So... Anthony Joshua Gets Gold

First topic message reminder :

Yay.

So the obvious questions, will the man go pro? Will he be the dreaded Audley repeat? Will he stay amateur and get a bit more experience? Will he be any good? And all that shebazz.

Think he could do well as a pro, seems to learn things fast and seems to have a strong desire for success.

So wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwha you think?

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote:

You are posting lists and then saying the lists are wrong. So which is it? If you think ali is the number 1 heavyweight as you claim then why are you showing lists that have him at number 2? You are saying this is what experts think but then saying no actually they are wrong.

I'm not saying they are wrong I am saying I think they are wrong, the distinction in this is quite key.

So why are you posting lists that you admit you think are wrong?

There's something almost ethereal about your wummery, Gordy...

Allow me to make sure that I fully understand the argument you are proposing here, Gordy.

You are saying that; if someone, who is considered to be a renowned expert on any given subject, happens to hold an opinion that is contrary to my own on that subject, then I must, by definition, reject that person's status as an 'expert'?

So, in the admittedly unlikely scenario, that Lennox Lewis holds a different opinion on boxing to you, you would have to reject the idea that Lennox is an expert on boxing.

Or, in simpler terms, the only people who you are able to consider an expert will, by your own definition, hold the exact same opinion as yourself?

So when you talk of people who are 'experts' on Heavyweight boxing, what you actually mean is 'people who agree precisely with my opinions' on Heavyweight boxing.

Needless to say that our definitions of what constitutes an expert differ.

On the flip-side however, applying this definition, that only those who hold the exact same opinions as me on any given subject can be considered experts, and the obviously impliied inference that, as such everyone who does hold my exact opinion automatically qualifies as an expert, has the handy effect of rendering me an expert on any and every subject I hold an opinion on!

Thanks Gordy!

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Let me put it another way Gordy, if I have a bowl of smarties and remove every smarty apart from the red ones that will mean I have a bowl of red smarties, it will not mean all smarties are red.

Hope that clarifies my position.

This doesnt quite make sense. If red smarties are the unbiased expert opinions you are looking for then yes a bowl of red smarties at the end should be what you are looking for and getting rid of the non expert or biased opinions. But this is not what you are doing you are just showing lists that are wrong or biased as I pointed out.

Where are your lists Gordy?

Who are your experts Gordy?

Why are you ignoring me Gordy?

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:

Gordy wrote:

You are posting lists and then saying the lists are wrong. So which is it? If you think ali is the number 1 heavyweight as you claim then why are you showing lists that have him at number 2? You are saying this is what experts think but then saying no actually they are wrong.

I'm not saying they are wrong I am saying I think they are wrong, the distinction in this is quite key.

So why are you posting lists that you admit you think are wrong?

Because I respect the opinions of those who have posted it and still entertain the possibility that it may be them that is right and me that is wrong.

The point is if you dismiss every list that disagrees with you as either biased or non expert eventually you will end up with nothing but lists that agree with you but you are not ending up with a representative sample of the views available you are just blithely dismissing opinions that do not coincide with yourself.

Or to put it another way there have been occasions on here when we have debated the best every heavyweights and we have posted our lists. I respect the knowledge and opinions of certain members on here almost without reservation but they frequently produce lists where certain fighters can be radically lower or higher than I have them, does that mean I can ignore them and claim they are biased or non expert, despite the fact that I know damn well from spending years on forums with them that neither of these are true.

Back on topic; I rather like Joshua.

It's very early to say how far he can go, especially given his relative inexperience. However, he's big, strong, and as Az alluded toearlier, appears to be able to take a whack!

I don't think that there would be much benefit to him staying amateur for much longer, as the pro game is so different. Having said that though, he is still young, very much so in HW terms, and so I don't think that, if he were to stay amateur for a further year or so, it would have a particularly detrimental effect on his development.

Though it may have a detrimental effect on his bank account.

Gentleman01 wrote:Allow me to make sure that I fully understand the argument you are proposing here, Gordy.

You are saying that; if someone, who is considered to be a renowned expert on any given subject, happens to hold an opinion that is contrary to my own on that subject, then I must, by definition, reject that person's status as an 'expert'?

So, in the admittedly unlikely scenario, that Lennox Lewis holds a different opinion on boxing to you, you would have to reject the idea that Lennox is an expert on boxing.

