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.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

azania wrote:Another was when I said Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals. You would have thought I had just killed Bambi by the reaction of many. The point is, never criticise the sepia generation boxers. Fighting twice a week for wages against tough men dragged out of a boozer makes them ATG.

606'rs find you ascerbic radical and extreme so it a bit different when it comes from you. Personally, I find you hillarious and intelligent.

Your probably a minority of one.

azania wrote:Technique and learned skill has moved on from the days of Greb. But wrong thread for this.

If none of us can be bothered to create a thread then it looks like the only place for this is the.....

The free-for-all "Cleverly at HW/Calzaghe would beat Wlad/Rocky Marciano was Rubbish/Mimsy" Thread

I can only imagine that not getting a direct response to blatant wummery must feel a bit masturbating without reaching climax. How was it for you, Az?

Greb
Jones
Monzon
Nunn
Hopkins
Robinson
Hagler
Burley
Ketchel
Steele

Superfly,

It doesn't warrant a response? It was a tongue in cheek dig at Ghosty for saying I was deliberately being awkward. But, I can't understand how expressing a perfectly normal view, in that boxers from 100 years ago are stylistic primitive, can be considered awkward?

I would be interested to hear a counter argument?

Seeing this thread is a head to head and ignores legacy and acheivement, I'd also be interested to know how people see a fight going between Ketchel or Greb against Jones, Nunn, Hopkins, Monzon or Hagler. For one, I'd like to know how they would even begin to imagine Greb against the modern guys?

Ketchel seriously? He would get his head boxed off and embarrassed. If this is not primitive I will never post again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZQUCVrN6I

TheMackemMawler wrote:EVERYTHING EVOLVES..........INCLUDING SPORT!

Anthony Wilding would get owned by Roger Federer.

Joe Davis would get spanked by Ronnie O'sullivan

Francis Ouimet would get humiliated by Tiger woods.

....AND NOSTALGIA IS A SEDUCTIVE LIAR.

By evolution you mean change and change does not necessarily imply improvement.

Boxing is a sport in decline with reduced levels of participation and public interest. Does anyone really believe there has been steady improvement since the 1960's? The video evidence - the one thing that is the trump card of the modern fighter seems, to me, to imply quite the opposite.

Their maybe no footage of Greb fighting and he may look like a bit of a plonker in his training videos, but there is footage of his opposition - like Tunney - the man who dethroned Jack Dempsey. Greb was the only man to ever beat Tunney. He fought and beat a number of greats and had an aggressive swarming style that ages well and I for one do not find it difficult to place him as number one despite heavily favouring post 1930s fighters.

By evolution why would I mean a change which confers no advantage??

I mean actual EVOLUTION??.... an improvement which survives the test of time, thus allowing the perpetuatation of this improvement.

If the gypsey bare knuckle-fighting style of yesteryear was effective... then why has it died out. That's evolution... survival of the fittest or most appropriate adaptation for the operating environment.

If the old style was better, then people would have reverted back to it.... and be hammering mayweather and donaire! Evolution in reverse seldom occurs.

Also, if participation is decreasing, obviously the talent pool is sparse, but does that not mean lads get better tuition?....the whole class size, in schools, argument.

Finally, i'm not mentioning an improvement since 1960 either? I'm talking about ONE HUNDRED years ago, (and I would consider post late 1960 boxing to be modern boxing).

Essentially what bamber said. Really can't be bothered getting into the old v new debate for the umpteenth time but will question the convenience of this supposed evolution peaking in the 60's and then not developing beyond that.

If it's conceivable that Monzon would beat Hopkins when Monzon fought 40 years ago, the surely it's conceivable that Greb could beat Monzon who fought 40 odd years before Monzon? If its conceivable that Greb could beat Monzon and it's conceivable that Monzon could beat Hopkins... QED.

Greb fought like nobody before him and very few since and from every description I've read of him - huge output, teak tough chin, strength and a nightmare in the clinches - makes him a hellishly tough opponent for anyone. Having read numerous detailed reports from Greb's fights, I'm comfortable judging him without footage.

Also, if participation is decreasing, obviously the talent pool is sparse, but does that not mean lads get better tuition?....the whole class size, in schools, argument

.

Not necessarily. Less participation could mean that one doesn't have to be so good to reach the top.

I will say it once again, I havn't mentioned an improvement or lack of improvement since 1960?

I said I consider post late 1960 boxing to be modern?

You are the one that is conceiving Greb to beat Monzon, not I? And for that reason you are the one conceiving Greb could beat Hopkins.

