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?

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

So David Haye with his stamina issues over 12 rounds is a better athlete than Jack Johnson who on several occasions went 20+ rounds including 26 in an outdoor arena in Cuba in the middle of the summer. Can't see Haye with his modern sports science doing that.

The Mighty Atom wrote:This is getting beyond a joke now, can we not have a civil debate without the same morons butting in with their undeducated tripe

I'll post this again and maybe it will make you understand why new isn't necessarily better, the comparitive wins of three recognized all time great light heavyweights against fellow greats.

Jones: Toney, McCallum and Hopkins
Tunney: Dempsey, Gibbons, Smith, Carpentier, Greb and Levinsky
Charles: Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Lesnevich, Ray, Moore, Marshall, Burley and Yarosz

Now tell me how in a million years Jones could be ranked higher when he only holds 3 wins over fellow top class opposition compared to 6 for Tunney and an incredible 10 for Charles with the latter two holding multiple wins against them

I haven't seen any name calling whatsoever. Therefore its been quite civil with no-one referring to others as morons and uneducated. Only one person has referred to others who have a different opinion with insults. Furtermore it has been made clear that the argument re RJJ is not one of ATG standings but H2H.

There is absolutely no need for name calling and passing disparaging remarks towards others who have a different opinion to yourself. The fact that I and many others believe that RJJ would wipe the floor with Tunney but will eventually be lower in the ATG standings does not mean we should be met with insults.

prettyboy1304 wrote:I agree but just see the benefit from being in the ring. If you lose get back in and go again learn from what you did wrong and work on it. Johnny Nelson lost his first 3 fights and still had a good career. You can pick fighters to fight based on their styles to work on certain skills you have been working on.

Yes but if you can avoid this in training and sparring then why not avail of it?

The guys Nelson was losing too would not be significantly greater than many sparring partners he could. He also doesnt risk career defeats.

Its not the same for every fighter because not all fighters can get quality trainers and training but if you are are someone like Khan/De Gale Groves etc then sparring with good trainers against the likes of Dirrell and Pacquaio will improve you far more than having pro fights with guys like Carl Dilks or Michael Gomez.

I think the quality of the sparring and the quality of the fights is the key point. The benefit of sparring is that you can work on different things and theres no risk to your record. The benefit of pro fights is you earn money and you build your record.

You deserve every word, this debate didn't need to descend into this same old BS started yet again by you

If you have an issue with it stop the BS and I wont have to get infuriated with you ruining yet another debate

For the record Jones stand absolutely no chance against either Tunney or Charles, only an imbecile would claim he wipes the floor with either and who are these others who think this? Other than you I never see anyone come out with such disrespectful comments regarding anyone pre 1950's where it all apparently begin.

Either wise up or shut up

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

So David Haye with his stamina issues over 12 rounds is a better athlete than Jack Johnson who on several occasions went 20+ rounds including 26 in an outdoor arena in Cuba in the middle of the summer. Can't see Haye with his modern sports science doing that.

Johnson et al fought at the same type of pace as Haye vs Valuev. Haye on that night would have gone 26 rounds also imo. My point is and has always been that in a H2H betwen the two with Haye's modern training, protein shakes call it what you want, and Johnson's in that era, Haye would win.

But give Johnson the benefits of all Haye's facilities then it would be a no contest. Johnson would wipe the floor with him.

As an aside, Haye is a superb allround athlete. Just that Johnson is a more talented fighter sadly lacking the benefits of modern day equipment.

Is that why Haye was blowing heavily at the end then? Could really have gone on for another 26 rounds. Was dominating Ruiz without going hell for leather and was blowing after 5 rounds. Oh how I wish my stamina was like that

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

So David Haye with his stamina issues over 12 rounds is a better athlete than Jack Johnson who on several occasions went 20+ rounds including 26 in an outdoor arena in Cuba in the middle of the summer. Can't see Haye with his modern sports science doing that.

Because he isnt training for 26 round fights.

