Why does everyone say SRR was the best of all time [Archive]

DaHead242

08-26-2007, 04:41 PM

I for one favor Homicidal Hank over Ray Robinson for the top spot in the P4P ratings, but when you see the resume of Ray Robinson and look at all the greats he fought and beat, sometimes dominated its incredible. ESPN classic shows occasionally the greatest hits of SRR and its amazing to see the fast feet and hands, the power, the generalship, its breathtaking. he could fight going forward, backwards, lead, counter, slug, fight defensivley, etc. Ray Robinson was the total package. #2 on my list but #1 on most.

BigReg

08-26-2007, 04:52 PM

is it because people told you so?

ive never seen any footage apart from shoddy black and white clips of him past his prime (or is it? we dont know about his prime). we can also say the same for his opponents. back then it was a completely different era.

yes i know ali said so, and tyson and bhop, but that dont mean i know it to be true.

I think you make some valid points. Many people will say that SRR is the best simply because that is what they're conditioned to believe so(that doesn't mean that it isn't true). Most people have not seen SRR fight live in his prime which can make judgeing his greatness difficult. One day I'll probably tell my kids and grandkids that Michael Jordan was he greatest basketball player of all time. Being that they weren't alive during his reign it will be hard for them to understand exactly what he meant to the game, and how he eleveated his play when his team needed it the most. At the same time I'll be more likely to remember the good parts of Jordan's game and ignore his flaws. I think the same can be said about SRR.

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:01 PM

Robinson was 128-1-2 as a pro at one stage. Add that to a 85-0 amatuer career and he lost 1 of his first 216 fights combined....

Robinson had more fights and wins with world class opposition than some world class fighters of this era have fights period:

He beat the following fighters who were rated in The Ring top 10 of their respective weight divisions at the time of the fight:

Peter Lello
*Sammy Angott (three times)
*Fritzie Zivic (twice)
Norman Rubio
Tony Motisi
*Jake LaMotta (five times)
Izzy Jannazzo (three times)
Jackie Wilson (twice)
Ralph Zannelli
*Henry Armstrong
Vic Dellicurti (twice)
Jose Basora
Jimmy McDaniels
Tommy Bell (as well as win when Bell was not top 10)
George Abrams
Jimmy Doyle
Bernard Docusen
*Kid Gavilan (twice)
Steve Belloise
George Costner
Ray Barnes
Robert Villemain
Charley Fusari
*Bobo Olson (three times; as well as a win when Olson was not top 10)
*Rocky Graziano
Rocky Castellani
*Gene Fullmer
*Carmen Bassilio
Denny Moyer
Ralph Dupas

*A member of the IBHOF

I make that 44 victories over top 10 fighters; 19 wins over IBHOF members...

And that is before mentioning the championships won...;)

Asterion

08-26-2007, 05:05 PM

His resume is just amazing for his context and era. I would only rank Henry Armstrong above Robinson.

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:06 PM

I think you make some valid points. Many people will say that SRR is the best simply because that is what they're conditioned to believe so(that doesn't mean that it isn't true). Most people have not seen SRR fight live in his prime which can make judgeing his greatness difficult. One day I'll probably tell my kids and grandkids that Michael Jordan was he greatest basketball player of all time. Being that they weren't alive during his reign it will be hard for them to understand exactly what he meant to the game, and how he eleveated his play when his team needed it the most. At the same time I'll be more likely to remember the good parts of Jordan's game and ignore his flaws. I think the same can be said about SRR.

Jordan? Flaws? What you talkin bout Willis?

Asterion

08-26-2007, 05:08 PM

Robinson had more fights and wins with world class opposition than some world class fighters of this era have fights period:

Although I think that Robinson is the GOAT, what you said could confuse some people. Robinson beat 41 Top10 fighters in 200 fights. Today, a fighter could beat 20 Top10 contenders in 50 fights. You have to consider a proportion.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:11 PM

Nawfal

08-26-2007, 05:11 PM

His resume is fantastic and the footage of him is not AT ALL what you claim it as. There's plenty of footage, and he looks great in it. Know something about what you're talking about before attempting to talk about it in the future. :good This is crappy footage?

3fK2Cc2mxNA

yeah that is crappy footage

it wasnt long, you dont know the quality of his opponents

i could find you footage of mayweather or rjj doing amazing stuff

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:14 PM

Although I think that Robinson is the GOAT, what you said could confuse some people. Robinson beat 41 Top10 fighters in 200 fights. Today, a fighter could beat 20 Top10 contenders in 50 fights. You have to consider a proportion.

Yes, but along with that proportion we must take into consideration what a top ten contender meant then and means now.

Top 10 then was for ONE belt, one list. Top 10 now is at LEAST for 3 belts, sometimes 4, creating 4 different lists NOT counting Ring.

It dilutes is just a bit IMO.

Musashi

08-26-2007, 05:15 PM

Who Ray Robinson beat:

Sammy Angott 3 times
Marty Servo twice
Fritzie Zivic twice
Jake LaMotta 5 times
Henry Armstrong
Artie Levine
Tommy Bell
Jimmy Doyle
Kid Gavilan twice
Charley Fusari
Carl 'Bobo' Olson 4 times
Randy Turpin
Rocky Graziano
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio

Robinson was easily beating heavyweight champ Joey Maxim when he succumbed to the heat after 14 rds. He arguably had just 3 losses in his prime - to the lt heavy champ, to Randy Turpin (who he beat in the rematch), and to La Motta, whom he beat 5 times.

I compare that to the resumes and accomplishments of other ATG's, and to me, Robinson stands above the rest.

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:18 PM

Snakefist

08-26-2007, 05:19 PM

yeah that is crappy footage

it wasnt long, you dont know the quality of his opponents

i could find you footage of mayweather or rjj doing amazing stuff

ummm many of those clips are from people whom he fought that are ATG's and some top 10 material.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:20 PM

Nawfal

08-26-2007, 05:20 PM

ummm many of those clips are from people whom he fought that are ATG's and some top 10 material.

perhaps they are, but there is only a very small amount of clips on him or his opponents

all im saying is i could find some clips of roy or floyd looking amazing.

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:21 PM

Greb, Armstrong, and Pep have pretty good resumes.

Oh good we are playing Jeopardy:

What is the mother of all understatments?

Asterion

08-26-2007, 05:21 PM

Top 10 then was for ONE belt, one list. Top 10 now is at LEAST for 3 belts, sometimes 4, creating 4 different lists NOT counting Ring.

I don't know how other people count, but I still use the Ring ratings. ABC belts suck and I think we all agree in that.

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:22 PM

Oh good we are playing Jeopardy

What is the mother of all understatments?

I meant in comparison to Robinson. His resume is not necessarily the best, especially when considering Greb.

Boom_Boom

08-26-2007, 05:22 PM

I personally put Harry Greb above SRR as GOAT

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:22 PM

I don't know how other people count, but I still use the Ring ratings. ABC belts suck and I think we all agree in that.

The Ring is a form of alphabet crap as well...

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:23 PM

The Ring is a form of alphabet crap as well...

They don't strip their champions, there is a difference.

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:23 PM

They don't strip their champions, there is a difference.

They have taken money of DKP to rate fighters though;)

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:24 PM

They have taken money of DKP to rate fighters though;)

Yeah and how long ago was that? They aren't even run by that group any more.

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:26 PM

Yeah and how long ago was that? They aren't even run by that group any more.

And IBF claim to of sorted their act out post Bob Lee, but they are still a form of alphabet crap.;)

kirk

08-26-2007, 05:26 PM

i know kinda what you mean man, and i agree. im not saying he is or isnt... but nawfal has a point.

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:28 PM

And IBF claim to of sorted their act out post Bob Lee, but they are still a form of alphabet crap.;)

The IBF has nothing to do with Ring and their situation. Ring is more legit in most eyes than the ABC orgs, and they don't operate anything like them.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:29 PM

I personally put Harry Greb above SRR as GOAT

although there is hardly any footage of greb? so what basis do base you opinion on?

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:29 PM

The IBF has nothing to do with Ring and their situation. Ring is more legit in most eyes than the ABC orgs, and they don't operate anything like them.

The both rate fighters and create their own champions!;)

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:31 PM

The both rate fighters and create their own champions!;)
And the Ring doesn't strip champions. All fighters are able to be rated, regardless of what title they hold, and they don't have interim or super champions. They don't operate the same, regardless of whether you like them or not.

Musashi

08-26-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote: They have taken money of DKP to rate fighters though

That was 30 years ago. Nothing like that has happened since. The Ring went through a major restructuring since that incident.

The Ring is VASTLY better than any of the ABC sanctioning bodies. They have a huge rating advisory panel, so there's a lot of expert input. They don't take money from promoters or fighters, and they have sensible rules for their chamionship policy.

Find me a better rating system for boxing.

Nawfal

08-26-2007, 05:32 PM

Yeah I do know the quality of his opponents jackass. TBooze just named it above. HOF'ers like Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Fritzie Zivic, Rocky Graziano, Sammy Angott, Jake LaMotta, etc and most of those guys MULTIPLE times. SO yeah, stop before further making a fool of yourself.

youre the type of moron who has discovered boxrec, doesnt know fuck all so thinks what people tells you to think

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:33 PM

youre the type of moron who has discovered boxrec, doesnt know fuck all so thinks what people tells you to think
So you just discount all fighters you have not seen? Their resumes simply don't exist? By doing this you are removing some of the greatest fighters ever.

Nawfal

08-26-2007, 05:34 PM

So you just discount all fighters you have not seen? Their resumes simply don't exist? By doing this you are removing some of the greatest fighters ever.

no im saying how can i say they are the best of all time if i havent personally seen them. just as im sure most people here havent.

he may well have been dont get me wrong.

its just 99% of people you ask whip out SRR like they have seen him in his prime. or know his opponents

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:34 PM

His resume obviuously, could it be ANY more obvious. What else would he base it on? Honestly. He has the best resume of all time.

thats debateable, SRR is possibly better than greb, depends on personal opinion!:yep

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 05:35 PM

Basilio should not have caused so much trouble to SRR if he was really as good as Joe Calzaghe and Roy Jones.

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:35 PM

All fighters are able to be rated, regardless of what title they hold, and they don't have interim or super champions.

Nat decided who was and was not rated for 50 years...

Collins is trying to sort the mess out but at the end of the day The Ring like all other alphabet organization have their own agenda...

Comment back if you want, better still start another thread. I apologize as Idid start this, but this meant to be about Robinson, so I will comment no more about this, on this thread.

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:36 PM

no im saying how can i say they are the best of all time if i havent personally seen them. just as im sure most people here havent.

he may well have been dont get me wrong.

its just 99% of people you ask whip out SRR like they have seen him in his prime. or know his opponents

But by the same token, you can't say the fighters you HAVE seen are better than them because you haven't seen those fighters. Its why we have historians and records.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:36 PM

His resume obviuously, could it be ANY more obvious. What else would he base it on? Honestly. He has the best resume of all time.

By the way, Im sayong SRR is the best of all time, just incase your saying the same!

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:38 PM

Nat decided who was and was not rated for 50 years...

Collins is trying to sort the mess out but at the end of the day The Ring like all other alphabet organization have their own agenda...

Comment back if you want, better still start another thread. I apologize as Idid start this, but this meant to be about Robinson, so I will comment no more about this, on this thread.

There is no reason to comment. You just repeated something you basically already said. We are discussing CURRENT Ring, not Ring from years ago. They don't operate the same and as far as I am concerned they sorted their problems out.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:39 PM

Joe Calzaghe SUCKS. He is GARBAGE, not fit to shine Robinson's shoes. He wouldn't even qualify for one of the bums Ray fought every now and then to stay in shape.

