Middleweight rankings Top 10 Head to Head with a time machine and Peak for Peak.

First topic message reminder :

Heavyweights
https://www.606v2.com/t33978-solvedheavyweight-rankings-top-10-head-to-head-with-a-time-machine-and-peak-for-peak-edited

Ali predictably and almost unanimously stayed at the number 1 position but there was a lot of jostling about with the rest with the possible exception of Foreman who gathered a few votes in second.

Light Heavyweights

https://www.606v2.com/t34073-light-heavyweight-rankings-top-10-head-to-head-with-a-time-machine-and-peak-for-peak

Charles was unanimous number 1 from the few who did post their 10 but again no consensus on the rest


For those who missed the others - this is just a simple task of ranking your top 10/15 fighters of the MW division on a head to head basis - and he who wins the most heads to heads gets ranked highest - which is then ranked a top 10 after which if you are so inclined you compare them to your genuine top 10 and see how they compare.

horizontalhero wrote:Not you Chris. I was referring to MM response to Ghosty, who is pretty knowledgeable IMO.

Don't think anyone's doubting Ghosty's fantastic knowledge HH. But one of the best things about this forum is the mix of boxing historians (Ghosty et al.) and boxing practitioners (e.g. MM). Padded out by the arm chair fans like me!

It is this mix that fuels debate as the perspectives and knowledge/experience balances are so varied. There was a thread on weight-draining/weigh-ins which really highlighted this a few months ago.

Great thread to read through btw.

I would say Mayweathers defence the best around today, so why doesnt everyone use it.

To simplistic to say that if it was the best everyone would use it. Some people simply dont have the skill to pull it off.

compelling and rich wrote:

Technique may well be better in modern fighters but imo toughness/mental strength, the old time greats win hands down, and is often the reasion i back alot of the old timers in head to head fights

Absolutely! Thats why the direction of the time machine is important...

The majority of modern boxers are too soft to go back in time....and most "Old Era" fighters are too nasty and primitive to come forward into todays safety conscious rings. The very rules of 21st century boxing nullifies them hard b@stards' advantages.

Apologies to Shah for hijacking the direction of the thread

..... at least Tophat is enjoying it!

TheMackemMawler wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

Technique may well be better in modern fighters but imo toughness/mental strength, the old time greats win hands down, and is often the reasion i back alot of the old timers in head to head fights

Absolutely! Thats why the direction of the time machine is important...

The majority of modern boxers are too soft to go back in time....and most "Old Era" fighters are too nasty and primitive to come forward into todays safety conscious rings. The very rules of 21st century boxing nullifies them hard b@stards' advantages.

DOn't enitrely agree. Having boxed yourself you should be well aware that you still need to be a hard b@stard to box.

Why is it that from the 60's onwards boxers are deemed modern, but before that primitive. What changed. Could a boxer from the 50's not compete with one from the 60's?

Basically the last 50 years are modern, the 50 years before that are primitive seems to be the jist.

Throughout this thread, when discussing modernity, I have tried to refrain from the notion that everyone woke up on the morning after the 31st of December 1959 in modern times.

My thoughts on what and why is considered to be modern times are there to read if you take the time. And while the transitional periods between era's are dynamic and perpetual by nature, and never truelly beginning or ending, we have to make some distinction, otherwise we are all still living in the Iron Age, or, any other old era you care to mention.

Also, when you said, "I would say Mayweathers defence the best around today, so why doesnt everyone use it. To simplistic to say that if it was the best everyone would use it. Some people simply dont have the skill to pull it off".

were you referring to my "ultimately, if it was the most effective guard position then everyone would use it!!" when i was talking about the cross defence?

If so...what a silly counter argument! How can you consider Mayweather's collection of defensive skills in the same light as a single simplistic move?

Do you think people don't use the cross guard position because they don't possess the skill to use it?

They don't use it is because it's not as effective as some other guard position swhen used in conjunction with their particular modern style!