My point is, I don't know who Greb could beat because I havn't seen him box. I think that is a pretty important point. Styles make fights, and its horses for courses, when predicting outcomes we mesh the styles that we observe. WE HAVE NOTHING TO OBSERVE, therefore, I choose to omit Greb on a lack of evidence.

TheMackemMawler wrote:By evolution why would I mean a change which confers no advantage??

I mean actual EVOLUTION??.... an improvement which survives the test of time, thus allowing the perpetuatation of this improvement.

Also, if participation is decreasing, obviously the talent pool is sparse, but does that not mean lads get better tuition?....the whole class size in schools argument.

Finally, i'm not mentioning an improvement since 1960 either? I'm talking about ONE HUNDRED years ago, (and I would consider post late 1960 boxing to be modern boxing).

I do not think the evolution analogy is appropriate or helpful. Besides, I think you misrepresent evolution both in regards to biology and as a sporting analogy.

Natural selection does not always result in progress or "better" organisms. Mosses, sharks and fungi have changed little over time. Mightily impressive creatures such as sabre tooth tigers have become extinct (Italian American boxers) whilst the bunny rabbit thrives (insert ethnic group with rising participation here).

If you want to keep up the pub-science, I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the early 20th century, with its relative poverty and deprivation was an environment that spawned and selected superior fighters.

I disagree completely that a dwindling talent pool might somehow produce better fighters. One only needs to consider the limit in these kind of arguments - a talent pool of one. Let's say it's my mum. Not only would all the facilities in the world not help her, but who would she fight?

I use the 1960s - present as an example because prior to this, the quality and availability of footage declines. Over this period, despite the advent of McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and of course Wendy's (love those square burgers) video evidence points to a decline in boxers physical condition and skill set. Prior to this records and opinions of the day become more relevant, but the naysayers happily dismiss these fighters because they need to see them on the telly to believe they are real.

superflyweight wrote:

Also, if participation is decreasing, obviously the talent pool is sparse, but does that not mean lads get better tuition?....the whole class size, in schools, argument

.

Not necessarily. Less participation could mean that one doesn't have to be so good to reach the top.

Once again, I did not mention how easy it was to reach the top. I was playing devils advocate and thus mentioned more refined tuition.

However, based solely on logic, if a lack of competitors result in more dedicated tuition, and if dedicated tuition makes you a better competitor, then your competitors are better competitors (than without dedicated tuition). Therefore the competition is smaller but it could be argued that it is equally competitive?

You are good at changing the meaning of things suit.... or splitting hairs and avoiding the main topic of reduced skill in pre 1925 boxers.

I can't understand the loyalty people have to this era, as if the fabric of the universe will implode if you say anything that may be construed as negative toward it (even though it is not negative but simply a perfectly rational observation)

TheMackemMawler wrote:
I can't understand the loyalty people have to this era, as if the fabric of the universe will implode if you say anything that may be construed as negative toward it (even though it is not negative but simply a perfectly rational observation)

I have no loyalty to this era. I do not generally rate pre 1930s fighters. Greb was exceptional by any measure and therefore and exception.

We know who Greb beat though, which is strong evidence of his merits in itself. We also have enough reports and descriptions of his fights to get an idea of the style he employed.

What interests me is in the evolution of boxing, quite often the 1960s (coincidentally the arrival of Ali) is used as some kind of cut off point. Is the argument that boxing evolved incrementally up until that point and then just stopped? Or was there a period where it underwent a massive quantum leap forward?

I think its fair to say that in the very ealy periods at the beginning of gloved boxing that it took a while to transform from bare-knuckle London Prize Rules to gloved Queensbury. New styles would have to be developed, refined and then passed on which would have to hapen over a number of years. So when head to head fights are touted, unde the kind of rules that are employed today, I think those early era guys probably struggle in the context of the sport we know today.

What I think is less clear is when exactly boxing turns from "crude" to "modern". I tend to view the Walker Law that was brought in around the 1920s which legalised boxing and provided proper regulation for the first time as having a big influence on boxing in general and kickstarting a golden era in terms of profile and popularity for the sport.

There also a fair number of variables. Talent in individual divisions is likely to peak and trough naturally over various eras. The current system of 17 divisions with four world titles per division is obviously a vastly less competitive structure than 8 divisions with 1 title each. Other things like numbers in participation, the status of the sport at present, how much knowledge is being retained and past on through trainers and so forth are all very hard to measure.