Or, in simpler terms, the only people who you are able to consider an expert will, by your own definition, hold the exact same opinion as yourself?

So when you talk of people who are 'experts' on Heavyweight boxing, what you actually mean is 'people who agree precisely with my opinions' on Heavyweight boxing.

Needless to say that our definitions of what constitutes an expert differ.

On the flip-side however, applying this definition, that only those who hold the exact same opinions as me on any given subject can be considered experts, and the obviously impliied inference that, as such everyone who does hold my exact opinion automatically qualifies as an expert, has the handy effect of rendering me an expert on any and every subject I hold an opinion on!

Thanks Gordy!

No that is not what I am saying at all. Lennox Lewis obviously knows more about boxing than me or anyone else on here so he is clearly an expert. If he says something that I dont agree with then I start to think maybe I was wrong. I will give you an example. I thought the Cuban guy beat Joshua in their fight and many on here claimed it was a robbery. But when I read what Lewis had to say then I changed my mind. He said it was a close fight but the Joshua deserved to win it so therefore I listen to his opinion because he knows more about boxing than me.

Rowley is posting lists claiming they are expert lists or unbiased but then saying he thinks they are wrong so it undermines his point. Ali is clearly the number 1 heavyweight so when you see a list that has him number 2 or 3 then you know its not by an expert or if it is it is by someone biased, as shown by Joe Frazier who hated Ali. Joe Frazier is an expert, but he is biased so on subjects involving Ali there is no point listening to him. The same way there is no point counting lists that do not have Ali as number 1 heavyweight. If Lewis said he was the number 1 heavyweight ahead of Ali I would not change my mind because then I would know Lewis was being biased towards himself but Lewis has Ali number 1 so I know this is true.

Nearly all experts agree that Sugar Ray Robinson is the number 1 fighter, that includes Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Nealry all experts agree that Ali is the number 1 heavyweight. So ones that dont have these guys at number 1 then you know they are not experts or else have a biased opinion. Expert opinions should be taken from the majority of unbiased experts that is why I say some lists you have to ignore. I pointed out what was wrong with the lists that were posted and then rowley said he agrees with me so this undermines his original point!

Gordy, on the basis of the above post, all is forgiven!

Gordy wrote:. Ali is clearly the number 1 heavyweight

In your opinion.

Gordy wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Allow me to make sure that I fully understand the argument you are proposing here, Gordy.

You are saying that; if someone, who is considered to be a renowned expert on any given subject, happens to hold an opinion that is contrary to my own on that subject, then I must, by definition, reject that person's status as an 'expert'?

So, in the admittedly unlikely scenario, that Lennox Lewis holds a different opinion on boxing to you, you would have to reject the idea that Lennox is an expert on boxing.

Or, in simpler terms, the only people who you are able to consider an expert will, by your own definition, hold the exact same opinion as yourself?

So when you talk of people who are 'experts' on Heavyweight boxing, what you actually mean is 'people who agree precisely with my opinions' on Heavyweight boxing.

Needless to say that our definitions of what constitutes an expert differ.

On the flip-side however, applying this definition, that only those who hold the exact same opinions as me on any given subject can be considered experts, and the obviously impliied inference that, as such everyone who does hold my exact opinion automatically qualifies as an expert, has the handy effect of rendering me an expert on any and every subject I hold an opinion on!

Thanks Gordy!

No that is not what I am saying at all. Lennox Lewis obviously knows more about boxing than me or anyone else on here so he is clearly an expert. If he says something that I dont agree with then I start to think maybe I was wrong. I will give you an example. I thought the Cuban guy beat Joshua in their fight and many on here claimed it was a robbery. But when I read what Lewis had to say then I changed my mind. He said it was a close fight but the Joshua deserved to win it so therefore I listen to his opinion because he knows more about boxing than me.

Rowley is posting lists claiming they are expert lists or unbiased but then saying he thinks they are wrong so it undermines his point. Ali is clearly the number 1 heavyweight so when you see a list that has him number 2 or 3 then you know its not by an expert or if it is it is by someone biased, as shown by Joe Frazier who hated Ali. Joe Frazier is an expert, but he is biased so on subjects involving Ali there is no point listening to him. The same way there is no point counting lists that do not have Ali as number 1 heavyweight. If Lewis said he was the number 1 heavyweight ahead of Ali I would not change my mind because then I would know Lewis was being biased towards himself but Lewis has Ali number 1 so I know this is true.

