The Greatest...

First topic message reminder :

OK.

There was a post from D4 saying that if Khan became a 5-weight world champ he'd be the greatest Briton ever. I agree he'd be up there - but IMO Fitzsimmons, Lewis and Wilde are still ahead of him.

SRR is almost universally accepted to be the greatest fighter of all time. Or Burley. Or Langford. Or Jackson (just for Dave). Or Ali.

Other sports still allow modern fighters to achieve "greatness" - Tendulkar, Federer for example. But can a modern day boxer become accepted to be "the greatest".

2 questions:

1. Could Manny become "the greatest"? Who (ideal world) does he need to beat?

2. We have an undefeated world champion called 606face. 606face has just won a title at 140 - but reckons he can be effective all the way to light middle - he ways 152 on fight night and rehydrates well. Who in the current scene does 606face need to beat to be "the greatest". Even if he beats everyone - could he still become no.1?

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

I though you were down there with some of the stuff you have been writing.

D4, you are in danger of developing a sense of humour. 8)

I think people like to look down at today's boxing, maybe we just have a pessimistic culture now that like complaining and that to blame.

I see some great fights over the last year or so, It seem like every week there is a great fight on now but people still don't give this generation much credit.

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

I though you were down there with some of the stuff you have been writing.

D4, you are in danger of developing a sense of humour. 8)

How could he not, when you provide such rich raw material ? Even my first wife might develop some semblance of humour were she to read your latest offerings.

Believe me when I say that that takes some doing. Only things ever to have made her laugh are any misfortunes which might have befallen me and open graves.

D4thincarnation wrote:I think people like to look down at today's boxing, maybe we just have a pessimistic culture now that like complaining and that to blame.

I see some great fights over the last year or so, It seem like every week there is a great fight on now but people still don't give this generation much credit.

Maybe the fact that the WBA have 178 world champions to each of their 179 weight divisions might have something to do with it, don't you think ?

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

I though you were down there with some of the stuff you have been writing.

D4, you are in danger of developing a sense of humour. 8)

I've been making everybody laugh for a long time

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

I though you were down there with some of the stuff you have been writing.

D4, you are in danger of developing a sense of humour. 8)

I've been making everybody laugh for a long time

And cry, in equal measure.

There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:I think people like to look down at today's boxing, maybe we just have a pessimistic culture now that like complaining and that to blame.

I see some great fights over the last year or so, It seem like every week there is a great fight on now but people still don't give this generation much credit.

Maybe the fact that the WBA have 178 world champions to each of their 179 weight divisions might have something to do with it, don't you think ?

I don't tend to take too much notice of the titles we know to the best fighters are. But no one is saying that there are things wrong with the way boxing is run, but don't get that confused with the great high quality fights that are around.

manos de piedra wrote:There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

The skills have to be nurtured, though, and according to many who have spanned boxing's generations, old school skills are neglected. Even Joe Frazier said that there are too few good teachers, nowadays.

manos de piedra wrote:There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

Good post.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

The skills have to be nurtured, though, and according to many who have spanned boxing's generations, old school skills are neglected. Even Joe Frazier said that there are too few good teachers, nowadays.

Duran was a natural fighter.

Get really annoyed with this dismissal of old timers from people who watch two minutes of grainy footage on youtube and on the back of this dismiss true greats like Fitzsimmons. Amongst most historians it is widely accepted stylistically the sport underwent something of a quantum leap in the 20s on the back of guys like Leonard and Dempsey. However this does not mean the predecesors lacked skill or ability.

For me it is necessary to do a bit more research than is possible on youtube and actually place their styles and abilities in some sort of context. Firstly they fought far longer fights so were inevitably fighting at a lower paced. Is no different to what we see now in Prizefighter, the shorter the fight the quicker the pace.

Also as the era of Fitz the norm was to score fights on the perception of how would win were a fight to go the the finish, therefore landing heavy shots counted far more than jabbing consistently. Also clinching was permitted and fighters were often permitted to hit on the break or ork their way out of clinches, was not perceived to be the ref's job to split them.

With all this in mind is fairly inevitable their styles would be different and they would train to reflect these rules and the distance of the fight. If this means you want to say such things render comparisons across the eras is pointless and virtually impossible as Manos reasonably does, fine but don't dismiss great fighters like Fitzsimmons as untalented or make ridiculous comments like they would be carrying the bucket now because it is disrespectful, ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of the subject in hand.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

The skills have to be nurtured, though, and according to many who have spanned boxing's generations, old school skills are neglected. Even Joe Frazier said that there are too few good teachers, nowadays.

