More unpopular boxing opinions from v2

First topic message reminder :

Afternoon fellas, hope that you guys are finding this first day back at work after the Easter weekend a little easier going than I am.

If you can forgive me for a blatant rip off, I'd like to resurrect a great idea of Adam's from all the way back in 2011 where we all voice our unpopular boxing opinions. This can be anything within reason; a fighter (either currently active or from back in the day) who you rate a lot lower than just about everyone else, a fighter who you rate higher than just about everyone else, your take on a certain fight or decision from any era, a minority view on how a hypothetical match up would go, etc. You get the picture.

This took off really well last time and, given it's been a slow day so far, hopefully this could give us all something to at least get our teeth in to.

I'll get the ball rolling with a few unpopular boxing opinions of my own, which tend to go against general consensus and ruffle a few feathers.....

* The Manny Pacquiao, Tim Bradley fight from last summer just wasn't anything like the highway robbery that just about everyone else reported it as.

* Roy Jones Jr starts as favourite against just about any other Light-Heavyweight who ever drew breath, with the exception of Bob Foster (Bob being the narrow-ish favourite, for me) and, perhaps, Ezzard Charles who I'd put at 50:50.

* James J Corbett is, perhaps, the most overrated fighter in history.

* Mike Tyson at his best would beat both Lennox Lewis and Larry Holmes in their pomp.

* Tommy Ryan is the most underrated all-time great of them all - even more underrated (in relative terms, remember) than Mr Burley and Mr Langford.

Any more for any more, then? If you've got an unpopular boxing opinion that you feel sure plenty of people will disagree with, the floor is yours and hopefully it'll get the debate flying again.

Cheers, everyone.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm always left wondering who the hell is Rene Jacquot?

An onion seller in 'allo allo'? When he wasnt spanking ex p4p no 1's

Blocker and Bumphus are as good as Brown and Breland....

Forget the Honey victory...............

You guys never saw the Bumphus-Starling fight.....................did you??

Admit it.........................

Rowley wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

James Jeffries would've been competitive in any era.

Think you have misunderstood things John, he asked for controversial opinions.

what a load of rubbish

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Johnny Bumphus and Maurice Blocker...

I agree, I think they were rubbish... Just both beat starling in his prime.

Five years apart.............

I don't want to embarrass anybody...............but

Where are Blocker and Bumphus in the Alltime lists compared to Breland and Brown??

We'll leave out the guy that won the lottery..

This is what happens............You Brits start and the American finishes........

Breland was a top amateur but average pro. More hype than substance. He's on par with Blocker and Bumphus.

Is he..................Won the welterweight title twice and defended it four times....Drawing against Starling and beating Honey.........

Have you seen Bumphus record....??

Just go to bed...Sonny.

Bumphus won the LWW title. Breland was gifted the WW title against a Korean no hoper.

Cry to the mods soon bubba?

He won it twice....... and defended it four times.....

Bumphus lost to Gene Hatcher...........

You know f**k all..

What difference is there between losing to Hatcher and losing to Vaca?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He won it twice....... and defended it four times.....

Bumphus lost to Gene Hatcher...........

You know f**k all..

So? Duke McKenzie is a 3 weight champion. Is he therefore an ATG?

Calm down bubba.

This Brit was changing a nappy truss. Don't think we got bumphus starling, but know the open scoring cut debate. Starling may or may not have comeback, but he was behind on points.

Think the bumphus and blocker defeats were four years apart, not 5. Bumphus came after the win against novice brown and before he got his mouth properly shut in the saved by the bell incident with molinares.

Quite rate starling actually, agree with az on breland. Chinny amateur golden boy fails to live up to hype

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Rowley wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

James Jeffries would've been competitive in any era.

Think you have misunderstood things John, he asked for controversial opinions.

what a load of rubbish

Haha, the thread's about our anti concensus views. Roll out your "Wlad Klistchko beats every heavyweight in history" line.

Get your Mrs to do it...That's what they are for............

You know your argument sucks...................pointless exercise for sure..

I know my iPhone battery life sucks, night all happy sparring

Sling it.............and come back with a better argument..

It's a style thing really Truss, none of them were overly adaptable to beating all types of boxer something which set Leonard aside from the rest. Leonard is on a pedastal because of proving his supremacy beyond doubt, you can't find three fighters more different than Benitez, Duran and Hearns, he beat them all.