Nearly all experts agree that Sugar Ray Robinson is the number 1 fighter, that includes Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Nealry all experts agree that Ali is the number 1 heavyweight. So ones that dont have these guys at number 1 then you know they are not experts or else have a biased opinion. Expert opinions should be taken from the majority of unbiased experts that is why I say some lists you have to ignore. I pointed out what was wrong with the lists that were posted and then rowley said he agrees with me so this undermines his original point!

Who? Who? Who?

Who are all these experts Gordy? Put us out our misery......

PS: I'm going to spam every post you put on here until you start responding to such a simple bloody question.

Gordy wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:Allow me to make sure that I fully understand the argument you are proposing here, Gordy.

You are saying that; if someone, who is considered to be a renowned expert on any given subject, happens to hold an opinion that is contrary to my own on that subject, then I must, by definition, reject that person's status as an 'expert'?

So, in the admittedly unlikely scenario, that Lennox Lewis holds a different opinion on boxing to you, you would have to reject the idea that Lennox is an expert on boxing.

Or, in simpler terms, the only people who you are able to consider an expert will, by your own definition, hold the exact same opinion as yourself?

So when you talk of people who are 'experts' on Heavyweight boxing, what you actually mean is 'people who agree precisely with my opinions' on Heavyweight boxing.

Needless to say that our definitions of what constitutes an expert differ.

On the flip-side however, applying this definition, that only those who hold the exact same opinions as me on any given subject can be considered experts, and the obviously impliied inference that, as such everyone who does hold my exact opinion automatically qualifies as an expert, has the handy effect of rendering me an expert on any and every subject I hold an opinion on!

Thanks Gordy!

No that is not what I am saying at all. Lennox Lewis obviously knows more about boxing than me or anyone else on here so he is clearly an expert. If he says something that I dont agree with then I start to think maybe I was wrong. I will give you an example. I thought the Cuban guy beat Joshua in their fight and many on here claimed it was a robbery. But when I read what Lewis had to say then I changed my mind. He said it was a close fight but the Joshua deserved to win it so therefore I listen to his opinion because he knows more about boxing than me.

Rowley is posting lists claiming they are expert lists or unbiased but then saying he thinks they are wrong so it undermines his point. Ali is clearly the number 1 heavyweight so when you see a list that has him number 2 or 3 then you know its not by an expert or if it is it is by someone biased, as shown by Joe Frazier who hated Ali. Joe Frazier is an expert, but he is biased so on subjects involving Ali there is no point listening to him. The same way there is no point counting lists that do not have Ali as number 1 heavyweight. If Lewis said he was the number 1 heavyweight ahead of Ali I would not change my mind because then I would know Lewis was being biased towards himself but Lewis has Ali number 1 so I know this is true.

Nearly all experts agree that Sugar Ray Robinson is the number 1 fighter, that includes Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Nealry all experts agree that Ali is the number 1 heavyweight. So ones that dont have these guys at number 1 then you know they are not experts or else have a biased opinion. Expert opinions should be taken from the majority of unbiased experts that is why I say some lists you have to ignore. I pointed out what was wrong with the lists that were posted and then rowley said he agrees with me so this undermines his original point!

So as Lennox 'clearly knows more' he's an expert? But the IBRO contributers also know 'clearly more' than you, would you not agree? So they are experts to, no?

What if Lennox himself only rates his achievements as the 8th best in Heavyweight history? Do you agree?

But ignoring all that, what you are now saying is, you choose someone you think is an expert and unthinkingly agree with everything they say. So, if Lennox says Manny is better than Floyd you agree? If he says Duran was overrated you agree? If he says Tyson would beat Ali you agree?

You have not refuted my post all, you maintain that only people who hold the same opinion as yourself can be experts, if they do not then their opinions are dismissed as 'biased'. Should you, Gordy, happen to hold a different opinion, you simply change your position to fall in line with your chosen 'expert'. Perhaps have the courage to form your own opinions in life, and the humility to respect opposing opinions Gordy.

Is Lewis the only boxing expert alive? If not, and you concede that someone aside from Lewis is an expert, then what happens when that person disagrees with Lewis? Do they cease to be knowledgeable? Or are they only an expert if they agree with Lewis on absolutely everything he says? Is it not possible for expert opinions to be different in some cases?