You are right people don't use Mayweather style because it is insanely difficult.

damn it , i replied to you

TheMackemMawler wrote:damn it , i replied to you

Mackems always go back on their word anyway, dont worry about it.

"No I wont rob the shops"
"I promise, I'll stop dating my sister"

All lies...

TheMackemMawler wrote:Throughout this thread, when discussing modernity, I have tried to refrain from the notion that every woke up on the morning after the 31st of 1959 in modern times.

My thoughts on what and why is considered to be modern times are there to read if you take the time. And while the transitional periods between era's are dynamic and perpetual by nature, and never truelly beginning or ending, we have to make some distinction, otherwise we are all still living in the Iron Age, or, any other old era you care to mention.

Also, when you said, "I would say Mayweathers defence the best around today, so why doesnt everyone use it. To simplistic to say that if it was the best everyone would use it. Some people simply dont have the skill to pull it off".

were you referring to my "ultimately, if it was the most effective guard position then everyone would use it!!" when i was talking about the cross defence?

If so...what a silly counter argument! How can you consider Mayweather's collection of defensive skills in the same light as a single simplistic move?

Do you think don't use the cross guard position because they don't possess the skill to use it? They don't use it is because it's not as effective as some other guard position swhen used in conjunction with their particular modern style.

You are right people don't use Mayweather style because it is insanely difficult.

I was merely pointing out that the reason people do not use said techniques, whether single or collective is not always because they are not the best around. The cross defence, when correctly utilised, can be a highly effective tool. I should know, I use it on occassion, depending on the type of fighter I am sparring with.

I think the pre 1900s were an obvious transitional period in boxing because it was going from bareknuckle London Prize Rules to gloved Queensbury rules and many of the fighters would have been crossing over. It would naturally take a period of time for adaption to the new conditions, development of new techniques and then the passing on of these techniques to occur. Pinpointing when this development stopped is hard to say.

Another issue is that periods like the 1910s and 1920s are generally cosidered cruder, which may well be true. But the level of participation in boxing then was much higher and as a general rule its far harder to produce a technically great fighter than a crude slugger/swarmer because the talent needed is much greater for the former. So perhaps these era's were top heavy on the cruder fighters. In America there was several populations of low class 1st/2nd/3rd generation of Irish, Poles, Jews, Blacks of all levels of ability joining the boxing ranks and numerous house shows with which to ply their trade. A crude but entertaining fighter with very limited skills could still earn a living of sorts whereas in todays environment this guy would get weeded out early because the percentages are much smaller.

But if you take someone like Greb for instance, I think its unlikely that his style changes all that much in any era regardless of training techniques. He was crude swarmer but massively effective. In a modern ring he might have to tone down some of the rough stuff but almost regardless of who trained him in any era I think his style is what it is. And we know it was effective because he holds wins over all the top guys of his era whether they were considered technical virtuosos or sluggers themselves.

The you could take someone like Jones, who I think a coach would be wasting his time 99.9% of the time trying to teach his style to anyone else because so few people have the blend of raw athleticism, natural physical gifts or level of unorthodoxithicity to pull it off remotely successfully.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:damn it , i replied to you

Mackems always go back on their word anyway, dont worry about it.

"No I wont rob the shops"
"I promise, I'll stop dating my sister"

All lies...

Funny you should say that because the Geordies I know are similar...

"I promise to stop robbing bacon from ALDI" ...... (at least we choose Mach3 blades from ASDA).

"I promise, I'll stop dating my brother and daddy"

"I swear I'll shower more than just on Sunday's"

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:Throughout this thread, when discussing modernity, I have tried to refrain from the notion that every woke up on the morning after the 31st of 1959 in modern times.

My thoughts on what and why is considered to be modern times are there to read if you take the time. And while the transitional periods between era's are dynamic and perpetual by nature, and never truelly beginning or ending, we have to make some distinction, otherwise we are all still living in the Iron Age, or, any other old era you care to mention.

