RESULTS: 606 V2 Pound for Pound TOP 10 Greatest of All Time!

First topic message reminder :

The results are in! Please find below the top 10, and a further breakdown of the full listing. Many Thanks to all those who voted, a very good list IMO.

1 Sugar Ray Robinson (173W – 19L)
Robinson held the world welterweight title from 1946 to 1951, and won the world middleweight title in the latter year. He retired in 1952, only to come back two and a half years later and regain the middleweight title in 1955. He then became the first boxer in history to win a divisional world championship five times.

2 Harry Greb (261W – 19L)
World Middleweight boxing Champion from 1923 to 1926 and American Light Heavyweight title holder 1922–1923. He fought a recorded 303 times in his 13 year-career, against the best opposition the talent-rich 1910s & 20s could provide him, frequently squaring off against light-heavyweights and even heavyweights.

3 Henry Armstrong (149W – 21L)
Henry Jr. was a boxer who not only was a member of the exclusive group of fighters that have won boxing championships in three or more different divisions (at a time when there were fewer weight divisions than today), but also has the distinction of being the only boxer to hold three world championships at the same time.

4 Muhammad Ali (56W – 5L)
As an amateur, he won a gold medal in the light heavyweight division at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. After turning professional, he went on to become the first boxer to win the lineal heavyweight championship three times.

5 Ezzard Charles (93W – 25L)
Charles was an excellent fighter - Middleweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight; He fought up through the ranks, tangled with the very best long the way and gained victories over them all - Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, "Jersey" Joe Walcott, Freddie Beshore, an older Joe Louis and Lee Oma - to name a few.

6 Roberto Duran (103W – 16L)
Durán is the only man in boxing history to win fights in 5 separate decades. He registered wins in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s. Many consider him the greatest lightweight of all time.

7 Sam Langford (200W – 47L)
Langford was a boxer who fought greats from the lightweight division right up to the heavyweights, beating many champions in the process. However, he was never able to secure a world title for himself. Called the "Greatest Fighter Nobody Knows," by ESPN.

8 Sugar Ray Leonard (36W – 3L)
Leonard was the first boxer to earn more than $100 million in purses, and he is widely considered to be one of the best boxers of all time, winning world titles in five weight divisions and defeating future fellow International Boxing Hall of Fame inductees Wilfred Benítez, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Durán and Marvin Hagler.

9 Willie Pep (229W - 11L)
Pep held the featherweight title for six years and outboxed all comers. He is best remembered for his physical four-fight series against fellow Hall of Famer Sandy Saddler.

10 Bob Fitzsimmons (51W - 8L)
A British Cornish boxer who made boxing history as the sport's first three-division world champion. He also achieved fame for beating Gentleman Jim Corbett, the man who beat John L. Sullivan, and is in The Guinness Book of World Records as the Lightest heavyweight champion.

Please find the full results below:

1 Sugar Ray Robinson
2 Harry Greb
3 Henry Armstrong
4 Muhammad Ali
5 Ezzard Charles
6 Roberto Duran
7 Sam Langford
8 Sugar Ray Leonard
9 Willie Pep
10 Bob Fitzsimmons
11 Eder Joffre
12 Joe Louis
13 Benny Leonard
14 Jimmy Wilde
15 Gene Tunney
16 Pernell Whittaker
17 Bernard Hopkins
18 Barney Ross
19 Floyd Mayweather
20 Roy Jones Jr.
21 Manny Pacquiao
22 Jack Johnson
23 Juan Manuel Marquez
24 Archie Moore
25 Lennox Lewis
26 Salvador Sanchez
T27 Marco Antonio Barrera
T27 Erik Morales

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:You guys are losing the plot. Stay focussed please.

Watch some fights, please.

Learn something about boxing at the time instead of trotting out ridiculous, ill - informed soundbites, please.

Oh good grief. You must think boxing is the only sport that hasn't improved since it started professionally. Has it or not?

azania wrote:Today's heavies are not up to much. Outside f the top 3, there's no one else. But whatis your point?

