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:

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.

It offers an advantage which could be the difference between knocking out your opponent or being knocked out. Is that a minimal advantage?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Does that take into context Langfords ability or the ability of his opponents?

Gans, Mcvey, Jeannete, Wills, 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. 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.

It takes into account both. Boxing was in its relative infancy then. It stands to reason that someone knew would have an advantage. SL was very good. The other HoFers whilst being good in their era never faced anything quite like SL and were not prepared for him.

azania wrote:

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.

But a GREAT little 'un has, numerous times, beaten a very good big one, as the record books prove. Besides, if we consider Langford, he would only be considered small at heavyweight. As a lightheavy, ( or cruiser, really, ) his physique was formidable. 17in. neck, 15in. bicep, 43in. chest and 180lb.

Ally that to his freakish punching power, ( as reported by many who were on the wrong end of it, ) his brilliant boxing brain and his stamina, and you have a genuinely great fighter.

I am getting tired of hearing how many freaks there were in early day boxing. What was considered freakish is probably the norm now. SL was built like Dwight Qawi and like Qawi used his relative small size to his advantage. Qawi qould perhaps also be a freak if he was active then.

For the last time, SL was a genuinely GREAT FIGHTER. I feel I have to reitterate that too often. I am not putting him or other old timers down. Not in this thread anyway. I'll save that for later on another thread.

azania wrote:It offers an advantage which could be the difference between knocking out your opponent or being knocked out. Is that a minimal advantage?

How does it ?

Does it throw a punch ? Feint ? Duck ? Parry ?

Maybe it would improve driving skills, too. Or a pilot's ability to make split second decisions. How about military snipers ?

Smoke and mirrors. A fighter trains to fight, and fighting, almost by definition, is the best training. A classical pianist practises scales to develop the necessary twitch fibre stuff. You might argue that he could do the same thing by practising on an old typewriter, but why would he ? The piano is his domain, and the boxing ring is a fighter's domain.

You have spectacularly failed to tell me how specific modern training methods benefit the specific criteria which I have outlined. With regard to some of those criteria, you haven't even attempted to.

Because you can't.

Because it is a nonsensical, cliched soundbite which has no basis in fact.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Does that take into context Langfords ability or the ability of his opponents?

Gans, Mcvey, Jeannete, Wills, 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. 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.

It takes into account both. Boxing was in its relative infancy then. It stands to reason that someone knew would have an advantage. SL was very good. The other HoFers whilst being good in their era never faced anything quite like SL and were not prepared for him.

That's a bit of a general comment, Wills, Mcvey, Godfrey and Jeanette are considered the greatest heavyweights to have never won the title, doesn't suggest to me a weak era if anything the opposite that 5 highly regarded heavyweights were around at the same, this can only be challenged by the golden era for strength in depth. Wills for example was an incredibly good heavyweight who was more than prepared for Langford as shown by his superiority over him, the fact Langford had beaten him to start with was a measure of the boston tar baby, in my opinion Dempsey would have lost his title had they arranged that fight properly.

Your generalising comments only go to prove my point that your knowledge of the era is lacking, you never go into any depth with your argument

azania wrote:I am getting tired of hearing how many freaks there were in early day boxing.

If they were here to read your posts they would consider themselves to be in good company.

Regardless, would you agree that Tyson was a freak of nature ? And Hearns ? Jones Junior ? Ali ? Pacquiao ?

They have always existed, and always will. That's what makes them special.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:It offers an advantage which could be the difference between knocking out your opponent or being knocked out. Is that a minimal advantage?

How does it ?

Does it throw a punch ? Feint ? Duck ? Parry ?

Maybe it would improve driving skills, too. Or a pilot's ability to make split second decisions. How about military snipers ?

Smoke and mirrors. A fighter trains to fight, and fighting, almost by definition, is the best training. A classical pianist practises scales to develop the necessary twitch fibre stuff. You might argue that he could do the same thing by practising on an old typewriter, but why would he ? The piano is his domain, and the boxing ring is a fighter's domain.

You have spectacularly failed to tell me how specific modern training methods benefit the specific criteria which I have outlined. With regard to some of those criteria, you haven't even attempted to.