Not sure why you mention Rabbits and Sabre tooth tigers. Sabre tooth tigers probably didn't die out because of a design or evolutionary flaw, and rabbit are a decent design for their way of life or purpose.

The evolution analogy is perfectly apt.

I agree Sharks and Mosses haven’t changed much, neither has a host of other things such as Eukaryota and crocodiles. Natural selection may have attempted and succeeded in making subtle changes, but large scale changes are not necessary because their basic design is perfect for the environment in which they operate.

My point is.... boxers are not sharks or moss they are boxers, boxers who have selected to improve their technique so that they could survive in their ring environment.

My point still stands. Sporting technique evolves until it is as close to perfection as possible.

Anthony Wilding would get owned by Roger Federer.

Joe Davis would get spanked by Ronnie O'sullivan

Francis Ouimet would get humiliated by Tiger woods.

….and Roy jones would beat Stanley Ketchel!

fearlessBamber wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:
I can't understand the loyalty people have to this era, as if the fabric of the universe will implode if you say anything that may be construed as negative toward it (even though it is not negative but simply a perfectly rational observation)

I have no loyalty to this era. I do not generally rate pre 1930s fighters. Greb was exceptional by any measure and therefore and exception.

Well it seems we agree, just not on Greb.

TheMackemMawler wrote:The evolution analogy is perfectly apt.

I agree Sharks and Mosses haven’t changed much, neither has a host of other things such as Eukaryota and crocodiles. Natural selection may have attempted and succeeded in making subtle changes, but large scale changes are not necessary because their basic design is perfect for the environment in which they operate.

My point is.... boxers are not sharks or moss they are boxers, boxers who have selected to improve their technique so that they could survive in their ring environment.

My point still stands. Sporting technique evolves until it is as close to perfection as possible.

Anthony Wilding would get owned by Roger Federer.

Joe Davis would get spanked by Ronnie O'sullivan

Francis Ouimet would get humiliated by Tiger woods.

….and Roy jones would beat Stanley Ketchel!

To what degree though. Is it it still evolving in boxing or not? Most wold take Ali as better than any heavyweight before or after. That was the guts of a half century ago. If its still evolving all the time then the insinuation would be every champion now was better than those preceding them. Which I wouldnt say is neccessarily true. If its not evolving, when did it stop, and why?

TheMackemMawler wrote:

My point is.... boxers are not sharks or moss they are boxers, boxers who have selected to improve their technique so that they could survive in their ring environment.

This is nonsense. The ring is not a selective environment. Technique is not not an inherited trait. The offspring of boxers do not necessarily become boxers. Bla bla bla.

In sport "evolution" is is a synonym for improvement. It is not really natural selection.

manos de piedra wrote:We know who Greb beat though, which is strong evidence of his merits in itself. We also have enough reports and descriptions of his fights to get an idea of the style he employed.

What interests me is in the evolution of boxing, quite often the 1960s (coincidentally the arrival of Ali) is used as some kind of cut off point. Is the argument that boxing evolved incrementally up until that point and then just stopped? Or was there a period where it underwent a massive quantum leap forward?

I think its fair to say that in the very ealy periods at the beginning of gloved boxing that it took a while to transform from bare-knuckle London Prize Rules to gloved Queensbury. New styles would have to be developed, refined and then passed on which would have to hapen over a number of years. So when head to head fights are touted, unde the kind of rules that are employed today, I think those early era guys probably struggle in the context of the sport we know today.

What I think is less clear is when exactly boxing turns from "crude" to "modern". I tend to view the Walker Law that was brought in around the 1920s which legalised boxing and provided proper regulation for the first time as having a big influence on boxing in general and kickstarting a golden era in terms of profile and popularity for the sport.

There also a fair number of variables. Talent in individual divisions is likely to peak and trough naturally over various eras. The current system of 17 divisions with four world titles per division is obviously a vastly less competitive structure than 8 divisions with 1 title each. Other things like numbers in participation, the status of the sport at present, how much knowledge is being retained and past on through trainers and so forth are all very hard to measure.

The quantum leap was Tunney and the like (you will know better than me on this), then the proliferation of skill perpetuated in a transitional phase, upto and beyond 1960, until the majority became skilled as compared to their forefathers. I don't think you can pin point the time in which skill "won out" or even the true common ancestor of skill. Similar, to how we can't trace the common ancestor between a shrew and a bat.

With regard to Greb, I understand that you and others feel as though they can rate on what you have read.

I just don't feel comfortable doing so when contemplating head to heads (ATG lists... sure!).