Seriously, az, are you turning WUM on us ?

My POINT is a counter to your POINT that new must be better than old. If you think today's fat boy heavyweight contenders hold a candle to their predecessors then there is simply no hope for you.

I'm out of here.

azania wrote:Oh good grief. You must think boxing is the only sport that hasn't improved since it started professionally. Has it or not?

Oh, good grief. Your smug, patronising tone belies the fact that you know SOD ALL about Langford and yet you preach as though you are an authority.

I'll trust my eyes, Blackburn's in - ring experience, ringside eyewitnesses, and I'll stick your ill - informed claptrap where it belongs.

Is Valuev better than Ali ? Great fighters appear in every generation.

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

It doesnt say much for these supposed quantum leaps in boxing over the eras if they can be learned in 6 months.

Now you are using your words and attributing them to me.

I have read posts from you in the past saying that scientific/training/nutrition advancements made sometime in the 70s caused a leap forward in boxing and I have read countless comments from you indicating boxing from earlier eras was crude and underdeveloped. Comments like Fitzsimmons was a better blacksmith than a boxer for instance. Now are you telling me that all these advancements over the eras that you argue so passionately to exist can be offset by a simple 6 months training in modern context to sufficiently alter a fighter from a long past era?

I suggest you read them again if you think I said quantum leap. You used that phrase to give your argument greater emphasis. It wasn't my line of discussion.

Do you believe boxing and boxers have not improved since its inception?

Do you believe modern training facilities, improvement in sports medicine and physiotherapy and diet has not improved indivisual sporting performances in general and individual boxing performance in particular?

If not, why hasn't boxing benefited from any of these things?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Today's heavies are not up to much. Outside f the top 3, there's no one else. But whatis your point?

Seriously, az, are you turning WUM on us ?

My POINT is a counter to your POINT that new must be better than old. If you think today's fat boy heavyweight contenders hold a candle to their predecessors then there is simply no hope for you.

I'm out of here.

Ridiculous. In any era you can pick on a champ who is not up to much. That Valuev got a belt is simply because of the plethora of belts. In a one division champ, he wouldn't get a sniff. He would be a freak show act like many boxers in by-gone era. Valuev had as much skill as Rocky imo.

What do you think I refer to as "old". You seem to have an argument fixed in your mind which is a million miles from what you are writing. But carry on. I find it amusing.

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

It doesnt say much for these supposed quantum leaps in boxing over the eras if they can be learned in 6 months.

Now you are using your words and attributing them to me.

I have read posts from you in the past saying that scientific/training/nutrition advancements made sometime in the 70s caused a leap forward in boxing and I have read countless comments from you indicating boxing from earlier eras was crude and underdeveloped. Comments like Fitzsimmons was a better blacksmith than a boxer for instance. Now are you telling me that all these advancements over the eras that you argue so passionately to exist can be offset by a simple 6 months training in modern context to sufficiently alter a fighter from a long past era?

I suggest you read them again if you think I said quantum leap. You used that phrase to give your argument greater emphasis. It wasn't my line of discussion.

Do you believe boxing and boxers have not improved since its inception?

Do you believe modern training facilities, improvement in sports medicine and physiotherapy and diet has not improved indivisual sporting performances in general and individual boxing performance in particular?

If not, why hasn't boxing benefited from any of these things?

Education has improved, also, but it doesn't seem to have deterred you from making dumbass comments about fighters whom you've never seen and about whom you know nothing. Then again, of course, you once boldly informed us that you'd seen a couple of Harry Greb fights, making you the only man alive who has.

My, that creatine must be good stuff.

azania wrote:But carry on. I find it amusing.

You would. WUMs normally do, ignorance being bliss.

Try watching boxing for a change instead of snorting creatine.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Oh good grief. You must think boxing is the only sport that hasn't improved since it started professionally. Has it or not?

Oh, good grief. Your smug, patronising tone belies the fact that you know SOD ALL about Langford and yet you preach as though you are an authority.