Because you can't.

Because it is a nonsensical, cliched soundbite which has no basis in fact.

YOu admitted that it has a minimal advantage. When you have fractions to get out of the way or be KO'd that advantage is not minimal. When dealing in fractions, minimal advantages can become the difference maker. It is not smokes and mirrors. You are obviously old school. But trainers would not be adopting new facilities if it didn't benefit them. Why are Pac and Khan using strength and physical conditioners? Why dont they just spar and chop wood? Why does that conditioner take their pulse rate, BP, BMI etc if it didn't benefit them? Smokes and mirrors? Tell that to Roach, Steward, Atlas and others.

As for helping to duck, parry etc. Fast twitch muscles increases your reactions. So once again it does help. If it is nonsensical, why use it. Times have moved and so has boxing training and the facilities available together with aquired knowledge will and has improved boxers ability (before you start on that, they have to have ability to improve and yes it has improved Valuev even).

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am getting tired of hearing how many freaks there were in early day boxing.

If they were here to read your posts they would consider themselves to be in good company.

Regardless, would you agree that Tyson was a freak of nature ? And Hearns ? Jones Junior ? Ali ? Pacquiao ?

They have always existed, and always will. That's what makes them special.

I wouldn't call them freaks of nature. Just superbly gifted boxers.

azania wrote:Why are Pac and Khan using strength and physical conditioners? Why dont they just spar and chop wood? Why does that conditioner take their pulse rate, BP, BMI etc if it didn't benefit them? Smokes and mirrors? Tell that to Roach, Steward, Atlas and others.

I didn't ask you about PHYSICAL conditioning.

I was quite specific in my choice of criteria, and you still haven't come close to answering the questions I asked.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am getting tired of hearing how many freaks there were in early day boxing.

If they were here to read your posts they would consider themselves to be in good company.

Regardless, would you agree that Tyson was a freak of nature ? And Hearns ? Jones Junior ? Ali ? Pacquiao ?

They have always existed, and always will. That's what makes them special.

I wouldn't call them freaks of nature. Just superbly gifted boxers.

Tommy Hearns not a freak of nature ?

I see.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Why are Pac and Khan using strength and physical conditioners? Why dont they just spar and chop wood? Why does that conditioner take their pulse rate, BP, BMI etc if it didn't benefit them? Smokes and mirrors? Tell that to Roach, Steward, Atlas and others.

I didn't ask you about PHYSICAL conditioning.

I was quite specific in my choice of criteria, and you still haven't come close to answering the questions I asked.

STRENGTH and physical conditioners. Do you think their conditioners just tell them to jog and chop trees?

As for your criteria, I answered it twice. For the third time, nothing can add to guts, heart, chin etc. It cannot be trained into you (although specific neck exercises can improve absorbing punches slightly better). But you seem stuck on one point ie training techniques and have totally ignored (or at least I haven't read it) on the accumulated knowledge being passed down being advantageous to modern fighters that ther were to early fighters seeing as everything was being learnt then.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am getting tired of hearing how many freaks there were in early day boxing.

If they were here to read your posts they would consider themselves to be in good company.

Regardless, would you agree that Tyson was a freak of nature ? And Hearns ? Jones Junior ? Ali ? Pacquiao ?

They have always existed, and always will. That's what makes them special.

I wouldn't call them freaks of nature. Just superbly gifted boxers.

Tommy Hearns not a freak of nature ?

I see.

I suppose a freak givn his size and practically hollow legs. Who was the bantam who was 5"11'?

azania wrote:I suppose a freak givn his size and practically hollow legs. Who was the bantam who was 5"11'?

'Panama' Al Brown, another freak of nature in that respect. Fought in the thirties, though, so is bound to be cr@p.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Why are Pac and Khan using strength and physical conditioners? Why dont they just spar and chop wood? Why does that conditioner take their pulse rate, BP, BMI etc if it didn't benefit them? Smokes and mirrors? Tell that to Roach, Steward, Atlas and others.

I didn't ask you about PHYSICAL conditioning.

I was quite specific in my choice of criteria, and you still haven't come close to answering the questions I asked.