At no point can you say Curry, Honeyghan, Starling or Breland beat them all, you can find an excuse for almost every loss a boxer has ever had. For instance you can say Leonard brawled instead of boxed in Montreal, well frankly he should have been smart enough to do the latter, if Curry was weight drained he should have moved up, Honeyghan shouldn't have partied his career away. All of these things happened but do you know who's to blame for all of them? The boxer himself.

Don't try to bulls**t me..........................

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Don't try to bulls**t me..........................

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Rowley wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

James Jeffries would've been competitive in any era.

Think you have misunderstood things John, he asked for controversial opinions.

what a load of rubbish

I have to agree wholeheartedly. He might have been a tough guy, but was far too unrefined for many boxers in many eras afterwards. It amazes me when I see people put him in their top 10 HWs lists.

His comparative record is quite impressive while I wouldn't back many over him in a 25 round fight, it works both ways.

I used to go along with that 25 round notion for Jeffries too, Ghosty, but now I tend to find myself thinking more and more that, against the big hitters and quality finishers of the division, he just wouldn't make it in to those additional rounds (ie, anything after fifteen).

Fitzsimmons had Jeffries cut to ribbons and landed on him at will. Ditto Corbett (first fight between the pair in each case). Both men had largely outboxed him as well as hurting on him several times, and neither of them scaled more than 175 lb or so at their best fighting weight (Corbett perhaps half a stone heavier, but still a midget Heavyweight in today's terms).

Jeffries pulled it out in the eleventh and twenty-third rounds respectively, but I don't see how, in either case, he'd have even been able to survive until that stage against a Tyson, a Liston, a Foreman, a Lewis etc.

Jeffries added some craft to his game once he started working with Tommy Ryan, of course, but even then much of his game did rely on his ability to absorb punishment. The more I ponder it, the more I see a scheduled 25-rounder being an irrelevance, and that the cream of the Heavyweight crop would simply stop Jeffries more often than not before the Boilermaker's stamina really had a chance to take hold (that's on the assumption that we send each Heavyweight as the boxing world saw them back to his era).

However, I disagree with Boxtthis in regards to Jeffries' ranking as an all-time Heavyweight. All-time is called that for a reason. Boxing was a different and, for all intents and purposes under the Queensberry rules, new sport in Jeffries' day, and he must be judged in that context. He defeated nearly all of his relevant peers and rivals and is one of only a precious few Heavyweight champions who can claim to have never been beaten in or even around their prime years.

There are a plethora of fighters from many decades ago who could and would easily compete with the best of today, however going the full hog back to the very first era of Queensberry-rule championship fights is a bit of a stretch, I think. Nothing to do with human evolution or the like, more to do with the fact that boxing in its 'modern' guise wasn't nearly as developed then and was still finding its feet.

The techniques of the time (1880s to 1900, perhaps 1910) don't compare well and anyone worth their salt should at least acknowledge this (I mean come on, even Tracey Callis does so!). But Jeffries should be ranked accordingly and his feats make him worthy of a very good ranking as an all-time Heavyweight, for me.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Rowley wrote:

John Bloody Wayne wrote:

James Jeffries would've been competitive in any era.

Think you have misunderstood things John, he asked for controversial opinions.

what a load of rubbish

Haha, the thread's about our anti concensus views. Roll out your "Wlad Klistchko beats every heavyweight in history" line.

"Wlad Klistchko beats every heavyweight in history"

maybe not, but he'd beat both these bums, who couldn't compete in any era....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnMJL36_oCs

"Too much credit for fighter's where too little footage"

"George foreman was pants and the whole era is overrated because it was competitive"

88Chris05 wrote:
The techniques of the time (1880s to 1900, perhaps 1910) don't compare well and anyone worth their salt should at least acknowledge this

You saying rowley isn't worth his salt chris?

Mod war!

Id pretty much agree with Chris regards Jeffries. I think he deserves his place among the top ten based on acheivement but I genuinely dont see him being the top heavyweight in most other era's regardless of number of rounds in a fights.

milkyboy wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:
The techniques of the time (1880s to 1900, perhaps 1910) don't compare well and anyone worth their salt should at least acknowledge this

You saying rowley isn't worth his salt chris?

Mod war!

In my defence I have frequently said the same Milky, my argument has always been though that the fact the techniques and tactics used were different should not be confused with the practioners having a lack of ability because in an era where the distance of fights is longer and what is permitted within the rules or from referees will inevitably have an impact on how fighters will fight. Back in Jeffries day holding and grappling was, if not allowed, then certainly allowed to go on and fights were carried out over 25 rounds and scored by different criteria, given this is inevitable fighters tactics will reflect this.