Surely I am allowed to refrain.

fearlessBamber wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:

My point is.... boxers are not sharks or moss they are boxers, boxers who have selected to improve their technique so that they could survive in their ring environment.

This is nonsense. The ring is not a selective environment. Technique is not not an inherited trait. The offspring of boxers do not necessarily become boxers. Bla bla bla.

In sport "evolution" is is a synonym for improvement. It is not really natural selection.

I realise boxing is not some sort of natural selection phenomenom!!!

But are behaviours and skills not learned and passed down to generation from generation, is this not the evolution of the family unit, society, the human race and sport? Why restrict evolution to biological terms. Surely using words metaphorically such as evolution can be used with artistic license? The meaning of evolution has evolved since the Darwinian era

You can continue to split hairs if you like, but my point stands, boxing has evolved and early 20th century boxers were primitive.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:We know who Greb beat though, which is strong evidence of his merits in itself. We also have enough reports and descriptions of his fights to get an idea of the style he employed.

What interests me is in the evolution of boxing, quite often the 1960s (coincidentally the arrival of Ali) is used as some kind of cut off point. Is the argument that boxing evolved incrementally up until that point and then just stopped? Or was there a period where it underwent a massive quantum leap forward?

I think its fair to say that in the very ealy periods at the beginning of gloved boxing that it took a while to transform from bare-knuckle London Prize Rules to gloved Queensbury. New styles would have to be developed, refined and then passed on which would have to hapen over a number of years. So when head to head fights are touted, unde the kind of rules that are employed today, I think those early era guys probably struggle in the context of the sport we know today.

What I think is less clear is when exactly boxing turns from "crude" to "modern". I tend to view the Walker Law that was brought in around the 1920s which legalised boxing and provided proper regulation for the first time as having a big influence on boxing in general and kickstarting a golden era in terms of profile and popularity for the sport.

There also a fair number of variables. Talent in individual divisions is likely to peak and trough naturally over various eras. The current system of 17 divisions with four world titles per division is obviously a vastly less competitive structure than 8 divisions with 1 title each. Other things like numbers in participation, the status of the sport at present, how much knowledge is being retained and past on through trainers and so forth are all very hard to measure.

The quantum leap was Tunney and the like (you will know better than me on this), then the proliferation of skill perpetuated in a transitional phase, upto and beyond 1960, until the majority became skilled as compared to their forefathers. I don't think you can pin point the time in which skill "won out" or even the true common ancestor of skill. Similar, to how we can't trace the common ancestor between a shrew and a bat.

With regard to Greb, I understand that you and others feel as though they can rate on what you have read.

I just don't feel comfortable doing so when contemplating head to heads (ATG lists... sure!).

Surely I am allowed to refrain.

Im not actually comfortable on rating Greb at all. But if you take Tunney as the one the most influencial figures in carrying the sport forward due to superior technical approach, he still was given hell by Greb over a number of fights. He beat Jack Dempsey far more comfortably than Greb for the most part. Same goes for other more technical based fighters of the time like Tommy Loughran and the Gibbons brothers. So it does give some credibilty to Grebs prowess. He wasnt pretty by all accounts but he was very effective.

Translating that into a more modern set up is extremelly difficult though. Its unlikely a modern ref would tolerate Grebs style with anything like the same leniency as back in the 1920s so that alone is reason to wonder. I find it extremelly difficult comparing across eras in general.

Manos, I think Greb beating Tunney is similar to when Ghosty mentioned Prior beating Alexis Arguello. It just illustrates some "Sluggers" beat some "Boxers" in any given era. It doesn't mean, however, that a slugger from 100years ago can beat a technically brilliant boxer from today (not that you are saying that). I don't doubt Grebs prowess in his era and your right by all accounts he was very effective.

The referee point you make, and the rules and leniency are extremely important. So much so, that the outcome of these fights might depend on whether Shahs time machine takes boxers back in time or brings boxers foward in time.

I mean take Jones back to the early 19th century and there is a chance he would get mullied. Bring Ketchel and Greb forward to 2012 and they would be out boxed or disqualified. I made the point earlier, that the sport has evolved so much so, that it could be considered a seperate past time. So, as you say, this makes it extremely difficult to compare fighters across eras.

I always find it funny when the old timers knock an opponent down and don't go back to the neutral corner, instead, they stand over a downed opponent waiting for them to attempt to become vertical so they can knock them horizontal. Those are brutal times to take a modern boxer back into.