Do you think Arcel and Futch new more in 5 years of boxing or in 50 years of boxing? Did they stop learning after 5 years?

azania wrote:As for your criteria, I answered it twice. For the third time, nothing can add to guts, heart, chin etc. It cannot be trained into you (although specific neck exercises can improve absorbing punches slightly better). But you seem stuck on one point ie training techniques

The reason I'm stuck at one point is because you haven't yet answered it.

I gave you a specific list of absolutely VITAL ingredients in the constitution of a great fighter, and I asked you which modern training methods benefit EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM in comparison to previous methods, and how.

I'm still waiting.............................

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:I suppose a freak givn his size and practically hollow legs. Who was the bantam who was 5"11'?

'Panama' Al Brown, another freak of nature in that respect. Fought in the thirties, though, so is bound to be cr@p.

Is that your opinion that he is bound to be cr@p?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Why are Pac and Khan using strength and physical conditioners? Why dont they just spar and chop wood? Why does that conditioner take their pulse rate, BP, BMI etc if it didn't benefit them? Smokes and mirrors? Tell that to Roach, Steward, Atlas and others.

I didn't ask you about PHYSICAL conditioning.

I was quite specific in my choice of criteria, and you still haven't come close to answering the questions I asked.

Do you think Arcel and Futch new more in 5 years of boxing or in 50 years of boxing? Did they stop learning after 5 years?

Do you believe modern students of counterpoint are better than Bach, 260 years after his death ?

I'm guessing you aren't trained in music, so I'll answer it for you. They aren't.

azania wrote:

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.

Az - you can bluff a great deal on here - but you can't bluff me on Judo. Im a 3rd dan and have done it since I was 4. No "new throw" has been developed. Technical "innovations" are adaptations on the original techniques - neither better nor worse than the originals - just different. The eastern European techniques - urenage and sumigaeshi are still Japanese techniques in origin. The Easter Euro versions are not necessarily better. There are lots of "new" turnovers being derived in newaza (groundwork) BUT they all rely upon principles that have existed since the beginning. ie - juji gatame. That I think is called the cross arm bar in MMA - but I'm not 100% on my MMA lingo. Now - you will see people do the technique sideways, face down, face up, at all manner of different angles. Kano demonstrated it in the pure original form. Newer versions aren't "new" techniques in the sense that they've been invented - they've been adapted from the original and there is nothing that would have prevented Koizumi, for instance, from doing them.

New does not always equal better.

Gracie snr has not "improved" jujitsu. He adapted the existing sport towards what he was predominantly interested in - ie newaza rather than the standing work.

Re: Matt Hughes - FFS Az - Gracie was 40! What the hell did you expect. That's like saying that boxing has "moved on" in the last 10 years - which explains why Floyd whipped 39 year old Mosley. Re: BJJ moving on - see my earlier point on judo. Adapting and trying to work through a technique doesn't mean better.

Re: "doubling up the jab" - you're showing a degree of ignorance there azzy. You're assuming that what we have now is the most successful and "best" - and quantum leaps that didn't work out were lost.

What you're missing is the amount that has been forgotten. Hugely effective types of boxing that aren't practised now. To use a topical example - look at "doubling up". You mentioned Holy, who had learnt to triple the jab. Charley Burley - in 1940 - didn't just doube and triple the left jab - he would double right hands and double left hook to the body. That's doubling up. Who do you know who throws double right hands now? Most people go headhunting and look for single shots.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:I suppose a freak givn his size and practically hollow legs. Who was the bantam who was 5"11'?

'Panama' Al Brown, another freak of nature in that respect. Fought in the thirties, though, so is bound to be cr@p.

Is that your opinion that he is bound to be cr@p?

Well obviously, yes. Boxing was poor back then, all fighters were lacking in technique and had a limited set of skills, most only fought anyone for money, the trainers and writers of that time who raved about such fighters were simply gripped by hyperbole, and fighters in that era were all slower and more basic than today as they didn't have 'modern training', a strange phenomenon which everyone bangs on about, although nobody can actually explain what this is and how it benefits fighters today.

So all that considered, yes, I think it stands to reason that Brown would be cr@p simply because he fought about eighty years ago. It's a water-tight theory that I'm well-versed in now.

