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

You could state as a fact that Paulie Malignaggi doesn't hit as hard as Victor Ortiz despite them having never shared the ring with the same opponent.

Sorry just being picky again

prettyboykev wrote:You could state as a fact that Paulie Malignaggi doesn't hit as hard as Victor Ortiz despite them having never shared the ring with the same opponent.

Sorry just being picky again

Hmmmm.

I love the Magic Man but couldn't resist.

prettyboykev wrote:I love the Magic Man but couldn't resist.

I know that feeling well

Az - if you seriously pick Manny over Jimmy Wilde at flyweight - you either need to learn a lot more about the ghost with a hammer in his hand - or in need of a mental health act assessment.

Genuinely - you have some decent boxing knowledge - bordering on encyclopaedic in the recent eras. However - pre-war you are somewhat lacking; by your own admission.

Small errors that you have made:

Calling Langford a lightweight. As Windy has said - was Robinson a featherweight? Or Pacquiao a flyweight? You yourself on another article mentioned that Pacquiao had "grown into LMW". So its OK for him but not for langford.

Saying Valuev had the same skillset as Rocky. Valuev - especially in his fight against Haye - had without a doubt the worst skillset of any heavyweight champion in history. The man had a medical condition - a disease - which (amongst other things) meant he would have had little peripheral vision. So why you feel he was "as good as the Rock" is beyond me.

Picking Haye over Jack Johnson. Johnson probably punched at least as hard as Haye - if not harder. He certainly defended a damn site better with significantly better stamina. So how the hell does Haye win? I'd be surprised if Haye could hit him clean more than 10 or 15 times - and Johnson had a great chin.
------------
Yes - I wouldn't expect RJJ to have moved up to have fought Tyson. However - I'd have given Fitzsimmons a chance. And I'd have given Langford a chance. And I'd expect Tunney to do well - very well against Tyson.

Az you picked Haye to beat Jack Johnson. Johnson was a great defencive fighter and would have boxed Hayes head off for fun. Haye is chinny and Johnson had a solid chin.
Then theirs stamina Haye was blowing out his backside after 5 rounds at a steady pace with Ruiz on several occasions Johnson went 20+ rounds including once outdoors in Cuba in the middle of the summer.
Haye would be lucky to go 3 rounds with Johnson.

azania wrote:

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 have to be honest and say no, I dont really see what you are saying. Langford is an all time great fighter and would feature in many peoples top twenty greatest fighters of all time. Nigel Benn was not an all time great. He was a solid to good super middleweight. There is no comparison really, at least none that I can tangibly see.

If you are going to make Nigel Benn favourite over Sam Langford then this indicates to me you believe that boxing nowadays is significantly better. I cant come to any other conclusion. Saying Langford would beat Benn if he had modern training but would lose to him without it is essentially saying that modern fighters are vastly superior.

oxring wrote:Az - if you seriously pick Manny over Jimmy Wilde at flyweight - you either need to learn a lot more about the ghost with a hammer in his hand - or in need of a mental health act assessment.

Genuinely - you have some decent boxing knowledge - bordering on encyclopaedic in the recent eras. However - pre-war you are somewhat lacking; by your own admission.

Small errors that you have made:

Calling Langford a lightweight. As Windy has said - was Robinson a featherweight? Or Pacquiao a flyweight? You yourself on another article mentioned that Pacquiao had "grown into LMW". So its OK for him but not for langford.

Saying Valuev had the same skillset as Rocky. Valuev - especially in his fight against Haye - had without a doubt the worst skillset of any heavyweight champion in history. The man had a medical condition - a disease - which (amongst other things) meant he would have had little peripheral vision. So why you feel he was "as good as the Rock" is beyond me.

Picking Haye over Jack Johnson. Johnson probably punched at least as hard as Haye - if not harder. He certainly defended a damn site better with significantly better stamina. So how the hell does Haye win? I'd be surprised if Haye could hit him clean more than 10 or 15 times - and Johnson had a great chin.
------------
Yes - I wouldn't expect RJJ to have moved up to have fought Tyson. However - I'd have given Fitzsimmons a chance. And I'd have given Langford a chance. And I'd expect Tunney to do well - very well against Tyson.

I'd pick Manny over Wilde if they fought today. Seeing as this is Paq, Wilde would have ot come up to Light MW.

I referred to Langford to emphasise his achievement in growing to be a competitive HW. And to prove my point that a boxer turning pro today would never compete in any weight over SMW and be successful. Yes he grew to 180lbs without protein supplements and high carb diets, but he would be extremely tiny to be competitive above LHW. He rminds me of Qawi. Bloody looks like Qawi also.

My comment about Valuev was made under the context of the utterly low opinion I have about Rocky as a boxer. Granted Valuev has as much skill with his fist as I do in my knowledge of pre-war boxers. I'll (reluctantly) concede on that.

I stand by my opinion on Haye/Johnson. Johnson was great. An ATG, but his record was patchy at best. Good defensively, but much slower than Haye. Also decked by a MW. Loved the bloke but once again he was a pioneer when the skillset possessed by many active fighters post war was still being developed. Extremely talented but due to the lack of a variety of styles could not fully develop his talents in the way less talented fighters have (no need to comment on the current crop of eastern euro as they lack everything other than size).

I dont doubt that Fitz and Langford would have had the grapefruits to fight Tyson. But in all honesty, Tyson could beat them both on the same night. They were far too crude. Good in their own right and era. Windy posted a ling of Langford. I have watched it time and time again. What was considered unique (parrying, feingting etc) is pretty much standard for most decent boxers active today. Yes there are some who thing feignting is almost passing out but I am not referring to them.

