Is anyone else getting tired of the revisionist?

[Hookie]

Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Some people get so pissed in their debates, making guarantess... how in the hell can you make a guarantee when you're talking about fighters from different eras?

Keep it fun guys? Don't always pick the fighter from an earlier era just because you feel like you have to. Quit bringing up fighters you know very little about like Harry Wills, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea, Peter Jackson, etc.

If you know your shit, fine, talk about what you know... but it seems like some of you guys are just pulling names out of a hat sometimes.

Another thing... why do certain fighters get so much love around here? I'm talking about fighters who were pretty much average. Guys like Jerry Quarry. Is it because he was white? Quarry was good but not great. He was a 6' 195 Lb. fighter with a 72" reach. He wasn't fast, he wasn't elusive, and he wasn't a big puncher. He had heart and he had a pretty good chin. He was also a bleeder. If you wanna love the man, fine, but don't rewrite history.

Another one is Tommy Morrison! Morrison sucked! He had a powerful left hook and he even had decent hand speed but he was far from great. Very far!

[McGrain]

I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

That's fine; I couldn't understand how people got so worked up about Mijares, but I didn't object to people taking about him.

Don't always pick the fighter from an earlier era just because you feel like you have to.

I can't think of a single poster on here who actualy does that.

Another thing... why do certain fighters get so much love around here? I'm talking about fighters who were pretty much average. Guys like Jerry Quarry. Is it because he was white?

Away and fuck off.

[anarci]

Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Some people get so pissed in their debates, making guarantess... how in the hell can you make a guarantee when you're talking about fighters from different eras?

Keep it fun guys? Don't always pick the fighter from an earlier era just because you feel like you have to. Quit bringing up fighters you know very little about like Harry Wills, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea, Peter Jackson, etc.

If you know your shit, fine, talk about what you know... but it seems like some of you guys are just pulling names out of a hat sometimes.

Another thing... why do certain fighters get so much love around here? I'm talking about fighters who were pretty much average. Guys like Jerry Quarry. Is it because he was white? Quarry was good but not great. He was a 6' 195 Lb. fighter with a 72' reach. He wasn't fast, he wasn't elusive, and he wasn't a big puncher. He had heart and he had a pretty good chin. He was also a bleeder. If you wanna love the man, fine, but don't rewrite history.

Another one is Tommy Morrison! Morrison sucked! He had a powerful left hook and he even had decent hand speed but he was far from great. Very far!
:lol::lol: You made some good points, i consider myself knowledgeable on the old time fighters. When i read the title on threads comparing old timers with modern fighters i already know what most of the posters are gonna say. He i respect these old timers but im a realist,and there are some modern greats that would have beat some old time greats.
However i disagree with your opinion on Quarry he was a good puncher and had decent speed as well as being tough. I wouldnt pick him over a lot of the big heavyweights in recent years but i still think hed beat a lot of contenders, and would dominate the cruisers today. I know alot about the Old timers but i usually stick to the fighters i watched and lived thru their eras late 70s to current fighters.
I agree with your opinion on Tommy Morrison he has become overrated here on ESB, i even think a guy like Arreola would clean his clock.:yep overall a good post someone who isnt afraid to go against the grain. Some around here like to stick with the popular opinion.

[Hookie]

That's fine; I couldn't understand how people got so worked up about Mijares, but I didn't object to people taking about him.



I can't think of a single poster on here who actualy does that.



Away and fuck off.


Are you telling me, "away and fuck off"? Why?

That's how I see it. I honestly feel that some people think that it is "blasphemy" to pick a more modern or less popular fighter over a well known legend. Yes, people have even used the word "blasphemy" which is why I put it in quotations.

As for the white comment? First of all I am white and it is a known fact that any decent white HW automatically gets more attention than an equally talented black HW. Don't act like it's not true.

[McGrain]

Are you telling me, "away and fuck off"? Why?
.


Because you've been posting here for 4 months and have taken it upon yourself to open up a thread on the best boxing forum on the internet to accuse the members of bias and racism.

If you don't like it, away you go.

[GPater11093]

What is wrong with revision anyway?

[Hookie]

:lol::lol: You made some good points, i consider myself knowledgeable on the old time fighters. When i read the title on threads comparing old timers with modern fighters i already know what most of the posters are gonna say. He i respect these old timers but im a realist,and there are some modern greats that would have beat some old time greats.
However i disagree with your opinion on Quarry he was a good puncher and had decent speed as well as being tough. I wouldnt pick him over a lot of the big heavyweights in recent years but i still think hed beat a lot of contenders, and would dominate the cruisers today. I know alot about the Old timers but i usually stick to the fighters i watched and lived thru their eras late 70s to current fighters.
I agree with your opinion on Tommy Morrison he has become overrated here on ESB, i even think a guy like Arreola would clean his clock.:yep overall a good post someone who isnt afraid to go against the grain. Some around here like to stick with the popular opinion.


Thank you sir. I have a ton of respect for Quarry, but recently I've seen many threads talking him up like he would rule the HW division if he fought today. I just don't see it.

[McGrain]

What is wrong with revision anyway?


I know! People act like it's a dirty word, but as long as you have a grounded look, there's no real reason why the newspaper reports from that week need to be the last word.

[PowerPuncher]

Boxing gradually improved in terms of skills and athletic performance, thats something this forum is in denial about. There has been a drop off since the 80s as there are less boxing clubs and less youngsters get to watch boxing

It doesnt seem to matter if an old timer feasted on past/pre prime opponents but if a modern fighter beats a 28yo ATG, it doesnt count as a win

Then theres the rule 'if a fighter I like loses hes definately past prime or 'insert other excuse''

And lets not forget the last rule of the classic forum, quantity is far more important than quality

[McGrain]

Boxing gradually improved in terms of skills and athletic performance, thats something this forum is in denial about.


When do you think the improvement in terms of skill stopped?

[TheGreatA]

That's a bad post by your standards to be honest.

I agree that it's really difficult to determine exactly how good the likes of Greb, Wills and Langford were without extensive film on them, but we have people like klompton & Slakka on the forum who have enough knowledge about Greb to write a book about him. This is the history section after all and it's partly our job to make sure that great fighters like Greb aren't forgotten about only because film doesn't exist. He fought the likes of Tunney, Walker, Loughran, the Gibbons brothers so how could we ignore him? It'd be like pretending that the elephant in the living room did not exist.

As for Quarry, I haven't really seen anything about him being a great fighter, in fact recently a thread about a match-up between Quarry and Hearns was pretty much 50-50, which is astonishing.

Quarry had more than just heart and a good chin, he was a very good counter puncher who had boxed since he was only a small child. This experience showed in his fights against bigger, stronger opponents like Lyle and Shavers whom he took apart in brilliant fashion.