Also, when you said, "I would say Mayweathers defence the best around today, so why doesnt everyone use it. To simplistic to say that if it was the best everyone would use it. Some people simply dont have the skill to pull it off".

were you referring to my "ultimately, if it was the most effective guard position then everyone would use it!!" when i was talking about the cross defence?

If so...what a silly counter argument! How can you consider Mayweather's collection of defensive skills in the same light as a single simplistic move?

Do you think don't use the cross guard position because they don't possess the skill to use it? They don't use it is because it's not as effective as some other guard position swhen used in conjunction with their particular modern style.

You are right people don't use Mayweather style because it is insanely difficult.

I was merely pointing out that the reason people do not use said techniques, whether single or collective is not always because they are not the best around. The cross defence, when correctly utilised, can be a highly effective tool. I should know, I use it on occassion, depending on the type of fighter I am sparring with.

Alot of people use it at times because it's very effective against the uppercut amongst other things. However, I don't think I've ever, knowingly, used it competitively. Just when I've sparred, and generally when I'ved sparred someone not as good as me (yes, believe it or not, it has happened on the rare occasion!). Its just not my style. I prefer to move my feet more than anything else.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:damn it , i replied to you

Mackems always go back on their word anyway, dont worry about it.

"No I wont rob the shops"
"I promise, I'll stop dating my sister"

All lies...

Funny you should say that because the Geordies I know are similar...

"I promise to stop robbing bacon from ALDI" ...... (at least we choose Mach3 blades from ASDA).

"I promise, I'll stop dating my brother and daddy"

"I swear I'll shower more than just on Sunday's"

Newcastle is a tremendous city. So much so that S*nderland City Council actually used pictures of the Tyne Bridge and Millenium Eye on a pamflet advertising the brilliance of S*nderland a couple of years back.

Mackem, jack this thread has generated some decent debate and has on the whole been done in the right kind of spirit given this I would appreciate if you could please take the petty regional rivalries elsewhere

Lancashire<Yorkshire. FACT.

Rowley,

To be honest I'm one of the few Mackems rational enough to admit I actually like Newcastle City Centre. I mean, what's not to like.... apart from the people?

I'm happy to continue debating, however, I'm unsure if I have anything of worth worth adding (other than pointless paraphrasing which is worthless).

Apologies Rowley...

Back to the article, and I agree with most that Monzon would probably take it.

Like my S*nderland friend, I agree in not rating Greb. I find it a somewhat odd concept to rank someone in a head 2 head basis having never seen them box.

I look at Monzon and see someone who is there for the taking, but then I look at the names on his record and realise I must be very wrong.

Maybe the cross defence was a bad example but the once prevalent Philly shell seems to be dying out, 3 of the best technicians of recent years in Toney, Hopkins and mayweather all use it. It is a counter punchers stance but rarely used, there's a brilliant video of burley using it comparing it to de la hoyas more basic stance.

Do you have a link please Ghosty, I'd love to watch it.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Do you have a link please Ghosty, I'd love to watch it.

You may find this interesting reading too:

http://martialhistory.com/2009/11/guarding-the-mongoose

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Maybe the cross defence was a bad example but the once prevalent Philly shell seems to be dying out, 3 of the best technicians of recent years in Toney, Hopkins and mayweather all use it. It is a counter punchers stance but rarely used, there's a brilliant video of burley using it comparing it to de la hoyas more basic stance.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about the techniques used by very early 20th century fighters? And as far as I'm aware the philly shell is not something common to that era. I also believe that the philly shell is less common due to the requirement that it is accompanied by other atributes that aren't necessarily available to every boxer.

Thanks for that tophat.....a link that my antivirus protection deemed essential to block!

Saboteur!

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Apologies Rowley...

Back to the article, and I agree with most that Monzon would probably take it.

Like my S*nderland friend, I agree in not rating Greb. I find it a somewhat odd concept to rank someone in a head 2 head basis having never seen them box.