Look lads, I think Gordy has made it pretty clear, try to keep up.

An expert is someone who has Ali as the top Heavyweight, with Lewis a shade behind. Said expert will also have Robinson as the top man pound for pound, with Ali second. Angelo Dundee had Ali as the top Heavy and Robinson as the top pound for pound - was he an expert? Hell no. He only had Lewis something like ninth in his Heavyweight etimations. Sorry Angelo - two out of three ain't bad, but an expert you most certainly weren't.

If you fellas want to waste more time drooling over the opinions of a bunch of clowns such as Ray Arcel, Jack Blackburn, Yank Durham etc, then feel free. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to follow the unquestionably correct route when Gordy has taken the time to lay it out so clearly for us all.

alma wrote:In the book of boxing lists, both Bert Sugar and Teddy Atlas has Joe Louis ahead of Ali.

I wouldn't call either of them non-experts would you?

I refer you to Chris' post above.

88Chris05 wrote:Look lads, I think Gordy has made it pretty clear, try to keep up.

An expert is someone who has Ali as the top Heavyweight, with Lewis a shade behind. Said expert will also have Robinson as the top man pound for pound, with Ali second. Angelo Dundee had Ali as the top Heavy and Robinson as the top pound for pound - was he an expert? Hell no. He only had Lewis something like ninth in his Heavyweight etimations. Sorry Angelo - two out of three ain't bad, but an expert you most certainly weren't.

If you fellas want to waste more time drooling over the opinions of a bunch of clowns such as Ray Arcel, Jack Blackburn, Yank Durham etc, then feel free. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to follow the unquestionably correct route when Gordy has taken the time to lay it out so clearly for us all.

That's all very well Chris, but what am I to think if Lennox Lewis himself rates Joe Louis above him? If the one expert whose opinion I trust has an opinion that only a non-expert could hold then how am I to reach an opinion myself? I might have to think for myself and/or take in to consideration the opinions of people besides Lennox Lewis!

Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

If this is the case then all that is needed is for us to have a 606 'box-off'. The winner then listens to our questions and topic suggestions before providing us all with the answers/opinions as he sees fit.

Saves wasting time debating things.

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

If this is the case then all that is needed is for us to have a 606 'box-off'. The winner then listens to our questions and topic suggestions before providing us all with the answers/opinions as he sees fit.

Saves wasting time debating things.

I may be a LW in the 606 sense but as a very much Super HW in real life I'm happy to back this idea Gentleman....

I would hesitate to call Lewis an expert. I get the impression his top ten list would start to peter out around the 6/7 mark. By his own admission his knowledge of boxing history is very limited and I have never been blown away by his technical analysis or advice as its usually basic and generalised.

Mike Tyson on the other hand is far more accomplished an "expert". Ironically he rates Louis as the number 1 heavyweight.

What I find so bizzare is the length of time it took Louis to actually settle as a top two man. Its probably not until the 60s and 70s that he becomes a fixture there. Prior to that it was not unusually for him to be behind Jeffries, Dempsey and Johnson. To a lesser extent with Ali but its certainly true of Holmes. It just shows that in many cases even the greatest fighters can sometimes take up to a decade or more to really find their place. Nowadays its seems impossible that Ali or Louis could not occupy the top two places using broad criteria to rank fighters.

I still have to say though, that going back to the point made by sittingringside, it does seem difficult when you look at the modern lists how Louis rates above Ali. I think one would have to both be very confident that Louis was actually the better fighter of the two and place alot of emphasis on longetivity. Because Ali beat the better heavyweights by almost anyones reckoning, expert or otherwise.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

If this is the case then all that is needed is for us to have a 606 'box-off'. The winner then listens to our questions and topic suggestions before providing us all with the answers/opinions as he sees fit.

Saves wasting time debating things.

I may be a LW in the 606 sense but as a very much Super HW in real life I'm happy to back this idea Gentleman....

That's the spirit TopHat! I respect any man who is prepared to get in the ring with ONETWO...

Gentleman01 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

If this is the case then all that is needed is for us to have a 606 'box-off'. The winner then listens to our questions and topic suggestions before providing us all with the answers/opinions as he sees fit.

Saves wasting time debating things.

I may be a LW in the 606 sense but as a very much Super HW in real life I'm happy to back this idea Gentleman....