I'll trust my eyes, Blackburn's in - ring experience, ringside eyewitnesses, and I'll stick your ill - informed claptrap where it belongs.

Is Valuev better than Ali ? Great fighters appear in every generation.

I give up. There have been improvements in every single sporting event except for boxing. Boxing is the only combat sport in the world where nothing has changed from the first time someone laced a glove on.

In every sporting arena, performances have improved. Man is running faster, lifting heavier weights, jumping further, running forther but in boxing none of this applies. The world has moved on but boxing has stood still.

No point in trying anything new. But lets chop wood, drink between rounds, have a fight a week and its all good.

Guys it's probably time to lock this thread for a bit and take a breather.

It's unfortunate this thread has generated a nonsensical debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTCPz0nBeY

Says it all really.

Well if you are going to say Fitzsimmons was a better blacksmith than a boxer or that Joe Loius could barely hit a speedbag then I dont think its an unreasonable assumption for one to consider your promotion of modern methods as quantum leaps. Your comments rarely imply that changes have been small improvements. Rather the emphasis is on significant improvements.

That you could take somebody like Langford and give him 6 months training now and he would go from being unable to beat somebody like Nigel Benn to improving enough to beat him is frankly ludicrous to me. If you think boxing has come on drastically to the point where Benn would beat Langford then clearly this is significant developments in boxing to which "quantum leaps" would not be misplaced. To then suggest that a mere 6 months training now would suddenly make Langford improve to the point of being able to beat Benn undermines the whole idea that boxing has improved significantly if all it take is 6 months in the gym to catch up.

Colonial Lion wrote:Well if you are going to say Fitzsimmons was a better blacksmith than a boxer or that Joe Loius could barely hit a speedbag then I dont think its an unreasonable assumption for one to consider your promotion of modern methods as quantum leaps. Your comments rarely imply that changes have been small improvements. Rather the emphasis is on significant improvements.

That you could take somebody like Langford and give him 6 months training now and he would go from being unable to beat somebody like Nigel Benn to improving enough to beat him is frankly ludicrous to me. If you think boxing has come on drastically to the point where Benn would beat Langford then clearly this is significant developments in boxing to which "quantum leaps" would not be misplaced. To then suggest that a mere 6 months training now would suddenly make Langford improve to the point of being able to beat Benn undermines the whole idea that boxing has improved significantly if all it take is 6 months in the gym to catch up.

I didn't say Fitz was a better blacksmith than boxer. I dont know how good a blacksmith he was.

Im boxing an improvement is significant as it can be the difference between a ko win or a points loss. Obviously I dont know how long it would take Langford to be trained for him to be up to speed with today's game. Imo its a totally different sport to his era. I used 6 mmonths as a reference point to 1) acknowledge that he was highly skilled and 2) that his natural ability would be able to ensure that he progressed quickly. That was praise.

But as things stand, regardless, I would have Benn beat Langford purely because Benn knows too much about the sport of boxing that Langford ever knew.

The point is that the talent is there but due to them lacking things we take for granted now, that talent could not be harnessed as fully as it can be now.

Windy used Valuev. Well imagine him 100 years ago. He would be worse than he is now.

Why do you even both debating something you know next to nothing about? It beggars belief that someone who has absolutely no knowledge insists on ruining debates for those of us who do about guys like Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Langford (lesser extent for me), do you not think as a way of showing respect for your fellow posters you should get clued up before dismissing boxers you know merely by name.

Fitzsimmons was without a doubt a freak of nature, he had the lower body of a Welterweight yet the upper body of a fully fledged and generated all his power through his shoulders and expert timing, I don't see any middleweights since with the ability to rip Jeffries face to shreds like he did. Nor do I see anyone who fought at lightweight capable of beating highly rated guys like McVea, Wills, Godfrey, O'Brien or Jeanette. It is my opinion but I base this on what I know and on what I have seen rather than merely what era they fought in.