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

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 have to be honest and say no, I dont really see what you are saying. Langford is an all time great fighter and would feature in many peoples top twenty greatest fighters of all time. Nigel Benn was not an all time great. He was a solid to good super middleweight. There is no comparison really, at least none that I can tangibly see.

If you are going to make Nigel Benn favourite over Sam Langford then this indicates to me you believe that boxing nowadays is significantly better. I cant come to any other conclusion. Saying Langford would beat Benn if he had modern training but would lose to him without it is essentially saying that modern fighters are vastly superior.

Yes he is an ATG and SHOULD figure is any top 20. That is not the point as you are aware that ATG rankings and not solely based on apparent H2H, but mainly based on what they achieved during their time and how they did it. On that basis he absolutely deserves his high ranking.

But in a h2h, Benn simply knows way too much for him. Benn knows and has forgotten more than Langford was ever taught. Boxers are generally better because of the accumulated knowledge gained from those guys and others. Trainers passed on their knowledge etc etc etc.

But it is my opinion that SL was that talented that he could have been a better boxer with more knowledge. If he was active 30 years pater, he would have been a better boxer. On tyhat basis alone would I pick Benn. And yes, boxing has inproved leaps and bounds since the early 1900s.

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

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 have to be honest and say no, I dont really see what you are saying. Langford is an all time great fighter and would feature in many peoples top twenty greatest fighters of all time. Nigel Benn was not an all time great. He was a solid to good super middleweight. There is no comparison really, at least none that I can tangibly see.

If you are going to make Nigel Benn favourite over Sam Langford then this indicates to me you believe that boxing nowadays is significantly better. I cant come to any other conclusion. Saying Langford would beat Benn if he had modern training but would lose to him without it is essentially saying that modern fighters are vastly superior.

Yes he is an ATG and SHOULD figure is any top 20. That is not the point as you are aware that ATG rankings and not solely based on apparent H2H, but mainly based on what they achieved during their time and how they did it. On that basis he absolutely deserves his high ranking.

But in a h2h, Benn simply knows way too much for him. Benn knows and has forgotten more than Langford was ever taught. Boxers are generally better because of the accumulated knowledge gained from those guys and others. Trainers passed on their knowledge etc etc etc.

But it is my opinion that SL was that talented that he could have been a better boxer with more knowledge. If he was active 30 years pater, he would have been a better boxer. On tyhat basis alone would I pick Benn. And yes, boxing has inproved leaps and bounds since the early 1900s.

Again I am confused. You took issue with me using "quantum leaps" earlier as misquoting you, yet you are saying here boxing has improved leaps and bounds. Is this not the same thing for all intents and purposes?

I just dont see how you can say Benn has forgotten more than Langford was ever taught. You seem to alternate between differences in eras being small improvements to leaps and bounds and it looks contradictory to me.

Sam Langford was supposedly skilled and you insist you are praising him yet he loses to Benn (therefore we have to assume is less skilled) who was only decent to good by modern standards?

I think you are confusing talent and skill with potential. Are you saying that Langford could potentially beat Benn with these so called benefits of modern training?

Benn wasnt even a great fighter in his own era let alone in the context of all time. I cant see how you can on one hand try to say Langford was skilled and on the other say he would lose to Benn. Basically boxing would have to have come on gigantically for this to be valid as all other evidence points to a Langford win.

So is what you are saying that boxing now is substantially better than before and hence Langford would not be able to beat Benn as the sport has improved so drastically?

Look at the vid Windy posted with Langford throwing an uppercut. Boxers today would see that coming a mile off. Look at the jabs he is slipping. I could slip those. It is those subtle changes that have improved boxer's skills. Is it a quantom leap? No. Its a subtle change that has vastly improved skillsets.

Sam Langford was supposedly skilled and you insist you are praising him yet he loses to Benn (therefore we have to assume is less skilled) who was only decent to good by modern standards?

He was highly skilled for his time. Benn on the other has gained from the knowledge pased down for generations including the skillsets and moves Langford pioneered.

I think you are confusing talent and skill with potential. Are you saying that Langford could potentially beat Benn with these so called benefits of modern training?

yes

Benn wasnt even a great fighter in his own era let alone in the context of all time.

Irrelevant in the context of ATG status.

I cant see how you can on one hand try to say Langford was skilled and on the other say he would lose to Benn.

Because Benn has benefitted from better training and knowledge. Look at it this way. Ali barely trained for his forst fight with Spinks. Look what happened. When he trained he won the rematch. Its a similar thing with Langford. It he trained with all the benefits and knowledge gained from all the generations passed, he would be a better fighter and beat the Benn's of this world relatively easily.

You keep saying that the sport "has improved". How in particular?

What has improved? What is better now? Its fine to keep saying that it has - but if you don't say what's better now - you lose credibility.

Furthermore re: Royce Gracie. 1. If he kept taking steroids (he has tested positive in his final bout; this is not an allegation) he could probably still be competitive today.

I have no doubt he'd struggle to beat Anderson Silva. He is 44 after all. However - would his style, predominantly involving heavy ground control and submission still be effective? Yes - given that it is the Gracie style of BJJ which has become essential for any aspiring mixed martial artist. Fedor, whom you mentioned, is quite special - he has a background in Judo and Sambo which not many other fighters share. Him and Karo Parisyan (apologies for the spelling if I've butchered it). However - re: Gracie - has the Gracie school of BJJ moved on particularly? No, not really.