Spoken like a true Yanky CUNT! have a little respect!

BigReg

08-26-2007, 05:39 PM

Jordan? Flaws? What you talkin bout Willis?

He was a ballhog, he didn't shot the 3 that well, in the beginning of his carerr his jumper was suspect, he was both verbally and physically abusive to his teammates. Jordan didn't have many flaws, but he wasn't perfect.

Nawfal

08-26-2007, 05:39 PM

But by the same token, you can't say the fighters you HAVE seen are better than them because you haven't seen those fighters. Its why we have historians and records.

oh yeah i cant do that either

but whenever i get asked my opinion, its my opinion on things that i have seen

not on what peopple have told me.

BigReg

08-26-2007, 05:42 PM

fuck me, if you saw him fight live how old are you!:lol:

When did I say that I saw Sugar Ray Robinson fight live? I'm not even old enough to remember seeing S inugar Ray Leonard in his prime. According to Tyson fans, I was only 5 when Tyson's prime ended.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:42 PM

I said that to spite China-Hand-Job, not because I actually meant it, try to keep up.

Fair enough! About SRR and Greb? I was saying Robinson was the best,. didnt know if you were arguing if Greb was?

TBooze

08-26-2007, 05:43 PM

oh yeah i cant do that either

but whenever i get asked my opinion, its my opinion on things that i have seen

not on what peopple have told me.

Everybody is influenced and make their opinions on judgements they have read or listened to. You rely on opinions of others to judge the fight and whatever spin they want to put into their opinion. You accept some and not others, but your opinion on many subjects will be a mish-mash of other people's opinions.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:44 PM

" Most people have not seen SRR fight live in his prime which can make judgeing his greatness difficult"

Thats what you said pal, just thought it was funny, made it out like you had seen him prime time!:lol:

Nawfal

08-26-2007, 05:44 PM

Everybody is influenced and make their opinions on judgements they have read or listened to. You rely on opinions of others to judge the fight and whatever spin they want to put into their opinion. You accept some and not others, but your opinion on many subjects will be a mish-mash of other peoples opinions that you have used.

i do agree with this, but most of the time people use others to help them guide an opinion. with no footage of prime srr of his opponents, i find it difficult to come up with a reliable opinion on it myself, considering i didnt even exist when he was in his prime.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 05:44 PM

Robinson is almost undisputably the #1 greatest of all time.

He isn't the best though.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:47 PM

No, I was saying he was aloud to say he ranks Greb at the top because of his resume, even if he hasn't seen him fight. His resume is clearly the best of all time, even if there is no footage of him, there is footage of the people he beat, and the level and quantity of fighters he beat ranks at the top.

As it is I rank him #2 behind Robinson, though he could easily rank #1.

Good point, probably have him the same, maybe Armstrong 3rd, poss Saddler 4th, but hey, its all subjective!

kg0208

08-26-2007, 05:49 PM

He was a ballhog, he didn't shot the 3 that well, in the beginning of his carerr his jumper was suspect, he was both verbally and physically abusive to his teammates. Jordan didn't have many flaws, but he wasn't perfect.

Everyone has flaws, I was obviously kidding.

But Jordan was no more of a ballhog than anyone else who scored like he did, and his shooting percentage is very high for a shooting guard. He was abusive, but also elevated his teamates play, and his 3 point shooting was average, not bad at all, just not good.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 05:53 PM

I would say he is. Let's hear what you think. By best you mean in a head to head sense, correct?Yes. I believe he would be very marginally better were he around today too.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:55 PM

Yes. I believe he would be very marginally better were he around today too.

SRR would probably desstry any WW around today, even PB!

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 05:56 PM

SRR would probably desstry any WW around today, even PB!

Yes, if he were trained in the modern times. But judging from his footage alone, absolutely not.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 05:57 PM

Joe Calzaghe SUCKS. He is GARBAGE, not fit to shine Robinson's shoes. He wouldn't even qualify for one of the bums Ray fought every now and then to stay in shape.

I find this insulting.

peter5

08-26-2007, 05:58 PM

Yes, if he were trained in the modern times. But judging from his footage alone, absolutely not.

Bull shit, what, floyd would run for 15 rounds and get a decision? he would get pounded everytime he tried a jab!:lol:

BigReg

08-26-2007, 06:00 PM

Everyone has flaws, I was obviously kidding.

But Jordan was no more of a ballhog than anyone else who scored like he did, and his shooting percentage is very high for a shooting guard. He was abusive, but also elevated his teamates play, and his 3 point shooting was average, not bad at all, just not good.

His shooting percentage was high becasue he drove to the hoop alot. He didn't start hitting that mid range jumper until later in his career. Until Phil Jackson got there, the biggest knock on Jordan was that he didn't make his teammates better. For his career Jordan was 33% percent 3 point shooter and he was under 20% every year for the first 3 to 4 years of his career. None of this really has much to do with the thread topic anyway. Except that it shows that people have an inflated opinion of Jordan. The same could be true in regards to SRR

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:02 PM

Bull shit, what, floyd would run for 15 rounds and get a decision? he would get pounded everytime he tried a jab!:lol:

No, actually Floyd would just rip him to pieces. Ray's hands are far too low and he's also too squared up at all times, even with the best timing ever, he's open to be brutalised. But of course, this was the inferior style, I am not saying he's an inferior physical specimen or era/era fighter, because on that notion, he is technically the best ever.

His speed is also nowhere near Floyd's for that matter, on top of massive technical issue's.

peter5

08-26-2007, 06:05 PM

No, actually Floyd would just rip him to pieces. Ray's hands are far too low and he's also too squared up at all times, even with the best timing ever, he's open to be brutalised. But of course, this was the inferior style, I am not saying he's an inferior physical specimen or era/era fighter, because on that notion, he is technically the best ever.

His speed is also nowhere near Floyd's for that matter, on top of massive technical issue's.

Rip him to pieces? are you for real? or are you on crack? either way take a deep breath and rethink what you just said, SRR left hook alone would disable floyd!:tired Oh, and by the way, what Sweet Pea said about joe being nothing but a bum for a tune up, I find it insulting also, but I also find you saying floyd would "rip" SRR to pieces insulting also!

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 06:12 PM

Rip too pieces might be a little over the top Amsterdam, that would describe what Calzaghe does to Greb better.

peter5

08-26-2007, 06:13 PM

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 06:14 PM

I was saying it to piss off China Hand Job, I didn't actually mean it.

I have a desire to educate the Calzaghe doubters. Why would I have been pissed off?

peter5

08-26-2007, 06:15 PM

Rip too pieces might be a little over the top Amsterdam, that would describe what Calzaghe does to Greb better.

Beautifully put!:lol:

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:26 PM

So why did it work for Roy Jones?

Totally different set up. It's hilarious how this is used when I point out lacks in speed and timing, which were Roy's greatest gifts. Roy's punching technique was also much sharper, his footwork and lateral movement in another realm.

Roy for the most part worked off of a pin point jab as well, he left his hands down for show, but his technical skill was top notch.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 06:28 PM

Roy Jones is maybethe best fast-twitch muscle fibre athlete the sport has ever seen.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:31 PM

Punching technique was much sharper? How do you come up with that?

You said it doesn't matter what kind of timing you had, if you had a style like that, where you are open all the time, you would get cracked repeatedly, and that is shown not to be true against Jones.

Okay then, how about poor footwork, positioning and head movement in comparison to Jones? How about plain speed?

Not to mention the timing difference. In which then I was comparing that to Floyd vs. someone with that set up and bad technique but great timing, I wasn't saying that he'd be entirely ineffective. I also noted the speed difference between Ray and Floyd for referrance.

Can you not see the obvious?:think

peter5

08-26-2007, 06:31 PM

Totally different set up. It's hilarious how this is used when I point out lacks in speed and timing, which were Roy's greatest gifts. Roy's punching technique was also much sharper, his footwork and lateral movement in another realm.

Roy for the most part worked off of a pin point jab as well, he left his hands down for show, but his technical skill was top notch.

you said floyd would rip SRR to pieces, yet you also said SRR was the best technically? do you actually know what your on about, and as for SRR being alot slower than floyd, thats bullshit, Floyd would eat so much leather he would think he was a horse saddle after the fight!

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:35 PM

Punching technique was much sharper? How do you come up with that?

Watch video's of each closely, you will see the difference between sloppier punches, to crisp, pin point punches.

You said it doesn't matter what kind of timing you had, if you had a style like that, where you are open all the time, you would get cracked repeatedly, and that is shown not to be true against Jones.

I clarified this in the above post.

Roy rarely ever worked off a jab unless he was fighting smaller fighters, he was criticized for his lack of a jab, even if he could use it well. And no, his technical skill was not masterful, otherwise he would've been able to carry it inti his later career like Toney did instead of getting starched by lesser fighrers because his reflexes were not the same.

Roy at times worked off of the jab well and he had a great jab. He could get away with lead shots and he did, because of his speed and timing, which was perhaps the best ever seen in the sports history. But again, the type of punching is different from Ray's, who's timing and speed is not in that realm at all either.

Roy also never initiated combinations from positions where he was vulnerable to be countered, his footwork and timing was just phenominal and allowed this, Ray's sqaured up in ways when he has guys up against the ropes where you can literally hit him with anything and even his standard defensive stance is awful, for modern boxing that is. Roy used an effective guard when he needed.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:37 PM

you said floyd would rip SRR to pieces, yet you also said SRR was the best technically? do you actually know what your on about, and as for SRR being alot slower than floyd, thats bullshit, Floyd would eat so much leather he would think he was a horse saddle after the fight!

I meant 'technically' he's the best fighter ever, in according to ranking him, not according to his skills.

Sonny Carson

08-26-2007, 06:38 PM

Basilio should not have caused so much trouble to SRR if he was really as good as Joe Calzaghe and Roy Jones.
He was 36 years old when he fought Basillio highly past his prime. Calzaghe has resume is shit compared to Ray Robinson's.

peter5

08-26-2007, 06:38 PM

I meant 'technically' he's the best fighter ever, in according to ranking him, not according to his skills.

So you still think Floyd would rip him to pieces? If you believe that your a delusional bastard!:patsch

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 06:40 PM

He was 36 years old when he fought Basillio highly past his prime. Calzaghe has resume is shit compared to Ray Robinson's.This is your argument to support the claim of Robinson being number one?

Are you implying Calzaghe has the second best resume of all time?

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:41 PM

Poor footwork? When did Ray have poor footwork? According to you, due to their low placement of hands they had bad positioning, and I've said the same for Jones. At 160 Robinson showed very good speed, and at 147 he was even better by all accounts.

Well I'm noting poor footwork by watching his video's, completely open minded for that matter, if you can prove me wrong then do so.

Low hands have nothing to do with positioning, Ray would however be positioned with low hands in a negative way, leaving him open for just about anything, where as Roy always had great use of tactical positioning and utilised his speed and timing, plus footwork to ensure that counter punches would be a minimal issue. If Roy squared up like Ray however, he'd have had his head taken off.

And the speed is not even remotely comparable, again, watch the video's in comparison. Roy is quicker than Calzaghe shot for shot and Calzaghe is almost blazing quicker with his hands and feet than Ray, so that says something about comparing the speed.

You can say 'by all accounts', that's still coming from accounts from within that era, when the fans and oberservers did not have the comparison through time that we have of different generations.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:43 PM

So you still think Floyd would rip him to pieces? If you believe that your a delusional bastard!:patsch

No, I am realistic on how the sport has evolved as such through time. I don't buy into the romanticism of older era's like some do and therefore do not watch the older video's with rose coloured sun glasses and oddly miss evident problems within them.