[Lobotomy]

I'm tired of everybody saying Quarry sucked because all they ever see of Jerry is his rematch with Ali on ESPN, or the losses to Norton and Frazier. Jerry's reputation is now getting restored by more than just Foreman's say-so praise, because several of his great wins, over the likes of Spencer, Foster, Lyle, Shavers, Alexander and Bodell, are now available for everybody to see on services like youtube. (Ditto Carnera.)

The scribes no longer have final say, not with all the classic and rare footage coming to light. Hence all the revision, inevitable now that we can see and judge for ourselves.

[GPater11093]

I know! People act like it's a dirty word, but as long as you have a grounded look, there's no real reason why the newspaper reports from that week need to be the last word.

Me and Fleamn spoke about this afew weeks ago, if you are putting in research and have evidence to back up what you are saying why are you not as good of a source as a newspaper article of the fight?

I like the revision on this forum, constantly challenging the status quo in boxing history. Just look at Stonehands 'Gods Of War'. An established historian thought it was near blasphemy, but we know they were excellant.

[Popkins]

Because you've been posting here for 4 months and have taken it upon yourself to open up a thread on the best boxing forum on the internet to accuse the members of bias and racism.

If you don't like it, away you go.

Excellent response McGrain.

Who does this tit think he is, opening a thread up on a Classic Forum criticizing its members for their love of olden day fighters? That's kind of the whole point of the Classic Forum.

And the comments about Jerry Quarry... :lol:... fucking abysmal.

[GPater11093]

If it wasnt for revision, I dont think the Murderer's Row would have been fully appreciated.

[Bummy Davis]

Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Some people get so pissed in their debates, making guarantess... how in the hell can you make a guarantee when you're talking about fighters from different eras?

Keep it fun guys? Don't always pick the fighter from an earlier era just because you feel like you have to. Quit bringing up fighters you know very little about like Harry Wills, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea, Peter Jackson, etc.

If you know your shit, fine, talk about what you know... but it seems like some of you guys are just pulling names out of a hat sometimes.

Another thing... why do certain fighters get so much love around here? I'm talking about fighters who were pretty much average. Guys like Jerry Quarry. Is it because he was white? Quarry was good but not great. He was a 6' 195 Lb. fighter with a 72' reach. He wasn't fast, he wasn't elusive, and he wasn't a big puncher. He had heart and he had a pretty good chin. He was also a bleeder. If you wanna love the man, fine, but don't rewrite history.

Another one is Tommy Morrison! Morrison sucked! He had a powerful left hook and he even had decent hand speed but he was far from great. Very far!

Quarry was a fighter from a tough era of Heavyweight boxing and he did well to beat some very big heavyweight punchers in a dominant fashion, such as Earnie Shavers,Ron Lyle, Mac Foster,Thad Spencer, Floyd Patterson,Middleton, etc. I dont see anyone putting Quarry on a higher position but they use a lot of top contenders of eras to see how they would do in others.

comparing, opinions, experience and knowledge is a way people learn more about there interests and I think some of us are strong in our opinions but always open minded

[McGrain]

If it wasnt for revision, I dont think the Murderer's Row would have been fully appreciated.


Lloyd Marshall didn't make Bob Mee's top 500 in 1997.

[GPater11093]

Lloyd Marshall didn't make Bob Mee's top 500 in 1997.

Exactly, surprised at that though Bob Mee is usually a good boxing guy, although his speciality is Heavyweights.

[PowerPuncher]

When do you think the improvement in terms of skill stopped?

It depends what you mean by skill, physical ability speed/reactions/athleticism allows more skills to be evident, although they arent necessarily innovations. Still at no time in history their hasnt been anyone with the overall offensive/defensive skill of a Roy Jones, but you can argue thats because of his physical gifts. In terms of combination throwing, aproach footwork, movement, head movement he has no equal.

Yes he cant compete as a old man but all boxers are a combination of physical gifts and skill though and many styles age quicker. Pep/Leonard/Charles/Whitaker all fell off at a younger age than Jones without catching the same flack.

In some ways fighters are ahead of their time, ie Tunney, but Tunney doesnt rate up their with the best of all time skillset wise

Jones is the greatest P4P of all time :yep

[McGrain]

It depends what you mean by skill, physical ability speed/reactions/athleticism allows more skills to be evident, although they arent necessarily innovations.


Or evident ;)

No, what i'm asking you is, when did fighter STOP getting more skilled at boxing in your estimation? When did fighters stop improving technically?

[PowerPuncher]

People will laugh at my post, then with straight faces rate this guy,

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

ahead of this 1

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Not sure why more dont rate Tunney over Greb

[McGrain]

His resume is less good.

[PowerPuncher]

Or evident ;)
No, what i'm asking you is, when did fighter STOP getting more skilled at boxing in your estimation? When did fighters stop improving technically?

In terms of what? There are so many aspects of boxing to pinpoint 1 era, boxing is evolutionary rather than revoluntary, and there are so many styles and individuals that make

For instance generally the 40s/murderers row era-Robinson/Pep era saw innovations and obvious technical improvements over the likes of Gans/Johnson/Langford era or the Tunney/Dempsey/Walker/Loughran era.

In many ways the 40s was the golden era and the likes of Toney/Hopkins study their techniques, however that doesnt mean Toney/Hops are inferior versions of these men as some say. In other ways these men have been surpassed, ie Robinson was the greatest combination thrower of all time in the 40s, now hes been surpassed

Having said all that since the 80s and early 90s skills overall have seriously diminshed. There were allot of slick fighters in those days

[natonic]

I've watched 3 fights in the last 48 hours: Ross - McLarnin, Harold Johnson - Ezzard Charles, and Dirrell - Abraham. Admittedly it's a small sampling, but to believe that todays fighter are somehow superior to those of the past is delusional. Abraham was exposed for the limited fighter that he is. Dirrell has some tremendous physical tools but obviously is a little shy towards the pressure and for the second fight in a row flopped around when under pressure. Physically gifted, technically lacking. I attribute this to a lack of experience and a lack of high quality trainers.
I personally refrain from head to head analysis of Harry Greb, so I'll grant that point, but his record is unmistakeably awesome.

[Dempsey1238]

People will laugh at my post, then with straight faces rate this guy,

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

ahead of this 1

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Not sure why more dont rate Tunney over Greb


Not fair, Jones was in his prime vs a past it Greb sparing with a 50 plus O Brein. Greb was all ready on the slide than, and that he didnt want to hurt the long retire fighter.

That would be like Wlad sparing with Joe Fraizer, and not going all out to ko Fraizer.

It was fun and games.