I can't understand what all the fuss about Mozon is about. Sure his record is good, but I've never watched a video of any of his fights so he is useless.

The logic is undeniable.

fearlessBamber wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Apologies Rowley...

Back to the article, and I agree with most that Monzon would probably take it.

Like my S*nderland friend, I agree in not rating Greb. I find it a somewhat odd concept to rank someone in a head 2 head basis having never seen them box.

I can't understand what all the fuss about Mozon is about. Sure his record is good, but I've never watched a video of any of his fights so he is useless.

The logic is undeniable.

To be fair though, I think its meant in relation to rating how someone gets on in a head to head match up which is a fair point. Its often difficult to pick a winner between two fighters in the same era with plenty of footage available never mind guys spaced up to 80 years apart that there is no available footage of! I dont think anyone could dispute Grebs record in his own era though.

I say it all the time that watching Monzon is an odd experience, you don't see greatness in any one performance but he seemed to always beat an opponent at their own game, he outboxed Griffith but outbrawled Valdes, to understand his greatness you need to watch all of his championship fights.

any idea if Union will ever do a career in video?

Try and find the second fight with Valdez, the first fight with Benvenuti and either of the Griffith fights, be prepared to be completely uninspired to start with but then marvel at his effectiveness. Even his fight with Napoles highlights how to beat a smaller great fighter. I could never back against him at middleweight because he could beat you on the inside, outside or mid range, either brawling, slugging or boxing, the single most infallible fighter i've ever seen.

Cheers Ghosty,

only ever seen highlights, i'll check them out.

In relation to the cross defence Mackem and I don't mean this a derogatory way but it takes a master like Moore to utilise it fully as the link TopHat shows. It's not the easiest guard to punch out of which is why it's less prevalent now, it takes years of experience to read a fight perfectly to enable yourself to get in the right position something Moore had in abundance.

Although not from the early part of the 20th century I used the philly shell and I lump all it's variants like the cross defence into that takes years of practice to perfect something modern day fighters don't have. You have anomalies like Mayweather and Hopkins but even then they're so supremely talented it comes naturally but it's more so the second tier and below who seem to have regressed or maybe a lesser pool of great fighters.

Experience by itself is the most important thing the old timers had, Moore had the likes of Charley Burley to learn against, modern day fighters wouldn't be put in that situation until they had reached the top. Moore get battered by Burley didn't stop his career like it would do for a current fighter due to fighting more often and being able to re-establish albeit over more fights but in a lesser time frame.

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

The Burley video I mentioned earlier.

"It takes a master like Moore to utilise it fully!!!"

How many fighters have tried to use it????

The ones who have......like Witherspoon were never knocked out apart from when he couldn't be bothered against Smith...

The statement is bollox and you know it...

Durelle didn't struggle to slap him....

Come on.......

TheMackemMawler wrote:Thanks for that tophat.....a link that my antivirus protection deemed essential to block!

Saboteur!

haha it's kosher, honest!

TRUSS, Ghosty, I'm keeping out of this one. I've said my piece. There is some common ground and I'm happy to leave it like that....for tonight!

....One last thing though, I think the Philly shell is suited to the supremely athletic flexible counter punches, the ones with quick reflexes, and a certain composure that allows them to see the action almost in slow motion.

Where I find the cross guard, in its simplest form, a kind of get out the box and use type of tool. Very unsophisticated, suiting the come forward bob weavers best. But, no doubt, those who have dedicated a career to it will have polished it to perfection.

I'll watch the burley video tomorrow...