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.

[quote]

Guts
Heart

Modern training has no effect.

Timing

No effect

will to win

No effect

Hand to eye coordination

Answered and does have an effect

Ability to think and improvise ( ring generalship )

No effect

Judgement of distances

No effect

Reflexes

Huge effect and already addressed.

Ability to ' read ' an opponent

No effect.

Answered in total.

Now did Arcel stop learning after 5 years? Did Futch stop learning after Frazier retired?

Who taught boxers how to counter a jab or parry a jab? Before jabs became the most basic aspect in a boxer's armoury, the person with a jab was king. But the techniques to counter the opponents attacks had to be learnt. Early boxers had a black page to work from. Later guys did not.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:I suppose a freak givn his size and practically hollow legs. Who was the bantam who was 5"11'?

'Panama' Al Brown, another freak of nature in that respect. Fought in the thirties, though, so is bound to be cr@p.

Is that your opinion that he is bound to be cr@p?

Well obviously, yes. Boxing was poor back then, all fighters were lacking in technique and had a limited set of skills, most only fought anyone for money, the trainers and writers of that time who raved about such fighters were simply gripped by hyperbole, and fighters in that era were all slower and more basic than today as they didn't have 'modern training', a strange phenomenon which everyone bangs on about, although nobody can actually explain what this is and how it benefits fighters today.

So all that considered, yes, I think it stands to reason that Brown would be cr@p simply because he fought about eighty years ago. It's a water-tight theory that I'm well-versed in now.

No problem then. The first guy to lace up a glove automatically knew all the moves and then some. Their trainers knew all the moves also. There was nothing other than their styles which Arcel and Futch et al copied and did nothing to improve upon.

Only in boxing can this happen.

To the tune of Paul McCartney's ' YESTERDAY '



Creatine,
It's the best thing I have ever seen
It's all I need, that and
My rowing machine
Oh I believe,
In creatine

Suddenly,
Ezzard Charles is nowhere near JC
He didn't have modern
Techniques, you see
Oh creatine
Came suddenly


REFRAIN :

Jack, Joe, they couldn't know
Anything Sam Peter does
Slips, feints without restraint, better now
It's such a bu - u - u - u - zz


Creatine
Spread it on your bread with margarine
Wash it down with shakes
With no caffeine
Oh I believe
In creatine


Repeat refrain and fade till nervous breakdown induced by new vs old debate..................

Az - you can bluff a great deal on here - but you can't bluff me on Judo. Im a 3rd dan and have done it since I was 4. No "new throw" has been developed. Technical "innovations" are adaptations on the original techniques - neither better nor worse than the originals - just different. The eastern European techniques - urenage and sumigaeshi are still Japanese techniques in origin. The Easter Euro versions are not necessarily better. There are lots of "new" turnovers being derived in newaza (groundwork) BUT they all rely upon principles that have existed since the beginning. ie - juji gatame. That I think is called the cross arm bar in MMA - but I'm not 100% on my MMA lingo. Now - you will see people do the technique sideways, face down, face up, at all manner of different angles. Kano demonstrated it in the pure original form. Newer versions aren't "new" techniques in the sense that they've been invented - they've been adapted from the original and there is nothing that would have prevented Koizumi, for instance, from doing them.

New does not always equal better.

Gracie snr has not "improved" jujitsu. He adapted the existing sport towards what he was predominantly interested in - ie newaza rather than the standing work.

Re: Matt Hughes - FFS Az - Gracie was 40! What the hell did you expect. That's like saying that boxing has "moved on" in the last 10 years - which explains why Floyd whipped 39 year old Mosley. Re: BJJ moving on - see my earlier point on judo. Adapting and trying to work through a technique doesn't mean better.

Re: "doubling up the jab" - you're showing a degree of ignorance there azzy. You're assuming that what we have now is the most successful and "best" - and quantum leaps that didn't work out were lost.

What you're missing is the amount that has been forgotten. Hugely effective types of boxing that aren't practised now. To use a topical example - look at "doubling up". You mentioned Holy, who had learnt to triple the jab. Charley Burley - in 1940 - didn't just doube and triple the left jab - he would double right hands and double left hook to the body. That's doubling up. Who do you know who throws double right hands now? Most people go headhunting and look for single shots. .