[PowerPuncher]

I've watched 3 fights in the last 48 hours: Ross - McLarnin, Harold Johnson - Ezzard Charles, and Dirrell - Abraham. Admittedly it's a small sampling, but to believe that todays fighter are somehow superior to those of the past is delusional. Abraham was exposed for the limited fighter that he is. Dirrell has some tremendous physical tools but obviously is a little shy towards the pressure and for the second fight in a row flopped around when under pressure. Physically gifted, technically lacking. I attribute this to a lack of experience and a lack of high quality trainers.
I personally refrain from head to head analysis of Harry Greb, so I'll grant that point, but his record is unmistakeably awesome.

Hardly fair comparison as Dirrell and Abraham arent nearly the best of this era, Ross/Charles/Johnson/McLarnin. If you want a direct comparison, compare Ross to Mayweather, who is far better than Ross

In terms of an outside boxing game Dirrell is largely excellent, hes technically excellent on the outside, his inside game is horrible though, partly due to being physically weak and caution. Ross hardly had a great inside game himself though

[McGrain]

Not fair, Jones was in his prime vs a past it Greb sparing with a 50 plus O Brein. Greb was all ready on the slide than, and that he didnt want to hurt the long retire fighter.

That would be like Wlad sparing with Joe Fraizer, and not going all out to ko Fraizer.

It was fun and games.


"Fun and games" is better than "sparring". They were basically mugging for the camera. Anyone who decides to use that to balance the relative greatness of Jones and Greb needs their head read.

[PowerPuncher]

"Fun and games" is better than "sparring". They were basically mugging for the camera. Anyone who decides to use that to balance the relative greatness of Jones and Greb needs their head read.

Yes Greb was desperate for big money fights so the 1 time he gets on camera he purposely downplays his skills are acts the fool, makes sense. Maybe he was just upright like that and liked to parry and flurry allot

Greb displaying the greatest boxing skills of all time

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PowerPuncher]

His resume is less good.

Quality>Quantity. Hopkins/Toney/McCallum look better on film than anyone Greb beat. And yes McCallum was past prime, just like Tunney/Louhgran/Walker were pre prime

[TheGreatA]

Yes Greb was desperate for big money fights so the 1 time he gets on camera he purposely downplays his skills are acts the fool, makes sense. Maybe he was just upright like that and liked to parry and flurry allot


It's not the only time he was on camera, it's just that this is the only film that hasn't been lost. I've read that Greb vs Flowers, Walker & Tunney were supposedly filmed. Watch Tunney sparring with old timer Gentleman Jim Corbett, would anyone rate him if this was the only film that existed of him?

[Dempsey1238]

Yes Greb was desperate for big money fights so the 1 time he gets on camera he purposely downplays his skills are acts the fool, makes sense. Maybe he was just upright like that and liked to parry and flurry allot

Greb displaying the greatest boxing skills of all time




Greb Tunney and Greb Walker were all film, plus a few other Greb fights, belive vs Gibbons. and Maybe one of the Flower fights.

Now these fights are "Lost". So this fun and games was not the first time Greb was film.
Greb in 1925 perhaps didnt know his classic fights would be lost.

Besides, what would it relly prove if he ko a 50 plus year old man.

[bodhi]

Hardly fair comparison as Dirrell and Abraham arent nearly the best of this era, Ross/Charles/Johnson/McLarnin. If you want a direct comparison, compare Ross to Mayweather, who is far better than Ross

In terms of an outside boxing game Dirrell is largely excellent, hes technically excellent on the outside, his inside game is horrible though, partly due to being physically weak and caution. Ross hardly had a great inside game himself though

It won´t get truer the more you repeat it.


Quality>Quantity. Hopkins/Toney/McCallum look better on film than anyone Greb beat. And yes McCallum was past prime, just like Tunney/Louhgran/Walker were pre prime

:rofl:rofl:rofl


In some ways you are worse than redrooster.

[nahkis]

As for the white comment? First of all I am white and it is a known fact that any decent white HW automatically gets more attention than an equally talented black HW. Don't act like it's not true.
Yes, you can see how much love and attention the Klitschkos are getting in comparison to Lennox Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield etc...

[PowerPuncher]

Greb Tunney and Greb Walker were all film, plus a few other Greb fights, belive vs Gibbons. and Maybe one of the Flower fights.

Now these fights are "Lost". So this fun and games was not the first time Greb was film.
Greb in 1925 perhaps didnt know his classic fights would be lost.

Besides, what would it relly prove if he ko a 50 plus year old man.

Either way you can go easy in sparring while maintaining your fighting style, sparring rarely is bout ko'ing your partner actually. 'Clowning for cameras' is an excuse because the Greb fans thinks it looks bad but theres no evidense he was. If you look through the full footage at the shadow boxing you can get a better idea of his style. Grebs style is perfectly normal for the time and it certainly has its merits, the hand movement in the sparring is probably something he employed. It just has flaws that would be exposed by better fighter from later eras and certainly doesnt look like the best of all time.

Bottom line fighters begging for a title shot like greb dont purposely try to make themselves look bad on camera

[McGrain]

Yes Greb was desperate for big money fights so the 1 time he gets on camera he purposely downplays his skills are acts the fool, makes sense. Maybe he was just upright like that and liked to parry and flurry allot

Greb displaying the greatest boxing skills of all time
1 ([Only registered and activated users can see links])


I have fotage of Ali sparring a stuffed gorilla. If this was the only surviving footage of Ali you would be on here explaining why it proves Wlad is greater than Ali.

Quality>Quantity. Hopkins/Toney/McCallum look better on film than anyone Greb beat. And yes McCallum was past prime, just like Tunney/Louhgran/Walker were pre prime


Yeah, Greb beat nobody of note really :lol:

Unlike Jones whose resume sits astride the era like a collusus.

[Hookie]

What is wrong with revision anyway?

Well, nothing really. I'm just talking about those who try to change facts. Facts are facts and they can not be changed.

[Popkins]

I don't agree with PP, I don't think there has been a sonic leap forward over the decades in boxing, as there has been in other sports. For example, Miguel Cotto was widely touted as one of the best fighters in the world a couple of years ago, a guy who could box and brawl with equal ease. Cotto was never viewed as a Micky Ward style brawler, he was perceived to be a highly skilled boxer - and he didn't come to have this reputation by chance, in his career he had actually shown to be a very good fighter against the guys he had been in with. Then we get to Cotto vs Margarito, and we find that the highly skilled Miguel Cotto has no idea how to defend himself. He doesn't know when to hold or turn his opponent or when to cover up, he simply lets Margarito (a very limited fighter himself) keep plodding after him and bouncing uppercuts off his skull all night til eventually he crumbles. In this era as well, we have people proclaiming Joshua Clottey is a defensive master because he knows how to hold his hands up at his face. Everyone seems to disregard the fact that his defensive style means he is never in a good position to counter nor does he have any way of deterring attacks, instead people drool over the fact that this walking punchbag has limited his opponent to a lowly Compubox connect percentage... whilst losing fights. And then we have guys like Wladimir Klitschko, lauded in some quarters as an ATG heavyweight, when he does the exact same combination 5000 times a fight, and is terrified to leave his over-cautious defensive coccoon. We have guys like Arthur Abraham and Mikkel Kessler, both hyped to the hills, and both exposed as one-dimensional when they meet fighters with a bit of movement and boxing ability.