Duran first fought at 120lbs before going on to beat Jorge Castro who was an accomplished former world middleweight champion and future cruiserweight title challenger at super middleweight at the age of 46. Now is that an indication of a poor era or would it rather highlight Durans brilliance that he could give up every feasible advantage and still win?

azania wrote:In every sporting arena, performances have improved. Man is running faster, lifting heavier weights, jumping further, running forther but in boxing none of this applies. The world has moved on but boxing has stood still.

No point in trying anything new. But lets chop wood, drink between rounds, have a fight a week and its all good.

Dear me, still making that tenuous comparison to track and field / weight lifting? Haven't you figured out that, in any sport where an opponent can physically counter what you do as you're doing it (unlike the sports you keep referring to) there are always going to be a lot more variables to consider? Boxing is not measured against a clock, or by distance, or by a certain amount of weight. In the 100m, the aim is simply to run as fast as possible in a straight line. Therefore, those involved within that discipline are looking solely at how that can be achieved. It is their only aim. The same can't be said for boxing.

Can't you see how daft the comparisons between boxing and springting / weight lifting are? Would Usain Bolt run faster than Bob Hayes if he was being punched in the face or body?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Why do you even both debating something you know next to nothing about? It beggars belief that someone who has absolutely no knowledge insists on ruining debates for those of us who do about guys like Fitzsimmons, Wilde, Langford (lesser extent for me), do you not think as a way of showing respect for your fellow posters you should get clued up before dismissing boxers you know merely by name.

Fitzsimmons was without a doubt a freak of nature, he had the lower body of a Welterweight yet the upper body of a fully fledged and generated all his power through his shoulders and expert timing, I don't see any middleweights since with the ability to rip Jeffries face to shreds like he did. Nor do I see anyone who fought at lightweight capable of beating highly rated guys like McVea, Wills, Godfrey, O'Brien or Jeanette. It is my opinion but I base this on what I know and on what I have seen rather than merely what era they fought in.

Duran first fought at 120lbs before going on to beat Jorge Castro who was an accomplished former world middleweight champion and future cruiserweight title challenger at super middleweight at the age of 46. Now is that an indication of a poor era or would it rather highlight Durans brilliance that he could give up every feasible advantage and still win?

There is no need to be rude.

I'll just pick on a little bit in your last paragraph. When was Castro an accomplished MW Champ? There is no need to big him up to prove your point. Yes Duran beating him highlighted Duran's brilliance but exposed the lack of talent Castro had. That is the same argument I have been using regarding langford fighting HWs and RJJ beating Ruiz.

Azania this is what you wrote recently regarding Fitzsmmons:

"Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game."

With all due respect, I dont see how you can feel aggrevied that one would attribute your viewpoint on the changes in boxing to be "quantum leaps" when you write the above statements. This clearly indicates you think boxing has improved vastly.

I no longer understand what your arguments are or are based on because saying things like Langford would lose to Benn, but then would beat him if he had 6 months training in a modern gym makes no sense to me and you seem to vary between older era fighters being either completely outdated to highly skilled under conditions x,y and z which I find very confusing.

If you really believe boxing has dramatically improved as many of your statements suggest directly or indirectly, then do you honestly think a mere 6 months in a modern gym will turn these past fighters from being outdated to competitive?

I haven't been rude at all, it is you who has been rude by ruining every debate despite knowing nothing about it, i'm past caring now because it's got to the point where I can sit back and laugh at your baseless opinions.

Well he won and defended his title 5 times so had to have a certain something about him or would he winning the title in the first show poor the era was?

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:In every sporting arena, performances have improved. Man is running faster, lifting heavier weights, jumping further, running forther but in boxing none of this applies. The world has moved on but boxing has stood still.

No point in trying anything new. But lets chop wood, drink between rounds, have a fight a week and its all good.