I don't even rate Floyd as top 50. We are talking head to head though and head to head straight up and not taking era's into consideration. Some people believe that the man in those video's with 0 changes would beat Floyd, this is as erroneus as it gets.

peter5

08-26-2007, 06:46 PM

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 06:47 PM

Robinson was physically incapable of Roy like speed. His genetics make it impossible.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 06:55 PM

I cant for one minute believe that your calling Ray slow! Do you have a speed gun or something to somehow make this opinion anything other than that? old video is always decieving in the speed aspect, it always looks slow and sluggish, and unless you were there in person, which i very much doubt, I cant think for one reason why you could possibly say how SRR was slow? There just isnt anyway you can make such a point without sounding like a twat!

Video from the 40's and 50's had less problems than video's from the 30's. It can showcase the speed very easily and it's ludicrous to say that I needed to be at the fight live to analyse his quickness, the video is crystal clear. Ray is reasonably quick, which was lightning for that era, but he's not near the speed of a Roy Jones level guy, not at all. Just watch the video and compare, his speed is not even comparable to Calzaghe for that matter, Calzaghe's hands and feet are 3x as quick and that's not a joking statement.

I'm only sounding like a twat to you because you don't want to believe what I am saying. I am here debating in a civil manner and citing what I have observed, what is the problem with that, other than me pointing out things that you don't want to hear?

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 07:04 PM

I don't even think Robinson had two copies of the ACTN3 gene like Roy does.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 07:06 PM

I don't even think Robinson had two copies of the ACTN3 gene like Roy.

If we're going off of straight ability and skill and not era/era resume, then Robinson is not even comparable to Jones. Rose coloured glasses prevent observation from taking this into universally agknowledged fact.

I always laugh when people claim that they are tired of modern fighters 'declining in skill'....

nervousxtian

08-26-2007, 07:12 PM

SRR may be the GOAT, but I think prime-for-prime Roy Jones beats him heads up.

Different types of athletes, and different training.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 08:08 PM

Why do I feel that SRR was the best:

I am an American sheep.
I ignore what my eyes tell me.
I believe anything boxing historians tell me.

Whether you realise it or not.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:10 PM

For me: when he stepped up to MW he was landing HARD on account of he was unsure. This is to begin with. Before this ever occured he was a fighting machine.

At LW Sugar was an uncrowned champ.

At welter he dominated serious competition.

At MW i saw him - as good as anything i've ever seen. Ever.

He's p4p #1. Probably.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:12 PM

SRR may be the GOAT, but I think prime-for-prime Roy Jones beats him heads up.

Possible. RJJ was bigger and of great skill.

Different types of athletes

How so? Both were fighters.

, and different training.

Details.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:14 PM

If we're going off of straight ability and skill and not era/era resume, then Robinson is not even comparable to Jones.

He competed in the top 1% of the same sport. Even if your indefensable theories governed boxing this would be an indefensible statement. And they don't.

Rose coloured glasses prevent observation from taking this into universally agknowledged fact.

Keep pushing. Any truth repeated over and over can become so.

I always laugh when people claim that they are tired of modern fighters 'declining in skill'....

Me too. Consider the other way.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:16 PM

Ray is reasonably quick, which was lightning for that era, but he's not near the speed of a Roy Jones level guy, not at all. Just watch the video and compare, his speed is not even comparable to Calzaghe for that matter, Calzaghe's hands and feet are 3x as quick and that's not a joking statement.

If you are saying "Jones is quicker than Robinson" I think that position is defensible (though not correct) if you are saying "old fighters are less quick than new fighters" I think that position is ludicrous.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:16 PM

Robinson was physically incapable of Roy like speed. His genetics make it impossible.

Nonsense. Literally.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:22 PM

Well I'm noting poor footwork by watching his video's, completely open minded for that matter, if you can prove me wrong then do so.

I have not read the whole thread. For me, I don't belive that you called Robinson's footwork poor, I think you know better than that.

Low hands have nothing to do with positioning,

This is not accurate. The two are completely co-dependant. You are joking?

Ray would however be positioned with low hands in a negative way, leaving him open for just about anything,

Counter-intuiative. You must do better. Open to just about anything? Like a right lead, left upper combo?

where as Roy always had great use of tactical positioning

Always? Since when has being pinned on the ropes getting hit been tactical positioning? If you mean, "it worked," you have a point, that is all.

and utilised his speed and timing, plus footwork to ensure that counter punches would be a minimal issue. If Roy squared up like Ray however, he'd have had his head taken off.

Because "old time guys" couldnt' punch? Even old pub-landlords could punch.

And the speed is not even remotely comparable, again, watch the video's in comparison.

Roy is quicker in the glide. Ray is quicker in the roll and the squirm out, no question. Also the counter in risk v reward toughies. We now know why.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:23 PM

greb would make calzaghe into his little bitch for 25 rounds.

Wrong. He would press the fight serious after Cal broke his hand (4 at the latest - keeping Greb of was a full power job). Greb KO 9 Calzaghe.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:25 PM

Roy's punching technique was also much sharper,

Not trying to be funny at all.

What?

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 08:26 PM

Can we agree that a large percentage of people with the opinion Ray Robinson was the best ever are having their pick governed by a kind of status quo.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:26 PM

Roy Jones is maybethe best fast-twitch muscle fibre athlete the sport has ever seen.

Maybe. As you bring absolutley ZERO proof, recomend, back up, or reference to any statment you ever make on this site, it's pretty easy to throw every single thing you say the fuck out.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:27 PM

Can you not see the obvious?:think

:think

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:28 PM

Can we agree that a large percentage of people with the opinion Ray Robinson was the best ever are having their pick governed by a kind of status quo.

If by "we" you mean "a large percentage" then you will typically get "no" as the response.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 08:28 PM

Roy's combinations of left hooks are proof enough.

Illmatic

08-26-2007, 08:30 PM

you know why? B/C SRR WAS THE MOTHAFUCKIN MAN!

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:31 PM

Roy's combinations of left hooks are proof enough.

I don't know what this means or what it is in response to.

cuchulain

08-26-2007, 08:32 PM

I believe that career-wise, SRR was the alltime greatest p4p (admittedly a dubious concept in itself).

Watching his old fights and watching how he took other 'greats' apart, I think provides compelling evidence.

Head to head, I believe in his prime, he would have beaten anyone from 140- 154. Floyd's best form came against Oscar and (despite what his more enthusiastic fans think), he squeaked a close split decision in that fight. A prime SRR would have stopped either the Oscar or the Floyd of that fight. Almost as skilled and almost as fast as Floyd, but with way more power and determination.

At 160, he wasn't quite the same, but with the possible exception of Roy (whom I would probably bet against in such a match-up) I think he beats anyone from there as well.

In pure talent and speed, both Floyd and Roy edge him, but those edges would be more than offset by Robinson's gritty determination, chin and heart (in Roy's case) and those same attributes plus punching power in Floyd's case.

And finally, if Ali (not known for his modesty) thinks SRR was the best ever, I would give that some weight.

db2431

08-26-2007, 08:35 PM

His shooting percentage was high becasue he drove to the hoop alot. He didn't start hitting that mid range jumper until later in his career. Until Phil Jackson got there, the biggest knock on Jordan was that he didn't make his teammates better. For his career Jordan was 33% percent 3 point shooter and he was under 20% every year for the first 3 to 4 years of his career. None of this really has much to do with the thread topic anyway. Except that it shows that people have an inflated opinion of Jordan. The same could be true in regards to SRR

Another Myth, his jumper was great the moment he stepped in to the league, its just he didnt use it as much as his later years when he slowed down and was double and triple teamed, his 3 point % was low his first few years but he barely ever shot it either.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 08:38 PM

I don't know what this means or what it is in response to.Evidence of his faster muscle fibres.

nervousxtian

08-26-2007, 08:41 PM

Possible. RJJ was bigger and of great skill.
How so? Both were fighters.
Details.

Answer to 1st question:

I think Jones is a superior athlete to Robinson, in the same way most athletes in other sports are better than the legends of the past. There is no doubt people are getting bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic as time goes on.

Which brings me to question 2:

The understanding of science and training is so different these days than when Robinson fought. It accounts for a lot of why the answer to question one is true. The understanding of nutrition and muscle training as means to improve ones abilities is far and away better than the days of SRR. Sure a lot of guys train the old way, but still the supplements they take, and the diet they eat is far superior, and especially when you look at the elite level.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:43 PM

Evidence of his faster muscle fibres.

Meaningless.

Marnoff

08-26-2007, 08:44 PM

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:50 PM

I think Jones is a superior athlete to Robinson, in the same way most athletes in other sports are better than the legends of the past.

Fighting as it exsists NOW has been going on since man. Literally. Ritualised fighting has been going on since man. Literally. Why do you think this version would see significant march in the last X years?

There is no doubt people are getting bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic as time goes on.

I deny, completely, that 160lb fighters are getting bigger. I submit that it is unlikely that 160lb fighters are getting stronger within that weight group. I would say that any claim that mankind is getting faster shows a real ignorance of evolution.

The understanding of science and training is so different these days than when Robinson fought.

No. Absloutley not. Just it's exectution amongst the ruling classes. Therefore it's publicisation. See Jack Johnsons dietrey requirments. Do you think that there is a differnce between the understanding of these things as far as Greb and Tapia go? Cos there's no difference in the execution. There is a similair parallel between clean living atheletes of the respective eras.

It accounts for a lot of why the answer to question one is true.

Not so far.

The understanding of nutrition and muscle training as means to improve ones abilities is far and away better than the days of SRR.

This is entirely inaccurate. You should investigate further.

Snakefist

08-26-2007, 08:51 PM

hahahahahahahaaha....Roy struggled with Hopkins, and he was struggling in his fight with Griffin.

You people.

Hopkins is a ATG imo, and Roy did it one handed as his right hand was broken before the fight but he took it anyways and practically beat B-Hop with one hand. So if he had both available I wonder how it would've went.

And against Griffin he was timid and Griffin was a good fighter dude.

cuchulain

08-26-2007, 08:51 PM

....

... a lot of guys train the old way, but still the supplements they take, and the diet they eat is far superior, and especially when you look at the elite level.

Supplements ???

Like the ones we've heard about in reference to Barry Bonds, and Flo Jo and James Toney and more then a few other boxers?

The old-timers did not have access to 'supplements'.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:52 PM

All I have to say is that if boxers fought as much today as they did back then, it would be fucking RIDICULOUS. If we had our top fighter, Floyd, fighting once every one or two weeks. We'd get him against Hatton, Cotton, Mosley, Margarito (though he doesn't merit it), Williams, and Cintron, by Christmas.

You make an interesting point.

I submit this: there is no better training for fighting great fighters than fighting loads of good fighters. Which the old guys did.

bigtime9

08-26-2007, 08:56 PM

My nod goes to henry armstrong..no fighter in histroy has dominated three divisions simultaneously. the closest have been:

1. ray robinson--lost to maxim 175
2. Sugar Ray leonard-beat hagler 160 then went on to beat lalonde at 168,175
3. Floyd Mayweather Jr--beat baldomir 147, and oscar 154

Imperial1

08-26-2007, 08:57 PM

If you have to ask why is SRR conisdered the best of all time, it must be because you don't know any better and haven't been following boxing long !

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 08:57 PM

You make an interesting point.

I submit this: there is no better training for fighting great fighters than fighting loads of good fighters. Which the old guys did.The effects are going to detrimental if anything past a certain point.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 08:58 PM

The effects are going to detrimental if anything past a certain point.

Past a certain point, of course.

But the reason a fighter having 40 pro fights is generally considered better than a fighter who has had 20 pro fights is because:

They are.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 09:08 PM

Past a certain point, of course.