If you got David Haye and told him he was fighting for 30 rounds then with the right training he could obviously do it. His training is geared towards a 12 round fight and to maximise the energy he can use in each round.

In earlier days fighters expended less energy per round in these marathon sessions because they knew they were in it for the long haul.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You deserve every word, this debate didn't need to descend into this same old BS started yet again by you

If you have an issue with it stop the BS and I wont have to get infuriated with you ruining yet another debate

For the record Jones stand absolutely no chance against either Tunney or Charles, only an imbecile would claim he wipes the floor with either and who are these others who think this? Other than you I never see anyone come out with such disrespectful comments regarding anyone pre 1950's where it all apparently begin.

Either wise up or shut up

Cant you just grow up and be civil. You're acting like a spoilt child.

If you think RJJ doesn't stand a chance, then that is your opinion. I dont see the point in getting angry just because I dont agree with it.

So it is ok to come out with disrespectful comments about the guys you don t like but a no no for anyone to disrespect those you do like. How old are you by any chance? Incredible.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Is that why Haye was blowing heavily at the end then? Could really have gone on for another 26 rounds. Was dominating Ruiz without going hell for leather and was blowing after 5 rounds. Oh how I wish my stamina was like that

Ok.

What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

sohotnot wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

Are they technically better boxers or just better (or have the potential to be) athletes? No 'protein shake', creatine or Jack3d is gonna make you a technically better boxer.

They weren't any better or worse than those post 1970 imo. Nowadays we have better facilities. I find it simply impossible that the improved facilities and training methods has not improved boxers as athletes. If those guys had it, then they would have been even better. They are not worse boxers, but could have been better boxers. As it stands now, the advantage lies with today's guys in terms of training facilities and not neccessarliy skills.

Imagine Robinson with today's facilities. He would be a god almost.

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

I know that so surely if you can't afford the top sparring partners and work a day job fighting more regularly would suit you because you aren't learning as much in the gym.

Realised you've been proved wrong then abuse your power and delete the post in question, very mature

The Mighty Atom wrote:Realised you've been proved wrong then abuse your power and delete the post in question, very mature

Nope. Repost it without the insults and it will remain.

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

So David Haye with his stamina issues over 12 rounds is a better athlete than Jack Johnson who on several occasions went 20+ rounds including 26 in an outdoor arena in Cuba in the middle of the summer. Can't see Haye with his modern sports science doing that.

Because he isnt training for 26 round fights.

If you got David Haye and told him he was fighting for 30 rounds then with the right training he could obviously do it. His training is geared towards a 12 round fight and to maximise the energy he can use in each round.

In earlier days fighters expended less energy per round in these marathon sessions because they knew they were in it for the long haul.

But surely if he was able to train himself to go 26 rounds he wouldn't have been blowing after 5 against Ruiz where he wasn't going at it hell for leather and didn't take much punishment.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

I know that so surely if you can't afford the top sparring partners and work a day job fighting more regularly would suit you because you aren't learning as much in the gym.

Yes plus you probably need the money. But you will be at a disadvantage to someone who has the opportunity to avail of top sparring regardless of how many fights you have.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

Six of one half a dozen of the other for me. Know what you are saying about training camp but often a lot of fighters need that just to get in shape & dont spend as much time on technique or game plan. Its the guys that are always in shape, Mayweather, Manny that get the benefit from the camps. When fighters are starting out & fighting 6 - 8 times a year they are always in shape & its when they get to the top or waiting for the big fight they can end up slacking off & needing that training camp.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

So David Haye with his stamina issues over 12 rounds is a better athlete than Jack Johnson who on several occasions went 20+ rounds including 26 in an outdoor arena in Cuba in the middle of the summer. Can't see Haye with his modern sports science doing that.

Because he isnt training for 26 round fights.

If you got David Haye and told him he was fighting for 30 rounds then with the right training he could obviously do it. His training is geared towards a 12 round fight and to maximise the energy he can use in each round.

In earlier days fighters expended less energy per round in these marathon sessions because they knew they were in it for the long haul.