As for Judo, I did say I was unsure of my facts and alluded o something I heard at the last olympics. I also acknowledged it could have been what you mentioned. I didn't check as I said I would.

Gracie adaped JJ to create BJJ which is standard in MMA as opposed to regular established JJ. I am not sure of the difference between the two to be honest. But I doubt if he would have adapted it for no particular reason. Royce was 40. Actually 38 when he fought Hughes. Hughes is no spring chicked either and Randy Couture recently retires at 48. Chuck Lidell carried on to 40 and was world champ at 39/ Age is not much of a factor in MMA as it is in other combat sports. Moreover in many mat sports, you never stop learning ways to counter certain moves and to improve your technique. Speed is not so much a factor either when you get up close and start dirty boxing.

I will make an admission here. I have been dismissive towards boxers of the 40s and 50s. I was wrong. Totally wrong (rocky is still cr@p imo). I have also said on this thread that I am specifically referring to boxers when boxing was in its infancy. To say that guys like Gans, Langford et al had the equivalent skillset as boxers today is plainly wrong imo. Using Judo, its like comparing me (blue betl) to a 3rd dan black belt. There is no coparison. For one I didn't study all the moves or know as much as someone who had or who had been coached by someone who had.

Compare these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esBXPxJFEEY&playnext=1&list=PLBA1A7D40099729DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTCPz0nBeY

to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo

In all honesty in a h2h who do you think would win. Ignore the music.

Langford and Gans skills are there for us to see, they also did things that modern day boxers do not do

Gracie was 39 if i'm being pedantic and hadn't fought in UFC for over 10 years, not really a good argument by you there

azania wrote:Compare these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esBXPxJFEEY&playnext=1&list=PLBA1A7D40099729DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTCPz0nBeY

to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo

In all honesty in a h2h who do you think would win. Ignore the music.

Well, given that Gans was a lightweight and Jones a natural supermiddle I'd give an itsy bitsy edge to Jones. Funnily enough, I was just about to ask you who you would tip in a H2H between Jimmy Wilde and Wlad Klitschko.

Small world, eh ?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Langford and Gans skills are there for us to see, they also did things that modern day boxers do not do

Gracie was 39 if i'm being pedantic and hadn't fought in UFC for over 10 years, not really a good argument by you there

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Do you know what my argument about Royce is? He hadn't fought in the UFC for 10 years buy had fought in PRIDE and went life and eath with Sakuraba who was a judo player if I am not mistaken.

azania wrote:Compare these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esBXPxJFEEY&playnext=1&list=PLBA1A7D40099729DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTCPz0nBeY

to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo

In all honesty in a h2h who do you think would win. Ignore the music.

So you making an opinion based on four minutes of footage?

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:Compare these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esBXPxJFEEY&playnext=1&list=PLBA1A7D40099729DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTCPz0nBeY

to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo

In all honesty in a h2h who do you think would win. Ignore the music.

So you making an opinion based on four minutes of footage?

That's probably what you think.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Langford and Gans skills are there for us to see, they also did things that modern day boxers do not do

Gracie was 39 if i'm being pedantic and hadn't fought in UFC for over 10 years, not really a good argument by you there

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Do you know what my argument about Royce is? He hadn't fought in the UFC for 10 years buy had fought in PRIDE and went life and eath with Sakuraba who was a judo player if I am not mistaken.

Like what? The triple jab?

Gans and Langford could throw every punch in the book as we know it now, they could also defend in ways that the majority of modern boxers don't

azania wrote:

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Yeah, I love watching Rahman, Maskaev, Chagaev, Arreola, Solis, Ruiz, Ibraghimov, Chambers, McCrory, Ottke, Sturm, Beyer, Huck.

Sublime skills, fitness, coordination. The feinting, slipping, ducking, footwork, power. Joy to behold, all of it. How on Earth would Hagler cope with Sturm, for example ? Or Holyfield with Huck ? Or Joe Louis with Chambers or Brewster ?