But the reason a fighter having 40 pro fights is generally considered better than a fighter who has had 20 pro fights is because:

They are.So 100+ fights gives him and others no real advantage over the modern elite.

Carlos Primera

08-26-2007, 09:09 PM

resume wise and what he did in his prime no doubt SRR is no.1, no doubt. what he accomplished and who he fought in WW is legendary not to mention his career in MW was very solid as well and could easily be counted among the top 5 MW's ever. but i agree with what china_hand_joe etc. are saying that if you took the guy we see in those films from the 40's and put him in the ring with more modern fighters, he would be competitive, but would also be beaten by some of the the top guys. i'd pick hearns over srr in a h2h matchup, without comparing their achievements in their respective eras. most of these 'historians' lose credibility in these h2h matchups of old fighters and more modern fighter due to their bias or some shit. case in point some fools in the classic section picking jack johnson, dempsey, louis etc... over tyson.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 09:15 PM

So 100+ fights gives him and others no real advantage over the modern elite.

I would tend to say that no athelet, generally, would encouner his peak at 100+ fights.

However, it would tend to happen occasionally.

So you're affirmation that it "offers no real advantage over the moderan athelete" speaks of your usual, ignorant self.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 09:21 PM

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 09:23 PM

So 100+ fights gives him and others no real advantage over the modern elite.

Wrong, it keeps your technique sharp and leaves you constantly in shape.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 09:23 PM

I would tend to say that no athelet, generally, would encouner his peak at 100+ fights.

However, it would tend to happen occasionally.

So you're affirmation that it "offers no real advantage over the moderan athelete" speaks of your usual, ignorant self.If you include sparring sessions, todays athletes also fight 100s of times.

It would be fair to say over half of Robinson's fights are comparable to sparring sessions (hopefully nobody objects to this - over 50% still leaves a lot of fights)

McGrain

08-26-2007, 09:24 PM

If you include sparring sessions, todays athletes also fight 100s of times.

Meaningless.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 09:25 PM

If you include sparring sessions, todays athletes also fight 100s of times.

Sparring isn't the same as fighting.:patsch

McGrain

08-26-2007, 09:26 PM

Sparring isn't the same as fighting.:patsch

And ignorant of the fact that old-school fighters sparred.

More.

cuchulain

08-26-2007, 09:32 PM

Against Hearns, Hearns is capable of outboxing Robinson if Robinson tries to box with him, but he is a much smarter fighter than that. He will turn this into a brawl real quick, at 1437 their power was pretty similar, but Robinson had a better chin for sure, and would likely turn this into a brawl, a very exciting one at that, before KO'ing Hearns mid-rounds. Hearns would out-box him only if SRR opted to box.

His comp at MW was just as good as at WW, and he's no question a top 5 MW easily. He was just more consistent at WW because he stayed around too long and picked up too many losses late in his career at MW.

Sweetpea, I hate to disagree. Igenerally agrre with your posts , but..

Hearns' only chance would be a brawl where he landed like he did on Duran. I think he would lose the brawl, but he'd have a small chance.

If it became a boxing match, SRR was faster, had better movement, ring genaralship and more skill than the hitman.

I think either way, the sugarman stops the hitman.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 09:36 PM

Can we agree that fighting as many times as SRR did offers no overall advantage over todays elite fighters with 30+,40+ fights?

McGrain

08-26-2007, 09:38 PM

Can we agree that fighting as many times as SRR did offers no overall advantage over todays elite fighters with 30+,40+ fights?

No. It's possible it could have offered advantage to some elite fighter from today with 30, 40+fights.

For the truly spastic these advanages could inculde:

RESUME; FINANCIAL; ACHIEVMENT; EXPERIENCE.

If you have any more questions, like: "Why is smiles nice", just ask.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 09:40 PM

No overall advantage to ones ability to box?

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 09:41 PM

No. It's possible it could have offered advantage to some elite fighter from today with 30, 40+fights.

For the truly spastic these advanages could inculde:

RESUME; FINANCIAL; ACHIEVMENT; EXPERIENCE.

If you have any more questions, like: "Why is smiles nice", just ask.

:lol:

Nice. Some of these JC fans are just too ridiculous....

cuchulain

08-26-2007, 09:43 PM

No overall advantage to ones ability to box?

Would you rather fly with a pilot who had 45 hours experience or one who had 1200 hours?

Would you rather have your surgery performed by a doctor who had done 27 previous similar surgeries or a doctor who had done 200?

The more time you spend doing something, the better you get at it.

Carlos Primera

08-26-2007, 09:43 PM

Sweetpea, I hate to disagree. Igenerally agrre with your posts , but..

Hearns' only chance would be a brawl where he landed like he did on Duran. I think he would lose the brawl, but he'd have a small chance.

If it became a boxing match, SRR was faster, had better movement, ring genaralship and more skill than the hitman.

I think either way, the sugarman stops the hitman.
imo it's the other way around. srr's would be better if he brawled with hearns. hearns outboxes ssr 6/10 times, hearns had to much of a reach and height advantage, not to mention a extremely well schooled fighter.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 09:43 PM

No overall advantage to ones ability to box?
Why spar if you've already had a fight? Hell, why even train for a fight if you've already trained or fought already.

Perhaps Michael Jordan should have just shot ONE JUMPER as opposed to thousands and not watsed his time.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 09:44 PM

No overall advantage to ones ability to box?

Because of the general spread of peaks within boxing experience this cannot be held as true. But we've already covered this. If you're trying to waste my time, you're doing just grand.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 09:45 PM

Would you rather fly with a pilot who had 45 hours experience or one who had 1200 hours?

Would you rather have your surgery performed by a gdoctorwho had done 27 previous similar surgeries or a doctor who had done 200?

The more time you spend doing something, the better you get at it.

This is all reasonable - and NONE of it even has to be true for the original post to be ridiculous.

Which it is.

Marnoff

08-26-2007, 09:46 PM

You make an interesting point.

I submit this: there is no better training for fighting great fighters than fighting loads of good fighters. Which the old guys did.

Great point.

Fact is that when you're forced on a regular basis to find a way to win against top fighter after top fighter, you either break or turn great. Period.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 09:49 PM

Because of the general spread of peaks within boxing experience this cannot be held as true. But we've already covered this. If you're trying to waste my time, you're dong just grand.

200+ real fights would leave you damaged goods.
The human body has limits.

Or you aren't left as damaged goods, in which case most the fights were no different from sparring.

All fighters peak at some point. Most after 30 or so fight. Robinson after however many.

Robinson gained nothing from his hundreds of fights+training (including sparring) that the modern elite don't gain from 30 fights+training (including sparring).

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 09:56 PM

200+ real fights would leave you damaged goods.
The human body has limits.

How do you know what the limits are? Human bodies do not follow some set of rules you make. There are variables to take into consideration for everyone. Nutriution, health, how many wars, drug usage...

Or you aren't left as damaged goods, in which case most the fights were no different from sparring.

I hope you realize how ridiculous this post is.

All fighters peak at some point. Most after 30 or so fight. Robinson after however many.

Robinson gained nothing from his hundreds of fights+training (including sparring) that the modern elite don't gain from 30 fights+training (including sparring).

ALL fighters? :patsch

McGrain

08-26-2007, 09:57 PM

200+ real fights would leave you damaged goods.

You are now changing the original number. Substantially.

The human body has limits.

Yes. And different fighters need different levels to find them. SOME fighters never find them, never coming up against fighters good enough to test them.

These fighters we generally say have WASTED CAREERS. Get used to hearing these words.

Or you aren't left as damaged goods, in which case most the fights were no different from sparring.

What you mean here is not clear. I'm not going to answer the question for "30. 40+ fights" "100 fights" or this new "200" fights. It's unlikely i'll get a response anyway.

All fighters peak at some point.

Good for you!

Most after 30 or so fight

Based on...

Fuck all i'll guess. As usual.

Robinson gained nothing from his hundreds of fights+training (including sparring) that the modern elite don't gain from 30 fights+training (including sparring).

This is not an analysis but a statment. Pitifully, it is also the best you can do. I could tell you about the fights Robinson had before he even mounted the MW division, never mind WW titlist.

The sad thing is you are not interested.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:00 PM

Based on...

Fuck all i'll guess. As usual.

Are you going to deny most fighters today peak after around 30 or so fights?

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:01 PM

Are you going to deny most fighters today peak after around 30 or so fights?

I'm going to deny that most fighters, allowed to fight 3000 fights would peak at "30 or so fights."

As obvious as your lack of engagment with my post.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 10:02 PM

200+ real fights would leave you damaged goods.
The human body has limits.

Or you aren't left as damaged goods, in which case most the fights were no different from sparring.

All fighters peak at some point. Most after 30 or so fight. Robinson after however many.

Robinson gained nothing from his hundreds of fights+training (including sparring) that the modern elite don't gain from 30 fights+training (including sparring).
Totally agree. Modern fighters learn there craft in their extensive amatuer careers anyway. There is no difference here, and if anything fighting more often mean more injuries and burning out faster. If it were effective then modern day fighters would be looking to fight in similar fashion.

Marnoff

08-26-2007, 10:03 PM

I think you're off base with your view on Hearns. Robinson was certainly not a better pure boxer, unless you haven't seen too much Hitman or just don't think very highly of him. Robinson was more known for his power and ability to put you out, Hearns in mine and many others opinions is incapable of being outboxed from 147 to 154. Robinson turns this fight into a brawl soon though, and Hitman as always, obliges.

Hearns has the height, reach, and jab advantage to outbox him certainly, Robinson has no advantage there, he can't outbox him from range. Also, Hearns was probably similar in quickness other than quickness of feet, where it didn't matter due to his dimensions anyway. In a pure boxing match, Hearns height, reach, snapping jab, quickness, and boxing skills are unparalleled from 147 to 154. Robinson wins the fight though, for the reasons I gave.

My only issue would just be that it's difficult to say what exactly constitutes a "pure boxing match". For instance, if they're just jabbing and throwing straight rights and left hooks from range, sure, Hearns has a great shot. Still, though, I would consider someone pressuring as still pure boxing.

I understand what you're saying though, that trying to work behind a crisp jab all night wouldn't get Robinson far.

Marnoff

08-26-2007, 10:05 PM

If it were effective then modern day fighters would be looking to fight in similar fashion.

You can't get to what ought to be from what is. The reason these guys aren't fighting as much is because a loss means jeopardizing a massive payday. This often means millions of dollars. Why risk that to stay active, when you can be happy fighting twice a year and making enough to retire subsequent generations of your family?

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:05 PM

Modern fighters learn there craft in their extensive amatuer careers anyway.

Burley and Robinson, for example, had more amatuer fights than almost any modern fighter. So you're wrong.

There is no difference here, and if anything fighting more often mean more injuries

Or fighters succumbing to injury less and fighting through injury more.

qand burning out faster.

It did happen. But it's a mental issue meaning we had more greats back then, not less.

If it were effective then modern day fighters would be looking to fight in similar fashion.

:huh

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:06 PM

There is nothing to be gained from that high number of fights for any human athlete that couldn't otherwise be gained from sparring.

That ridiculously high number only has potential for a negative effect.
Fighting so frequently would interefere with the training cycles of todays seasoned fighters, making peaking for individual fights more difficult.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 10:09 PM

Totally agree. Modern fighters learn there craft in their extensive amatuer careers anyway. There is no difference here, and if anything fighting more often mean more injuries and burning out faster. If it were effective then modern day fighters would be looking to fight in similar fashion.

They learn the basics in the amatuers. They hone their skills as pros. WHy do you think beginners start off in 4 rounders against palooka's and not 10 rounders fighting contenders?