But surely if he was able to train himself to go 26 rounds he wouldn't have been blowing after 5 against Ruiz where he wasn't going at it hell for leather and didn't take much punishment.

He was throwing some seriously heavy shots against Ruiz though. He gassed out against Thompson also because he just punched himself into exhaustion trying to get the guy out of there.

Against Ruiz he floored him early on and then went out to get him. When he realised Ruiz was going to hang around a while he settled down and concentrated on his boxing more at a reasonable pace.

Theres no major leap in mankind over the last 100yrs. If a guy 100 years ago was capable of fighting 26 rounds then a guy nowadays will be and vice versa.

Obviously some fighters are badly conditioned now and couldnt but they still have the potential to if they train for it.

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

I know that so surely if you can't afford the top sparring partners and work a day job fighting more regularly would suit you because you aren't learning as much in the gym.

Yes plus you probably need the money. But you will be at a disadvantage to someone who has the opportunity to avail of top sparring regardless of how many fights you have.

Yes but that's the way it is the guys with the hype behind them. Yes you will be at a disadvantage but surely fighting more regularly would be more beneficial to you than sparring with poor standard of sparring partners?

sohotnot wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

Six of one half a dozen of the other for me. Know what you are saying about training camp but often a lot of fighters need that just to get in shape & dont spend as much time on technique or game plan. Its the guys that are always in shape, Mayweather, Manny that get the benefit from the camps. When fighters are starting out & fighting 6 - 8 times a year they are always in shape & its when they get to the top or waiting for the big fight they can end up slacking off & needing that training camp.

True. Hatton spent half his time losing the fat before he got into the fine details (only to blow it all away). But answer this. Is sparring with Dirrell (As Groves is doing) and sparring with Clev et al (as DeGale is doing) a better learning/tuition that fighting some bum a month often with a day's notice?

Sparring is all well and good but it doesn't teach you how to react in the heat of battle that can only be learnt inside the ring. Nigel Benn when he first started out adversely reacted to getting punched but over time and having more ring experience he was able to take punches a lot easier. Something like that can't be taught sparring.

The old timers may have fought often against over matched opponents but also fought more regularly against top class opposition as well. Duran and Chavez are two examples of modern boxers who favoured regular fights against weaker oppposition and it helped keep them sharp and focuses.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

I know that so surely if you can't afford the top sparring partners and work a day job fighting more regularly would suit you because you aren't learning as much in the gym.

Yes plus you probably need the money. But you will be at a disadvantage to someone who has the opportunity to avail of top sparring regardless of how many fights you have.

Yes but that's the way it is the guys with the hype behind them. Yes you will be at a disadvantage but surely fighting more regularly would be more beneficial to you than sparring with poor standard of sparring partners?

Possibly so yes but you run the risk then of picking up more losses which in turn makes it harder for you to secure quality fights and your career can end up going down the tubes.

Talking of Hatton, he destroyed his preperation for Pacquiao by over matching himself in sparring against Lara. Groves runs the same risk against Dirrell who I foresee frustrating him even in sparring

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

I know that so surely if you can't afford the top sparring partners and work a day job fighting more regularly would suit you because you aren't learning as much in the gym.

Yes plus you probably need the money. But you will be at a disadvantage to someone who has the opportunity to avail of top sparring regardless of how many fights you have.

Yes but that's the way it is the guys with the hype behind them. Yes you will be at a disadvantage but surely fighting more regularly would be more beneficial to you than sparring with poor standard of sparring partners?

Possibly so yes but you run the risk then of picking up more losses which in turn makes it harder for you to secure quality fights and your career can end up going down the tubes.