For me the crosss arm and philly shell are very closely related -almost part of same style of defense - the positionof the right hand sliping onto the left hand side of the face to protect aginst counters over the left hand, the left arm held lower down to protect the body- the left shoulder being used to cover the chin, as someone else has already stated Moore used it to great effect, combined with good head/torso movement it is also an enegy effective solution ie it has a certain economy of movement- well suited to the ageing Moore, and the second coming of Foreman.
It worked brilliantly for Norton against Ali- when Ali threw his jab his right hand moved out to the side away from his head, whilst when Ken threw his jab his right handed stayed infront of his face - so when they both threw jabs his landed and he was able to catch Ali's in his glove, and with very little movement he able to do the same to any following right hands
James Toney against Williams is another great example of this style of defence. For the record MM I enjoy your contributions and you clearly have an excellent understanding of boxing techniques, but at the same time I think that many others that have a great historical knowledge of the sport can also have a great understanding of technique, and you don't neccessarily have to have been a boxer or trainer to attain that knowledge.
That said if you are debating with a certain poster that thinks the 1990's were the sports greatest era, best to break things down into easy to understand bite size pieces!

Tophat, I feel the author of that peice loses credance when he states that the cross arm defence leaves you open to the uppercut. I'ts just plain wrong....

With a normal guard, there is a gap down the centre of the gloves, leaving a channel for the uppercut to travel through. The very action of crossing the arms closes the channel.

That Jason Couch seems abit of a jack of all trades and master of none, he writes on subjects as diverse as Bayeaux Tapestry to Girl Gangs in London.

However, I did find it informative. It was interesting to read about the variations on the Cross Arm Defence. Some of these are natural variations that I might of previously considered to be poor form or even instinctive for a novice. It's fascinating that they are real old world techniques.... that were actually taught!

For instance, I'm specifically referring to example four, which is also shown in the photograph, I mean you might as well be wearing a blind fold (....albeit wrapped in Armour!)

horizontalhero wrote:For me the crosss arm and philly shell are very closely related -almost part of same style of defense - the positionof the right hand sliping onto the left hand side of the face to protect aginst counters over the left hand, the left arm held lower down to protect the body- the left shoulder being used to cover the chin, as someone else has already stated Moore used it to great effect, combined with good head/torso movement it is also an enegy effective solution ie it has a certain economy of movement- well suited to the ageing Moore, and the second coming of Foreman.
It worked brilliantly for Norton against Ali- when Ali threw his jab his right hand moved out to the side away from his head, whilst when Ken threw his jab his right handed stayed infront of his face - so when they both threw jabs his landed and he was able to catch Ali's in his glove, and with very little movement he able to do the same to any following right hands
James Toney against Williams is another great example of this style of defence. For the record MM I enjoy your contributions and you clearly have an excellent understanding of boxing techniques, but at the same time I think that many others that have a great historical knowledge of the sport can also have a great understanding of technique, and you don't neccessarily have to have been a boxer or trainer to attain that knowledge.
That said if you are debating with a certain poster that thinks the 1990's were the sports greatest era, best to break things down into easy to understand bite size pieces!

Cheers for the advice Horizontal. I'll take it on board. It seems that when things aren't going my way, I become abit "elitist" or regard boxing as exclusively for those that have partaken. A little silly really.

Again thanks for the tip.

...by the way, good break down of the philly shell!

I consider the cross arm guard to be related...... BUT VERY VERY DIFFERENT!

fearlessBamber wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Apologies Rowley...

Back to the article, and I agree with most that Monzon would probably take it.

Like my S*nderland friend, I agree in not rating Greb. I find it a somewhat odd concept to rank someone in a head 2 head basis having never seen them box.

I can't understand what all the fuss about Mozon is about. Sure his record is good, but I've never watched a video of any of his fights so he is useless.

The logic is undeniable.

Well watch him fight then... fool.

Same cannot be said for Greb. Perfectly reasonable to leave him out of head to heads as I cannot draw my own conclusions.

That Jason Couch seems abit of a jack of all trades and master of none, he writes on subjects as diverse as Bayeaux Tapestry to Girl Gangs in London.

I believe the cross arm defence was employed to great effect by the Normans at Hastings. If only Harald had employed a similar technique that arrow may not have hit him in the eye. Of course, the girl gangs of London are notorious for their use of both the philly shell and cross arm defence.