louis
It was good enough for Ali
And it's good enough for me

Give me that.............

azania wrote:Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent. Guys of whenever just fought. Had gloved will fight attitude. Its like watching the undercard fighters slug it out and comparing it to the main event. Totally different skill sets. FFS didnt one of them fight a kangaroo? It was like watching kids in a playground flail at one another.

They were good for their times. Highly skiled for their times. Good at slipping punches and parrying punches. Nice. Good but no cigar.

RJJ hands Tunney a lesson in my book......and before anyone mentions it, the book has only a few pictures.

This idea that old time fighters didn't develop specific tactics for the opponent simply does not stack up, they may not have had the benefit of videos of them but as they frequently fought guys more than once they had the benefit of first hand experience. My personal favourite Burley adopted his usual tactics of boxing and drawing leads in his first fight with Ezzard Charles but to no joy, in the second fight he was more aggressive than previously and took the fight to Charles with an aggression that shocked seasoned Burley watchers all again to no avail but proof that old timers were capable of coming up with specific tactics based on their opponents.

Also have to remember fighters fought not just in Vegas as now but across the country so their trainers had frequently seen their opponents in action plenty of times with or without video footage and so could draw up tactics accordingly

RJJ was a great boxer who looked phenomenal on highlight reels. To suggest anyone has an easy time with him, ever - is somewhat of a joke - anyone with his speed and reactions will always be tricky.

But Tunney was a great fighter, who beats RJJ. As does Greb. Especially Greb - who's style was all wrong for RJJ.

As for Tunney - to fight in that era and only lose the once goes to show how good he was. He would hit RJJ to the body, which would slow RJJ down - and at that point, you fear for Roy's safety. The power and snap in Tunney's punches is perhaps underrated in all time lists - newspapers of the time report that he certainly had a lot of dig.

Windy, I want whatever it is that Solis was getting before the Klitschko fight, would rather be in that kind of shape than the like of Demspey or Louis

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent.

Absolutely !

I just LOVE to watch Solis, Peter and Arreola. What athletes ! What technicians ! What talent !

Oops ! That should be :

What athletes ? What technicians ? What talent ?

KBros negated their tactics and Solis injured himself. Arreola has the same speed as the fastest HW in that era.

I'm going home.

imperialghosty wrote:Windy, I want whatever it is that Solis was getting before the Klitschko fight, would rather be in that kind of shape than the like of Demspey or Louis

Absolutely, Ghosty.

Why, Solis' athletic body lasted almost three minutes ! Staggering strength, fitness and durability, and a glowing testament to the benefits of modern training and nutrition.

Not sure if they are quite perfect, but Monzon and Hagler both have excellent records at MW. Monzon was virtually unbeatable, 80 fights without defeat, 14 world title defences, etc. His often mentioned rival, Hagler, 12 defences, unified the 3 titles. I'm aware one could perhaps criticise the quality of opponents, but still its highly credible. Divisionally, Wilfredo Gomez's record is pretty impressive, 20 defences + 20 wins + 20 knock outs. Bar his first ever contest, he almost knocked out every fighter at SBW he stood in the ring with.

Joe Louis? Only defeated 3 times in 69 fights and arguably not in his prime for any of them. The main period of his career was as great as physically possible. JCC could have retired with a record of 90-0, 3 weight world champ, well over 20 world title defences, wins against numerous world champions. Its still a fine career and he holds many boxing records.

If you look at the number of tough fights, no way Ali, Robinson and virtually every great fighter will remain undefeated. At one points Robinson retired with a record of 132-3, having defeated two of the fighters he had lost to and collapsing due to heat exhaustion in the final round in a LHW title fight, while leading heavily on all scorecards. He then returned to take possession of another 3 MW titles and competed for a further 12 years. He boxed until 45, made numerous comebacks - so his record is never going to be perfect. Robinson always had a strong will to win, but I imagine by his 40+ era he'd probably stopped noticing if he'd won or lost many of the fights. A perfect record could depend on the psychology of the fighter, lifestyle as well as financial situation.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent.