That's the spirit TopHat! I respect any man who is prepared to get in the ring with ONETWO...

Errmmmm, now you mention it..... I'm big but not exactly nimble, will be an absolute sucker for that spinning backfist!

This thread has become hilarious, WUMmery, but with a fair bit of good debate for measure, must say though, Gordy has made me paranoid of who to trust now, I get a feeling everythings a conspiracy to under rate Lennox Lewis....

manos de piedra wrote:I would hesitate to call Lewis an expert. I get the impression his top ten list would start to peter out around the 6/7 mark. By his own admission his knowledge of boxing history is very limited and I have never been blown away by his technical analysis or advice as its usually basic and generalised.

Mike Tyson on the other hand is far more accomplished an "expert". Ironically he rates Louis as the number 1 heavyweight.

What I find so bizzare is the length of time it took Louis to actually settle as a top two man. Its probably not until the 60s and 70s that he becomes a fixture there. Prior to that it was not unusually for him to be behind Jeffries, Dempsey and Johnson. To a lesser extent with Ali but its certainly true of Holmes. It just shows that in many cases even the greatest fighters can sometimes take up to a decade or more to really find their place. Nowadays its seems impossible that Ali or Louis could not occupy the top two places using broad criteria to rank fighters.

I still have to say though, that going back to the point made by sittingringside, it does seem difficult when you look at the modern lists how Louis rates above Ali. I think one would have to both be very confident that Louis was actually the better fighter of the two and place alot of emphasis on longetivity. Because Ali beat the better heavyweights by almost anyones reckoning, expert or otherwise.

I think, as last weeks discussion with Azania showed, that when rating boxers or compiling lists, the scope and emphasis of criteria a person applies is likely to have a big impact on the conclusions they reach.

If you believe Louis to be the better boxer on a head-to-head basis, and you put more emphasis on longevity than on quality of opposition faced, then it's pretty easy to see how someone could rank Louis above Ali.

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

probably

Gentleman01 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I would hesitate to call Lewis an expert. I get the impression his top ten list would start to peter out around the 6/7 mark. By his own admission his knowledge of boxing history is very limited and I have never been blown away by his technical analysis or advice as its usually basic and generalised.

Mike Tyson on the other hand is far more accomplished an "expert". Ironically he rates Louis as the number 1 heavyweight.

What I find so bizzare is the length of time it took Louis to actually settle as a top two man. Its probably not until the 60s and 70s that he becomes a fixture there. Prior to that it was not unusually for him to be behind Jeffries, Dempsey and Johnson. To a lesser extent with Ali but its certainly true of Holmes. It just shows that in many cases even the greatest fighters can sometimes take up to a decade or more to really find their place. Nowadays its seems impossible that Ali or Louis could not occupy the top two places using broad criteria to rank fighters.

I still have to say though, that going back to the point made by sittingringside, it does seem difficult when you look at the modern lists how Louis rates above Ali. I think one would have to both be very confident that Louis was actually the better fighter of the two and place alot of emphasis on longetivity. Because Ali beat the better heavyweights by almost anyones reckoning, expert or otherwise.

I think, as last weeks discussion with Azania showed, that when rating boxers or compiling lists, the scope and emphasis of criteria a person applies is likely to have a big impact on the conclusions they reach.

If you believe Louis to be the better boxer on a head-to-head basis, and you put more emphasis on longevity than on quality of opposition faced, then it's pretty easy to see how someone could rank Louis above Ali.

Well yes and no. I can see why Louis might rate above in those instances but I think one would have to be very strongly convinced that Louis was the better fighter overall. A hunch, an inkling, a feeling I do not think would be sufficient to do it for me anyway. I think a very degree of confidence would be neccessary and I just think Ali's acheivements and victories in his own career should be more than enough to make even the most knowledgeable boxing expert alive doubt himself on who was actually better. In hypothetical head to heads between greats in seperate era's, Im seldom hugely confident of the winner unless there is an obvious size mismatch or stylistic advantage. I think its very difficult to be certain of your guess. With Louis and Ali I just think that Ali's superior list of of victories and more challenging era of competition offers a stronger argument for who was the better overall. Even if I felt Louis might have been better or would beat Ali Id struggle very much to hold a high degree of confidence. For what its worth I would lean towards Ali in any event, putting emphasis on the Conn/Louis fight as a basis for a peak Ali winning a head to head.

there arent many boxers i usually listen to and think what a expert they are, probably something to do with the number of blows taken to the head. usually id be suprised if they remembered there own name let alone there top ten heavyweights of all time

Then again Manos you can be very negative towards Ali's opposition if you so chose, this isn't my view of him at all but it's one that could very well be argued.