That's my point their is to much emphasis put on zeroes. If you lose you should be able to get back up and for it to be treated as a learning curve rather than a major setback.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Talking of Hatton, he destroyed his preperation for Pacquiao by over matching himself in sparring against Lara. Groves runs the same risk against Dirrell who I foresee frustrating him even in sparring

Losing 3-4 stone when camp started was never a good thing. Dirrell is the perfect sparring partner for DeGale in that they are both very similar. It was the perfect choice and a great learning experience for Groves.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Talking of Hatton, he destroyed his preperation for Pacquiao by over matching himself in sparring against Lara. Groves runs the same risk against Dirrell who I foresee frustrating him even in sparring

Yes but its up to the trainer to manage that. If you need to have a quiet word to tell a guy to ease up or do less of this and more that etc then the training and management team should be on the ball. By all account Floyd senior wasnt exactly on top of things at the Hatton camp.

Im sure Roach didnt tell Pacquiao to go out and blast a hole in Khan the first time they sparred or anything.

I saw an episode of Rigside there with Groves featured recently and he already has an impressive shiner courtesy of Dirrell.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Talking of Hatton, he destroyed his preperation for Pacquiao by over matching himself in sparring against Lara. Groves runs the same risk against Dirrell who I foresee frustrating him even in sparring

Losing 3-4 stone when camp started was never a good thing. Dirrell is the perfect sparring partner for DeGale in that they are both very similar. It was the perfect choice and a great learning experience for Groves.

Dirrell is good sparring but for me DeGale has better sparring in Cleverly. Not style wise but Cleverly is preparing for a world title shot and DeGale his biggest fight since the final in Beijing nearly 3 years ago so it will be very competitive.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

I know that so surely if you can't afford the top sparring partners and work a day job fighting more regularly would suit you because you aren't learning as much in the gym.

Yes plus you probably need the money. But you will be at a disadvantage to someone who has the opportunity to avail of top sparring regardless of how many fights you have.

Yes but that's the way it is the guys with the hype behind them. Yes you will be at a disadvantage but surely fighting more regularly would be more beneficial to you than sparring with poor standard of sparring partners?

Possibly so yes but you run the risk then of picking up more losses which in turn makes it harder for you to secure quality fights and your career can end up going down the tubes.

That's my point their is to much emphasis put on zeroes. If you lose you should be able to get back up and for it to be treated as a learning curve rather than a major setback.

Well it depends how many losses we are talking about here. Its ok to suffer a couple early in your career. Hasnt stopped the likes of Pacquiao and Donaire. But if you are picking them up too regularly then its going to be seriously hard for a promoter to secure you fights or for you to be taken credibly as a live opponent. Its one thing protecting the "0" but if you start accumulating losses your career will suffer badly and its too high a price to pay for any experience you may be getting in the ring.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Talking of Hatton, he destroyed his preperation for Pacquiao by over matching himself in sparring against Lara. Groves runs the same risk against Dirrell who I foresee frustrating him even in sparring

Losing 3-4 stone when camp started was never a good thing. Dirrell is the perfect sparring partner for DeGale in that they are both very similar. It was the perfect choice and a great learning experience for Groves.

Dirrell is good sparring but for me DeGale has better sparring in Cleverly. Not style wise but Cleverly is preparing for a world title shot and DeGale his biggest fight since the final in Beijing nearly 3 years ago so it will be very competitive.

I'm not too sure which is the better choice. Style wise Dirrell is closer to DeGale than Clev is to Groves. But both are excellent choices. One thing though. I dont think its wise to have a main sparring partner who is going for a world title. Dirrell is obviously the better boxer than DeGale and Groves and so can go easier on Groves whilst not destroying his confidence by beating him thoroughly. Clev on the other hand can't afford to hold back and could rough up Degale.

DeGale is a talented enough fighter to not get roughed up to badly he's an olympic gold medalist not some inexperienced newly turned pro who is wet behind the ears.

azania wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Az at what point in time do fighters become old timers and not as good. The 50's?

I would say around the 1950s where techniques were perfected. But with better facilities and better science focussing around sports medicine etc it is still improving. Some people seem to be under the impression that all other sports have seen improvements in performance aided by science, except for boxing. That simply is impossible imo.

Are they technically better boxers or just better (or have the potential to be) athletes? No 'protein shake', creatine or Jack3d is gonna make you a technically better boxer.