Today's fighters don't fight as much because they don't need to. The top guys get paid very well just to fight twice, maybe three times a year.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 10:10 PM

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:11 PM

There is nothing to be gained from that high number of fights for any human athlete that couldn't otherwise be gained from sparring.

This ignorance is so perfect I refuse to illuminate it. Given the number of points you've failed to engage with, i think few could criticise me for it.

That ridiculously high number only has potential for a negative effect.

Which ridiculously high number? You've specificed a few...

Fighting so frequently would interefere with the training cycles of todays seasoned fighters, making peaking for individual fights more difficult.

It's a matter of class, but in a general sense I can agree to a degree. But the sharpness of this degree would be lost on you. Very generally, four 8 round fights in 6 months followed by a proper training camp followed by a big fight might be right for one man.

For others, it would be different.

Your original point (which you seem desperatley to be trying to bury) is ridiculous.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:11 PM

Frequent fighting does serve a purpose early in a fighters career, hence many modern fighters do fight frequently early on, during the intensive learning phase of their career. Once seasoned it is basically pointless.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:14 PM

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:14 PM

Your original point (which you seem desperatley to be trying to bury) is ridiculous.

Not at all.

I was merely claiming peaking after 100 pro fights was in no way benificial to peaking after 30 pro fights.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:14 PM

Your overall ignorance of the depth of fighting lore is astonishing and self evident.You have become flat out delusional on this subject.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 10:16 PM

You have become flat out delusional on this subject.

:patsch

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:16 PM

Not at all.

I was merely claiming peaking after 100 pro fights was in no way benificial to peaking after 30 pro fights.

A beneficial peak? What the fuck? Of course it's not "beneficial". But because fighters have peaked after "30 fights" in the history of boxing, it's been shown that this can sometimes be the case.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:17 PM

:patschPosting that in no way validates such ludicrous views.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:17 PM

You have become flat out delusional on this subject.

You know what? It's actually possible. But you have failed so completely to show this that this is actually your most ludicrous claim in this thread. Which is saying something.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:17 PM

Posting that in no way validates such ludicrous views.

:patsch

And your offering have about the same value, in my opinion.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 10:19 PM

Posting that in no way validates such ludicrous views.

Posting what you THINK is true doesn't make it true.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:24 PM

I have logically debunked one 'Pep-pert' myth.

"Old timers were superior because of/benfited from fighting an increbible number of fights."

This myth has been replaced by the following now common knowledge:

"Legendary old timers fighting so frequently throught their entire career only has potential for a detrimental effect on their individual performances (through effects on training cycles and general wear on a fighter). Although it adds to their legend and greatness, the suggestion it in some way benifited them relative to todays fighters is at best niave."

It is a perfect example of how training/sports science has progressed in the sport since the 40s.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:26 PM

"Old timers were superior because of/benfited from fighting an increbible number of fights."

Some did some didn't. Not ALL. I will not feed your paranoia with that claim. But SOME fighters who have exsisted hav got better with more fights. If you can's admit it you lose all credibility.

This myth has been replaced by the following now common knowledge:

"Legendary old timers fighting so frequently throught their entire career is likely to have had a detrimental effect on their individual performances.

This is so naive. For some, yes. For others, no.

Although it adds to their legend and greatness, the suggestion it in some way benifited them relative to todays fighters is at best niave."

...already covered this, I think. Ten times.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:29 PM

Anyway, for anyone who is interested, here are some fighters that Ray didn't fight that he could have been expected to fight:

Cocao Kid (ATG)
Holman Williams (ATG)
Jack Chase (Great fighter)
Lloyd Marshall (ATG)
Ezzard Charles (ATG, arguably #1 - but they may have missed each other in terms of weight)
Archie Moore (ATG - as above)
Jimmy Bivins (Great fighter, as above)

Finally, his dodging of Charley Burley was a disgrace.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:32 PM

:lol:

Nice. Some of these JC fans are just too ridiculous....

It's a scientific fact that appreciating Calzaghe goes hand and hand with a high intellect.

It also goes hand and hand with insanity, a catch 22 as they say.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:33 PM

Some did some didn't. Not ALL. I will not feed your paranoia with that claim. But SOME fighters who have exsisted hav got better with more fights. If you can's admit it you lose all credibility.
Robinson would have performed better had he fought today, using a modern fighting schedule in sync with proper training cycles.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:34 PM

Bivins a great fighter? I think McGrain uses the same drugs as we do.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:34 PM

Robinson would have performed better had he fought today, using a modern fighting schedule in sync with proper training cycles.

Not neccesarily.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:35 PM

Bivins a great fighter? I think McGrain uses the same drugs as we do.

He has wins over Burley and Charles for starters.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:36 PM

He has wins over Burley and Charles for starters.

At their best?

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:38 PM

At their best?

Burley at the absolute and perhaps unequaled peak of his best.

Charles, there or thereabouts depending upon your stance on his best weight.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:38 PM

Not neccesarily.It is completely true. He wouldn't have lost to LaMotta for a start.

MagnificentMatt

08-26-2007, 10:38 PM

MSTR

08-26-2007, 10:39 PM

They learn the basics in the amatuers. They hone their skills as pros. WHy do you think beginners start off in 4 rounders against palooka's and not 10 rounders fighting contenders?

Today's fighters don't fight as much because they don't need to. The top guys get paid very well just to fight twice, maybe three times a year.
Guys with extensive amatuer careers will usually fight very frequently within their first years as a pro. Guys like Kostya Tszyu and Oscar De La Hoya were fighting good guys early on in their careers. The only reason they really have some easy fights very early in their career is to generate public interest. Most times they would be sparring better guys then they are fighting.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:41 PM

It is completely true.

"Compltetly" is some claim for a hypothetical - about par for your course.

He wouldn't have lost to LaMotta for a start.

Losing to one of the greatest pressure fighters in the history of the MW division over 10 rounds is perfectly plausible for any fighter, who could make 160, who has ever lived.

But perhaps you should go to bed now. A serious poster who holds similair views has arrived.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:42 PM

Burley at the absolute and perhaps unequaled peak of his best.

Charles, there or thereabouts depending upon your stance on his best weight.

Charles has loss to subpar fighters, if I remember correctly, he was a hot and cold fighter. Charles also defeated Bivins multiple times to Bivins sole win. Kind of like La Motta's win over Robinson, La Motta could not defeat Robinson at his best, but caught that victory early in Robinson's career. I feel that these factors should be taken into consideration.

Bivins was an exceptional fighter, but a 'great' he was not. I can't get past Bivins being pasted by lesser than great fighters on occassion, even if he has 2-3 great victories over massive names.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 10:43 PM

It's a scientific fact that appreciating Calzaghe goes hand and hand with a high intellect.

It also goes hand and hand with insanity, a catch 22 as they say.

I have been a Calzaghe fan for a long time now. I am neither insane nor an uppity snob. I willfully admit to having a case of the asshole now and then.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 10:44 PM

Burley and Robinson, for example, had more amatuer fights than almost any modern fighter. So you're wrong.

Or fighters succumbing to injury less and fighting through injury more.

It did happen. But it's a mental issue meaning we had more greats back then, not less.

:huh
Please explain to me the technical skills that cannot be learned in 200+ amatuer fights but can be learned in 300+ pro fights plus an amatuer career. By fighting more they are merely over doing it and punishing their body. I never said that all modern day fighters had more so I am not wrong at all..... And you think that fighting through injury is beneficial in some way? And last of all, if it were a viable way of getting fighters to be the best they could be, they would fight more frequently like they do earlier in their career for a longer period of time. Obviously this is not the case though. Fighters benefit more from the rest and getting the extra time to focus on their skills in training camps.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:44 PM

I have been a Calzaghe fan for a long time now. I am neither insane nor an uppity snob. I willfully admit to having a case of the asshole now and then.

Well, I can admit to mild, but functional insanity on my part, it's not a big deal.:D

Besides, you're not a hardcore JC fan, there is quite a difference from a casual appreciator to devout loyalty as a fan.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:46 PM

Charles has loss to subpar fighters, if I remember correctly, he was a hot and cold fighter.

In his run at Bivins he lost ONE in a link of fights that saw him leave for war with a string of great wins.

Charles also defeated Bivins multiple times to Bivins sole win.

Post war, yes indeed. An argument could be made that in their one peak fight Bivins won.

Kind of like La Motta's win over Robinson, La Motta could not defeat Robinson at his best, but caught that victory early in Robinson's career.

Robinson had already dominated at Lightweight and welterweight and was a serious threat at MW as well as having numerous amatuer fights under his belt, so the term "early in his career" does not really apply here. Certainly according to CHJ's ludicrous criteria.

Bivins was an exceptional fighter, but a 'great' he was not

As you wish.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 10:48 PM

I'm going to deny that most fighters, allowed to fight 3000 fights would peak at "30 or so fights."

As obvious as your lack of engagment with my post.
They simply don't though. If fighters have had long amatuer careers they don't need even thirty fights in most cases before they attempt to face the best opposition that boxing has to offer. You are completely wrong. If they hadn't peaked as fighters do you really think their managers would be throwing them to the wolves?

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:50 PM

Robinson had already dominated at Lightweight and welterweight and was a serious threat at MW as well as having numerous amatuer fights under his belt, so the term "early in his career" does not really apply here. Certainly according to CHJ's ludicrous criteria.

I meant his best in terms of the preparation and the fight. I don't think the best Robinson showed up that night and it was early into his career, Robinson had a long career and an exceptional run as a top P4P fighter at that.

As you wish.

Have nothing against him, I only seek to bring down jokes like Taylor. I do have a strict critera for the term 'great' however.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:51 PM

Please explain to me the technical skills that cannot be learned in 200+ amatuer fights but can be learned in 300+ pro fights plus an amatuer career.

None. But you can learn, for example, how your jab behaves at an advanced age in terms of retraction whilst coupling it with an imporved understanding of how a much younger fighter's jab will generally behave in terms of following with a hook. For example.

By fighting more they are merely over doing it and punishing their body.

You, if you are worth anything, are also learning how to avoid punishment. Not to mention how top class opponent number 201 leans outside when delivering an uppercut.

And you think that fighting through injury is beneficial in some way?

Yes. For example it makes you better at fighting through injury. And therefore less likely to lose in that instance.

And last of all, if it were a viable way of getting fighters to be the best they could be, they would fight more frequently like they do earlier in their career for a longer period of time. Obviously this is not the case though. Fighters benefit more from the rest and getting the extra time to focus on their skills in training camps.

Some.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:53 PM

They simply don't though.

Robonson did. So did Armstrong, Zivic and Greb. These examples are concrete.

If fighters have had long amatuer careers they don't need even thirty fights in most cases before they attempt to face the best opposition that boxing has to offer.

I am taking this into consideration.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 10:54 PM

Well, I can admit to mild, but functional insanity on my part, it's not a big deal.:D

Besides, you're not a hardcore JC fan, there is quite a difference from a casual appreciator to devout loyalty as a fan.

What exactly is a harcore JC fan? Someone who overrates his accomplishments while at the same time tearing anothers? Or one who makes ridiculous posts to try to make him seem larger then life?

I've been watching Joe C fight for about 10 years now. I don't get hero worship for any fighters. Doesn't make me any less of a fan of the fighter.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 10:55 PM

I meant his best in terms of the preparation and the fight. I don't think the best Robinson showed up that night and it was early into his career, Robinson had a long career and an exceptional run as a top P4P fighter at that.

You should be careful to say so then; it's not right to say that Robinson was "early in his career".

I only get so particular because you are a top poster.

Have nothing against him, I only seek to bring down jokes like Taylor. I do have a strict critera for the term 'great' however.