I could go on, but the point has been made. Consider the rave reviews Cotto has being a complete fighter, before his defence was horribly exposed by Margo. Consider the near legendary status that Clottey's pinata defence has on the General Forum right now. Consider how basic Wladimir Klitschko is in terms of skillset and variety. Consider how inept Abraham and Kessler have been when they were confronted with bad stylistic match-ups for them respectively. All of these guys are top stars in the current climate. Are you telling me that their skills are a sonic leap forward from the skillsets of the same level of fighter from the 30s and 40s and 50s?

Are these guys' glaring limitations really light years ahead of the skillsets of guys like Kid Chocolate, Ike Williams, Manuel Ortiz, etc? No chance. Those guys may not have had the benefits of modern nutrition, training, blah blah blah, but their technical game was superior to that of today's overhyped mediocrities.

[Hookie]

Because you've been posting here for 4 months and have taken it upon yourself to open up a thread on the best boxing forum on the internet to accuse the members of bias and racism.

If you don't like it, away you go.

I've been posting on boxing forums for over 10 years. SecondsOut, BoxingInsider, BoxingOutsider, BoxRec, and others. Who gives a shit?

I think this forum is great, that's why I felt I could actually voice my opinion and go a little against the grain instead of just going with the flow.

[McGrain]

I think this forum is great, that's why I felt I could actually voice my opinion and go a little against the grain instead of just going with the flow.


No rewards for that, this forum is full of people who "go against the grain" as you put it, but for the most part, people on here tend to call things as they see them rather than with, or against, some invisible grain.

But I don't recall anyone doing it as ignorantly as you do in your op.

[PowerPuncher]

I don't agree with PP, I don't think there has been a sonic leap forward over the decades in boxing, as there has been in other sports. For example, Miguel Cotto was widely touted as one of the best fighters in the world a couple of years ago, a guy who could box and brawl with equal ease. Cotto was never viewed as a Micky Ward style brawler, he was perceived to be a highly skilled boxer - and he didn't come to have this reputation by chance, in his career he had actually shown to be a very good fighter against the guys he had been in with. Then we get to Cotto vs Margarito, and we find that the highly skilled Miguel Cotto has no idea how to defend himself. He doesn't know when to hold or turn his opponent or when to cover up, he simply lets Margarito (a very limited fighter himself) keep plodding after him and bouncing uppercuts off his skull all night til eventually he crumbles. In this era as well, we have people proclaiming Joshua Clottey is a defensive master because he knows how to hold his hands up at his face. Everyone seems to disregard the fact that his defensive style means he is never in a good position to counter nor does he have any way of deterring attacks, instead people drool over the fact that this walking punchbag has limited his opponent to a lowly Compubox connect percentage... whilst losing fights. And then we have guys like Wladimir Klitschko, lauded in some quarters as an ATG heavyweight, when he does the exact same combination 5000 times a fight, and is terrified to leave his over-cautious defensive coccoon. We have guys like Arthur Abraham and Mikkel Kessler, both hyped to the hills, and both exposed as one-dimensional when they meet fighters with a bit of movement and boxing ability.

I could go on, but the point has been made. Consider the rave reviews Cotto has being a complete fighter, before his defence was horribly exposed by Margo. Consider the near legendary status that Clottey's pinata defence has on the General Forum right now. Consider how basic Wladimir Klitschko is in terms of skillset and variety. Consider how inept Abraham and Kessler have been when they were confronted with bad stylistic match-ups for them respectively. All of these guys are top stars in the current climate. Are you telling me that their skills are a sonic leap forward from the skillsets of the same level of fighter from the 30s and 40s and 50s?

Are these guys' glaring limitations really light years ahead of the skillsets of guys like Kid Chocolate, Ike Williams, Manuel Ortiz, etc? No chance. Those guys may not have had the benefits of modern nutrition, training, blah blah blah, but their technical game was superior to that of today's overhyped mediocrities.

I never thought Cotto to have amazing boxing skills and always thought his defense was far too open but to say 'he had no idea how to defend himself' is silly when he slipped the vast majority of Margaritos punches. He simply got overwhelmed by the pace/quantity of punches and didnt have the same type of stamina with a broken nose and may well have been unable to compete with some cheaty gloves

Should we say Barney Ross and Ali had no idea of how to defend themselves for their defensive frailties against 100punch a round fighters like Frazier/Armstrong? Yes Frazier/Armstrong were greater but their skills werent amazing they were quantity over quality attrition merchants

You downplay Abraham who you are right is a terrible plodder who was always prone to be outboxed, but then in the next sentence hail Ike Williams who would also often got outboxed due to similarly plodding footwork

I do agree that in man terms the last 20years has seen a decline of skills with the loss of boxing clubs, prominance of other sports and loss of trainers. Not to mention a fighter these days can be set for life from fighting 20bums and getting a title shot then retiring

[PowerPuncher]

1. I have fotage of Ali sparring a stuffed gorilla. If this was the only surviving footage of Ali you would be on here explaining why it proves Wlad is greater than Ali.

2. Yeah, Greb beat nobody of note really :lol:Unlike Jones whose resume sits astride the era like a collusus.

1. If I had a few miniutes of Ali sparring, shadow boxing, training speed back we'd have a good

2. You all overrated what he has achieved, he largely proved himself the best of his era over a course of years. But his era was full of technically and physcially inferior fighters and against the very best (Gibbons bros, Tunney, Loughran, Flowers) he struggled and picked up losses

Take a college standard of runner back to the 1920s and he'd dominate the best in the world for a decade, it doesnt make him the best of all times

[turpinr]

I've been posting on boxing forums for over 10 years. SecondsOut, BoxingInsider, BoxingOutsider, BoxRec, and others. Who gives a shit?

I think this forum is great, that's why I felt I could actually voice my opinion and go a little against the grain instead of just going with the flow.:goodi know where your coming from.when posters say thing about james j caveman being a top ten heavy or an 11 stone middle from 1143 beating lennox lewis i just have to laugh.just don't take it too seriously.