You mentioned that you had gone to a judo session and been thrown around. Judo was derived from ju-jitsu by Jigoro Kano. Have the techniques improved significantly since then? No - the gokyo stands. The only innovation that occurred was when the eastern bloc fighters brought in a more leg-grab based game (remembering that the archetypal leg grab, morote-gari is a Kano - ie an original technique). However - they're banned now.

You said that "boxing is the only sport which hasn't moved on" to mock Windy.

OK fine - so has Judo moved on?

oxring wrote:You keep saying that the sport "has improved". How in particular?

What has improved? What is better now? Its fine to keep saying that it has - but if you don't say what's better now - you lose credibility.

Furthermore re: Royce Gracie. 1. If he kept taking steroids (he has tested positive in his final bout; this is not an allegation) he could probably still be competitive today.

I have no doubt he'd struggle to beat Anderson Silva. He is 44 after all. However - would his style, predominantly involving heavy ground control and submission still be effective? Yes - given that it is the Gracie style of BJJ which has become essential for any aspiring mixed martial artist. Fedor, whom you mentioned, is quite special - he has a background in Judo and Sambo which not many other fighters share. Him and Karo Parisyan (apologies for the spelling if I've butchered it). However - re: Gracie - has the Gracie school of BJJ moved on particularly? No, not really.

You mentioned that you had gone to a judo session and been thrown around. Judo was derived from ju-jitsu by Jigoro Kano. Have the techniques improved significantly since then? No - the gokyo stands. The only innovation that occurred was when the eastern bloc fighters brought in a more leg-grab based game (remembering that the archetypal leg grab, morote-gari is a Kano - ie an original technique). However - they're banned now.

You said that "boxing is the only sport which hasn't moved on" to mock Windy.

OK fine - so has Judo moved on?

How has boxing improved? Slipping jabs and feignting is now common. All boxers are taught this. Geignting when attaching to get an opponent to the ropes is common practice in modern pressure fighters combined with footwork. These were new then. Now boxers are taught to counter those feignts. An improvement. Also look at him when throwing an uppercut. He leaves himself wide open. Left hand down by his waist. Wide stance with his feet. Compare that to the uppercut Tyson almost decapitated Bruno with. It was a natural flowing movement. Almost instinctive in its delivery. All those had been drilled into Tyson to the extent that they had become second nature.

Look at Holy's triple jab. Many boxers with a decent jab can double it up. Turn the jab into a hook with a quick shoulder drop and double up the hook to body and head. Micky ward was exceptional at that (I used him deliberately as per windy's post earlier). Mike McCallum was the best at it.

Now look at the vis Windy posted. The writing inferred that it was unique. Perhaps it was to him at that time. But it is pretty much common practice today.

Royce fought Matt Hughes 4 years ago and got destroyed. His style had moved on. And BJJ is no longer the dominant style in MMA. Wrestling is the most successful base. BJJ is still essential in submitting opponents. Fedor had to learn it. So do all MMA players. But Royce relied on one skill and was found out. Yes I am aware of his roid use.

YOu did spell Karo's name correctly. He had a judo base but learned new styles. And judo has also moved on. I cant recall its name or who invented it (same same as the inventor) but a new throw has been developed and legally applied. I'll try and find its name but I believe it was an eastern euro. I admit it could be what you mentioned though. I am not 100% on this (I saw a reference to it at the last olympics).

Oh and of course the bjj school has moved on. Renzo has taken it on and is developing new moves constantly. At least thatis what he said. He is trying to make it easier to apply the twister submission hold which has been used only twice in active MMA competition.

The point is all combat sports have moved on since it began. How do you think BJJ got its name? It came from regular JJ. Gracie Snr learnt it and "improved" it via new moves which has made BJJ the donimant form of JJ.

Your making assumptions based on nothing and when questionned about your severe lack of knowledge you say we're getting personal and only debating the poster, we are not but your obsession is bordering on the D4esque, at least he knows the subject he talks about, you on the other do not.

Langford fought at lightweight and then grew into a fighter able to compete very well at heavyweight, you say this is due to a weak era but their have been weaker heavyweight divisions since and yet no one has come close to replicating it nor have they come close to replicating Fitzsimmons. This to me does not suggest poor eras but rather extra special boxers able to do it.

What do you actually know about Langford, Mcvea, Jeanette, Wills, Gans, Barbados Joe or for that matter any boxer of that era?


As for the Royce Gracie analogy it should be remembered he was used by the Gracie family to show that their weakest and least proficient fighter would excel against different styles of martial arts.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your making assumptions based on nothing and when questionned about your severe lack of knowledge you say we're getting personal and only debating the poster, we are not but your obsession is bordering on the D4esque, at least he knows the subject he talks about, you on the other do not.

Langford fought at lightweight and then grew into a fighter able to compete very well at heavyweight, you say this is due to a weak era but their have been weaker heavyweight divisions since and yet no one has come close to replicating it nor have they come close to replicating Fitzsimmons. This to me does not suggest poor eras but rather extra special boxers able to do it.

What do you actually know about Langford, Mcvea, Jeanette, Wills, Gans, Barbados Joe or for that matter any boxer of that era?


As for the Royce Gracie analogy it should be remembered he was used by the Gracie family to show that their weakest and least proficient fighter would excel against different styles of martial arts.

So far you are the only one to make accusations and debate me as opposed to what I have written. Expected anyway. And my assumptions are based on what I have seen and simple logic. Yours is based on nostalgia.