Dear me, still making that tenuous comparison to track and field / weight lifting? Haven't you figured out that, in any sport where an opponent can physically counter what you do as you're doing it (unlike the sports you keep referring to) there are always going to be a lot more variables to consider? Boxing is not measured against a clock, or by distance, or by a certain amount of weight. In the 100m, the aim is simply to run as fast as possible in a straight line. Therefore, those involved within that discipline are looking solely at how that can be achieved. It is their only aim. The same can't be said for boxing.

Can't you see how daft the comparisons between boxing and springting / weight lifting are? Would Usain Bolt run faster than Bob Hayes if he was being punched in the face or body?

Imagine is Boxer A (who is a decent contender) decides to improve his speed, strength, punch power etc etc etc. Do you think he would be a better boxer?

Boxing can be measured by timing. Split second timing to get your punch in or move from a punch. If you improve your speed it will improve your chances. If you improve your speed and strength the chances of you sitting down to throw the ko punch increases and the likelihood of scorring a KO also increases.

Do you think Paq would be as effective if he were slower?

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

Without the skill in the first place it really doesn't matter

Like I said you know Langford by name only so are in no position to even debate the subject

The Mighty Atom wrote:I haven't been rude at all, it is you who has been rude by ruining every debate despite knowing nothing about it, i'm past caring now because it's got to the point where I can sit back and laugh at your baseless opinions.

Well he won and defended his title 5 times so had to have a certain something about him or would he winning the title in the first show poor the era was?

This is getting beyond silly. Can you point out a single post of mine where I have made a single criticism of Langford? Have I called him unskilled? No. Have I said he was useless? No. All I have done is question an era where a lightweight can compete effectively against a heavyweight. All I have got in response is effectively "he was a freak of nature".

YOu have brought up Duran. I questioned the SMW' he beat and that they were so called world champs.

I brought up one of my favourite boxers as an example in the silly nature of all this. RJJ beat Ruiz. It showed RJJ's skills but also the lack of talent (and all those damn belts) in the HW division. I cannot be accused of rubbishing old timers when I have used exactly the same argument to question modern day greats and their claim to have beaten bigger fighters.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Without the skill in the first place it really doesn't matter

Like I said you know Langford by name only so are in no position to even debate the subject

Why are you making this personal?

The beauty of modern times is we can all use you-tube as opposed to reading about certain boxers and then claiming they were the best thing since sliced bread based on what others wrote about them.

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

azania wrote:No. All I have done is question an era where a lightweight can compete effectively against a heavyweight.

HE WASN'T A LIGHTWEIGHT ANY MORE THAN SUGAR RAY ROBINSON WAS A FEATHERWEIGHT. HE WEIGHED 180lb. WHEN MATURE.

Would you not agree it shows a poor era when a 46 year old former bantamweight can beat a multiple future cruiserweight title challenger and former middleweight champion at super middleweight?

You don't know about Langford or the fighters he was fighting so your argument has no grounds, it's not personal it's stating the fairly obvious. I'm sure the admins will be glad to see your turning D4 like with your obsessive tendencies.

azania wrote:Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Good job that nobody could ever mistake you for a boxing guy, then.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Do you know better then?

Colonial Lion wrote:Azania this is what you wrote recently regarding Fitzsmmons:

"Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game."

With all due respect, I dont see how you can feel aggrevied that one would attribute your viewpoint on the changes in boxing to be "quantum leaps" when you write the above statements. This clearly indicates you think boxing has improved vastly.

I no longer understand what your arguments are or are based on because saying things like Langford would lose to Benn, but then would beat him if he had 6 months training in a modern gym makes no sense to me and you seem to vary between older era fighters being either completely outdated to highly skilled under conditions x,y and z which I find very confusing.

If you really believe boxing has dramatically improved as many of your statements suggest directly or indirectly, then do you honestly think a mere 6 months in a modern gym will turn these past fighters from being outdated to competitive?

Improvement is an improvement. A small improvement can have a huge impact.