[Popkins]

I never thought Cotto to have amazing boxing skills and always thought his defense was far too open but to say 'he had no idea how to defend himself' is silly when he slipped the vast majority of Margaritos punches. He simply got overwhelmed by the pace/quantity of punches and didnt have the same type of stamina with a broken nose and may well have been unable to compete with some cheaty gloves

Should we say Barney Ross and Ali had no idea of how to defend themselves for their defensive frailties against 100punch a round fighters like Frazier/Armstrong? Yes Frazier/Armstrong were greater but their skills werent amazing they were quantity over quality attrition merchants

You downplay Abraham who you are right is a terrible plodder who was always prone to be outboxed, but then in the next sentence hail Ike Williams who would also often got outboxed due to similarly plodding footwork

I do agree that in man terms the last 20years has seen a decline of skills with the loss of boxing clubs, prominance of other sports and loss of trainers. Not to mention a fighter these days can be set for life from fighting 20bums and getting a title shot then retiring

I wasn't directing my post squarely at you PP, I am aware you wouldn't have bought into the Cotto hype (he's not black for a start :D). However, I think it is indicative of falling standards that he was widely perceived to be a very skilled all-round boxer, when in reality he was extremely flawed.

I disagree that Frazier and Armstrong didn't have great skills, I think they did. They don't have conventional slick outboxing skills like the type you appreciate, but they were very skilled offensive machines, they were not merely 100 punch per round windmills as you suggest.

Picking out my selection of Ike Williams is just pointless nit-picking (I wrote down names from those eras that I thought represented different styles off the top of my head, it wasn't carefully considered), OK I could have chosen a better name for my sentence, but the point remains the same anyway.

Your last part I agree with.

[Dempsey1238]

Either way you can go easy in sparring while maintaining your fighting style, sparring rarely is bout ko'ing your partner actually. 'Clowning for cameras' is an excuse because the Greb fans thinks it looks bad but theres no evidense he was. If you look through the full footage at the shadow boxing you can get a better idea of his style. Grebs style is perfectly normal for the time and it certainly has its merits, the hand movement in the sparring is probably something he employed. It just has flaws that would be exposed by better fighter from later eras and certainly doesnt look like the best of all time.

Bottom line fighters begging for a title shot like greb dont purposely try to make themselves look bad on camera


When Jack Dempsey spar with McAuliffe who was near 50 years himself in the early 20's(Think it was 21,) The film of that sparing sesson did not relly put Dempsey in good light.

Dempsey's punchings were mere slaps, hardly no foot work as he show vs Willard. Hell McAuliffe look better than the killer Dempsey.

In the end, I would RELLY question of how good of a fighter Dempsey was if the McAuliffe footage was the only thing left.

[Hookie]

I'm tired of everybody saying Quarry sucked because all they ever see of Jerry is his rematch with Ali on ESPN, or the losses to Norton and Frazier. Jerry's reputation is now getting restored by more than just Foreman's say-so praise, because several of his great wins, over the likes of Spencer, Foster, Lyle, Shavers, Alexander and Bodell, are now available for everybody to see on services like youtube. (Ditto Carnera.)

The scribes no longer have final say, not with all the classic and rare footage coming to light. Hence all the revision, inevitable now that we can see and judge for ourselves.


Good post. You're right, people sometimes judge based off of little insight. I assumed that's not the case here, maybe I'm wrong? What I mean is that I thought most of us here were very knowledgeable about the history of boxing. I would hope everyone here has seen more than a few Quarry fights.

I have seen his fights vs.

Eddie Machen L10
Brian London W10 and KO2
Floyd Patterson D10 and W12
Thad Spencer KO12
Jimmy Ellis L15
Buster Mathis W12
Joe Frazier LKOby7 and LKOby5
George Chuvalo LKOby7
Mac Foster KO6
Muhammad Ali LKOby3 and LKOby7
Randy Neuman KO7
Ron Lyle W12
Ernie Shavers KO1
Ken Norton LKOby5
Lorenzo Zanon KO9

Haven't seen his "great" wins over Bodell or Alexander (who gives a shit about them except there family?), and I can't believe soembody even mentioned these fights.

Probably a few more. I've also seen clips of him beating up on some bums. I've seen clips of some of his amateur fights. I've seen clips of him sparring. I've even read books about him. Again, I think he was good... but not great. He'd get beat easy by guys like Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, W. and V. Klitschko but there is no shame in that, none at all.

[TheGreatA]

Good post. You're right, people sometimes judge based off of little insight. I assumed that's not the case here, maybe I'm wrong? What I mean is that I thought most of us here were very knowledgeable about the history of boxing. I would hope everyone here has seen more than a few Quarry fights.

I have seen his fights vs.

Eddie Machen L10
Brian London W10 and KO2
Floyd Patterson D10 and W12
Thad Spencer KO12
Jimmy Ellis L15
Buster Mathis W12
Joe Frazier LKOby7 and LKOby5
George Chuvalo LKOby7
Mac Foster KO6
Muhammad Ali LKOby3 and LKOby7
Randy Neuman KO7
Ron Lyle W12
Ernie Shavers KO1
Ken Norton LKOby5
Lorenzo Zanon KO9

Haven't seen his "great" wins over Bodell or Alexander (who gives a shit about them except there family?), and I can't believe soembody even mentioned these fights.

Probably a few more. I've also seen clips of him beating up on some bums. I've seen clips of some of his amateur fights. I've seen clips of him sparring. I've even read books about him. Again, I think he was good... but not great. He'd get beat easy by guys like Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, W. and V. Klitschko but there is no shame in that, none at all.

Show me all the posts where Quarry has been favoured over any of them. I think your opening post was simply an unnecessary outburst, especially the last part. We're talking about the same Quarry that was 50-50 with a welterweight in Thomas Hearns in a recent fantasy match-up. Racism has nothing to do with it. Nobody thinks Quarry was an all-time great fighter.

[lora]

I didna't read that quarry hearns thread much, but if it really was 50-50 that seems to suggest him being vastly underrated on this forum, if anything.

[Hookie]

Yes, you can see how much love and attention the Klitschkos are getting in comparison to Lennox Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield etc...

Well, I should have added "American" White HW.

I did state of equal talent though... to me the Klitschko's are not on the same talent level as Lewis and company.

[OLD FOGEY]

Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Some people get so pissed in their debates, making guarantess... how in the hell can you make a guarantee when you're talking about fighters from different eras?

Keep it fun guys? Don't always pick the fighter from an earlier era just because you feel like you have to. Quit bringing up fighters you know very little about like Harry Wills, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea, Peter Jackson, etc.

If you know your shit, fine, talk about what you know... but it seems like some of you guys are just pulling names out of a hat sometimes.