Moore- Old man
Liston- Old man who quit
Frazier- Lost first time out and only beat him once bounced around by Foreman
Foreman- Form deteriorated after, flat track bully
Norton- Robbed 3 times
Quarry, Shavers etc.- not that good to start with

Lost to Spinks

I don't agree with any of the above at all but it's a view that could be held if we took everything to the extreme if we had a dislike for Ali, on the flipside you could try and say that Louis' opposition was in fact better than is often said. The most important thing is judging boxers using the very same criteria and any possible negativity has to be used across the board. We can't say that Dempseys title reign was poor without saying the same of Johnson likewise we have to beat Jeffries with the same stick we beat Marciano with.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

probably

I can run a lot faster than my boss. Think he knows a damn side more about it than me having been involved in athletics for 25 years.

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

Do you think you know more about boxing than Lewis!? He was one of the best heavyweights of all time you do not get that far unless you know a huge amount about boxing. Unless this site is full of champion boxers and trainers then it is safe to say Lewis would know more about boxing than anyone on here.

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

Do you think you know more about boxing than Lewis!? He was one of the best heavyweights of all time you do not get that far unless you know a huge amount about boxing. Unless this site is full of champion boxers and trainers then it is safe to say Lewis would know more about boxing than anyone on here.

how to box yes, the history of boxing i have my doubts

compelling and rich wrote:

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

Do you think you know more about boxing than Lewis!? He was one of the best heavyweights of all time you do not get that far unless you know a huge amount about boxing. Unless this site is full of champion boxers and trainers then it is safe to say Lewis would know more about boxing than anyone on here.

how to box yes, the history of boxing i have my doubts

Lewis thought Joshua beat Savon. He is obviously not that knowledgable about boxing.

the thing is in any sport just because someone partakes in it or watches it alot doesnt mean they know more about it. i reckon there a strong possibility i know a hell of alot more about football than someone like gazza.

similar i have four mates who are season ticket at old trafford, sometimes going does give you a unique perspective that watching on tv doesnt. all very knowledgable but each and every week we will all watch the same game and all have differing opinions, of course mine are usually the right ones buts these guys go week in week and and a couple especially i cant believe what rubbish they come up with sometimes. but its the great thing about sport, its subjective and why it causes endless debates. we wouldnt be hear if lewis knew all about boxing because simply we wouldnt need to watch and anaylsis ourselves we can just listen to lewis version. but of course boxing isnt like that and theres are hundreds of members on this board because of it

Gordy wrote:

rowley wrote:Also to really confuse matters when did someone being better at something than you mean they knew more about the subject than you. Am fairly sure Lewis is better at boxing than me, but does that really mean he knows more about it?

Do you think you know more about boxing than Lewis!? He was one of the best heavyweights of all time you do not get that far unless you know a huge amount about boxing. Unless this site is full of champion boxers and trainers then it is safe to say Lewis would know more about boxing than anyone on here.

ahaahahahah

Boxers no more about boxing, and people on here no more about history. I could learn every F1 race, champion, win and loss for the last 100years. I could formulate opinions on the facts I've learned and go on YOU BET. Matthew Kelly could quiz me till the cows come home and I may answer every question correct.......I STILL WOULD NOT NO MORE ABOUT CAR RACING THAN SCHUMACHER.

People on here may no more about HISTORY than boxers. They may be able to articulate themselves in a way that is untainable to a boxer, or even analyse events more logically.................................but the fact remains boxers no more about BOXING, and have an appreciation which no historian will ever come close to realising. I think it is arrogant and short sighted to think otherwise.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Boxers no more about boxing, and people on here no more about history. I could learn every F1 race, champion, win and loss for the last 100years. I could formulate opinions on the facts I've learned and go on YOU BET. Matthew Kelly could quiz me till the cows come home and I may answer every question correct.......I STILL WOULD NOT NO MORE ABOUT CAR RACING THAN SCHUMACHER.