I'll make it easier for you. Dont take the 6 months figure as gospel. It was a figure of speach. Like when I once said that Louis was 76 when he lost to Rocky, I was aware he actually wasn't 76. Just an emphasis that Louis was old. Ditto the 6 months figure is supposed to exemplify that Sam was highly skilled and with better prep and training he would be beating the guys I mentioned.

As for Fitz, yes I obviously said that. Is he another freak of nature? How come these freaks only came about during the early days of pro boxing?

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Do you know better then?

Better than what?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Good job that nobody could ever mistake you for a boxing guy, then.

Ha. Thru and thru mate. Hence my penchant for hyperbole.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Good job that nobody could ever mistake you for a boxing guy, then.

Ha. Thru and thru mate. Hence my penchant for hyperbole.

Thru and thru your ears, i should imagine.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Would you not agree it shows a poor era when a 46 year old former bantamweight can beat a multiple future cruiserweight title challenger and former middleweight champion at super middleweight?

You don't know about Langford or the fighters he was fighting so your argument has no grounds, it's not personal it's stating the fairly obvious. I'm sure the admins will be glad to see your turning D4 like with your obsessive tendencies.

I'm going to get RSI here soon.

For the 100th time, yes it was an appalling poor era for Duran to beat Castro at SMW. It was a shockingly poor era for RJJ to claim a version of the HW belty. IS THAT CLEAR?????? Gee wizz.

As for your second paragraph, I will ignore it. Again personal. If you want to complain about me, please feel free. I will have my opinions and debate them in a friendly manner regardless of if YOU like them or not.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:No. All I have done is question an era where a lightweight can compete effectively against a heavyweight.

HE WASN'T A LIGHTWEIGHT ANY MORE THAN SUGAR RAY ROBINSON WAS A FEATHERWEIGHT. HE WEIGHED 180lb. WHEN MATURE.

OK.

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:Azania this is what you wrote recently regarding Fitzsmmons:

"Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game."

With all due respect, I dont see how you can feel aggrevied that one would attribute your viewpoint on the changes in boxing to be "quantum leaps" when you write the above statements. This clearly indicates you think boxing has improved vastly.

I no longer understand what your arguments are or are based on because saying things like Langford would lose to Benn, but then would beat him if he had 6 months training in a modern gym makes no sense to me and you seem to vary between older era fighters being either completely outdated to highly skilled under conditions x,y and z which I find very confusing.

If you really believe boxing has dramatically improved as many of your statements suggest directly or indirectly, then do you honestly think a mere 6 months in a modern gym will turn these past fighters from being outdated to competitive?

Improvement is an improvement. A small improvement can have a huge impact.

I'll make it easier for you. Dont take the 6 months figure as gospel. It was a figure of speach. Like when I once said that Louis was 76 when he lost to Rocky, I was aware he actually wasn't 76. Just an emphasis that Louis was old. Ditto the 6 months figure is supposed to exemplify that Sam was highly skilled and with better prep and training he would be beating the guys I mentioned.

As for Fitz, yes I obviously said that. Is he another freak of nature? How come these freaks only came about during the early days of pro boxing?

Yes and when I said "quantum leaps" I did not in fact mean inter-atomic electron transitions. It was a figure a speech.

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:Azania this is what you wrote recently regarding Fitzsmmons:

"Fitz was a middleweight at best. A better blacksmith than boxer. His skill set was poor at best. Yes he was an innovator. His solar plexus punch was a killer. But back then did doctors even know what the solar plexus was? You cant compare then and now. Two different sports. The old style of Fitz will not wash in today's game."

With all due respect, I dont see how you can feel aggrevied that one would attribute your viewpoint on the changes in boxing to be "quantum leaps" when you write the above statements. This clearly indicates you think boxing has improved vastly.

I no longer understand what your arguments are or are based on because saying things like Langford would lose to Benn, but then would beat him if he had 6 months training in a modern gym makes no sense to me and you seem to vary between older era fighters being either completely outdated to highly skilled under conditions x,y and z which I find very confusing.