If you read what I have written, you will see that I have praised Langford for his skills and achievement. I tampered that by saying he achieved what he did partially because of the weakness of that era.

It is well known that I am a huge fan of RJJ. Yet I acknowledge that he became a HW beltholder (I refuse to call him HW Champ) because of his talent in beating Ruiz but mainly because Ruiz was a particular weak beltholder. ARe you denying that? That is a valid comparison with Langford and Fitz.

As for Gracie, yes he was considered the weakest of the Gracie family but in MMA he was utterly dominant in the beginning until people learnt how to counter the various submission moves in BJJ. MMA moved on.

Look at Windy's vid about Langford and how he counter's and parries jabs. I have seen vids of 6 year old Mayweather kids learning how to parry jabs, slip jabs etc. It is now a basic in boxing whereas it wasn't then.

If you (or any others) believe that boxing has not moved on from those times, then there is no point in continuing this circular debate. Also it is quite an indictment to boxers to say that they have not moved on since 1900. It will remain the only sport in the world which has not improved.

azania wrote:If you (or any others) believe that boxing has not moved on from those times, then there is no point in continuing this circular debate. Also it is quite an indictment to boxers to say that they have not moved on since 1900. It will remain the only sport in the world which has not improved.

Then the ' others ' to whom you refer would include the only recently departed Ray Arcel, Eddie Futch, Joe Frazier and quite a few others who have claimed, over the last ten or fifteen years, that the standards of teaching boxing skills have fallen into disrepair.

By way of proof that what they say is correct, we need omly consider the difference made to Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko once they aligned themselves to Manny Steward, or Amir Khan since he teamed up with Roach.

The great fighters of today are as good as the great fighters of yesterday, but there aren't so many of them. Likewise trainers.

Sam Langford would, in my opinion, clean up at lightheavy today and would have represented a very difficult test to Michael Spinks, Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore and Gene Tunney. Quality and class are timeless. Mediocrity is also timeless. There were crude fighters in 1900 and there are crude fighters today. Let's throw the calendar and creatine out, dispense with prejudices and assess each fighter as an INDIVIDUAL entity. That is basic respect and courtesy, and men like Langford deserve it every bit as much as do Pacquiao, Mayweather and Hopkins.

Good morning windy.

Those guys are entitled to their informed opinions naturally. But where and how do you think guys like Arcel and Futch learnt their skills and gained their knowledge? From thin air? From your link it showed SL feignting, parrying, slipping, throwing uppercus and more. Those skills are pretty much basic now. And when showed in slo mo, his uppercut is very crude and rudimentary. That is not to disrespect him. He was very good at that time with those skills. I was watching a vid last night (sad isn't it?) on you tube of 6 year old Mayweather clan learning just that. I was going to post it but thought otherwise. I could find them if you wish. I did boxing at Repton and was taught how to slip and parry jabs (and no most jabs landed because I was not that good). Those skills are taught early today and their application becomes natural. Obviously some are better than others.

And you have hit the nail on the head. Khan et al improved when they switched trainers. Their new trainers were better and more suited to their styles. Trainers of yesteryear did not have the knowledge to pass on certain skills. They learned them from scratch. Now most trainers today know those skills (some better than others). I dare say that Eddie Futch was a better trainer when training Bowe than when training Frazier for the reason that learning in boxing for a trainer is practically lifelong. I dont assume that there is a point where Futch knew everything? The guy was like a sponge, always learning and passing on his knowledge to boxers. The rest remains on the level of skill of the boxer being taught. You can never change a mini clubman into a ferrari regardless of how good the mechanics are.

SL would not have a prayer against those guys you named. He didn't know enough whereas those guys knew everything SL knew and how to apply them. A good fight would be between him and Qawi and I would still back Qawi.

Skilled fighters like SL are still crude in ter,s of today's game imo. And having seen his videos, including the one you recommended, my opinion remains the same.

I have not shown SL any disrespect. He is not Rocky :-). I am full of admiration of any boxer and surprisingly to many here, the pioneers of the sport. Because without them we would not be here debating the sport we both love.

Good morning, az.

All I am asking is that you treat the fighters ( and trainers, ) as individuals.

Arcel came up working Benny Leonards's corner in the twenties. He went on to train many, many world champions - Ezzard Charles among them - was in the opposite corner to Joe Louis over a dozen times and trained Roberto Duran in the seventies.

Only a foolish person would dismiss his opinions, garnered from over fifty years of experience of boxing at the highest level.

Chappie Blackburn fought Langford, sparred with Johnson, and still makes the top twenty lightweight lists of many a historian. His knowledge of boxing was encyclopaedic, and he lived to take the enormously talented but raw Joe Louis and polish him and hone him into one of the two best heavyweights of all time.

Again, only a foolish person would dismiss his opinions, garnered from over fifty years of experience of boxing at the highest level.

Time is an elastic commodity. It's forty five years ( in round figures, ) since Ali beat Liston, and I don't see any significant improvement in the heavyweight division since then. Forty five years before THAT, Dempsey hadn't even made his first defence, and an aged Sam Langford was still fighting.

Let's ditch the calendar and assess the individuals. I don't believe that there is a lightheavy operating today who could beat Langford. If you believe otherwise, then let's debate it, but let's do so on the basis of BOXING and not from the perspective that everything must, necessarily, be better today.