Absolutely !

I just LOVE to watch Solis, Peter and Arreola. What athletes ! What technicians ! What talent !

Oops ! That should be :

What athletes ? What technicians ? What talent ?

KBros negated their tactics and Solis injured himself. Arreola has the same speed as the fastest HW in that era.

I'm going home.

I might end it all when i get there.

Its not easy to compare fighters across generations. Tunney and Wilde were great fighters but RJJ and Calderon are no slouches themselves. Not saying they would in, but I reckon RJJ would be competitive against almost any fighter at MW and LHW. The main weapons of RJJ are speed and movement, I haven't seen many better for a long time. A bad fighter doesn't become a 4 weight world champion and set new records. In his prime RJJ only lost by DQ and successfully rematched. One can criticise his opponents, but he still has a fantastic record.

There are great champions throughout history, i'm sure its fairly even. At HW some of the older fighters may be outsized, but they could be rated p4p or LHW/ CW. There were not as many top latin american of african-american fighters pre-1940s. It was almost a western orientated sport, now days its much more global. In fact Asia has achieved tremendous success below FW. South Africa and the African contingent in general are producing some very good boxers. There are some differences, but at the end of the day a great fighter is a great fighter.

Four weight belt holder, he to my knowledge was never a fully fledged world champion in any division

Wow great responses, this is making for some great reading! thanks all involved, I think that as boxing fans we can always put the idealistic spin on someones record but unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world and do not know the exact reasons for one fighter not fighting another...

It's we who should thank you, thebawwse, for an excellent and thought - provoking article.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fighters of today are highly trained athletes who prepare for each fight in meticulous detail and devise tactics for each opponent.

Absolutely !

I just LOVE to watch Solis, Peter and Arreola. What athletes ! What technicians ! What talent !

Oops ! That should be :

What athletes ? What technicians ? What talent ?

KBros negated their tactics and Solis injured himself. Arreola has the same speed as the fastest HW in that era.

So Solis, Peter and Arreola are good athletes. then ?

And Sam Peter can slip a jab ? Block with his elbows ? Feint ? Parry while simultaneously countering ?

Oh, and Futch and Arcel are STILL wrong ?

Give me that old time nutrition
Give me that old time nutrition
Give me that old time nutrition
It's good enough for me

It was good enough for Dempsey
It was good enough for Louis
It was good enough for Ali
And it's good enough for me

Give me that.............

Peters is a throwback to the old timers who used their face to bludgeon their opponent's fists to prove their toughness.

Tunney changed boxing (or was it corbett) with some slick movement. But if some time machine were invented, they train in their era and RJJ trains as he normally does (1990s RJJ) there can only be one winner and that is RJJ. They were the innovators but the art was perfected in the 1960s.

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

Put it this way Windy, if Azania was right he wouldn't be wasting his time posting on here would he because he clearly knows things that no one else does.

Perfected in the 60s?

So Sugar Ray Robinson and Hammerin Hank lose to RJJ as well then? As they'd done all their best work before 1960.

imperialghosty wrote:Put it this way Windy, if Azania was right he wouldn't be wasting his time posting on here would he because he clearly knows things that no one else does.

Haha !

Just think, az, if you'd been around in the '70s Duran would probably have not bothered with Arcel, but rather he would have come straight to you.

By the way :

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/myth.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/hunnicut1.html

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/hunnicut2.html

Enjoy, Buddy.

oxring wrote:Perfected in the 60s?

So Sugar Ray Robinson and Hammerin Hank lose to RJJ as well then? As they'd done all their best work before 1960.

Sorry, my bad. Should read improved in the 1950s where the blueprint was perfected by one man. An absolutely unique man in which only SR Leonard has ever come close to imo.

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.

Of course they are, generalistion proves nothing

imperialghosty wrote:Of course they are, generalistion proves nothing

Absolutely.

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.

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?