If you really believe boxing has dramatically improved as many of your statements suggest directly or indirectly, then do you honestly think a mere 6 months in a modern gym will turn these past fighters from being outdated to competitive?

Improvement is an improvement. A small improvement can have a huge impact.

I'll make it easier for you. Dont take the 6 months figure as gospel. It was a figure of speach. Like when I once said that Louis was 76 when he lost to Rocky, I was aware he actually wasn't 76. Just an emphasis that Louis was old. Ditto the 6 months figure is supposed to exemplify that Sam was highly skilled and with better prep and training he would be beating the guys I mentioned.

As for Fitz, yes I obviously said that. Is he another freak of nature? How come these freaks only came about during the early days of pro boxing?

Yes and when I said "quantum leaps" I did not in fact mean inter-atomic electron transitions. It was a figure a speech.

Ha. Well figures of speach can be misinterpritted

Anyway, is my point clearer?

I'm sure you've made many things clear today, az.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Well you feel capable of lecturing us about Langford, despite never even seeing anything of him. What's good for one is good for the other, I suppose.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Well you feel capable of lecturing us about Langford, despite never even seeing anything of him. What's good for one is good for the other, I suppose.

In what way have I lectured anyone about Langford? In fact I have praised him.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Well you feel capable of lecturing us about Langford, despite never even seeing anything of him. What's good for one is good for the other, I suppose.

Don't be silly, Chris.

azania, or ' Son of Sam ' as I prefer to call him, is the only enlightened one. He found an empty creatine bottle on the beach, rubbed it, and out popped a shiny new calendar and a rowing machine.

Son of Sam knows all about these guys without seeing them or reading about them. It's all in the dates of birth, you see.

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Well you feel capable of lecturing us about Langford, despite never even seeing anything of him. What's good for one is good for the other, I suppose.

Don't be silly, Chris.

azania, or ' Son of Sam ' as I prefer to call him, is the only enlightened one. He found an empty creatine bottle on the beach, rubbed it, and out popped a shiny new calendar and a rowing machine.

Son of Sam knows all about these guys without seeing them or reading about them. It's all in the dates of birth, you see.

How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Well you feel capable of lecturing us about Langford, despite never even seeing anything of him. What's good for one is good for the other, I suppose.

Don't be silly, Chris.

azania, or ' Son of Sam ' as I prefer to call him, is the only enlightened one. He found an empty creatine bottle on the beach, rubbed it, and out popped a shiny new calendar and a rowing machine.

Son of Sam knows all about these guys without seeing them or reading about them. It's all in the dates of birth, you see.

How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

How do you know he doesn't ? Please answer.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Well you feel capable of lecturing us about Langford, despite never even seeing anything of him. What's good for one is good for the other, I suppose.

Don't be silly, Chris.

azania, or ' Son of Sam ' as I prefer to call him, is the only enlightened one. He found an empty creatine bottle on the beach, rubbed it, and out popped a shiny new calendar and a rowing machine.

Son of Sam knows all about these guys without seeing them or reading about them. It's all in the dates of birth, you see.

How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

How do you know he doesn't ? Please answer.

The only way he would know is if he was hit by them. He wasn't so he doesn't know. Simples.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdoGBkeqWQ

I saw that earlier and have it as one of my favourites.

How Monte Cox can say he hits as hard as Tyson is beyond me. How does he know. Has he been hit by both Tyson and Sam? I will repeat again. Boxing guys are prone to hyperbole.

Well you feel capable of lecturing us about Langford, despite never even seeing anything of him. What's good for one is good for the other, I suppose.

Don't be silly, Chris.

azania, or ' Son of Sam ' as I prefer to call him, is the only enlightened one. He found an empty creatine bottle on the beach, rubbed it, and out popped a shiny new calendar and a rowing machine.

Son of Sam knows all about these guys without seeing them or reading about them. It's all in the dates of birth, you see.

How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

How do you know he doesn't ? Please answer.

The only way he would know is if he was hit by them. He wasn't so he doesn't know. Simples.