Yes definately. It doesnt mean someone born now will be born automatically with a better jab. But it means they have the advantage of being born at a time when there has been widespread use and knowledge of the jab and they can avail of the decades of building on that.

Theres no automatic nature to a fighter being better now. In many cases they will still be worse than fighters of the past. But they have benefits of years of knowledge and experience being accumulated at their disposal which increases their odds.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

The skills have to be nurtured, though, and according to many who have spanned boxing's generations, old school skills are neglected. Even Joe Frazier said that there are too few good teachers, nowadays.

Duran was a natural fighter.

And Benny Leonard wasn't ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

The skills have to be nurtured, though, and according to many who have spanned boxing's generations, old school skills are neglected. Even Joe Frazier said that there are too few good teachers, nowadays.

Duran was a natural fighter.

And Benny Leonard wasn't ?

Not sure about Leonard, but Duran was a street fighter, went down the boxing gym and took it like a duck to water.

Natural fighters can be born anytime regardless of era or circumstances.

manos de piedra wrote:Natural fighters can be born anytime regardless of era or circumstances.

The voice of reason.

manos de piedra wrote:Natural fighters can be born anytime regardless of era or circumstances.

Yeah, that because they are natural.

Maybe the best fighters of yesteryear were natural fighters.

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:There been over a century of boxing since the like of Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries etc. I find it difficult to believe that the sport hasnt benefited from this. Fighters and trainers now are at an advantage to fighters and trainers then because they have the benefit of 100 years of boxing in which knowledge has been shared, techniques improved, styles invented etc

Someone like Corbett begins to use the jab and outside boxing to great effect. Its only natural to think 100 years later this has been refined over generations and opponents have adapted their own styles to counter it etc. Its a pretty consistent principle in life that things improve over time as we have the ability to build upon the knowledge and advancements of others. When Corbett began using the jab and boxing from the outside few were used to it and had a hard time dealing with it. Now the jab is bread and butter in boxing and any fighter will have experiene of being up against a jab.

Otherwise its a bit like putting the iphone before the telephone.

The ranking/rating system in boxing is fundementally flawed in favour of past fighters moreso than most sports because there has been little accounting for the changes in circumstances and comparisons are very hard to draw.

The skills have to be nurtured, though, and according to many who have spanned boxing's generations, old school skills are neglected. Even Joe Frazier said that there are too few good teachers, nowadays.

Duran was a natural fighter.

And Benny Leonard wasn't ?

Not sure about Leonard, but Duran was a street fighter, went down the boxing gym and took it like a duck to water.

As was Benny Leonard, which is why I cited him as an example.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

I though you were down there with some of the stuff you have been writing.

D4, you are in danger of developing a sense of humour. 8)

How could he not, when you provide such rich raw material ? Even my first wife might develop some semblance of humour were she to read your latest offerings.

Believe me when I say that that takes some doing. Only things ever to have made her laugh are any misfortunes which might have befallen me and open graves.

I nearly spilt my Jack Daniel after reading that. Cheers for the laugh windy......I think

D4thincarnation wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Natural fighters can be born anytime regardless of era or circumstances.

Yeah, that because they are natural.

Maybe the best fighters of yesteryear were natural fighters.

Well, several of us argue precisely that point every time the ' new v old ' rears its head. As manos so succintly put it, natural fighters can be born anytime regardless of era or circumstances.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you're fighting guys dragged out of a pub and in travelling circuses, you can have 100+ fights.

Call them world champs and ATGs also.

Somebody should drag you into one.

Every circus could do with an extra clown.

I should go to the pub really.

I though you were down there with some of the stuff you have been writing.

D4, you are in danger of developing a sense of humour. 8)

How could he not, when you provide such rich raw material ? Even my first wife might develop some semblance of humour were she to read your latest offerings.

Believe me when I say that that takes some doing. Only things ever to have made her laugh are any misfortunes which might have befallen me and open graves.

I nearly spilt my Jack Daniel after reading that. Cheers for the laugh windy......I think

You're more than welcome, az.

rowley wrote:Get really annoyed with this dismissal of old timers from people who watch two minutes of grainy footage on youtube and on the back of this dismiss true greats like Fitzsimmons. Amongst most historians it is widely accepted stylistically the sport underwent something of a quantum leap in the 20s on the back of guys like Leonard and Dempsey. However this does not mean the predecesors lacked skill or ability.