They weren't any better or worse than those post 1970 imo. Nowadays we have better facilities. I find it simply impossible that the improved facilities and training methods has not improved boxers as athletes. If those guys had it, then they would have been even better. They are not worse boxers, but could have been better boxers. As it stands now, the advantage lies with today's guys in terms of training facilities and not neccessarliy skills.

Imagine Robinson with today's facilities. He would be a god almost.

My point was more that with the knowledge we have today with regards to diet/nutrition & what we know of training for strength, power, speed, endurance, recovery time etc we have the potential to make better athletes with longer careers but not nesesscarly better boxers, you dont need much in the way of equipment to teach skills. There was an interesting thread on the old 606 martial arts/mma forum along the lines of were there better athletes than fighters coming into mma these days, less of the old school hardmen.

I agree the old guys would've benefited from some of our modern techniques & that some of our 'modern greats' would've still been good if they went back in time. A certain LHW may have been held in higher esteem had he been around in the old days & been able to face a better level of opposition & made to fight rather than cruise through.

I still think fitness & endurance is down to hard work, determination & guts more than supplements, if you need Jack3d to train then you made need to question yourself.

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:What you learn in sparring is really important but I see a lot of young fighters who aren't in the ring enough to try out the skills they learn. Hand pick opponents so their style suits what you have been working on in sparring. Probably differs for ever fighter some suit be more active some suit more gym time.

Yes plus not all fighters, especially guys on the domestic level, can afford to hire quality sparring partners or quality trainers. Most of them are part time and have day jobs.

But if you are hot prospect like an Olympic medalist or an established fighter then theres the potential to learn alot more through sparring with top level guys rather than just hiring in these punchbags.

But not everyone can train with Freddie Roach and spar with Pacquaio at the end of the day.

I know that so surely if you can't afford the top sparring partners and work a day job fighting more regularly would suit you because you aren't learning as much in the gym.

Yes plus you probably need the money. But you will be at a disadvantage to someone who has the opportunity to avail of top sparring regardless of how many fights you have.

Yes but that's the way it is the guys with the hype behind them. Yes you will be at a disadvantage but surely fighting more regularly would be more beneficial to you than sparring with poor standard of sparring partners?

Possibly so yes but you run the risk then of picking up more losses which in turn makes it harder for you to secure quality fights and your career can end up going down the tubes.

That's my point their is to much emphasis put on zeroes. If you lose you should be able to get back up and for it to be treated as a learning curve rather than a major setback.

Well it depends how many losses we are talking about here. Its ok to suffer a couple early in your career. Hasnt stopped the likes of Pacquiao and Donaire. But if you are picking them up too regularly then its going to be seriously hard for a promoter to secure you fights or for you to be taken credibly as a live opponent. Its one thing protecting the "0" but if you start accumulating losses your career will suffer badly and its too high a price to pay for any experience you may be getting in the ring.

Obviously the ability needs to be their or it's pointless.

azania wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Keep hearing the word strength bounded about as some sort of great leap forwards, what massive difference does strength actually make, might mean you can shove a guy around in a clinch but much beyond that can't see why this would make modern fighters so much better than any that has gone before. Strength is not and has never been the same as power. You can be as strong as an ox, does not mean you will be able to absorb a better punch any more than it means you will be able to deliver a more powerful one.

You are talking about boxers who spend 3 months in a training camp to get their bodies in prime condition and to make themselves that split second quicker as well as stronger. Yes strength doesn't equate to better skill, but add it to them being faster, it gives an advantage.

Always being fit by fighting once a month is not as good as being primed for 3 months.

Six of one half a dozen of the other for me. Know what you are saying about training camp but often a lot of fighters need that just to get in shape & dont spend as much time on technique or game plan. Its the guys that are always in shape, Mayweather, Manny that get the benefit from the camps. When fighters are starting out & fighting 6 - 8 times a year they are always in shape & its when they get to the top or waiting for the big fight they can end up slacking off & needing that training camp.