The only point that matters here regardless of nostaglia (which is a childish accusation but what else do I expect from you), logic, assumptions or anything else is you know Langford, Gans, Walcott, Mcvea, Wills, Godfrey, Jeanette etc. by name only so cannot possibly make an informed opinion. You then have the cheek to accuse others of debating the poster and nostalgia, you should read up or shut up in short because you do know nothing about these fighters so are in no position to debate them.

Ok. Lets not go jumping through tie lines picking randon boxers out. I am specifically referring to the early 1900s when boxing as a sport with rules was in its infancy. In the period SL and Johnson were active. I'm glad you brought up Arcel. Do you think Arcel stopped learning about boxing after working with Leonard? I dont believe he did. Imo he gained more knowledge and passed more of that acquired knowledge to Duran than he did to Leonard for the simple reason being that he had more experience and knew more. Only a foolish person would assume he knew everything after working with Leonard.

Lets take Roach as a modern example. He was under the wing of Futch. Now he has the acquired knowledge of Futch as well as his own methods and knowledge which he passes on to his charges. And no I am not saying that he is a better trainer than Futch. But he can pass some of Futch's knowledge which he learnt to his charges.

But take a peak at the trainers of SL et al. Who taught them? Where did they get their knowledge from? They had to learn from scratch. Good as they were, you cannot beat acumulated knowledge which is then passed on to their charges. Moves which we take for granted and are probably basic fundermentals were probably unique for them. They developed those moves, but boxers of latter years improved on them and developed more. Its not a blind leap of faith but a logical advancement created by increased knowledge of the sport and in more recent years greater knowledge of sports science.

Boxing has not improved much since the end of WW2. But what has improved greately are training techniques and science which makes the boxer better athletes (yes you have the eastern bloc HW who can take as much creatine as they wish they would still be unfit plodders). There is no substitute for skill.

Based on that I believe that most active LHW would beat SL fairly comfortably. From your link I saw SL being very wide open for several counters. Because those counters were not fully developed at thattime, he would not have an effective defence for it. I believe he possessed the ability to learn quickly but because he wasn't taught it, he didnt know it. Absolutely zero disrespect to him or any of those guys.

ps - Rocky notwithstanding.

The Mighty Atom wrote:The only point that matters here regardless of nostaglia (which is a childish accusation but what else do I expect from you), logic, assumptions or anything else is you know Langford, Gans, Walcott, Mcvea, Wills, Godfrey, Jeanette etc. by name only so cannot possibly make an informed opinion. You then have the cheek to accuse others of debating the poster and nostalgia, you should read up or shut up in short because you do know nothing about these fighters so are in no position to debate them.

So saying my assumptions are based on nothing is very adult and respectful. If you cant take it, dont dish it.

Kindly refrain from telling other to shut up also.

Kindly refrain from discussing what you don't know about and i'll listen to the admin on this thread rather than you, he's a bit more objective

The real question here is how much or little do you in fact know about Langfords era?

azania wrote:Ok. Lets not go jumping through tie lines picking randon boxers out. I am specifically referring to the early 1900s when boxing as a sport with rules was in its infancy. In the period SL and Johnson were active. I'm glad you brought up Arcel. Do you think Arcel stopped learning about boxing after working with Leonard? I dont believe he did. Imo he gained more knowledge and passed more of that acquired knowledge to Duran than he did to Leonard for the simple reason being that he had more experience and knew more. Only a foolish person would assume he knew everything after working with Leonard.

Lets take Roach as a modern example. He was under the wing of Futch. Now he has the acquired knowledge of Futch as well as his own methods and knowledge which he passes on to his charges. And no I am not saying that he is a better trainer than Futch. But he can pass some of Futch's knowledge which he learnt to his charges.

But take a peak at the trainers of SL et al. Who taught them? Where did they get their knowledge from? They had to learn from scratch. Good as they were, you cannot beat acumulated knowledge which is then passed on to their charges. Moves which we take for granted and are probably basic fundermentals were probably unique for them. They developed those moves, but boxers of latter years improved on them and developed more. Its not a blind leap of faith but a logical advancement created by increased knowledge of the sport and in more recent years greater knowledge of sports science.

Boxing has not improved much since the end of WW2. But what has improved greately are training techniques and science which makes the boxer better athletes (yes you have the eastern bloc HW who can take as much creatine as they wish they would still be unfit plodders). There is no substitute for skill.

Based on that I believe that most active LHW would beat SL fairly comfortably. From your link I saw SL being very wide open for several counters. Because those counters were not fully developed at thattime, he would not have an effective defence for it. I believe he possessed the ability to learn quickly but because he wasn't taught it, he didnt know it. Absolutely zero disrespect to him or any of those guys.

ps - Rocky notwithstanding.

Your point concerning Arcel reinforces MY point.

If, after fifty years in the business, Arcel STILL claimed that Dempsey, Louis and Ali were, in no particular order, the three greatest heavyweights of all time, and if he also still believed that Langford was a great fighter, then it is ignorant to disregard him.

As to modern training techniques. I have heard this little soundbite so many times, but I have yet to see one person say what they are, and how they benefit :

Guts
Heart
Timing
Will to win
Hand to eye coordination
Ability to think and improvise ( ring generalship )
Judgement of distances
Reflexes
Ability to ' read ' an opponent

Perhaps you could explain - in detail - what the improvements are, and how they benefit the above.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Kindly refrain from discussing what you don't know about and i'll listen to the admin on this thread rather than you, he's a bit more objective

What gives you the right to tell others what to post about? By all means listen to windy and learn from him. He can disagree with people and still remain respectful. Something I learn from.