For me it is necessary to do a bit more research than is possible on youtube and actually place their styles and abilities in some sort of context. Firstly they fought far longer fights so were inevitably fighting at a lower paced. Is no different to what we see now in Prizefighter, the shorter the fight the quicker the pace.

Also as the era of Fitz the norm was to score fights on the perception of how would win were a fight to go the the finish, therefore landing heavy shots counted far more than jabbing consistently. Also clinching was permitted and fighters were often permitted to hit on the break or ork their way out of clinches, was not perceived to be the ref's job to split them.

With all this in mind is fairly inevitable their styles would be different and they would train to reflect these rules and the distance of the fight. If this means you want to say such things render comparisons across the eras is pointless and virtually impossible as Manos reasonably does, fine but don't dismiss great fighters like Fitzsimmons as untalented or make ridiculous comments like they would be carrying the bucket now because it is disrespectful, ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of the subject in hand.

By the beard of the prophet, I have not, and will never dismiss the likes of Fitz and call them useless. That would be stupid. I will repeat for those who refuse to acknowledge my point. They were good, Excellent in their time. But to compare them to today's guys is stretching the realms of credibility way too far. If someone like Corbett is using the jab and others had never even seen it before, it stands to logical reason that guys of today would whip the old guys simply by using the jab.

Does it make guys of today better fighters? Not really. What is does give is today's guys a broarder ramge of skills to adapt to and adopt.

Now transport guys like Fitz etc to todays game, train them and imo they will absolutely slaughter most of today's guys.

My whole point has been that guys of yesteryear were innovators and logically did not have the wide range of skills to train for and against.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Get really annoyed with this dismissal of old timers from people who watch two minutes of grainy footage on youtube and on the back of this dismiss true greats like Fitzsimmons. Amongst most historians it is widely accepted stylistically the sport underwent something of a quantum leap in the 20s on the back of guys like Leonard and Dempsey. However this does not mean the predecesors lacked skill or ability.

For me it is necessary to do a bit more research than is possible on youtube and actually place their styles and abilities in some sort of context. Firstly they fought far longer fights so were inevitably fighting at a lower paced. Is no different to what we see now in Prizefighter, the shorter the fight the quicker the pace.

Also as the era of Fitz the norm was to score fights on the perception of how would win were a fight to go the the finish, therefore landing heavy shots counted far more than jabbing consistently. Also clinching was permitted and fighters were often permitted to hit on the break or ork their way out of clinches, was not perceived to be the ref's job to split them.

With all this in mind is fairly inevitable their styles would be different and they would train to reflect these rules and the distance of the fight. If this means you want to say such things render comparisons across the eras is pointless and virtually impossible as Manos reasonably does, fine but don't dismiss great fighters like Fitzsimmons as untalented or make ridiculous comments like they would be carrying the bucket now because it is disrespectful, ignorant and shows a lack of understanding of the subject in hand.

By the beard of the prophet, I have not, and will never dismiss the likes of Fitz and call them useless. That would be stupid. I will repeat for those who refuse to acknowledge my point. They were good, Excellent in their time. But to compare them to today's guys is stretching the realms of credibility way too far. If someone like Corbett is using the jab and others had never even seen it before, it stands to logical reason that guys of today would whip the old guys simply by using the jab.

Does it make guys of today better fighters? Not really. What is does give is today's guys a broarder ramge of skills to adapt to and adopt.

Now transport guys like Fitz etc to todays game, train them and imo they will absolutely slaughter most of today's guys.

My whole point has been that guys of yesteryear were innovators and logically did not have the wide range of skills to train for and against.

Your last paragraph is an extreme over generalization and flies in the face of just about every expert opinion.

Seriously, have you ever seen Joe Gans or Benny Leonard ?

I actually think if you go back as far as guys like Fitz you have a point because the rules, length of fight and method of scoring were significantly different enough to make it virtually a different sport. However think any great fighter from 1920 onwards when the rules, length of fight and method of scoring had enough in common with the sport we know today holds their own in any era and genuinely don't think the likes of Armstrong, Robinson, Mclarnin etc need any modern potions or such like to be able to more than hold their own, however Az as it appears we have almost found some common ground after god only knows how long will retreat and spend what's left of the weekend with the missus.

Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

rowley wrote:I actually think if you go back as far as guys like Fitz you have a point because the rules, length of fight and method of scoring were significantly different enough to make it virtually a different sport. However think any great fighter from 1920 onwards when the rules, length of fight and method of scoring had enough in common with the sport we know today holds their own in any era and genuinely don't think the likes of Armstrong, Robinson, Mclarnin etc need any modern potions or such like to be able to more than hold their own, however Az as it appears we have almost found some common ground after god only knows how long will retreat and spend what's left of the weekend with the missus.

I hav emore than a point. I am 100% correct 8) I have been saying since this debate started here that it is almost a different sport altogether.

Guys from 1920 have equal skills and probably even better skills that today's guys. But the difference maker is that today's guys are physically stronger because of specific training and better diets (Hatton notwithstanding). I'd be correct in saying that Haye is probably the stronger man that Ali (No Haye would only beat Ali on Xbox). In cases where skills are equal, strength will be the deciding factor.

If we find more common ground I'd scream so be careful mate.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Ask my wife 8)

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Its not the same thing though because the need to use a sword is now obsolete for the most part. I could use a gun though, and the fact we dont need swords anymore kind of highlights the principle of advancement.

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

They don't study quantum physics at GCSE level, and quantum mechanic did not exist in Newton's day.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Ask my wife 8)

Bach died in 1750, yet his counterpoint, to this day, is the standard repertoire for music students. It has NEVER been bettered. Every music scholar, teacher, composer, etc., agrees to a man that the contrapuntal works of Bach stand unchallenged after two and a half centuries.

Yeah, I know " he telegraphed his fugues, and with modern harpsichords and fingering exercises....... "

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Ask my wife 8)

Bach died in 1750, yet his counterpoint, to this day, is the standard repertoire for music students. It has NEVER been bettered. Every music scholar, teacher, composer, etc., agrees to a man that the contrapuntal works of Bach stand unchallenged after two and a half centuries.

Yeah, I know " he telegraphed his fugues, and with modern harpsichords and fingering exercises....... "

Totally different things altogether. Art/music is timeless. Aboriginal cave paintings are excellent. Pyramids still defy science today. Getting his feels the same. The first man to pick up a log as a weapon was probably the baddest man alive, but someone improved on his skill with the weapon and took over as head of the pack.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Ask my wife 8)

Bach died in 1750, yet his counterpoint, to this day, is the standard repertoire for music students. It has NEVER been bettered. Every music scholar, teacher, composer, etc., agrees to a man that the contrapuntal works of Bach stand unchallenged after two and a half centuries.

Yeah, I know " he telegraphed his fugues, and with modern harpsichords and fingering exercises....... "

Totally different things altogether. Art/music is timeless. Aboriginal cave paintings are excellent. Pyramids still defy science today. Getting his feels the same. The first man to pick up a log as a weapon was probably the baddest man alive, but someone improved on his skill with the weapon and took over as head of the pack.

You trained in music ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Ask my wife 8)

Bach died in 1750, yet his counterpoint, to this day, is the standard repertoire for music students. It has NEVER been bettered. Every music scholar, teacher, composer, etc., agrees to a man that the contrapuntal works of Bach stand unchallenged after two and a half centuries.

Yeah, I know " he telegraphed his fugues, and with modern harpsichords and fingering exercises....... "

Totally different things altogether. Art/music is timeless. Aboriginal cave paintings are excellent. Pyramids still defy science today. Getting his feels the same. The first man to pick up a log as a weapon was probably the baddest man alive, but someone improved on his skill with the weapon and took over as head of the pack.

You trained in music ?

Nope. I dont see the relevance unless you are trying to say that older doesn't always equate to being better. In that case I agree. I like wine.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Ask my wife 8)

Bach died in 1750, yet his counterpoint, to this day, is the standard repertoire for music students. It has NEVER been bettered. Every music scholar, teacher, composer, etc., agrees to a man that the contrapuntal works of Bach stand unchallenged after two and a half centuries.

Yeah, I know " he telegraphed his fugues, and with modern harpsichords and fingering exercises....... "

Perhaps yes, but for every example of things being better in the past there are dozens that highlight advancement. It doesnt mean to say someone is born with a natural ability to do better. It just means they have the benefit of having years of advancement and accumulated knowledge to avail of.

I could go onto wikipedia and over the course of about a day learn what it took Galileo a lifetime to discover. Im not as good a scientist as him but the fact I have the benefits of his work readily available means I have the potential to advance on it much more easily than starting from scratch.