I have frequently acknowledged technique and tactics changed dramatically around the the late 1910's, early 20's. Just feel it is no coincidence that this coincides with the reduction in round numbers and a less tolerant approach from refs to holding and grappling.

1. Aaron Pryor, my favourite fighter of the early 80's. Only wins of note were a past it Cervantes and arguello well above his best weight. Not enough to warrant the level of adulation he gets.

2. Sal Sanchez might have been another Wilfredo Benitez, and wouldn't necessarily have swept all before him had he not died young

3. Vitali klitschko 41, is ducking naseem hamed, 39, because naseem hamed, 39, is younger than vitali klitschko, 41

Rowley wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:
The techniques of the time (1880s to 1900, perhaps 1910) don't compare well and anyone worth their salt should at least acknowledge this

You saying rowley isn't worth his salt chris?

Mod war!

In my defence I have frequently said the same Milky, my argument has always been though that the fact the techniques and tactics used were different should not be confused with the practioners having a lack of ability because in an era where the distance of fights is longer and what is permitted within the rules or from referees will inevitably have an impact on how fighters will fight. Back in Jeffries day holding and grappling was, if not allowed, then certainly allowed and fights were carried out over 25 rounds and scored by different criteria, given this is inevitable fighters tactics will reflect this.

I have frequently acknowledged technique and tactics changed dramatically around the the late 1910's, early 20's. Just feel it is no coincidence that this coincides with the reduction in round numbers and a less tolerant approach from refs to holding and grappling.

As one of the lucky 10, who reads your historical articles rowls, I know that, just having fun with your boiler man love-in.

It's one thing in all these historical p4p analyses that people often ignore. You need to factor in all relevant circumstances of their respective times, which is more than just size, diet and training. You can only be the best of your era... Though there is the argument for bonus credits for those who move the sport on.

I have ten readers Milky! Not sure me re-reading them 8 times counts but if you're happy to count them individually I'll take it.

It was an average jeff... I included the 'Lennox Lewis was rubbish' thread as historical to boost your numbers

(1) Froch does the business on Calzaghe. That it would have been so one-sided is more my point though.


(2) Pacman destroys Mayweather if the fight had happened when it was primed- directly post Hatton.


(3) Circa Berbick/Thomas Tyson has a real shot of stopping the first version of Ali. Not saying it would happen though!

Floyd Patterson is amazing, the greatest cruiser weight of all time"

When rating old time boxers their achievements should be judged in their respective weights, BUT in head to heads they should be matched against modern fighters of a similar weight.

Herman, there's difference between unpopular opinion and nonsense.

I dont get it,


if Cooper can put Ali down, why not Mike! Got to remember the man's phenomenal timing and accuracy.

It was more directed at the first two mate.

I think Tyson would have a real chance too.

My guess would be because Ali would be only too aware of Mike’s power and ability and so would not spend his time clowning around solely to fulfill his prediction on when the fight would end.

* Pacquiao isn't one of the top 10 fighters in the world today

*Klitchsko's have the most effective heavyweight style of all time.

*Mayweather beats Sugar Ray Leonard at their primes

*The majority of fighters are on PEDs

Interesting that you touched on Sanchez there, Milky.

Without meaning any disrespect to a lad, who was an exaordinary fighter and who achieved a hell of a lot for someone who was only twenty-three when they passed away, I do think to a certain degree that he gets a bit of a pass for some of his less impressive moments.

Well, maybe not a pass, but extra leeway. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you before and, upon reflection, you may be right. Sanchez struggled awfully with Pat Ford (it was stamina and pretty much stamina alone which won Sal that fight, and Ford blew it a little bit in the championship rounds) and didn't look all that great against Cowdell, either.

The common theme is to write these off for whatever reason, usually that Sanchez either took them lightly or just fought to the level of his opponent. Maybe that's true, but as you've said yourself in the past, could it not just be that he had problems with rangy, stand-off fighters who weren't as easy to counter? If you look at Sanchez's great moments (and they were all absolutely fantastic, in fairness) such as Gomez, La Porte and Nelson, the one thing those fights have in common is that they came to Sal and he didn't have to go looking for them. Against the more cagey fighters such as Cowdell and particularly Ford, he was made to look pretty average and, dare I say it, a little short on ideas as well.

Only a slight criticism, if you want to call it that, but we didn't see Sanchez deal with a top class range fighter who stood off him in any kind of convincing style. Was it a flaw in his arsenal, or did he genuinely just lack some of his killer instinct against those guys?