Another thing... why do certain fighters get so much love around here? I'm talking about fighters who were pretty much average. Guys like Jerry Quarry. Is it because he was white? Quarry was good but not great. He was a 6' 195 Lb. fighter with a 72' reach. He wasn't fast, he wasn't elusive, and he wasn't a big puncher. He had heart and he had a pretty good chin. He was also a bleeder. If you wanna love the man, fine, but don't rewrite history.

Another one is Tommy Morrison! Morrison sucked! He had a powerful left hook and he even had decent hand speed but he was far from great. Very far!

"Quarry was good but not great. He was a 6' 195 lb. fighter with a 72' reach. He wasn't fast, he wasn't elusive, and he wasn't a big puncher. He had heart and he had a pretty good chin. He was also a bleeder."

This would seem to be the consensus on this board, and it is my opinion--(except of course his reach was 6 feet and not 72 feet). I would pick Carnera over him. I don't think he was as good as top earlier contenders such as Elmer Ray or Eddie Machen, or Rex Layne at his best.

How many on this board actually think either Quarry or Morrison were anything more than average contenders of their eras? Some do, I suppose, but not most.

[OLD FOGEY]

Thank you sir. I have a ton of respect for Quarry, but recently I've seen many threads talking him up like he would rule the HW division if he fought today. I just don't see it.

"many threads talking him up like he would rule the HW division if he fought today"

Someone thinks he could beat Vitali Klitschko? or Wlad?

Who?

[TheGreatA]

I didna't read that quarry hearns thread much, but if it really was 50-50 that seems to suggest him being vastly underrated on this forum, if anything.

50-50 might be an exaggeration but there were serious arguments for Hearns, Hookie presenting one of them.

[Hookie]

Well, it went pretty much like I thought it would. Some agreed with me, most didn't... but WTF, it is an oldtimers forum!

Look, I'm not a person who thinks newer is better. I just think certain people are biased to the fighter from an earlier era. Take notice of it in the future if you don't think I'm right.

Who do I like? My favorite of all-time is Ezzard Charles... but I don't think he could beat giant athletic HWs like Lewis or even the Klitschko's. Sure, maybe he could pull an upset or two if he fought them ten times each but most nights I think he would lose to these guys. I'm not the one who's being biased around here.

When I here guys say that Wladimir or Vitali don't belong in the all-time top 100 (Heavyweights) I laugh and I think at how close minded people can be. If that's not being biased, than I don't know what is.

[Popkins]

When I here guys say that Wladimir or Vitali don't belong in the all-time top 100 (Heavyweights) I laugh and I think at how close minded people can be. If that's not being biased, than I don't know what is.

You seem to hear a lot of crazy things said that I and most others on here have never heard being said.

[TheGreatA]

Well, it went pretty much like I thought it would. Some agreed with me, most didn't... but WTF, it is an oldtimers forum!

Look, I'm not a person who thinks newer is better. I just think certain people are biased to the fighter from an earlier era. Took notice of it in the future if you don't think I'm right.

Who do I like? My favorite of all-time is Ezzard Charles... but I don't think he could beat giant athletic HWs like Lewis or even the Klitschko's. Sure, maybe he could pull an upset or two if he fought them ten times each but most nights I think he would lose to these guys. I'm not the one who's being biased around here.

When I here guys say that Wladimir or Vitali don't belong in the all-time top 100 (Heavyweights) I laugh and I think at how close minded people can be. If that's not being biased, than I don't know what is.

All I see are exaggerations that don't have anything to do with reality. I'd say that most people here have the Klitschko brothers atleast in their top 50 heavyweights. Also it's difficult to rate a fighter until their career is well and truly over.

[PowerPuncher]

I wasn't directing my post squarely at you PP, I am aware you wouldn't have bought into the Cotto hype (he's not black for a start :D). However, I think it is indicative of falling standards that he was widely perceived to be a very skilled all-round boxer, when in reality he was extremely flawed.

I disagree that Frazier and Armstrong didn't have great skills, I think they did. They don't have conventional slick outboxing skills like the type you appreciate, but they were very skilled offensive machines, they were not merely 100 punch per round windmills as you suggest.

Picking out my selection of Ike Williams is just pointless nit-picking (I wrote down names from those eras that I thought represented different styles off the top of my head, it wasn't carefully considered), OK I could have chosen a better name for my sentence, but the point remains the same anyway.

Your last part I agree with.

:lol: I think Cotto is pretty skilled actually, I like his footwork, balance, punch selection and punching technique but did always thought he was a KO waiting to happen after the battles with Torres/Judah/Corley/Mosley and was a bit suprised Mosley/Judah didnt prevail. As a FMJ fan I always wanted a Cotto fight because the slowness of foot and openness would have made it easy in my view. Oh and if you check my posts I picked Pacquaio to white wash him

Overall I would put him in the same WW bracket as Cuevas and Palomino personally. You have to give him some kudos for that run he was on.

Definately agree with Armstrong/Frazier being more skilled Margarito, they are excellent shot pickers, but definately their key strength is volume and volume can break a great technician especially when you remove their range

[Son of Gaul]

Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Some people get so pissed in their debates, making guarantess... how in the hell can you make a guarantee when you're talking about fighters from different eras?

Keep it fun guys? Don't always pick the fighter from an earlier era just because you feel like you have to. Quit bringing up fighters you know very little about like Harry Wills, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea, Peter Jackson, etc.

If you know your shit, fine, talk about what you know... but it seems like some of you guys are just pulling names out of a hat sometimes.

Another thing... why do certain fighters get so much love around here? I'm talking about fighters who were pretty much average. Guys like Jerry Quarry. Is it because he was white? Quarry was good but not great. He was a 6' 195 Lb. fighter with a 72' reach. He wasn't fast, he wasn't elusive, and he wasn't a big puncher. He had heart and he had a pretty good chin. He was also a bleeder. If you wanna love the man, fine, but don't rewrite history.

Another one is Tommy Morrison! Morrison sucked! He had a powerful left hook and he even had decent hand speed but he was far from great. Very far!

Look it's a boxing forum, people are going to have opinions. Quarry is a tragic figure in many ways because he was a top 5 contender for almost ten years in the toughest HW division ever. He was charismatic and was always game. He was not a GREAT fighter but was a very, VERY good fighter who would be very competitive with 95% of HWs from any era.

In short, if you want to see why Jerry Quarry is so revered, PLEASE check out FRAZIER-QUARRY I:deal and tell me if any modern boxer could deal with either of those two.

As to Morrison, he's more of a "would, coulda" guy because he was so gifted and he showed real flashes of brilliance.

I either case, check out Frazier-Quarry I:deal and all questions will be answered.:good:bbb

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, it went pretty much like I thought it would. Some agreed with me, most didn't... but WTF, it is an oldtimers forum!