If I were to go into a boxing gym nowadays I will see guys working on things and been taught things by trainers that are basic fundementals of the sport nowadys but were not commonly taught, practised or used 100 years ago. It doesnt mean every kid in the gm will be better than Corbett but it gives them a big advantage which he or his contempories didnt have.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Leonard has been called the greatest LW ever. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its open for debate. I would probably have Duran as #1, but that's my bias as I'm a huge Duran fan.

As for my last paragraph. Someone in an earlier thread brought the Newton analogy. Newton is probaly one of the greatest ever scientists. But science has moved on and it would be safe to say that a gcse student knows more about quantum physics that Newton ever knew. It doesn't make Newton a lesser scientist does it.

Can you use a sword ?

Ask my wife 8)

Bach died in 1750, yet his counterpoint, to this day, is the standard repertoire for music students. It has NEVER been bettered. Every music scholar, teacher, composer, etc., agrees to a man that the contrapuntal works of Bach stand unchallenged after two and a half centuries.

Yeah, I know " he telegraphed his fugues, and with modern harpsichords and fingering exercises....... "

Totally different things altogether. Art/music is timeless. Aboriginal cave paintings are excellent. Pyramids still defy science today. Getting his feels the same. The first man to pick up a log as a weapon was probably the baddest man alive, but someone improved on his skill with the weapon and took over as head of the pack.

You trained in music ?

Nope. I dont see the relevance unless you are trying to say that older doesn't always equate to being better. In that case I agree. I like wine.

Well I don't see the relevance of your Isaac Newton analogy, either.

However, I HAVE watched Joe Gans, Gene Tunney, Benny Leonard, and countless others. You, clearly, haven't. I don't claim that they are necessarily BETTER than modern greats, but I'm absolutely certain that their skills are as good.

Next time you go shopping, give the pharmacy and creatine a miss and buy a DVD set called ' Boxing Classics ' and then tell me these guys weren't highly skilled.

Windy. I have not disputed that their skills are as good. Its just that their skills have bene improved on over the years.

manos de piedra wrote:If I were to go into a boxing gym nowadays I will see guys working on things and been taught things by trainers that are basic fundementals of the sport nowadys but were not commonly taught, practised or used 100 years ago. It doesnt mean every kid in the gm will be better than Corbett but it gives them a big advantage which he or his contempories didnt have.

Again, manos, Joe Frazier, ( I cite him because he is modern enough to not be accused of nostalgia, ) has said that there just aren't enough good teachers passing on the old skills any more. Without these teachers the skills will die, as with swordsmanship. Every man in Britain could, at one time, wield a sword. How many can do so today ?

Or is Joe Frazier also wrong ?

azania wrote:Windy. I have not disputed that their skills are as good. Its just that their skills have bene improved on over the years.

No, they haven't.

Many skills, such as feinting and elbow blocking, have fallen into disuse. Some fighters who operate at world level can't even slip a jab.

The GREAT fighters of today do these things, but how many GENUINE greats do we have today ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:If I were to go into a boxing gym nowadays I will see guys working on things and been taught things by trainers that are basic fundementals of the sport nowadys but were not commonly taught, practised or used 100 years ago. It doesnt mean every kid in the gm will be better than Corbett but it gives them a big advantage which he or his contempories didnt have.

Again, manos, Joe Frazier, ( I cite him because he is modern enough to not be accused of nostalgia, ) has said that there just aren't enough good teachers passing on the old skills any more. Without these teachers the skills will die, as with swordsmanship. Every man in Britain could, at one time, wield a sword. How many can do so today ?

Or is Joe Frazier also wrong ?

Old skills such as what? Roach, Steward, Richardson et al are all wonderful trainers. Roach has the accumulated knowledge of having been a student of Futch.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Windy. I have not disputed that their skills are as good. Its just that their skills have bene improved on over the years.

No, they haven't.

Many skills, such as feinting and elbow blocking, have fallen into disuse. Some fighters who operate at world level can't even slip a jab.

The GREAT fighters of today do these things, but how many GENUINE greats do we have today ?

Boxers years ago didn't know what a jab was.

Lets be real here. With so many belts many boxers fight for titles even though they are unknown outside their street. Look at Matt Hatton as an example. He cant slip on a banana skin.

I can only say for certain that we have ONE genuine great operating today. Floyd.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:If I were to go into a boxing gym nowadays I will see guys working on things and been taught things by trainers that are basic fundementals of the sport nowadys but were not commonly taught, practised or used 100 years ago. It doesnt mean every kid in the gm will be better than Corbett but it gives them a big advantage which he or his contempories didnt have.