TheMackemMawler wrote:
You can continue to split hairs if you like, but my point stands, boxing has evolved and early 20th century boxers were primitive.

Indeed - like T. rex.

Some early 20th century boxers were primitive but not all which is the point.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Some early 20th century boxers were primitive but not all which is the point.

It's not my point.

My point NOW is.... if you think that any boxer from 100 years ago would be considered technically astute compared to say Donaire, Gamboa, Rigo, Mayweather, Nunn, Whitticker, or Laing then you categorically know jack sh!t about boxing or that you are deliberatley trying to antagonise me with nonsense.

Anyway I'm going boxing, see you in 2hrs....

Joe Gans would be considered just as good as them technically.

YDKSAB

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Joe Gans would be considered just as good as them technically.

YDKSAB

You really have no clue and do not have the right to follow boxing.

For the next hour or so I am going to imagine the bag is your face.

Oh no does someone not agree with your opinion, diddums.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Joe Gans would be considered just as good as them technically.

YDKSAB

You are just winding me up Ghosty.

Anyway, what does YDKSAB mean?

No winding up at all, just not taking a nobodies word as gospel.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Joe Gans would be considered just as good as them technically.

YDKSAB

You are just winding me up Ghosty.

Anyway, what does YDKSAB mean?

YDKSAB: You don't know shiiiiii about bahxing (Roger Mayweather reference I think).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:No winding up at all, just not taking a nobodies word as gospel.

I don't profess to be someone, do you? I'm just a normal guy in the military. No better, no worse, than anyone else.

Anyway...

Imperial Ghosty wrote:No winding up at all, just not taking a nobodies word as gospel.

...and I should?

Despite the evidence being overwhelmingly against you?

Gans....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXNVyv0HyXY

Rigondeaux...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPf7g9tb3W8

Lomenchenko....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxHRTQKKnyQ

Ray Leonard...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF4xklMy4Mk

Roy Jones....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBwLsxErWgA

Tyson...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYZzMPsm6c4&feature=related

...anyone with eyes that function can see the gulf in class in terms of technique

Ive heard that the quality of the films is the reason why the oldies do not look as good.....amongst many other excuses.

Bottom line is that their technique and fundamentals are flawed in comparison to most of today's fighters. Those guys probably thought ducking from a punch was a sign of cowardice.

I've been a bit wary of getting involved with the nuts and bolts of this thread, beyond giving my opinion in response to Shah's original question. I think though, that the key is this: Apart from at heavyweight, where the massive increase in tonnage of the participants has meant that the top fighters of ninety years ago would have stood little realistic chance against the modern behemoths, the truly great fighters could have been dropped out of their era by a time machine, forwards or backwards, and given hell on earth to any of their new contemporaries.

At middleweight, that means that I think that men like Greb and Ketchel would have been forced to drop the dirty tactics that would have got them disqualified in, say the era of Roy Jones and Michael Nunn, but would have adapted their styles to become hugely effective anyway. Not that they would have become finesse fighters, but they would still have been horribly difficult to deal with. Conversely, Jones and Nunn would have needed to become more adept with the laces of their gloves and their thumbs, but they'd have managed that too.

With that said, it then becomes the usual conundrum - which fighter can best impose his style on his opponent? That's how I attempted to reach my conclusions, anyway.

They may well have had the talent to be great in any era, but not the teaching. They would be exposed badly against many of the active top 10 (inc Chavez).

Of course they would az which is why these debates are so pointless, the needless exaggeration. You're both entitled to your opinions but I full heartedly disagree that the likes of Tunney and gans would be outmatched by their more modern counterparts.

See, Az, I think that you sometimes make fundamentally sound points and then spoil them through a tendency to take things one step too far. Last night, Chavez showed most of the boxing deficiencies that you associate with a lot of the old-timers and almost none of their assets, apart from heart. Whoever has been "teaching" him hasn't done a particularly outstanding job.

Greb would have run away with it against such a fighter. Whatever we may think of the result of Greb against Roy Jones or Ketchel against Hopkins, let's not overegg the pudding. I may have to suggest that Gorilla Jones beats his modern namesake, otherwise (too rugged, too accomplished at hitting below the belt)!

captain carrantuohil wrote:I've been a bit wary of getting involved with the nuts and bolts of this thread, beyond giving my opinion in response to Shah's original question. I think though, that the key is this: Apart from at heavyweight, where the massive increase in tonnage of the participants has meant that the top fighters of ninety years ago would have stood little realistic chance against the modern behemoths, the truly great fighters could have been dropped out of their era by a time machine, forwards or backwards, and given hell on earth to any of their new contemporaries.