Look, I'm not a person who thinks newer is better. I just think certain people are biased to the fighter from an earlier era. Take notice of it in the future if you don't think I'm right.

Who do I like? My favorite of all-time is Ezzard Charles... but I don't think he could beat giant athletic HWs like Lewis or even the Klitschko's. Sure, maybe he could pull an upset or two if he fought them ten times each but most nights I think he would lose to these guys. I'm not the one who's being biased around here.

When I here guys say that Wladimir or Vitali don't belong in the all-time top 100 (Heavyweights) I laugh and I think at how close minded people can be. If that's not being biased, than I don't know what is.

"I don't think he could beat giant athletic HWs like Lewis or even the Klitschko's."

This is only important if you are into head to head. I am not. Things are so different today with health care, nutrition, and most of all, performance enhancing drugs, that comparing fighters, or other athletes, from different eras is almost pointless, in my judgement, on any basis but their records against men of their own eras.

[PowerPuncher]

When Jack Dempsey spar with McAuliffe who was near 50 years himself in the early 20's(Think it was 21,) The film of that sparing sesson did not relly put Dempsey in good light.

Dempsey's punchings were mere slaps, hardly no foot work as he show vs Willard. Hell McAuliffe look better than the killer Dempsey.

In the end, I would RELLY question of how good of a fighter Dempsey was if the McAuliffe footage was the only thing left.

You mean this? [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Dempsey still exhibits similar footwork and head movement, ofcourse hes pulling his punches and slapping, its called sparring. And no McAuliffe doesnt look better :lol: We also have Dempsey on the bag, he clearly has good balance and punching technique

We also have footage of Greb shadow boxing and on the bag, you can see his style from that.

[Hookie]

All I see are exaggerations that don't have anything to do with reality. I'd say that most people here have the Klitschko brothers atleast in their top 50 heavyweights. Also it's difficult to rate a fighter until their career is well and truly over.

I have read plenty of posts stating that Quarry would dominate the HW division in almost any other era than the one he fought in. Haven't you? With that said, that is why I think he is overrated around here. I do think Quarry was very good though... how many times can I say that?

I've read plenty posts about Tommy Morrison as well... way too many people giving him a chance vs. all-time greats, why? Is it because he is the Grandnephew of John Wayne (Marion Robert Morrison)?

I love it here, don't get pissed because I have an opinion people. It's all in fun. I just get bored of the same guys getting all the credit.

[Hookie]

Look it's a boxing forum, people are going to have opinions. Quarry is a tragic figure in many ways because he was a top 5 contender for almost ten years in the toughest HW division ever. He was charismatic and was always game. He was not a GREAT fighter but was a very, VERY good fighter who would be very competitive with 95% of HWs from any era.

In short, if you want to see why Jerry Quarry is so revered, PLEASE check out FRAZIER-QUARRY I:deal and tell me if any modern boxer could deal with either of those two.

As to Morrison, he's more of a "would, coulda" guy because he was so gifted and he showed real flashes of brilliance.

I either case, check out Frazier-Quarry I:deal and all questions will be answered.:good:bbb

Yes, yes, I know all this. I've seen plenty of Quarry. My opinion of him is probably similar to yours believe it or not. I have come across a few that have actually picked him over guys like Marciano and Ezzard Charles though... I just don't see it.

[Unforgiven]

Quarry was okay. Beat some good contenders. Fought plenty of tough fights on his way up, took on some danger men.

Morrison was mostly a hype job. Fed on has-beens and set-ups. 44 year-old Foreman was his best win, and he ran a lot in that one.

[Son of Gaul]

Yes, yes, I know all this. I've seen plenty of Quarry. My opinion of him is probably similar to yours believe it or not. I have come across a few that have actually picked him over guys like Marciano and Ezzard Charles though... I just don't see it.

:good

[Hookie]

Wow, really woke you guys up

[bodhi]

You should get a therapist, you read things that nobody ever wrote on here, Hookie.

[Hookie]

Hmm, maybe I read them somewhere else? Well, tell me what you think of Quarry and Morrison. Also, tell me where each Klitschko rates all-time. I'm talking head to head fights brother, not historical importance. Who beats who, that's all.

I don't even give a crap about the Klitschko's, just being unbiased about who could beat them prime vs. prime.

Also... is Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson in your top 5 but for some reason Gene Tunney is off the list?

There are plenty of other issue as well, but I'll just go with that for now.

[PhillyPhan69]

Yes, yes, I know all this. I've seen plenty of Quarry. My opinion of him is probably similar to yours believe it or not. I have come across a few that have actually picked him over guys like Marciano and Ezzard Charles though... I just don't see it.

1st off Gaul pick's Quarry over Louis in a recent thread, so he might be one of the Quarry faithful you mention...no offense to Son of gaul intended!

2nd I have heard a few of the comments you refer to here on as well...BUT they are a minority, sometimes by people with a clear bias or agenda...other times just trying to stir the pot up! But you have generalized the extreme comments and described them as the norm...

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

By the way I like Quarry, and believe if he were prime today he would be a contender to win an ABC title and maybe even have a couple of nice defenses with it...But not dominate...not today or probably any era! But he would be ranked and a challange in most!

[Pachilles]

I feel that 'revisionists' often tend to elevate with bias the great fighters who skills are not as obvious or 'in your face' as say Jones Jr's or Tyson's. Fighters such as Hopkins and Holmes are two that come to mind. Just like anything in life, the masses(some uneducated in boxing) tend to have a sweeping opinion, and it could just be the flashyness theyre attracted to, or it could just be that obvious. But the educated study everything, which is great, but its a hobby to them. They're looking for a more obscure opinion, its the challenge to find one and they often force it. And the educated become arrogant and look down on "the casuals".

An example of this is the prime Holmes vs Tyson debates, in which Holmes does get favoured on here. A casual fan will have seen the odd fights from each and the fight they actually had and say, "yo dude, tyson would knock Holmes the fuck out lol" and then the revisionist will break his neck to pull up on technical aspects the casual may not be educated in and force favour for Holmes. Write a 17 chapter essay with itellectual insults and pompousness included. But what would actually happen? Whats the closest thing to knowing? The fact that regardless of reasons and excuses, Tyson did destroy him.

Also because the casuals lack the knowledge they do, the revisionists are completely free to twist and exaggerate.

[Hookie]

You should get a therapist, you read things that nobody ever wrote on here, Hookie.

Just noticed "Azumah Nelson" under your username... awesome. Never seen that guy get totally dominated despite fighting the best. The man fought until he was 137 years old and was only stopped once (very early in his career on short notice vs. the late great Sanchez (KO15) in a great fight). Gotta mention that about 4 of his 6 losses could have went either way. At least one of his 2 draws could have went his way as well.