Hard to say for sure either way, but after seeing the Ford fight again recently it leaves me thinking that he'd have had a hell of a lot of trouble in beating Pedroza in a 126 lb unification, or at least a lot more trouble than most seem to think.

Too be honest if Froch ever took a round of Calzaghe I'd probably die of Shock. He is so easy to hit Joe would wish he wore sparring gloves. Calzaghe Lacy all over again.

jammin wrote:

*Mayweather beats Sugar Ray Leonard at their primes

Oh no, no, no.

jammin wrote:*The majority of fighters are on PEDs

Probably true.

Herman Jaggery wrote:(1) Froch does the business on Calzaghe. That it would have been so one-sided is more my point though.


(2) Pacman destroys Mayweather if the fight had happened when it was primed- directly post Hatton.


(3) Circa Berbick/Thomas Tyson has a real shot of stopping the first version of Ali. Not saying it would happen though!

Froch is overated.

His technique is not great at all and gets credit due to travelling.

- Johnson was nearly 40
- Taylor was shot
- Mack useless
- Bute not that good and will be like Lacy when we look back in a few years
- Scraped past Dirrell
- Lost to 2 best fighters he faced and I think Kessler past his best for their upcoming fight

I must add I do like to watch his fights and like him as a person. His guts to take fights should be a lesson to all boxers....But, I just don't think he's all he's being cracked up to be.

88Chris05 wrote:Interesting that you touched on Sanchez there, Milky.

Without meaning any disrespect to a lad, who was an exaordinary fighter and who achieved a hell of a lot for someone who was only twenty-three when they passed away, I do think to a certain degree that he gets a bit of a pass for some of his less impressive moments.

Well, maybe not a pass, but extra leeway. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you before and, upon reflection, you may be right. Sanchez struggled awfully with Pat Ford (it was stamina and pretty much stamina alone which won Sal that fight, and Ford blew it a little bit in the championship rounds) and didn't look all that great against Cowdell, either.

The common theme is to write these off for whatever reason, usually that Sanchez either took them lightly or just fought to the level of his opponent. Maybe that's true, but as you've said yourself in the past, could it not just be that he had problems with rangy, stand-off fighters who weren't as easy to counter? If you look at Sanchez's great moments (and they were all absolutely fantastic, in fairness) such as Gomez, La Porte and Nelson, the one thing those fights have in common is that they came to Sal and he didn't have to go looking for them. Against the more cagey fighters such as Cowdell and particularly Ford, he was made to look pretty average and, dare I say it, a little short on ideas as well.

Only a slight criticism, if you want to call it that, but we didn't see Sanchez deal with a top class range fighter who stood off him in any kind of convincing style. Was it a flaw in his arsenal, or did he genuinely just lack some of his killer instinct against those guys?

Hard to say for sure either way, but after seeing the Ford fight again recently it leaves me thinking that he'd have had a hell of a lot of trouble in beating Pedroza in a 126 lb unification, or at least a lot more trouble than most seem to think.

i don't think you agreed with me last time chris (don't think anyone did!)... you're maturing into a sensible poster

As you say, i think the 'fights down to his opponents' argument is a bit of a convenient pass for his poorer performances.

he was a great fighter, no doubt, but plenty of guys with a brilliant cv in their early 20's don't go on to be the all time greats it seems to be just readily presumed he would. Clearly, what he had achieved already warrants 'greatness', so it's only a criticism that's valid when you're debating how high in the top feather's he should rate. With some of the fights he had round the corner... pedrosa, nelson re-match, arguello, jcc potentially. He could have won them all... but then again.

Yeah, I have to admit that you have swayed me ever so slightly, Milky. It's not much of an issue really, as Sanchez's hammering of Gomez alone was one of the greatest displays of all time and the fact that La Porte and Nelson came back to win titles after Sanchez beat them makes his ledger very impressive. Just that there was maybe a slight little flaw in his game which doesn't get talked about all that often.

I think he may well have found a way to beat Pedroza, but it'd be an almightly struggle for me, whereas I used to think he'd run away with the decision.

Jim Watt boxing's equivalent to John Motson.

I just don't see how Froch is overrated Pedro. He's taken on everyone and only properly beaten once. And back to back the most gruelling run of fights in the division's history. Second best SM in the world today. Who's calling him the best? Also Calzaghe treated him like he had rabies.

I think Froch stops Calzaghe. Or has a good chance.