Why, it doesn't bear thinking about.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:Compare these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esBXPxJFEEY&playnext=1&list=PLBA1A7D40099729DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTCPz0nBeY

to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo

In all honesty in a h2h who do you think would win. Ignore the music.

So you making an opinion based on four minutes of footage?

Of course he does.

Four minutes is a long time in boxing. A boxer born four minutes later than another has been exposed to all the advances in training techniques and nutrition, doncha know ?

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Langford and Gans skills are there for us to see, they also did things that modern day boxers do not do

Gracie was 39 if i'm being pedantic and hadn't fought in UFC for over 10 years, not really a good argument by you there

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Do you know what my argument about Royce is? He hadn't fought in the UFC for 10 years buy had fought in PRIDE and went life and eath with Sakuraba who was a judo player if I am not mistaken.

Like what? The triple jab?

Gans and Langford could throw every punch in the book as we know it now, they could also defend in ways that the majority of modern boxers don't

No they cannot. That is plainly wrong. SL left himself wide open when attempting an uppercut. There was nothng subtle about his feignts. But because these were relatively new, a counter to them had not been thoroughly developed. Any boxer fighting like him now would get schooled. He had the basic fundermentals only. Thats because he was not taught by a coach with experience or knowledge simply because they didn't have it then.

So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Yeah, I love watching Rahman, Maskaev, Chagaev, Arreola, Solis, Ruiz, Ibraghimov, Chambers, McCrory, Ottke, Sturm, Beyer, Huck.

Sublime skills, fitness, coordination. The feinting, slipping, ducking, footwork, power. Joy to behold, all of it. How on Earth would Hagler cope with Sturm, for example ? Or Holyfield with Huck ? Or Joe Louis with Chambers or Brewster ?

Why, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Of course. Pick the very best of today's guys why dont you.

Lets see how the legendary and highly skilled Two ton would fare against Jimmy 5 bellies.

The Mighty Atom wrote:So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

Of course you would want to believe that.

Regardless all I need is a 30 second montage to realise that these guys only possessed the fundermentals and were not as refined as guys who came 20 years after them.

Did Arcel and Futch know everything they knew in boxing after 5 years of being involved? Did they know more after 50 years? Do you think Arcel was a better trainer in the 1960s than he was in the 1930s? Ditto Futch.

No one has yet attempted to answer the question. Windy skirted and went passed it with a passing comment that didn't address it. Perhaps you (and others) can try. Its a simple yes/no answer.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Yeah, I love watching Rahman, Maskaev, Chagaev, Arreola, Solis, Ruiz, Ibraghimov, Chambers, McCrory, Ottke, Sturm, Beyer, Huck.

Sublime skills, fitness, coordination. The feinting, slipping, ducking, footwork, power. Joy to behold, all of it. How on Earth would Hagler cope with Sturm, for example ? Or Holyfield with Huck ? Or Joe Louis with Chambers or Brewster ?

Why, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Of course. Pick the very best of today's guys why dont you.

Lets see how the legendary and highly skilled Two ton would fare against Jimmy 5 bellies.

Why shouldn't Windy use those guys as an example? You have, time and again, made the sweeping generalisation that all fighters today are more advanced, technical and skilled that fighters from past generations. Therefore, using your own logic, the names that Windy has used there are as good an example as any. Again, if you're getting irked with who Windy has picked, then aren't you admitting that they are not as skilled as Gans and Langford, thus showing your generalisation to be false? Let me know.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Yeah, I love watching Rahman, Maskaev, Chagaev, Arreola, Solis, Ruiz, Ibraghimov, Chambers, McCrory, Ottke, Sturm, Beyer, Huck.

Sublime skills, fitness, coordination. The feinting, slipping, ducking, footwork, power. Joy to behold, all of it. How on Earth would Hagler cope with Sturm, for example ? Or Holyfield with Huck ? Or Joe Louis with Chambers or Brewster ?

Why, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Of course. Pick the very best of today's guys why dont you.

Lets see how the legendary and highly skilled Two ton would fare against Jimmy 5 bellies.

It shouldn't matter, should it ?

Your entire argument is that the moderns are better because they have learned from what went before. My entire argument is that great fighters come by in every generation and that mediocre fighters do, also.