People on here may no more about HISTORY than boxers. They may be able to articulate themselves in a way that is untainable to a boxer, or even analyse events more logically.................................but the fact remains boxers no more about BOXING, and have an appreciation which no historian will ever come close to realising. I think it is arrogant and short sighted to think otherwise.

So it is not so much they know more, but just that they are better. Clear difference between the two.

Surely when we are talking about ranking fighters a decent knowledge ofthe history of the sport is slightly more useful than knowing how to slip a jab or tie a bloke up on the inside, one allows you to speak with some authority and insight as to whether James Jeffries deserves to rank above Marciano the other will help you not get beat up.

knowing, particpanting, history etc are not the only the only compenents either, comprehending what you see is something totally different. take jim watt for example, theres times where he's sees something and ive been on here so its not only me but everyone else who disagrees, does that mean were all wrong because a ex boxer jim watt knows more?? the same jim watt who thought hayes best method of fighting wlad was the one he did by standing on the outside pot shotting.

Being able to box does not mean you know about boxing, the likes of Dundee, Futch, Roach and Steward were either not boxers or fairly poor ones but know a darn sight more about the tactical and technical side of the game than anyone else. This again does not mean they have a great understanding of the sports history, not saying they don't but doesn't mean that their brilliance at training ensures that they do.

rowley wrote:Surely when we are talking about ranking fighters a decent knowledge ofthe history of the sport is slightly more useful than knowing how to slip a jab or tie a bloke up on the inside, one allows you to speak with some authority and insight as to whether James Jeffries deserves to rank above Marciano the other will help you not get beat up.

You are 100% correct, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that boxers no more about boxing in a vocational sense (training, nutrition, the hardships of making weight, sacrifice, technique, tactics, psychological preparation and most importantly HOW TO FIGHT). The sense that really matters. REAL BOXING KNOWLEDGE.

Historians no about history and are of a clever sort. They know how to formulate a coherent argument by selecting evidence to support their ideas. All entirely subjective ofcourse, but they will have you believe that it is an objective opinion (as though such a thing exists).

Sporting historians may know more about boxing history, but I find it extremely offensive that anyone that has not boxed, or coached, could possibly know more about boxing per say.

Not even in that sense do they know more, take Wlad and Lewis for instance, all that they apparently know is actually what Manny Steward knows and passes on to them. A boxer knows how to physically box but from a personal perspective from training as a cyclist, I didn't understand why I did most of what I did but just followed instructions knowing it was for the best.

Wlad and Lewis know how it feels to be a boxer. Something no historian in the land will ever know.

Wlad and Lewis learned from Steward, correct? What they learned and experienced, the pain they felt during training and in the ring, the isolation they felt as kids when their friends were going out to have a good time....a historian can read about, he can imagine it and can have an opinion on it.

If you didn't understand what you were being taught by your cycling coach...then that is a reflection on you.....and not evidence that a historian knows more about boxing than a boxer.

Well the original argument originated on the back of Gordy's absolute insistence on taking everything Lennox Lewis says as gospel based on what appears to be little more than him rating him as a fighter, my argument is this seems a little silly. If Lennox wants to comment on what it is like walking to the ring to face an opponent or trying to rebuild your career after Hasim Rahman has splattered you these are things I am happy to listen to him on because he has first hand experience of which I have never had and am unlikely to ever have.

However just because someone has fought does not mean I have to accept their opinions on where a fighter deserves to be rated or whether a decision in a fight was right because there is absolutely no reason to believe they are more qualified to make such a call than I am and on certain subjects it is possible they may be less qualified.

Only someone that has never put a glove on to throw a fist in anger could have these opinions. It is delusional codswallop.

....I still don't get your Lewis learned from Steward argument, as though he knew nothing of the game before Steward came along, and what he did learn from Steward doesn't count as knowledge because he learned it from someone else. This is how humans learn. Knowledge is passed down. Historians learn from other historians, they study fight reports that someone else wrote etc etc.

Historians can watch and read about boxing and observe how the knowledge that was passed down from coach to boxer manifests itself in a fight, but they will never comprehend this knowledge because all they did was watch or read about a fight and arrogantly decide they are a god given authority.

As Arrigo Sacchi once put it "Most decent jockies have never been a horse"

There's no clear cut answer either way, I'd say.