Regards

Duran no 6..................Guy that can't handle quality technicians..

Ali at 4......behind Greb and armstrong..

Obviously longevity isn't a valued commodity.

Guess the rest is contentious on place but pretty fair overall

Problem is Azania you ruin debate for the rest of us with your lack of knowledge, I like most stick to what I know, I don't pretend to know about eras of boxing.

Truss we've been here time and time again, De Jesus, Marcel, Palomino and Buchanan were all quality technicians, at his natural lightweight he could and did beat all styles, above that he struggled when giving up reach and height to other quality boxers. Not sure if many if any of the top ten lightweights would beat Leonard, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Ok. Lets not go jumping through tie lines picking randon boxers out. I am specifically referring to the early 1900s when boxing as a sport with rules was in its infancy. In the period SL and Johnson were active. I'm glad you brought up Arcel. Do you think Arcel stopped learning about boxing after working with Leonard? I dont believe he did. Imo he gained more knowledge and passed more of that acquired knowledge to Duran than he did to Leonard for the simple reason being that he had more experience and knew more. Only a foolish person would assume he knew everything after working with Leonard.

Lets take Roach as a modern example. He was under the wing of Futch. Now he has the acquired knowledge of Futch as well as his own methods and knowledge which he passes on to his charges. And no I am not saying that he is a better trainer than Futch. But he can pass some of Futch's knowledge which he learnt to his charges.

But take a peak at the trainers of SL et al. Who taught them? Where did they get their knowledge from? They had to learn from scratch. Good as they were, you cannot beat acumulated knowledge which is then passed on to their charges. Moves which we take for granted and are probably basic fundermentals were probably unique for them. They developed those moves, but boxers of latter years improved on them and developed more. Its not a blind leap of faith but a logical advancement created by increased knowledge of the sport and in more recent years greater knowledge of sports science.

Boxing has not improved much since the end of WW2. But what has improved greately are training techniques and science which makes the boxer better athletes (yes you have the eastern bloc HW who can take as much creatine as they wish they would still be unfit plodders). There is no substitute for skill.

Based on that I believe that most active LHW would beat SL fairly comfortably. From your link I saw SL being very wide open for several counters. Because those counters were not fully developed at thattime, he would not have an effective defence for it. I believe he possessed the ability to learn quickly but because he wasn't taught it, he didnt know it. Absolutely zero disrespect to him or any of those guys.

ps - Rocky notwithstanding.

Your point concerning Arcel reinforces MY point.

If, after fifty years in the business, Arcel STILL claimed that Dempsey, Louis and Ali were, in no particular order, the three greatest heavyweights of all time, and if he also still believed that Langford was a great fighter, then it is ignorant to disregard him.

As to modern training techniques. I have heard this little soundbite so many times, but I have yet to see one person say what they are, and how they benefit :

Guts
Heart
Timing
Will to win
Hand to eye coordination
Ability to think and improvise ( ring generalship )
Judgement of distances
Reflexes
Ability to ' read ' an opponent

Perhaps you could explain - in detail - what the improvements are, and how they benefit the above.

Read my posts again (all of them if you have the stomach for it). Can you point out a single post in which I have said that SL is not a great fighter? Modern techniques will not improve guts et al. You either have it or dont. It cant be trained into you. But that is not my point and unfortunately you totally missed what I was saying.

But I would like you to answer this simple question which I asked above. Did Arcel and Futch stop learning after training Leonard and Frazier repsectively? I dont think they did. Boxing was in their DNA and they stopped learing when their final bell rang.

Who did the early trainers learn from? Could they pass onto their charges as much info and techniques that Arcel passed onto Duran and Futch to Frazier?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Problem is Azania you ruin debate for the rest of us with your lack of knowledge, I like most stick to what I know, I don't pretend to know about eras of boxing.

Truss we've been here time and time again, De Jesus, Marcel, Palomino and Buchanan were all quality technicians, at his natural lightweight he could and did beat all styles, above that he struggled when giving up reach and height to other quality boxers. Not sure if many if any of the top ten lightweights would beat Leonard, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler

Simply refrain from telling others what to post and to shut up. If you do not like what I write, then dont respond to it. Respond to others. Simple.

azania wrote:
But I would like you to answer this simple question which I asked above. Did Arcel and Futch stop learning after training Leonard and Frazier repsectively? I dont think they did. Boxing was in their DNA and they stopped learing when their final bell rang.

I've addressed those points.

Would you please return the courtesy by answering MY points, as to what these modern training methods are and how they SPECIFICALLY benefit the SPECIFIC criteria I mention ?

Thank you.

PS - please add ' chin and durability ' to the list of criteria.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Problem is Azania you ruin debate for the rest of us with your lack of knowledge, I like most stick to what I know, I don't pretend to know about eras of boxing.

Truss we've been here time and time again, De Jesus, Marcel, Palomino and Buchanan were all quality technicians, at his natural lightweight he could and did beat all styles, above that he struggled when giving up reach and height to other quality boxers. Not sure if many if any of the top ten lightweights would beat Leonard, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler

Simply refrain from telling others what to post and to shut up. If you do not like what I write, then dont respond to it. Respond to others. Simple.

Simply refrain from telling me what to do then, agreed?

Answer this simple question, what do you actually know about the boxers from 1890-1920?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
But I would like you to answer this simple question which I asked above. Did Arcel and Futch stop learning after training Leonard and Frazier repsectively? I dont think they did. Boxing was in their DNA and they stopped learing when their final bell rang.

I've addressed those points.