Again, manos, Joe Frazier, ( I cite him because he is modern enough to not be accused of nostalgia, ) has said that there just aren't enough good teachers passing on the old skills any more. Without these teachers the skills will die, as with swordsmanship. Every man in Britain could, at one time, wield a sword. How many can do so today ?

Or is Joe Frazier also wrong ?

Old skills such as what? Roach, Steward, Richardson et al are all wonderful trainers. Roach has the accumulated knowledge of having been a student of Futch.

So does Joe Frazier.

You haven't, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, watched guys like Benny Leonard, so how can your argument be credible ?

Perhaps we should discuss nutrition instead of boxing.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Windy. I have not disputed that their skills are as good. Its just that their skills have bene improved on over the years.

No, they haven't.

Many skills, such as feinting and elbow blocking, have fallen into disuse. Some fighters who operate at world level can't even slip a jab.

The GREAT fighters of today do these things, but how many GENUINE greats do we have today ?

Boxers years ago didn't know what a jab was.

Lets be real here. With so many belts many boxers fight for titles even though they are unknown outside their street. Look at Matt Hatton as an example. He cant slip on a banana skin.

I can only say for certain that we have ONE genuine great operating today. Floyd.

Are you stoned ?

Go watch Joe Gans' jab. Then Benny Leonard's.Then Joe Louis'. Then Robinson's. Then Charles'.

Does your TV work in black and white ?

I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Windy. I have not disputed that their skills are as good. Its just that their skills have bene improved on over the years.

No, they haven't.

Many skills, such as feinting and elbow blocking, have fallen into disuse. Some fighters who operate at world level can't even slip a jab.

The GREAT fighters of today do these things, but how many GENUINE greats do we have today ?

Boxers years ago didn't know what a jab was.

Lets be real here. With so many belts many boxers fight for titles even though they are unknown outside their street. Look at Matt Hatton as an example. He cant slip on a banana skin.

I can only say for certain that we have ONE genuine great operating today. Floyd.

Are you stoned ?

Go watch Joe Gans' jab. Then Benny Leonard's.Then Joe Louis'. Then Robinson's. Then Charles'.

Does your TV work in black and white ?

Come on windy. YOu are shifting posts here by picking people from a 50 year span. I am talking about Fitz and his era.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:If I were to go into a boxing gym nowadays I will see guys working on things and been taught things by trainers that are basic fundementals of the sport nowadys but were not commonly taught, practised or used 100 years ago. It doesnt mean every kid in the gm will be better than Corbett but it gives them a big advantage which he or his contempories didnt have.

Again, manos, Joe Frazier, ( I cite him because he is modern enough to not be accused of nostalgia, ) has said that there just aren't enough good teachers passing on the old skills any more. Without these teachers the skills will die, as with swordsmanship. Every man in Britain could, at one time, wield a sword. How many can do so today ?

Or is Joe Frazier also wrong ?

I dont know is the simple answer. Joes take on it may be there arent as many, someone elses might disagree. Joe might only be able to speak for certain areas though.

azania wrote:I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

Well then, what are we arguing about ?

I agree that Floyd is a great fighter and you agree that Benny Leonard was. Where is the dispute ?

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:If I were to go into a boxing gym nowadays I will see guys working on things and been taught things by trainers that are basic fundementals of the sport nowadys but were not commonly taught, practised or used 100 years ago. It doesnt mean every kid in the gm will be better than Corbett but it gives them a big advantage which he or his contempories didnt have.

Again, manos, Joe Frazier, ( I cite him because he is modern enough to not be accused of nostalgia, ) has said that there just aren't enough good teachers passing on the old skills any more. Without these teachers the skills will die, as with swordsmanship. Every man in Britain could, at one time, wield a sword. How many can do so today ?

Or is Joe Frazier also wrong ?

I dont know is the simple answer. Joes take on it may be there arent as many, someone elses might disagree. Joe might only be able to speak for certain areas though.

Well, look at the difference Roach has made to Khan, and the difference Steward made to Lennox and Wlad. Why weren't they so effective before, each of them being already a world champion ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I have seen Leonard. Admittedly now for many years. I stumbled on him by chance after reading a Ring article about the other Leonard who would beat Duran.

From what I saw, he was superb. From what I have read he appeared awesome.

Well then, what are we arguing about ?

I agree that Floyd is a great fighter and you agree that Benny Leonard was. Where is the dispute ?

None. Perhaps you should read what I write free from assumptions.