True. Hatton spent half his time losing the fat before he got into the fine details (only to blow it all away). But answer this. Is sparring with Dirrell (As Groves is doing) and sparring with Clev et al (as DeGale is doing) a better learning/tuition that fighting some bum a month often with a day's notice?

Yes you need quality sparring & also to be matched sensebly. Fighting bum after bum after tomato can to keep the 0 is not the best way, but a few buckley's along the way will help. As others have said actual fights are valuble. Fighters must stay in shape between fights though & eat a reasonble diet, no point wasting the training camp shedding weigth by starving yourself & excess cardio.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Spot on Balti, if gym time was half as vaulable as actual in the ring fighting time the phrase ring rust would never have been invented.

Peter Buckley should be world champ then.

Not really still need talent, for what it is worth though Buckley did in his own way become extremely good at what he did, rarely got bashed up, almost never got stopped and always gave his opponents valuable rounds. Pretty much the perfect journeyman.

Personally as Manos says there is a middle ground and anyone can see the benefit of having three months to prepare and develop meticulous plans for opponents, however where my main issue is is it isn't just the elite at the top of their game that are having a long time between fights and for these guys it is nearer six months than 3 it is guys barely out of the amateurs.

For me, have said it countless times you will be a better fighter after 50 fights than 20. Now if you have had those fifty fights by 25 rather than 35 year old you will be even better.

If you fight 50 stiffs, you wont be much better than a guy fighting 20 varied opponents with different styles and prepering for each.

The thing you have to bear in mind though is back in the day managers and promoters were not obsessed with fighters remaining unbeaten and prospects were often matched tough way before they got to a tittle. Both Robinson and Burley were matched with Fritzie Zivic within a couple of years of going pro. Robbo always maintained he learned more in 20 rounds with Zivic than he did in almost any other fight. Similarly Cus matched Patterson with Maxim fully expecting Floyd to lose but maintaining the knowledge he would learn would be worth the loss of the 0. Totally agree 50 fights against the Buckley's is of limited use but this is not a reflection of how guys were matched. You can look at the records of plenty of old time greats and the kind of guys they were matched with before their titles is very often staggering. Read a biography of Billy Conn recently and some of the names he met on the way up are more than impressive. He didn't win all of these but you can be guaranteed he learned valuable lesssons in each and every one of the fights and was a better fighter for it.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Spot on Balti, if gym time was half as vaulable as actual in the ring fighting time the phrase ring rust would never have been invented.

Peter Buckley should be world champ then.

Not really still need talent, for what it is worth though Buckley did in his own way become extremely good at what he did, rarely got bashed up, almost never got stopped and always gave his opponents valuable rounds. Pretty much the perfect journeyman.

Personally as Manos says there is a middle ground and anyone can see the benefit of having three months to prepare and develop meticulous plans for opponents, however where my main issue is is it isn't just the elite at the top of their game that are having a long time between fights and for these guys it is nearer six months than 3 it is guys barely out of the amateurs.

For me, have said it countless times you will be a better fighter after 50 fights than 20. Now if you have had those fifty fights by 25 rather than 35 year old you will be even better.

If you fight 50 stiffs, you wont be much better than a guy fighting 20 varied opponents with different styles and prepering for each.

The thing you have to bear in mind though is back in the day managers and promoters were not obsessed with fighters remaining unbeaten and prospects were often matched tough way before they got to a tittle. Both Robinson and Burley were matched with Fritzie Zivic within a couple of years of going pro. Robbo always maintained he learned more in 20 rounds with Zivic than he did in almost any other fight. Similarly Cus matched Patterson with Maxim fully expecting Floyd to lose but maintaining the knowledge he would learn would be worth the loss of the 0. Totally agree 50 fights against the Buckley's is of limited use but this is not a reflection of how guys were matched. You can look at the records of plenty of old time greats and the kind of guys they were matched with before their titles is very often staggering. Read a biography of Billy Conn recently and some of the names he met on the way up are more than impressive. He didn't win all of these but you can be guaranteed he learned valuable lesssons in each and every one of the fights and was a better fighter for it.