My referencing Huck, et al, proves my point and shatters yours.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

Of course you would want to believe that.

Regardless all I need is a 30 second montage to realise that these guys only possessed the fundermentals and were not as refined as guys who came 20 years after them.

Did Arcel and Futch know everything they knew in boxing after 5 years of being involved? Did they know more after 50 years? Do you think Arcel was a better trainer in the 1960s than he was in the 1930s? Ditto Futch.

No one has yet attempted to answer the question. Windy skirted and went passed it with a passing comment that didn't address it. Perhaps you (and others) can try. Its a simple yes/no answer.

Your bypassing the question, are you basing your opinion on four minutes of footage because I could find four minutes of of Jones Jr to make him look useless despite what all the experts say

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

Of course you would want to believe that.

Regardless all I need is a 30 second montage to realise that these guys only possessed the fundermentals and were not as refined as guys who came 20 years after them.

Did Arcel and Futch know everything they knew in boxing after 5 years of being involved? Did they know more after 50 years? Do you think Arcel was a better trainer in the 1960s than he was in the 1930s? Ditto Futch.

No one has yet attempted to answer the question. Windy skirted and went passed it with a passing comment that didn't address it. Perhaps you (and others) can try. Its a simple yes/no answer.

Okay, az, I'll be delighted to answer it. No skirting, just a head on answer.

Arcel and Futch knew a DAMNED SIGHT MORE THAN YOU and their opinions are drastically different to yours.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Yeah, I love watching Rahman, Maskaev, Chagaev, Arreola, Solis, Ruiz, Ibraghimov, Chambers, McCrory, Ottke, Sturm, Beyer, Huck.

Sublime skills, fitness, coordination. The feinting, slipping, ducking, footwork, power. Joy to behold, all of it. How on Earth would Hagler cope with Sturm, for example ? Or Holyfield with Huck ? Or Joe Louis with Chambers or Brewster ?

Why, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Of course. Pick the very best of today's guys why dont you.

Lets see how the legendary and highly skilled Two ton would fare against Jimmy 5 bellies.

It shouldn't matter, should it ?

Your entire argument is that the moderns are better because they have learned from what went before. My entire argument is that great fighters come by in every generation and that mediocre fighters do, also.

My referencing Huck, et al, proves my point and shatters yours.

I have said on this very thread and in answering your questions windy, that the talent has to be there. It doesn't matter how you train, if you are cr@p you will be slightly better than cr@p after training. But if you receive second class training with a bucket load of talent, you will never be able to harness your talent fully. That is the problem with the early days of boxing.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

Of course you would want to believe that.

Regardless all I need is a 30 second montage to realise that these guys only possessed the fundermentals and were not as refined as guys who came 20 years after them.

Did Arcel and Futch know everything they knew in boxing after 5 years of being involved? Did they know more after 50 years? Do you think Arcel was a better trainer in the 1960s than he was in the 1930s? Ditto Futch.

No one has yet attempted to answer the question. Windy skirted and went passed it with a passing comment that didn't address it. Perhaps you (and others) can try. Its a simple yes/no answer.

Your bypassing the question, are you basing your opinion on four minutes of footage because I could find four minutes of of Jones Jr to make him look useless despite what all the experts say

No.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Yeah, I love watching Rahman, Maskaev, Chagaev, Arreola, Solis, Ruiz, Ibraghimov, Chambers, McCrory, Ottke, Sturm, Beyer, Huck.

Sublime skills, fitness, coordination. The feinting, slipping, ducking, footwork, power. Joy to behold, all of it. How on Earth would Hagler cope with Sturm, for example ? Or Holyfield with Huck ? Or Joe Louis with Chambers or Brewster ?

Why, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Of course. Pick the very best of today's guys why dont you.

Lets see how the legendary and highly skilled Two ton would fare against Jimmy 5 bellies.

Why shouldn't Windy use those guys as an example? You have, time and again, made the sweeping generalisation that all fighters today are more advanced, technical and skilled that fighters from past generations. Therefore, using your own logic, the names that Windy has used there are as good an example as any. Again, if you're getting irked with who Windy has picked, then aren't you admitting that they are not as skilled as Gans and Langford, thus showing your generalisation to be false? Let me know.