I agree with Mackem in one sense - actually getting in to the ring, even at less than amateur level, is naturally going to leave you with a greater wealth of boxing knowledge once you've done it a few times than you'd otherwise have. My ventures in to the ring are nothing to write home about, but even so, just having a few sessions was an eye-opener; learning to control breathing by 'snorting' the air through the nose as the gum shield makes breathing through the mouth difficult, trying to keep the outside foot if you're facing a left-hander, trying to hold the centre of the ring etc - although I knew the jist of these concepts before, I felt a lot more secure in my understanding of them once I'd seen them up close, even if it was in the smallest of small leagues.

However, there's plenty of truth to the other side of the argument too, I feel. Climbing through the ropes may expand everyone's knowledge, but some simply have greater levels of knowledge and understanding to start with - naturally, some just grasp certain concepts better than others. If a keen observer who never actively participates in boxing has this skill, then it's absolutely no guarantee that someone who is slower in grasping the aforementioned ideas will all of a sudden own a greater treasure chest of boxing knowledge and understanding, regardless of how many times they box themselves. Joe Frazier was one of the great Heavyweight champions, whereas Yank Durham never made it out of the amateurs. And yet, Durham taught Smokin' Joe just about everything he knew about the sport, formulated his game plans, played the biggest part in honing his style and so on.

What about Ray Arcel? Perhaps the greatest trainer of the lot, but he had no real career of which to speak of in terms of earning a living with his own fists. I dare say his knowledge of boxing - including the technicalities of what happens between the ropes - would dwarf that of thousands upon thousands of low-level fighters, and probably even some who have claimed versions of 'world titles.'

So as I say, trying your hand at the sport helps of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there will also be some who never try their hand but still know a hell of a lot more than you, in more ways than one. Besides, I believe this argument came about as we were discussing the ranking of fighters, rather than their technical abilities - safe to say, there's a few on here who could make an absolute fool of plenty of great fighters in that particular debate, Mr Lewis included!

rowley wrote:Well the original argument originated on the back of Gordy's absolute insistence on taking everything Lennox Lewis says as gospel based on what appears to be little more than him rating him as a fighter, my argument is this seems a little silly. If Lennox wants to comment on what it is like walking to the ring to face an opponent or trying to rebuild your career after Hasim Rahman has splattered you these are things I am happy to listen to him on because he has first hand experience of which I have never had and am unlikely to ever have.

However just because someone has fought does not mean I have to accept their opinions on where a fighter deserves to be rated or whether a decision in a fight was right because there is absolutely no reason to believe they are more qualified to make such a call than I am and on certain subjects it is possible they may be less qualified.

I agree, if it seemed like I didn't then I apologise for not getting my point across.

I need to retire, so I will make my peace; Historians no more about some stuff and boxers no more about the other stuff (the important stuff! ). There, I think that is perfectly fair and balanced

Basically mackem you have a chip on your shoulder because you've stepped inside a training ring.

I guess you are implying i never boxed? Ouch!

It's very much true, you seem to think your opinion counts for more because you do whatever it is you do, my opinion on cycling means naff all just because I cycled. I used to eat what I had to eat and trained as I had to train but ask me why in relation to nutrition and body mechanics and I don't have the first clue, I literally used to paint by numbers like a lot of boxers do. Application doesn't mean knowledge, most of us know how to drive a car but how many of us know the exact reason why we drive the way we do?

TheMackemMawler wrote:Wlad and Lewis know how it feels to be a boxer. Something no historian in the land will ever know.

Wlad and Lewis learned from Steward, correct? What they learned and experienced, the pain they felt during training and in the ring, the isolation they felt as kids when their friends were going out to have a good time....a historian can read about, he can imagine it and can have an opinion on it.

If you didn't understand what you were being taught by your cycling coach...then that is a reflection on you.....and not evidence that a historian knows more about boxing than a boxer.

This is certainly a valid point if I understand you correctly. If what you are saying is that 'boxing' in its full sense is not just a list of facts but also the various qualia of physical experience, then I would say that this certainly has relevance for judging if someone knows about 'boxing' in the full sense. How can we really judge the impressiveness of a fighter's foot defence if we do not have experience of trying to move away from harm in the ring? Obviously this does not completely prohibit us passing a judgement on the foot defence of Muhammad Ali if we have never boxed, but I would say that our judgement would be more rounded if we had both academic and experiential knowledge.