I think protecting the 0 is only a small part of nowadays. The main difference is that fighters dont fight as much in general and can afford to spend more time sparring rather than fighting.

Fighting tough opponents early on is a high risk strategy. Not only because you risk losing but also you can suffer a bad beating and confidence damaging defeats. I wouldnt agree that that sticking a fighter in with a guy you expect him to lose to early in his career is particularly beneficial at all. Why not just have them spar in good competitive sessions where you have alot more control? At the end of the day you want to avoid losing regardless of the era you are in. The difference now is they have more control over it by and large because the pressure to fight as often isnt there.

In the past the had to fight alot more regulalry to earn money so they were willing to accept the trade off of more losses as part of the game. But Im not sure from a developmental point of view if they had the choice they would do this. If you can get away with fighting a few times a year then I think the controlled environment of high quality sparring offers alot more flexibility.

Certain great fighters like Robinson would probably be great either way and are the exceptions but would Khan for instance have benefited from just being matched against high quality opposition. All I see is more confidence shattering and career destroying defeats. I think he was far better off sparring with Pacquiao in a controlled environment where they could tell Pacquaio how hard to push him.

Obviously there is a trade off and not everyone can have avail of being in a top class stable with regular top class sparring like Khan, but my point is if they did then I think this every bit as good and in some cases better than being matched too tough and risking damaging defeats. If you can get an equal experience or better experience in the gym then I think this is more beneficial as it can be controlled and tailored with no risk to record or reputation.

For me Manos this is where a decent team behind you is essential. Obviously I am not suggesting Warren would be doing his job matching Gavin with Manny now because he would get a complete hiding and perhaps a viscious one. However think we see a situation now where guys considered prosects are matched so cautiously they learn virtually nothing from the bulk of their early fights.

As you rightly say the perfect solution perhaps lies in the middle ground but for me we are nowhere near that at the minute, prospects fight far too infrequently and against nowhere near tough enough fighters. Think we as fans don't help. Only have to look how quick we are to dismiss a guy as soon as he loses or looks anything other than stellar. Groves is a perfect example, looked less than great against Anderson and he is dismissed as a hype job. Would be much preferable if we looked at the fight as he got a tougher than expected opponent, got his tactics wrong but found a way to win and will probably be a better fighter for the experience.

Your right about the Anderson fight, but even that fight only happened because it was on the PPV undercard. Hayemaker couldn't afford it without TV. The balance is definitely wrong at the moment though, you just can't be best prepared for things going wrong in your big fights without being tested early.

I tend to agree Scott, only have to look at Danny Jacobs recently, clearly not without talent and touted as the next big thing but the minute someone had the temerity to not fall over as soon as he was hit or actually hit him back he didn't have a clue. Cannot help but feel this is a consequence of being matched too cautiously on the way up.

To look at it from the other perspective look at the improvement in Haye since Thompson, he paces a fight far better and no longer goes into meltdown the minute someone does not just fall over. For me that is a perfct example of a loss that was worth picking up.

Kell Brook is a good example he is 23 unbeaten but he wasn't really well matched or put in against a decent fighter until he fought Lomax in his 20th fight. This must have been bad for his development because no matter what he's learning in the gym he isn't getting the chance to use it in the ring because he is in mismatches.

rowley wrote:For me Manos this is where a decent team behind you is essential. Obviously I am not suggesting Warren would be doing his job matching Gavin with Manny now because he would get a complete hiding and perhaps a viscious one. However think we see a situation now where guys considered prosects are matched so cautiously they learn virtually nothing from the bulk of their early fights.

As you rightly say the perfect solution perhaps lies in the middle ground but for me we are nowhere near that at the minute, prospects fight far too infrequently and against nowhere near tough enough fighters. Think we as fans don't help. Only have to look how quick we are to dismiss a guy as soon as he loses or looks anything other than stellar. Groves is a perfect example, looked less than great against Anderson and he is dismissed as a hype job. Would be much preferable if we looked at the fight as he got a tougher than expected opponent, got his tactics wrong but found a way to win and will probably be a better fighter for the experience.