Chris, I refer you to my response to oxring above.

What are you basing it on then?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

Of course you would want to believe that.

Regardless all I need is a 30 second montage to realise that these guys only possessed the fundermentals and were not as refined as guys who came 20 years after them.

Did Arcel and Futch know everything they knew in boxing after 5 years of being involved? Did they know more after 50 years? Do you think Arcel was a better trainer in the 1960s than he was in the 1930s? Ditto Futch.

No one has yet attempted to answer the question. Windy skirted and went passed it with a passing comment that didn't address it. Perhaps you (and others) can try. Its a simple yes/no answer.

Okay, az, I'll be delighted to answer it. No skirting, just a head on answer.

Arcel and Futch knew a DAMNED SIGHT MORE THAN YOU and their opinions are drastically different to yours.

Windy, once again you totally evade the question. I didn't ask if they knew more than me. I asked if they knew more after 50 years of boxing than after 5 years.

Try again old man.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

And modern fighters do things Gans and SL never thought of. The evidence is there for you to see.

Yeah, I love watching Rahman, Maskaev, Chagaev, Arreola, Solis, Ruiz, Ibraghimov, Chambers, McCrory, Ottke, Sturm, Beyer, Huck.

Sublime skills, fitness, coordination. The feinting, slipping, ducking, footwork, power. Joy to behold, all of it. How on Earth would Hagler cope with Sturm, for example ? Or Holyfield with Huck ? Or Joe Louis with Chambers or Brewster ?

Why, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Of course. Pick the very best of today's guys why dont you.

Lets see how the legendary and highly skilled Two ton would fare against Jimmy 5 bellies.

It shouldn't matter, should it ?

Your entire argument is that the moderns are better because they have learned from what went before. My entire argument is that great fighters come by in every generation and that mediocre fighters do, also.

My referencing Huck, et al, proves my point and shatters yours.

I have said on this very thread and in answering your questions windy, that the talent has to be there. It doesn't matter how you train, if you are cr@p you will be slightly better than cr@p after training. But if you receive second class training with a bucket load of talent, you will never be able to harness your talent fully. That is the problem with the early days of boxing.

No, it is the problem with your perception of the early days of boxing.

Those who were there AND lived to see the modern era, such as Tunney, Dempsey, Rose, Blackburn and hundreds of others, disagree with you. I'll take their word above yours, if it's all the same to you, and especially since their word backs up what I've seen with my own eyes and read from numerous other sources.

Thus far I have had approx 6 posters throwing questions at me. I have done my level best to address every single question and post directed towards me. Obviously I must have missed some. I apologise for that.

But I have asked one question repeatedly to all members on this thread and have I had a response to it. Hell no. Anyway I'm off out for the day. Enjoy the debate and be sure that I will respond to posts later.

Enjoy
Az

Oh thank god the retardedated one is leaving us for a bit

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

Of course you would want to believe that.

Regardless all I need is a 30 second montage to realise that these guys only possessed the fundermentals and were not as refined as guys who came 20 years after them.

Did Arcel and Futch know everything they knew in boxing after 5 years of being involved? Did they know more after 50 years? Do you think Arcel was a better trainer in the 1960s than he was in the 1930s? Ditto Futch.

No one has yet attempted to answer the question. Windy skirted and went passed it with a passing comment that didn't address it. Perhaps you (and others) can try. Its a simple yes/no answer.

Okay, az, I'll be delighted to answer it. No skirting, just a head on answer.

Arcel and Futch knew a DAMNED SIGHT MORE THAN YOU and their opinions are drastically different to yours.

Windy, once again you totally evade the question. I didn't ask if they knew more than me. I asked if they knew more after 50 years of boxing than after 5 years.

Try again old man.

I've already answered it, several posts ago, or is your eyesight failing due to an overdose of creatine ?

It is BECAUSE they had so much experience that their opinions are so valuable. Would you prefer I write the answer in German, or do you understand it this time ? I'm very sorry that I haven't mastered gibberish yet, but your lessons are most valuable and I feel that I will be able to communicate with you in your native tongue before too long.