I'm not being cunty - I meant it literally. I will not quible over such fine lines. We both know he was very good.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:57 PM

You should be careful to say so then; it's not right to say that Robinson was "early in his career".

I only get so particular because you are a top poster.

I'm not being cunty - I meant it literally. I will not quible over such fine lines. We both know he was very good.

He maybe has a chance to KTFO Jermain Taylor, that's perfect for my current status as a boxing fan. I'm not a top poster, I just post way too much and boxing fans don't agree.

I'm going to start posting less and less.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 10:57 PM

Guys with extensive amatuer careers will usually fight very frequently within their first years as a pro.

That pretty much goes for everyone, not just guys with extensive amatuer careers.

Guys like Kostya Tszyu and Oscar De La Hoya were fighting good guys early on in their careers. The only reason they really have some easy fights very early in their career is to generate public interest. Most times they would be sparring better guys then they are fighting.

True, they were. But most fighters aren't like DLH or Tszyu.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 10:57 PM

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 10:59 PM

What exactly is a harcore JC fan? Someone who overrates his accomplishments while at the same time tearing anothers? Or one who makes ridiculous posts to try to make him seem larger then life?

I've been watching Joe C fight for about 10 years now. I don't get hero worship for any fighters. Doesn't make me any less of a fan of the fighter.

Oh, not hero worship, just loyalty. You've watched the Taylor apologists weed out bit by bit over time, this would never happen with Calzaghe's hardcore fans under any circumstances. Winky fans were on a high last year also, less and less now.

Calzaghe's hardcore's will stand by the fact that he is/was an underappreciated physical phenom that was ripped off from having the type of legacy that he deserved no matter what happens.

CHJ has turned this place into Calzaghe land, maybe that has an effect. It doesn't matter regardless and I'm intoxicated.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:01 PM

Losing to one of the greatest pressure fighters in the history of the MW division over 10 rounds is perfectly plausible for any fighter, who could make 160, who has ever lived.

But perhaps you should go to bed now. A serious poster who holds similair views has arrived.When you lose (not via KO) to a fighter you outclass in several other meetings, there is something gone wrong. Maybe Robinson was rusty, you know more, what went wrong that night?

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:01 PM

I'm going to start posting less and less.

That would be a pity.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:05 PM

SRR is the greatest, because he fought everyone,

Did he fuck!

he loved to fight.....not like the modern guys who fight twice a year and expect us to worship them!

Agreed.

Lance_Uppercut

08-26-2007, 11:07 PM

Oh, not hero worship, just loyalty. You've watched the Taylor apologists weed out bit by bit over time, this would never happen with Calzaghe's hardcore fans under any circumstances. Winky fans were on a high last year also, less and less now.

None of them were real fans anyway. Kids who got caught up in some hype.

Sorry to say, but when Joe C does lose his first fight, his fans will weed out as well.

Calzaghe's hardcore's will stand by the fact that he is/was an underappreciated physical phenom that was ripped off from having the type of legacy that he deserved no matter what happens.

He couls have made them happen. HE could have gone to Germany and beat Ottke, which I would expect. HE could have had his promoter try HARDER to make a Beyer fight. He could have come to the US and fought Jones @ 175 if he was serious. Or NOT pull out twice vs. Glenn Johnson. Instead, it seemed he, or his promoter, wanted fighters to come to him. And that's hurt him legacy wise.

CHJ has turned this place into Calzaghe land, maybe that has an effect. It doesn't matter regardless and I'm intoxicated.

CHJ is a clueless tool. He argues semantics, not boxing.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 11:08 PM

That would be a pity.

Boxrec.com is worse. They think the current version of Bernard Hopkins is superior all around to Joan Guzman and Cristian Mijarez. I actually take offense to such idiocy.

But boxing fans are actually turning me off to the sport a little bit more and more. Maybe in 5 years I will not even follow it anymore. Everything to it's wrongful glorification of overrated guys, to it's unrestrained capitalism shutting out the best matches, to the dumb fans, to the western bias.

Gets old, and the MMA event last night was awful for my purposes.

I have a bruise on my forehead from training, my lady didn't want to fuck tonight I think because of it. I need to mentally unwind.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:09 PM

Boxrec.com is worse. They think the current version of Bernard Hopkins is superior all around to Joan Guzman and Cristian Mijarez. I actually take offense to such idiocy.

But boxing fans are actually turning me off to the sport a little bit more and more. Maybe in 5 years I will not even follow it anymore. Everything to it's wrongful glorification of overrated guys, to it's unrestrained capitalism shutting out the best matches, to the dumb fans, to the western bias.

Gets old, and the MMA event last night was awful for my purposes.

I have a bruise on my forehead from training, my lady didn't want to fuck tonight I think because of it. I need to mentally unwind.

Kick back bro; this has fuck all to do with boxing and more to do with your mental state.

You'll feel better soon. And you know as well as anyone that there's a cracking fight just around the corner.

Might even be november four or whatever it is.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:10 PM

CHJ is a clueless tool. He argues semantics, not boxing.

He actuallly doesn't even argue semantics that well.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 11:11 PM

None of them were real fans anyway. Kids who got caught up in some hype.

Sorry to say, but when Joe C does lose his first fight, his fans will weed out as well.

There is nobody from 160-175 that will defeat him at his best if he doesn't seriously decline. But I'll hate those kids who weed out if they do.

He couls have made them happen. HE could have gone to Germany and beat Ottke, which I would expect. HE could have had his promoter try HARDER to make a Beyer fight. He could have come to the US and fought Jones @ 175 if he was serious. Or NOT pull out twice vs. Glenn Johnson. Instead, it seemed he, or his promoter, wanted fighters to come to him. And that's hurt him legacy wise.

Ottke ducked him, Beyer also. This was universally known at the time, ****** made multiple offers and offers that benefitted Ottke and Beyer for fights in Germany. Why would they fight JC?

Jones had nothing to gain from a threat in Calzaghe, who pre-Lacy meant shit to the international community. Wasn't going to happen.

Johnson is really the only claim, 1 was injury related, haven't researched the other but I do have an idea.

CHJ is a clueless tool. He argues semantics, not boxing.

CHJ is a genius.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:13 PM

CHJ is a clueless tool. He argues semantics, not boxing.

I have a 100% record picking winners mate.

The classic forum is just lucky the time machine I built isn't working yet, otherwise they and Willie Pep would get embarrassed.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 11:15 PM

None. But you can learn, for example, how your jab behaves at an advanced age in terms of retraction whilst coupling it with an imporved understanding of how a much younger fighter's jab will generally behave in terms of following with a hook. For example.

You, if you are worth anything, are also learning how to avoid punishment. Not to mention how top class opponent number 201 leans outside when delivering an uppercut.

Yes. For example it makes you better at fighting through injury. And therefore less likely to lose in that instance.

Some.
The technical skills you have listed are IMO a totally ficticious arguement. You have no way of proving that these guys learnt these skills after there first 200 fights. Logic would suggest that for the most part even 200 amatuer fights is unneccesary to a degree. There comes a point when you just simply plateu. Take Floyd Mayweather for instance, who from memory only had just over 100 fights. Or to an even greater extent fighters like Rahman or Mundine who don't even have amatuer careers yet can still prove themselves to be world class. Having a ridiculously high number of fights really achieves nothing in terms of increasing the fighters skill base, and often times is detrimental to their longevity. This fact is obvious throughout boxing, as there are many fighters who despite short amatuer careers, can beat guys in the pros who are vastly more experienced.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:16 PM

The technical skills you have listed are IMO a totally ficticious arguement.

I didn't list ANY technical skills. I made this PERFECTLY clear at the top of my post.

I'm afraid I didn't read the rest of your post because it was based on a fictional basis for response. Hope there wasn't anything importnat in there.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:16 PM

Although learning curves do very, it would take an incredibly slow learner to be gaining something significant from a hundred fights.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 11:17 PM

Kick back bro; this has fuck all to do with boxing and more to do with your mental state.

You'll feel better soon. And you know as well as anyone that there's a cracking fight just around the corner.

Might even be november four or whatever it is.

You just have to understand how utterly annoyed I get with 'in circle fighting' and biased rankings. Taylor and Hopkins at the moment, along with Wright.

Say Danny Green took Tarver July 2006 instead of Hopkins when Tarver had the belt, if Green KTFO Tarver in a one sided blowout, Tarver's just old. Hopkins pulls a one sided nice display and it's a fucking masterpiece of course, but both Hopkins and Green would have had to jump up in weight to fight Antonio.

So Hopkins gets the top 3 P4P spot, Green would have gotten NOTHING for his jump and brutal domination. Same with Green if Wright then jumped up to fight Green if he had the belt from the Tarver win and Wright figured that he could beat the crude kid. If Green KTFO Wright in that scenerio, same one Hopkins fought, Green's not P4P STILL.

Fuck that shit, biased in circle fighting mother fuckers. This shuts out guys like Mijarez, who's a true fighting machine from being recognised officially as something amazing and I despise it to the utmost level. Mijarez will likely get no fights and will be avoided after his one sided trashing of Arce.

Well, likewise with Calzaghe's whole run, he had to take who he could get and what he could make a living off of because of the way the sport is.

That's why I am sympathetic to underrated talents and why I hate hype jobs.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:19 PM

You just have to understand how utterly annoyed I get with 'in circle fighting' and biased rankings. Taylor and Hopkins at the moment, along with Wright.

It is frustrating trying to point it out to them, but the fawlty logic deeply ingrained in their minds.

The positive is you can make money betting against them, as you well know.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:19 PM

That's why I am sympathetic to underrated talents and why I hate hype jobs.

I sympathise with a lot of what you say, as you know.

Sometimes you come across as over the score though.

Anyway, as I said, it would be a pity if you posted less.

Kick back a bit, read more and post less if you're feeling it but be sure and come back brighter.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:21 PM

Although learning curves do very, it would take an incredibly slow learner to be gaining something significant from a hundred fights.

Total pish. It is possible, for example, for a fighter like Armstrong, who employs a certain kind of style almost exclusivley, to learn, in his 101st fight, how to slip a jab on the back foot versus a murderous punching southpaw.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:22 PM

It is frustrating trying to point it out to them, but the fawlty logic deeply ingrained in their minds.

You don't even try.

I consider what you do to be on the same level as trolling. You fire something out, usually inflamitory, and then fail to back, explain, or inform it.

The worst kind of poster, then.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 11:26 PM

I didn't list ANY technical skills. I made this PERFECTLY clear at the top of my post.

I'm afraid I didn't read the rest of your post because it was based on a fictional basis for response. Hope there wasn't anything importnat in there.
No I said part of your post claimed that fighters could learn certain skills only after a high number of fights. This is a ridiculous arguement. You not only have no way of proving it, but no reason behind this to show how you have come to this point of view. As for not reading the rest of my post, i guess ignorance is bliss. If thats the only way you can be comfortable with your opinions then I pity you.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 11:27 PM

I sympathise with a lot of what you say, as you know.

Sometimes you come across as over the score though.

Anyway, as I said, it would be a pity if you posted less.

Kick back a bit, read more and post less if you're feeling it but be sure and come back brighter.

I can't just sit here and read, that's boring. Things just itch at me to reply and that's why I have such a high post amount.

I really don't spend that much time on here, I'll come in off and on and post up a high volume in 30 minutes and then that's it for however many hours, repeat, unless I have an off night like now, in which I'll volume to the utmost level. But I log on everyday, maybe that's sad, and I always get drawn into some type of debating discussion.

I'm definitley a swarmer. I'm not a tactical boxer-puncher.