I agree 100%. Prospects nowadays are matched too easily early on with a few exceptions. I think the idea is that they do the real quality in the gym and then practice it in their fights. It was probably closer to the other way around earlier on in the sport.

However as you say, the fans are the fickle ones. They are the first to criticise, hype and write off. I seldom see the "learning curve" or "good experience" argument applied to a defeat. Its generally "hype job" and "overrated". The prospects cant even realistically use work on what hey were doing in the gym at their own pace because the crowd starts getting on their back if they dont see KO action and the prospect ends up abandoning trying to practice certain things or getting rounds under his belt and starts recklessly chasing the KO. If it doesnt come then the fans usually start questioning their credentials.

However matching is a very fine balance and I think they prefer to err on the side of caution nowadays as the consequences of erring on the side of danger can be devatating.

Personally I would prefer to have a guy like Groves sparring with Dirrell over the course of a month rather than an actual competitive fight. I prefer to be able to control Dirrell and tell him when to ease off and when to push etc. That way you get the benefit of plenty of rounds sparred experience with a good opponent without risking my fighter duffering a career and confidence damaging defeat.

Similarly even with guys as prestigous as Robinson I would rather just have him spar competitvely with Zivic for 20/30 rounds rather than thow him in straight away.

The problem is clearly these prospects are not being matched to the level they are performing in sparring. For instance if I saw Groves could hold his own against Dirrell or I saw Robinson had the better of Zivic then I wouldnt hesitate to try match them accordingly. I certainly dont see the developmental benefit of sparring with top guys only to be matched with a punch bag a few weeks later.

Groves will have learnt more in his fight with Anderson than he ever will sparring for the simple fact a fight is for real and sparring is largely manufactured. It's good for working on certain aspects of your game but the real nitty gritty stuff is learnt inside the ring.

Agree Ghosty would never dismiss the use of sparring as obviously it has its value but what would happen if a fighter gets clipped and goes over in sparring. Likelihood is his trainer would stop the session or round. He is not going to let the fight continue to see how he reacts (rightly so) and also if the session did continue his sparring partner who relies on him for a wage is hardly likely to go full out for the finish, all of which would happen in a real fight.

For this reason sparring is of value but shouldn't and mustn't be seen as a replacement for the real thing of actually getting in there and fighting against someone who is trying to beat you.

I disagree. Most of the sparring done is alot more competitive than you are giving it credit for. If sparring is wishy washy and half hearted then its not valueable. But in general the guys are told to go at with no holds barred.

Working with someone with like Dirrell in sparring will give Groves better skills than a fight with Anderson in my view provided the tempo is correct.

Sparring is training and should be treated as such. Sparring should be used for fine tuning your skills and practicing new things or working on things that you don't do well. This should be put into practice in the ring that's why I feel prospects especially should fight more. Once a month imo, the emphasis placed on their 0 is ridiculous and the reaction to a shaky performance is poor.
For example Groves struggled against Anderson but came through and got the win but was slated in some corners. It should have been looked upon as good experience and something he will learn from.

Have to disagree with that 100%

In the Anderson fight Groves had to dig deep to pull out the win, he simply won't have to do that in sparring and it enabled him to react in the heat of battle which again he wouldn't have to do in sparring. Sparring isn't wishy washy but it is largely manufactured, for the large part it isn't done on the spur of the moment and you are directed as to what to do. Dirrell in my opinion is a terrible choice of sparring partner, he's at the current time a couple of notches above both Groves and Degale and is far more elusive, he would have to contain himself in sparring which devalues it.

Atom is it me you disagree with?

prettyboy1304 wrote:Atom is it me you disagree with?

Did you spill my pint?

rowley wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Atom is it me you disagree with?

Did you spill my pint?

Nah mate I meant Manos