Would you please return the courtesy by answering MY points, as to what these modern training methods are and how they SPECIFICALLY benefit the SPECIFIC criteria I mention ?

Thank you.

PS - please add ' chin and durability ' to the list of criteria.

I have adressed it when I said that you are born with guts et al and they cannot be trained into you.

As to your points, I am not going into a long post but today you have specific weight training regimes and equipment specifically designed to aid particular muscle group and to increase the development of fast twitch muscles, I dont need to explain the benefits of fast twitch muscles. You also have altitude training, dietry supplements to assist weight cutting without losing strength. Boxers can increase weight in terms of muscle mass thru training and specific diets.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Problem is Azania you ruin debate for the rest of us with your lack of knowledge, I like most stick to what I know, I don't pretend to know about eras of boxing.

Truss we've been here time and time again, De Jesus, Marcel, Palomino and Buchanan were all quality technicians, at his natural lightweight he could and did beat all styles, above that he struggled when giving up reach and height to other quality boxers. Not sure if many if any of the top ten lightweights would beat Leonard, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler

Simply refrain from telling others what to post and to shut up. If you do not like what I write, then dont respond to it. Respond to others. Simple.

Simply refrain from telling me what to do then, agreed?

Answer this simple question, what do you actually know about the boxers from 1890-1920?

I am not telling you what to do. Just asking you to comply with the TOS.

I know plenty about that period. Next irrelevant question please.

What do you actually about that period because thus far it appears to me as though you know nothing?

Windy, you have not answered my question about Arcel and SL#s trainer. You've done a Pac-man and ducked it. Mine was a yes/no question.

Also who did SL's trainer learn from?

The Mighty Atom wrote:What do you actually about that period because thus far it appears to me as though you know nothing?

That is particularly a ridiculous question. What do you want me to know?

I fear what you want is a total agreement that who is say are the best are the best without a counter argument.

I have my opinions. You have yours. I dont insult your opinions but you do that to others. Difference is good and healthy.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
But I would like you to answer this simple question which I asked above. Did Arcel and Futch stop learning after training Leonard and Frazier repsectively? I dont think they did. Boxing was in their DNA and they stopped learing when their final bell rang.

I've addressed those points.

Would you please return the courtesy by answering MY points, as to what these modern training methods are and how they SPECIFICALLY benefit the SPECIFIC criteria I mention ?

Thank you.

PS - please add ' chin and durability ' to the list of criteria.

I have adressed it when I said that you are born with guts et al and they cannot be trained into you.

As to your points, I am not going into a long post but today you have specific weight training regimes and equipment specifically designed to aid particular muscle group and to increase the development of fast twitch muscles, I dont need to explain the benefits of fast twitch muscles. You also have altitude training, dietry supplements to assist weight cutting without losing strength. Boxers can increase weight in terms of muscle mass thru training and specific diets.

No, you haven't SPECIFICALLY addressed them at all. Not even close.

Your ' blanket ' coverage of training consists of physical conditioning, and these are not markedly better than many techniques employed 100 years ago, with the possible exception of dietary supplements, which are an issue of nutrition rather than training.

I am asking you about BOXING training and how modern methods benefit the SPECIFIC criteria which I have listed. If these ' modern techniques ' are all you crack them up to be it should be a breeze for you to answer my specific question with a specific answer.

Perhaps I should make it easier :

YES or NO : Are there ANY modern training techniques which are an improvement in developing the qualities I specified ? Yes, or no ?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:What do you actually about that period because thus far it appears to me as though you know nothing?

That is particularly a ridiculous question. What do you want me to know?

I fear what you want is a total agreement that who is say are the best are the best without a counter argument.

I have my opinions. You have yours. I dont insult your opinions but you do that to others. Difference is good and healthy.

I'm just wondering that's all because i'm interested to know what was particularly weak about that era?

As I have said windy, you cannot train heart into boxers. Audley had it all except for heart. With heart I have no doubt he would have been a belt holder. He has the physical toold but not the mental one.

Hearns had everything except for chin. He would have rivalled SRR but his chin let him down. So the obvious answer is no. Modern training etc cannot in any way improve what you wrote.

But it can improve timing and hand eye cordination. I dont know the name of the machine, but NFL quaterbacks use it and so does Pac, Holy, Haye and many other champions designed specifically to improve hand/eye cordination.

Training for speed increasing timing and training is designed for that. Donaire does sprint training and he said it has increased his speed and timing. Hitting and missing are fractions. Better speed will improve your chances to hit and not be hit. To be knocked out and to land the ko blow. If we are talking split second timing, then it stands to reason that boxers will benefit from this. Also as sprint coaching has improved, so has what the boxers learn.

Boxers do not only tade on heart and will etc. But skill plays a huge factor. Its the training of the skill that is important. Moreover some employ sports phychologists, hypnotists (Collins) to get them mentally righ for a fight. All these advancements were not available during SL's time. He traded on his own skiills which were partly self taught or taught by a trainer who did not know as much as future trainers like Arcel and Futch.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:What do you actually about that period because thus far it appears to me as though you know nothing?

That is particularly a ridiculous question. What do you want me to know?

I fear what you want is a total agreement that who is say are the best are the best without a counter argument.

I have my opinions. You have yours. I dont insult your opinions but you do that to others. Difference is good and healthy.

I'm just wondering that's all because i'm interested to know what was particularly weak about that era?

You obviously have not read what I have written except for these barbed exchanges. If you had, you would not be asking that question.

You said what Langford did could only be achieved in a weak era, true or false?