Boxrec is the only other boxing place that I visit, but I rarely can be bothered to post anything because of the ignorance level at that excremental forum.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:29 PM

Total pish. It is possible, for example, for a fighter like Armstrong, who employs a certain kind of style almost exclusivley, to learn, in his 101st fight, how to slip a jab on the back foot versus a murderous punching southpaw.This is why people employ specialist sparring partners.

Of course fighters learn about there opponent when fighting them though, that is stating the obvious somewhat.

Amsterdam

08-26-2007, 11:30 PM

I have a 100% record picking winners mate.

The classic forum is just lucky the time machine I built isn't working yet, otherwise they and Willie Pep would get embarrassed.

When will Joseph Stalin be having dinner with main AWU leaders?

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:32 PM

No I said part of your post claimed that fighters could learn certain skills only after a high number of fights.

The very top of your post:

The technical skills are IMO a totally fictitious argument

Which kind of renders your above a little redundant, no?

This is a ridiculous arguement. You not only have no way of proving it,

And you no way of disproving it. But i've already listed fighters earlier in the thread who have "suddenly" improved after hundered(s) of fights. What is your explanation for their improvement if they haven't improved? :lol:

As for not reading the rest of my post, i guess ignorance is bliss. If thats the only way you can be comfortable with your opinions then I pity you.

As for not reading the rest of your post; it started with a complet falshood, a clue it may not be worth my time.

I've read is since.

I was right.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 11:34 PM

Total pish. It is possible, for example, for a fighter like Armstrong, who employs a certain kind of style almost exclusivley, to learn, in his 101st fight, how to slip a jab on the back foot versus a murderous punching southpaw.
Ridiculous. Why could he not learn this in his amatuer career or his first 100 fights, or sparring for that matter? Are you claiming that in his entire career, in training and in sparring and in fighting itself that he would never have encountered a big punching southpaw?

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:34 PM

I'm afraid I didn't read the rest of your post because it was based on a fictional basis for response. Hope there wasn't anything importnat in there.

Look, you have ignored the rest of his post entirely.

You are responding with your defence mechanisms. In auto-pilot dismissing views.

Although you usually hold your own, you are off the mark on this particular topic mate. No level of debating skill will turn this around.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:35 PM

This is why people employ specialist sparring partners.

Learning in sparring v learning whilst fighting is just...so...completley differnt I can't believe I need to tell you.

Of course fighters learn about there opponent when fighting them though, that is stating the obvious somewhat.

And storing this knowledge for the next time you fight a similair opponent (more likely if you fight more often) is also so incredibley obvious in terms of benefits I can't believe i'm bothering to explain it to someone at this time of the day.

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:36 PM

When will Joseph Stalin be having dinner with main AWU leaders?I don't think I'd want that.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 11:38 PM

The very top of your post:

Which kind of renders your above a little redundant, no?

And you no way of disproving it. But i've already listed fighters earlier in the thread who have "suddenly" improved after hundered(s) of fights. What is your explanation for their improvement if they haven't improved? :lol:

As for not reading the rest of your post; it started with a complet falshood, a clue it may not be worth my time.

I've read is since.

I was right.
Where are these fighters that suddenly improved after 100 fights? And what is your explanation then for guys like Anthony Mundine being able to fight a long regning world champ like Ottke in his 11th pro fight and almost go the distance in a competitve fight? Or guys like Rahman becoming the undisputed world champion with no amatuer career and a limited professional career. Or any of the other numerous fighters in boxing who have succedded without anywhere near this ridiculous amount of fights? Surely if having a large amount of fights was a key to success then these fighters would have failed miserabley.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:38 PM

Ridiculous. Why could he not learn this in his amatuer career

It doesn't hit the later rounds.

or his first 100 fights,

Reasonable, but you're not appreciating how many fighters a fighter might have before he hits the big time OR how commited a fighter might be to a given style/phase of their career.

or sparring for that matter?

:-(

Are you claiming that in his entire career, in training and in sparring and in fighting itself that he would never have encountered a big punching southpaw?

Not neccisarily; it was a rather arbitary example. What I am suggesting is that it would be a fool who didn't learn somethin new in every fight. And a fool who could not employ that information.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:40 PM

Look, you have ignored the rest of his post entirely.

For once. This is how you respond to almost every post.

You are responding with your defence mechanisms. In auto-pilot dismissing views.

I form opinions and then defend them actively. More than you do, certainly.

Although you usually hold your own, you are off the mark on this particular topic mate. No level of debating skill will turn this around.

I don't consider my debating skills as effective as some; anyone reading through this thread though, can only conclude that YOUR arguments have been steamrolled entirely - you've offered almost nothing of value here.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:45 PM

Where are these fighters that suddenly improved after 100 fights?

Well, I placed the "suddenly" in speech marks so you would pick up on the fact that it isn't sudden at all. As to this exact figure "100", I can't say for sure, to be honest. I would guess that Zivic had around 100 before he came to the title; he certainly had many more before he retired and his time inculded many serious adaptions caused by many different factors. Greb would be my other serious offering. But it's worth noting that Robinson himself had more than 100 fights before he came to the MW title all in. For example.

And what is your explanation then for guys like Anthony Mundine being able to fight a long regning world champ like Ottke in his 11th pro fight and almost go the distance in a competitve fight?

As i've said in the thread - not ALL fighters need this many fights to improve, not all WILL. I've been quite clear about that all along. In my opinion though, more fighters will improve with more fights. I certainly think CHJ's notion that 30-40 fights doesn't necesitate the definitive peak for all fighters is nonsensical.

Surely if having a large amount of fights was a key to success then these fighters would have failed miserabley.

Of course. But i've never said otherwise.

It would be nice if people would pay attention. It would save the rest of us a lot of work.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 11:45 PM

Learning in sparring v learning whilst fighting is just...so...completley differnt I can't believe I need to tell you.

And storing this knowledge for the next time you fight a similair opponent (more likely if you fight more often) is also so incredibley obvious in terms of benefits I can't believe i'm bothering to explain it to someone at this time of the day.
How is learning in sparring worse. If anything it is more effective because you have the freedom to experiment with a variety of skills in an environment where losing the fight isn't a factor. Posts like this make me deeply question your knowledge of boxing. Have you ever boxed? If so you would realise that sparring sessions are for the most part VERY intense, and not a light training run. The major difference is being able to isolate weaknesses in your opponent under the watchful eye of your coach. If I could fight against a certain style of fighter 50 times in sparring completeing hundreds of rounds in the process, then surely this would be FAR better experience for me then 1 fight? Do you not agree?

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:46 PM

China_hand_Joe

08-26-2007, 11:47 PM

Well, I placed the "suddenly" in speech marks so you would pick up on the fact that it isn't sudden at all. As to this exact figure "100", I can't say for sure, to be honest. I would guess that Zivic had around 100 before he came to the title; he certainly had many more before he retired and his time inculded many serious adaptions caused by many different factors. Greb would be my other serious offering. But it's worth noting that Robinson himself had more than 100 fights before he came to the MW title all in. For example.

.You have failed to give one example where a fighter has truly benifited from fighting 100 fights rather than 30, with proper training cycles over the same period of time.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:51 PM

How is learning in sparring worse. If anything it is more effective because you have the freedom to experiment with a variety of skills in an environment where losing the fight isn't a factor.

And this is the key factor.

I am not questioning the value of sparring which is very real. But if you can't see the differnce, there is no way for me to explain it.

like this make me deeply question your knowledge of boxing. Have you ever boxed?

Not on any serious level.

If so you would realise that sparring sessions are for the most part VERY intense, and not a light training run.

This is as much as I do understand, the limit of my involvment in the physical side of the game, over about six years until last year.

The major difference is being able to isolate weaknesses in your opponent under the watchful eye of your coach.

Perhaps not so much in my physicl experience, although I understand what you mean.

If I could fight against a certain style of fighter 50 times in sparring completeing hundreds of rounds in the process, then surely this would be FAR better experience for me then 1 fight? Do you not agree?

I do indeed. But I think i've dealt with this question now here and elswhere in the thread.

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:52 PM

You have failed to give one example where a fighter has truly benifited from fighting 100 fights rather than 30, with proper training cycles over the same period of time.

Not possible. Actually impossible.

MSTR

08-26-2007, 11:58 PM

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:58 PM

You have failed to give one example where a fighter has truly benifited from fighting 100 fights rather than 30, with proper training cycles over the same period of time.

I really can't belive this joke of a post.

To answer it properly, I would have to provide an example of a fighter who fought 100 fights AND 30 fights whilst enjoying a "proper training cycle".

And you won't even answer one third of the points I make in direct rebutle to what you say.

:lol:

McGrain

08-26-2007, 11:59 PM

Okay back to work for me. I am enjoying the debate for the most part, although I am still working on a thread that will hopefully one way or the other provide a more definitive answer as to whether modern day or the fighters of the previous eras are the more skilled fighters. Unfortunately if i spend any more time on this thread my work for today will be minimal.

No cure for life bud.

I would just like to say that I don't see it either way - that is I don't see modern or previous day fighters as "superior", for me, there is a parity.

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 12:12 AM

I really can't belive this joke of a post.

To answer it properly, I would have to provide an example of a fighter who fought 100 fights AND 30 fights whilst enjoying a "proper training cycle".

And you won't even answer one third of the points I make in direct rebutle to what you say.

:lol:Quite simply the tiny gain in technical knowledge, is more than offset by the negative effects the lack of a proper training cycle has on the physical conditioning of a fighter.

I can appreciate there is a slight increase in technical knowledge a fighter gains having 200 fights rather than 100, even if this increase is tiny.

And I appreciate these busy fighters were in good shape all year round. But todays less busy athletes are able to peak.

I consider the physical advantages of peaking using a fulls training cycle to far out weigh the small gain in technical knowledge gained from fighting a vast number of fights.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 12:14 AM

Quite simply the tiny gain in technical knowledge, is more than offset by the negative effects the lack of a proper training cycle has on the physical conditioning of a fighter.

Jesus, i'm really starting to find this a bit of a struggle now.

I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS GAIN IN TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO BE GAINED FROM FIGHTING NUMEROUS FIGHTS.

I can appreciate there is a slight increase in technical knowledge a fighter gains having 200 fights rather than 100

PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

:lol:

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 12:15 AM

Can you appreciate the advantages in physical conditining, outweigh the small technical gain? And that even Robinson's performances would have likely benifited from fightling less?

McGrain

08-27-2007, 12:21 AM

Can you appreciate the advantages in physical conditining, outweigh the small technical gain? And that even Robinson's performances would have likely benifited?

Timing is the thing. So yes and no.

The physical benefits of fighting for training is of huge advantage. In the case of Greb it led to a perfect fighting machine ("era for era", or whatever helps you to understand this more easily).

He would be "most" ready for a big title fight if he could fight a huge number of fights for 10 years, then withdraw and rest for two months beofre training for 7 weeks for a specific fight.

Possibly.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 12:22 AM

Can you appreciate the advantages in physical conditining, outweigh the small technical gain? And that even Robinson's performances would have likely benifited?

My answer is only balance as regards THIS post.

Which alows for the LEAST important aspect of frequent fighting as I have tried very very very hard to explain, only to be dragged back into a discussion about technique.

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 12:38 AM

He would be "most" ready for a big title fight if he could fight a huge number of fights for 10 years, then withdraw and rest for two months beofre training for 7 weeks for a specific fight.

That is a quite acceptable way to go about things, though not perfect.

The drawback is however, during that 10 year period of frequent fighting, due to constantly upcoming fights he could never get in the really intense training, that he could have.

His proportion of intense training over those 10 years, would be far lower than that of Floyd Mayweather. Over those 10 years, all the extra high intensity training Floyd had got in would benifit him.