Then neither do you. Simples, though judging by your arguments here it's a fair bet that SOMEBODY has been punching you in the head with some regularity.

I can use logic to assume that he may hit hard, but not as hard as Tyson who was a hard hitting HW and not a hard hitting LHW. Plus Tyson had modern diets and Long Island Iced Tea.

azania wrote:How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

How do you know that Langford wouldn't be able to compete in today's era, having never watched any of his fights and knowing him merely by name? Please answer, though I know you won't be able to. You've contradicted yourself so many times in your pet 'old is rubbish, new is amazing' subject that I don't even get mildy surprised by it anymore.

azania wrote:I can use logic to assume that he may hit hard

First time for everything, I suppose.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

How do you know that Langford wouldn't be able to compete in today's era, having never watched any of his fights and knowing him merely by name? Please answer, though I know you won't be able to. You've contradicted yourself so many times in your pet 'old is rubbish, new is amazing' subject that I don't even get mildy surprised by it anymore.

It strikes me as though some here are debating the poster as opposed to what is written.

I dont see why boxers actually train and spar when they should chop trees and skip rope.

azania wrote:It strikes me as though some here are debating the poster as opposed to what is written.

This was a superb and interesting article until YOU started to debate your favourite obsession. Now the thread is in ruins, and you have the brass neck to say we're debating the poster ?

Give me strength.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

How do you know that Langford wouldn't be able to compete in today's era, having never watched any of his fights and knowing him merely by name? Please answer, though I know you won't be able to. You've contradicted yourself so many times in your pet 'old is rubbish, new is amazing' subject that I don't even get mildy surprised by it anymore.

It strikes me as though some here are debating the poster as opposed to what is written.

I dont see why boxers actually train and spar when they should chop trees and skip rope.

I'll take that as yet another 'oh dear, I can't answer the question once more, so again I'll accuse those debating with me of missing the point' then, Azania. You said that as Cox hasn't been hit in the face by both Langford and Tyson, he can't possibly say who hits harder. So, having never seen Langford fight and knowing sweet F.A about him, how can you declare that he wouldn't compete today? You have written this several times, so how I'm debating the poster rather than what is written, I'll never know.

You either explain how your logic, without first hand evidence, is so much better than Cox's and doesn't have the same 'didn't experience it, so doesn't know' rules against it, or you admit that you also are in no position to make an accurate appraisal of Langford, in which case you'd have contradicted yourself. Again.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:How does Cox know he hits as hard as Tyson? Someone please answer.

How do you know that Langford wouldn't be able to compete in today's era, having never watched any of his fights and knowing him merely by name? Please answer, though I know you won't be able to. You've contradicted yourself so many times in your pet 'old is rubbish, new is amazing' subject that I don't even get mildy surprised by it anymore.

It strikes me as though some here are debating the poster as opposed to what is written.

I dont see why boxers actually train and spar when they should chop trees and skip rope.

I'll take that as yet another 'oh dear, I can't answer the question once more, so again I'll accuse those debating with me of missing the point' then, Azania. You said that as Cox hasn't been hit in the face by both Langford and Tyson, he can't possibly say who hits harder. So, having never seen Langford fight and knowing sweet F.A about him, how can you declare that he wouldn't compete today? You have written this several times, so how I'm debating the poster rather than what is written, I'll never know.

You either explain how your logic, without first hand evidence, is so much better than Cox's and doesn't have the same 'didn't experience it, so doesn't know' rules against it, or you admit that you also are in no position to make an accurate appraisal of Langford, in which case you'd have contradicted yourself. Again.

Look at the previous page. I actually posted a link to a langford fight. Kinds blows your theory that I haven't seen him fight.

Cox made an asusmption. I happen to disagree with him. No crime especially his assumption is logically way off track. In short he doesn't know how hard Langford hit and how hard Tyson hit. I cant make a comparison between Tyson or Bruno unless it has been scientifically proven. The best I can do is assume who hits harder. And that is the best anyone who hasn't faced either of them can do.