The Mighty Atom wrote:You said what Langford did could only be achieved in a weak era, true or false?

Yes I did. Likewise I said RJJ could only do what he did in a weak era.

azania wrote:As I have said windy, you cannot train heart into boxers. Audley had it all except for heart. With heart I have no doubt he would have been a belt holder. He has the physical toold but not the mental one.

Hearns had everything except for chin. He would have rivalled SRR but his chin let him down. So the obvious answer is no. Modern training etc cannot in any way improve what you wrote.

But it can improve timing and hand eye cordination. I dont know the name of the machine, but NFL quaterbacks use it and so does Pac, Holy, Haye and many other champions designed specifically to improve hand/eye cordination.

Training for speed increasing timing and training is designed for that. Donaire does sprint training and he said it has increased his speed and timing. Hitting and missing are fractions. Better speed will improve your chances to hit and not be hit. To be knocked out and to land the ko blow. If we are talking split second timing, then it stands to reason that boxers will benefit from this. Also as sprint coaching has improved, so has what the boxers learn.

Boxers do not only tade on heart and will etc. But skill plays a huge factor. Its the training of the skill that is important. Moreover some employ sports phychologists, hypnotists (Collins) to get them mentally righ for a fight. All these advancements were not available during SL's time. He traded on his own skiills which were partly self taught or taught by a trainer who did not know as much as future trainers like Arcel and Futch.

It's a valiant effort, az, and I thank you for your answer.

Sadly, though, it does not convince. Too many of my criteria are left unaccounted for, and some of those which you have addressed, such as timing, are unsatisfactorily dealt with. The speed required by a sprinter is markedly different to that required by a boxer, and the timing of a complete move - avoidance of an incoming punch, maintenance of balance, shifting of position, weight transference and delivery of a punch - is best accomplished by good old fashioned sparring or fighting. No machine can replicate that or better it.

What made it weak in relation to other eras?

The Mighty Atom wrote:What made it weak in relation to other eras?

Its simple. No boxer without an amateur pedigree who started off at LW should be able to compete effectively with HW unless that era was weak. Likewise no boxer who started off at MW should be able to beat the world champ as RJJ did unless that era was weak.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:What made it weak in relation to other eras?

Its simple. No boxer without an amateur pedigree who started off at LW should be able to compete effectively with HW unless that era was weak. Likewise no boxer who started off at MW should be able to beat the world champ as RJJ did unless that era was weak.

Everything is relative. A great fighter can make very good fighters look mediocre. Likewise, a great fighter in a good era can render that era to be perceived as weak.

It's a valiant effort, az, and I thank you for your answer.

Sadly, though, it does not convince. Too many of my criteria are left unaccounted for, and some of those which you have addressed, such as timing, are unsatisfactorily dealt with. The speed required by a sprinter is markedly different to that required by a boxer, and the timing of a complete move - avoidance of an incoming punch, maintenance of balance, shifting of position, weight transference and delivery of a punch - is best accomplished by good old fashioned sparring or fighting. No machine can replicate that or better it.

Of course the speed required for a sprinter is different to boxing. You are developing the fast twitch muscles which increases all round speed, not just running speed. This is not done to replace sparring and other general training which all boxers need. It is used to compliment that. The machine is not used to replicate sparring but to compliment it.

azania wrote:

It's a valiant effort, az, and I thank you for your answer.

Sadly, though, it does not convince. Too many of my criteria are left unaccounted for, and some of those which you have addressed, such as timing, are unsatisfactorily dealt with. The speed required by a sprinter is markedly different to that required by a boxer, and the timing of a complete move - avoidance of an incoming punch, maintenance of balance, shifting of position, weight transference and delivery of a punch - is best accomplished by good old fashioned sparring or fighting. No machine can replicate that or better it.

Of course the speed required for a sprinter is different to boxing. You are developing the fast twitch muscles which increases all round speed, not just running speed. This is not done to replace sparring and other general training which all boxers need. It is used to compliment that. The machine is not used to replicate sparring but to compliment it.

In other words, the machine offers minimal advantage.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:What made it weak in relation to other eras?

Its simple. No boxer without an amateur pedigree who started off at LW should be able to compete effectively with HW unless that era was weak. Likewise no boxer who started off at MW should be able to beat the world champ as RJJ did unless that era was weak.

Everything is relative. A great fighter can make very good fighters look mediocre. Likewise, a great fighter in a good era can render that era to be perceived as weak.

A good big un will always beat a good little un (no sexual reference thre windy so calm down). Unless that is the big guy/s is/are not up tp much. If a MW beats a HW, I would praise the MW for question the ability of the HW.

I agree with your second sentence. RJJ made the MW thru to LHW division appear weak.

Does that take into context Langfords ability or the ability of his opponents?

Gans, Mcvey, Jeannete, Wills, Godfrey O'Brien all had a few things in common

1. They were all beaten by Langford
2. They were all highly respected fighters of their day and of any era
3. They're all members of the hall of fame

In context this is completely different to the example you have used of Jones who beat someone universally regarded as being a weak paper champion, the boxers whom Langford were beating were the best of the day and were it not for the colour they would all have had shots at the title with the exception of O'Brien whom was white and a former light heavyweight world champion. Langford himself failed in his bid to become Welterweight champion when he controversially drew with fellow hall of famer and IBRO top ten ranked welterweight Barbados Joe Walcott.

You're not basing your opinion on that of Langford or his opposition rather that it's a feat that has never been replicated and something you feel the need to diminish.