Basically Greb would have missed out on a lot of high instenity over those 10 years, preventing him reaching his full potential physically.

It would be a level that simply couldn't be matched by doing one proper cycle at the end of the 10 years. You cannot build Floyd Mayweather fitness in 7 weeks, even from a very good starting base, if the intensity had been lacking for the previous 10 years.

I think the difference will show in Mayweather - Hatton. Hatton does the cycles, but is a disgrace between training camps (and proud of it), so he isn't really building fitness up over time either.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 12:52 AM

His proportion of intense training over those 10 years, would be far lower than that of Floyd Mayweather.

This is so completely wrong.

There IS no more intense training than fighting all the time. Surely when you complain about the detrimental side of fighting all the time you mean it is to intense?!

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 01:04 AM

This is so completely wrong.

There IS no more intense training than fighting all the time. Surely when you complain about the detrimental side of fighting all the time you mean it is to intense?!

The downside to constantly fighting is the physical punishment.

I'm talking about the physical intensity- drills utillising the principle of overload.

Fighting is tough, but it isn't intense as training where you are overloading. (interval training, weights etc, certain bag sessions)

McGrain

08-27-2007, 01:07 AM

I'm talking about teh physical intensity - drills utillising the principle of overload.

Fighting is tough, but it isn't intense as training where you are overloading. (interval training, weights etc)

But all of this is designed to perfect the fighter for his time in the ring.

Regardless of how you describe your training it is just that. Nothing like as good as the real thing for getting good at the real thing.

This is so obvious...

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 01:17 AM

But all of this is designed to perfect the fighter for his time in the ring.

Regardless of how you describe your training it is just that.

Nothing like as good as the real thing for getting good at the real thing.

This is so obvious...

This is incorrect where physical fitness is concerned. It does apply to technical knowledge and sharpening skills but not physical fitness.

Lets for example look at a purely physical sport. 800m.

No 800m runner trains by running the 800m more than on rare occassions in training.

Overload is key

They will run intervals of 200m (faster, than they race 800m)

They will go on long runs, say 9 miles, which is further than they race.

By doing this they hone all the different elements which will come together in competition.

The same priciples apply when physically training yourself to box.

In a hard training session, you want to do more than you do in the ring on fightnight (though only specific elements at one time)

You have to overload. You need to throw more punches, work harder, take shorter rests between rounds or work longer - but not all in one session obviously. These are the things that improve you physical capabilities best.

Fighting a ton of boxing matches is not overloading at all, it is far far from the optimum training to improve your physical fitness for the purpose of a boxing match.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 07:02 AM

Fighting a ton of boxing matches is not overloading at all, it is far far from the optimum training to improve your physical fitness for the purpose of a boxing match.

It specifically targets every facet of your fitness/strength which is relevant better than any training program can possibly manage.

Super_Fly_Sam

08-27-2007, 07:21 AM

yeah that is crappy footage

it wasnt long, you dont know the quality of his opponents

i could find you footage of mayweather or rjj doing amazing stuff

Of corse u can find footage of rjj and floyd doin there thing in heaps better quality the ray's...

the man began his career in the 40's film was in its early days... they didnt have HBO back then

PowerPuncher

08-27-2007, 07:31 AM

Well I'm noting poor footwork by watching his video's, completely open minded for that matter, if you can prove me wrong then do so.

Low hands have nothing to do with positioning, Ray would however be positioned with low hands in a negative way, leaving him open for just about anything, where as Roy always had great use of tactical positioning and utilised his speed and timing, plus footwork to ensure that counter punches would be a minimal issue. If Roy squared up like Ray however, he'd have had his head taken off.

And the speed is not even remotely comparable, again, watch the video's in comparison. Roy is quicker than Calzaghe shot for shot and Calzaghe is almost blazing quicker with his hands and feet than Ray, so that says something about comparing the speed.

You can say 'by all accounts', that's still coming from accounts from within that era, when the fans and oberservers did not have the comparison through time that we have of different generations.

You blatantly don't have a clue about proper boxing technique.

Firstly SRRs footwork is 1 of the best of all time. Calazage and RJJ has piss poor footwork in comparison and is very basic. They don't have the changes in foot placement that SRR has to get more torque in his punches

You talk about punch sharpness and then you refer to Calazages slaps :lol: Calazage is fast because his punches are slaps.

The combination of technique, speed, sharpness, power of Robinsons punches was above anything RJJ/Calazage could dream of.

Next you say SRR doesn't use the jab enough making him technically poor BUT RJJ does :lol: Have you seen any of either fighter? Because SRR uses the jab ALLOT and RJJ uses it rarely.

RJJ may have had more natural speed, BUT he didn't throw in combinations aswell, didn't have as much quality throug hthe rang of punches. Roys defensive tactics were poor past prime, SRRs were still elite

And Mayweather would destroy SRR :lol: SRR would KO Mayweather within 6rounds. SRR is probably faster than Mayweather with handspeed who isn't that fast. Even if he wasn't he'd jab Mayweathers head off, break his ribs with bodyshots before landing a 10punch combination KO (YES A COMBINATION SOMETHING MAYWEATHER DOESNT DO :lol: ). Mayweather has problems defending against jab hook combos from slow as mollasses Castillo :lol: Yet hes going to destroy SRR :lol:

Bringing Calazage into a discusion about SRR is hilarious his technique is very poor (and I rate Calazage P4P top5). So what if he keeps his hands up he can't defend against a straight right hand :lol:

Nawfal

08-27-2007, 07:52 AM

Of corse u can find footage of rjj and floyd doin there thing in heaps better quality the ray's...

the man began his career in the 40's film was in its early days... they didnt have HBO back then

:patsch

my point was that its not right to base an opinion on short clips

McGrain

08-27-2007, 07:55 AM

:patsch

my point was that its not right to base an opinion on short clips

I agree with this.

But there are plenty of SRR's MW fights on film. Track them down if you haven't already, well worth your time.

achillesthegreat

08-27-2007, 08:07 AM

His record speaks for itself and there is more than enough footage available.

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 08:58 AM

It specifically targets every facet of your fitness/strength which is relevant better than any training program can possibly manage.

No. It is an inefficent and ineffective way to train.

Physically conditioning yourself for the purpose of boxing by fighting absolutely pales in comparison to the level achieved through proper training implementing overload on your body.

This is universally (or so I thought) accepted.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 09:08 AM

No.

Physically conditioning yourself for the purpose of boxing by fighting absolutely pales in comparison to the level achieved through proper training implementing overload on your body.

If this was the case, a fighter who had previously done only 6 limits would already be ready for 15 round fights thanks to his training.

Boxing in the championship rounds would only be about correct tactics.

No man is more physically or mentally prepared to go 12 rounds of boxing than a man who has recently done it.

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 09:14 AM

If this was the case, a fighter who had previously done only 6 limits would already be ready for 15 round fights thanks to his training.

Boxing in the championship rounds would only be about correct tactics.

No man is more physically or mentally prepared to go 12 rounds of boxing than a man who has recently done it.

Someone who has gone for 10 miles runs, done some intense interval training, done bagwork and sparred some rounds is in better physical condtion to go 15 rounds in a fight.

Why else do boxers (or any other athlete) even bother training?

The man who has been overloading in training is best physically prepared. Of course past experience over the number of rounds is useful, but you won't be fighting at a very fast pace unless you have overloaded in training.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 09:16 AM

Someone who has gone for 10 miles runs, done some intense interval training, done bagwork and sparred some rounds is in better physical condtion to go 15 rounds in a fight.

Then answer the original point - why do fighters step up gradually in terms of rounds fought, and why do those who rush in this endevour generally encounter stamina problems?

Why else do boxers (or any other athlete) even bother training?

To get better and fitter. There is no exclusion neccesary here. Training to get fit for the next fight is a good thing. Getting fit through fighting is a good thing.

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 09:29 AM

Then answer the original point - why do fighters step up gradually in terms of rounds fought, and why do those who rush in this endevour generally encounter stamina problems?

To get better and fitter. There is no exclusion neccesary here. Training to get fit for the next fight is a good thing. Getting fit through fighting is a good thing.

Young fighters are brought through slowly so they can get used to being in the ring and get used to pacing themselves.

You could be physically conditioned to fight 15 rounds in your first fight - however mentally and technically you wouldn't be ready. The required fitness though would be there.

Getting fit through a mixture of instense training and less ferquent fights is vastly superior to regularly fighting, with less instense training going on in the background.

It is why the competitors in just about every physical sport out there prefer a decent period of time between competitions.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 09:39 AM

Young fighters are brought through slowly so they can get used to being in the ring and get used to pacing themselves.

I would dispute this - a fighter who shows great expertise at pacing himself - even one who is reticent and cautios - will still fail to find themselves as fresh in rounds 11 and 12 as a man who has done it plenty of times.

Many very physically fit men find themselves at sea in the boxing ring in terms of fitness specifically because boxing's offense/defence/punishment combination requires greater fitness than can be acheived in training alone.

You could be physically conditioned to fight 15 rounds in your first fight - however mentally and technically you wouldn't be ready. The required fitness though would be there.

You now seem to be saying that it is somehow harder to pick up the tehcnical aspects of the game in a cold sitiation than it to push yourself to the absolute limit of human endurance in endevour of something. What total pish. Ali couldn't do Manilla in the gym. I can't beleive I have to tell you that.

Getting fit through a mixture of instense training and less ferquent fights is vastly superior to regularly fighting, with less instense training going on in the background.

You're just repeating yourself now; what's more you already know I disagree.

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 09:59 AM

Now it is you trying to exclude.

Are you really this unfamiliar with training principles?

Ali wouldn't do Manilla in the gym, he'd do more than Manilla in the gym.

He'd have thrown punches at a more intense pace (for a shorter time).

He'd have excersied longer than 45 minutes (15x3) but at a lower intensity.

Just not at the same time.

You do more in the gym, you overload your system. You just overload different things at different times. Then it all the different elements come together during competition.

A proper, full training cycle implementing very instense training, is far far better than fighting very frequently, with more moderate training.

Sugar Ray Robinsons fighting of 200 opponents, had a negative effect of his ability.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 10:03 AM

Ali wouldn't do Manilla in the gym, he'd do more than Manilla in the gym.

Ali described his trial in the ring in Manilla as the closest thing to death etc.

That is not possible for a human to achieve in training.

I think you are trying to say that Ali would do more in a nine week training camp than he would in a 15 round fight.

Thanks.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 10:11 AM

Sugar Ray Robinsons fighting of 200 opponents, had a negative effect of his ability.

Possible, I don't have the exact figures to hand.

I will say he had fought WELL over one hundred fights when he took on LaMotta for the last time.

That is Sugar's most astonishing display on film and one of the most rare peaks in boxing's history, in my opinion.

China_hand_Joe

08-27-2007, 10:13 AM

Yes, it is 9 weeks. The fight is 15 rounds. Of course he did more in the total of 9 weeks.

If he hadn't done more in training, if he hadn't overloaded during those 9 weeks, he would not have been able to do what he did in the ring that night.

The fight was harder than any individual training session as it was working everything at once, but he was able to work indivual elements harder, by themselves in training. Whichj is overloading, which leads to great improvement in physical conditioning.

McGrain

08-27-2007, 10:16 AM

If he hadn't done more in training, if he hadn't overloaded during those 9 weeks, he would not have been able to do what he did in the ring that night.

Yes; here we are in total agreement.

The fight was harder than any individual training session as it was working everything at once, but he was able to work indivual elements harder, by themselves in training.

But I don't agree with this. Finding your absolutle limits in any training session is probably impossible - but if you were able to do it it would have value in and of itself.

Boxing will bring you closer.