At middleweight, that means that I think that men like Greb and Ketchel would have been forced to drop the dirty tactics that would have got them disqualified in, say the era of Roy Jones and Michael Nunn, but would have adapted their styles to become hugely effective anyway. Not that they would have become finesse fighters, but they would still have been horribly difficult to deal with. Conversely, Jones and Nunn would have needed to become more adept with the laces of their gloves and their thumbs, but they'd have managed that too.

With that said, it then becomes the usual conundrum - which fighter can best impose his style on his opponent? That's how I attempted to reach my conclusions, anyway.

If greb and ketchel come forward in time and are given years to learn new techniques. And Jones and Nunn go back for a few year and spar dirty and toughen up due to the racism of the time or something, then the debate becomes even more blurred.

I think we just need to say to the boxers, do your training as normal in your time, jump in this time machine and on the evening you arrive you'll get a fight.

My guess is that modern boxers get bullied and pulverised in the old era

.... and the old guys get outboxed or disqualified in our era.

captain carrantuohil wrote:See, Az, I think that you sometimes make fundamentally sound points and then spoil them through a tendency to take things one step too far. Last night, Chavez showed most of the boxing deficiencies that you associate with a lot of the old-timers and almost none of their assets, apart from heart. Whoever has been "teaching" him hasn't done a particularly outstanding job.

Greb would have run away with it against such a fighter. Whatever we may think of the result of Greb against Roy Jones or Ketchel against Hopkins, let's not overegg the pudding. I may have to suggest that Gorilla Jones beats his modern namesake, otherwise (too rugged, too accomplished at hitting below the belt)!

The most sensible thing on this thread. Sorry Az.

captain carrantuohil wrote:See, Az, I think that you sometimes make fundamentally sound points and then spoil them through a tendency to take things one step too far. Last night, Chavez showed most of the boxing deficiencies that you associate with a lot of the old-timers and almost none of their assets, apart from heart. Whoever has been "teaching" him hasn't done a particularly outstanding job.

Greb would have run away with it against such a fighter. Whatever we may think of the result of Greb against Roy Jones or Ketchel against Hopkins, let's not overegg the pudding. I may have to suggest that Gorilla Jones beats his modern namesake, otherwise (too rugged, too accomplished at hitting below the belt)!

I actually believe that Chavez has more technique that the oldies. A lot of those guys were toughmen dragged out of whatever tavern to have a punch up. Jabbing and moving is not what beats those guys as Martinez showed (haven't seen the fight yet). They remind me of two kangaroos you see in cartoons. Don't get me wrong. They were great boxers, just for their era. Bring them in today's game and they will be badly exposed regardless of how dirty they were allowed to fight. Its practically a different sport.

Which old timers are you specifically referring to?

Look at the Gans video as an example.

Its may not neccessarily be a one size fit all or golden rule for determining fighters. Actual talent and ability is variable from era to era.

Its worth considering someone like Ray Arcel who was a top trainer by almost anyones reckoning. He trained world champions from the 1920s like Benny Leonard, through Ezzard Charles and all the way up to the 70s and 80s with Duran and Holmes. So he was connected firsthand to the sport for half a century passing on his knowledge and expertise. He never really advocaated the idea that fighters were getting techically better as a general rule. It wasnt until Duran beat Ray Leonard I think that Arcel reluctantly was willing to place him on an equal pedestal to Benny Leonard. You could argue there is an element of nostalgia and there probably was. But it doesnt really account for some kind of scenario whereby Benny Leonard was crude and would lose to Ricky Burns or something like that.

You mean a fighter using a strong jab and showing upper body movement that many modern fighters don't possess, his opponent leaves a lot to be desired but Gans himself shows excellent technique. Rios for example would be on the receiving end of a one sided beating were he to have faced Gans.

I'm not here to change opinion, only to give mine and debate others, but my flame has died out on this one. I have gave my point of view and to repeat it would serve no further purpose than repetition for repetitions sake.

Readers of this thread can make thier own mind up. I am goin to enjoy the rest of the evening with my wife. Goodnight.

P.S. the lomenchenko link is worth a watch.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You mean a fighter using a strong jab and showing upper body movement that many modern fighters don't possess, his opponent leaves a lot to be desired but Gans himself shows excellent technique. Rios for example would be on the receiving end of a one sided beating were he to have faced Gans.

Each to their own I suppose. I didn't see what you say. I saw the tpe of boxing they call "stand up" in the UFC.