All people seem to remember is that he got a draw vs. Fenech in a fight many felt should have went Fenech's way. Well, he crushed Fenech in the rematch, KO8.

[PowerPuncher]

I feel that 'revisionists' often tend to elevate with bias the great fighters who skills are not as obvious or 'in your face' as say Jones Jr's or Tyson's. Fighters such as Hopkins and Holmes are two that come to mind. .

Not sure the 2 best examples there Pachilles :lol:

[duranimal]

Also because the casuals lack the knowledge they do, the revisionists are completely free to twist and exaggerate.

You're a mutant combo of both:lol: bastard spawn of MAG1965 ye be:smoke

[bodhi]

Hmm, maybe I read them somewhere else? Well, tell me what you think of Quarry and Morrison. Also, tell me where each Klitschko rates all-time. I'm talking head to head fights brother, not historical importance. Who beats who, that's all.

I don't even give a crap about the Klitschko's, just being unbiased about who could beat them prime vs. prime.

Also... is Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson in your top 5 but for some reason Gene Tunney is off the list?

There are plenty of other issue as well, but I'll just go with that for now.

Do I need to justify myself to you? Nope, I don´t.

But I will do so nevertheless and show true greatness myself :D

Quarry was a very good contender and would be so in any era. Morrison was decent but nothing more. I don´t make h2h lists, too much speculation. I rate Wlad borderline Top20 and Vitali Top30.

I´ve got Johnson as my number one actually, but that´s because I have two lists. One for pre 1920s fighters and one for the time after. Dempsey is Top15 in the latter one. Tunney isn´t on the list, he did not do enough to earn a spot.

I go mostly by resume, achievements, longevity and dominance btw.

[Hookie]

I feel that 'revisionists' often tend to elevate with bias the great fighters who skills are not as obvious or 'in your face' as say Jones Jr's or Tyson's. Fighters such as Hopkins and Holmes are two that come to mind. Just like anything in life, the masses(some uneducated in boxing) tend to have a sweeping opinion, and it could just be the flashyness theyre attracted to, or it could just be that obvious. But the educated study everything, which is great, but its a hobby to them. They're looking for a more obscure opinion, its the challenge to find one and they often force it. And the educated become arrogant and look down on "the casuals".

An example of this is the prime Holmes vs Tyson debates, in which Holmes does get favoured on here. A casual fan will have seen the odd fights from each and the fight they actually had and say, "yo dude, tyson would knock Holmes the fuck out lol" and then the revisionist will break his neck to pull up on technical aspects the casual may not be educated in and force favour for Holmes. Write a 17 chapter essay with itellectual insults and pompousness included. But what would actually happen? Whats the closest thing to knowing? The fact that regardless of reasons and excuses, Tyson did destroy him.

Also because the casuals lack the knowledge they do, the revisionists are completely free to twist and exaggerate.


Good post. I actually think prime vs. prime that Holmes beats Tyson. I also think that the Holmes Holyfield fought was better than the Holmes Tyson fought but finding 10 people who agree with that is hard.

[Hookie]

1st off Gaul pick's Quarry over Louis in a recent thread, so he might be one of the Quarry faithful you mention...no offense to Son of gaul intended!

2nd I have heard a few of the comments you refer to here on as well...BUT they are a minority, sometimes by people with a clear bias or agenda...other times just trying to stir the pot up! But you have generalized the extreme comments and described them as the norm...

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

By the way I like Quarry, and believe if he were prime today he would be a contender to win an ABC title and maybe even have a couple of nice defenses with it...But not dominate...not today or probably any era! But he would be ranked and a challange in most!

Good post as well!

Well, they may be the minority... but there voices are very loud!

[Hookie]

Do I need to justify myself to you? Nope, I don´t.


Certainly not, but I would like to know.

[bodhi]

Certainly not, but I would like to know.

You answer to fast, I wasn´t finished with my post :bart

[Hookie]

Do I need to justify myself to you? Nope, I don´t.

But I will do so nevertheless and show true greatness myself :D

Quarry was a very good contender and would be so in any era. Morrison was decent but nothing more. I don´t make h2h lists, too much speculation. I rate Wlad borderline Top20 and Vitali Top30.

I´ve got Johnson as my number one actually, but that´s because I have two lists. One for pre 1920s fighters and one for the time after. Dempsey is Top15 in the latter one. Tunney isn´t on the list, he did not do enough to earn a spot.

I go mostly by resume, achievements, longevity and dominance btw.

I can respect your ranking, and your reasoning. Pre 20's, hell pre 30's I'd probably have Johnson #1.

[SLAKKA]

[quote=Hookie;6426467]Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Well Ray Arcel and Nate Liff didn't need film of Greb after seeing all his important fights (Natie being in his corner) It renders the no film argument a dimwits delight.

[burt bienstock]

To Hookie,and all the other exponents of the "latest is greatest"....I'm an oldtimer,and darn proud of that fact...There reasoning that"well after all I never saw Greb, Gans, Leonard, etc,so how good can they be"? Is flawed and silly...Well I never have seen Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill,and other acknowledged great men, but I know them by their deeds,and words...To bring up the films just found of Greb fooling around with his then trainer old Phil. Jack O'brien,then in his fifties in 1925, as an example of the immortal Greb's ability, makes me sick...Hookie. how the hell would YOU act for the new fangled camera in 1925,sparing with your old uncle who incidentally owned the Gym in NY in 1925? I go by the word of my father who as I have posted saw Greeb/Tunney,in 1922,and also saw the likes of a prime Sugar Ray Robinson in the 1940s, as I have...What he and I ,have seen with our eyes in boxing history, you can't even imagine...In the course of human evolution,100 years is like a grain of sand in a desert.. What makes one boxing era better in general then othereras is the amount of active fighters,how often they fought, and how good were the trainers of their time...From the 1920s to the 1960s there were probably 5 times the pro boxers,fighting very often, learning their hard craft, in much tougher and less pampered times, than today...Thus in general,a better crop of fighters...One final point...By your reasoning...If perchance if the human race survives a hundred years from now...A boxing fan from the future watched a film of Robinson vs Ralph Tiger Jones in 1955, he would deduce from that film "Hell this Ray Robinson legend wasn't that good"..That statement would be false and silly then, as you and todays"revistionists" are now...Keep punching though....

[Hookie]

[quote=Hookie;6426467]Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Well Ray Arcel and Nate Liff didn't need film of Greb after seeing all his important fights (Natie being in his corner) It renders the no film argument a dimwits delight.

Are Ray and Nate forum members? LOL You're missing the point.

Talking about Greb and others is great... sometimes I prefer to discuss people we all have actually seen though. Reading about what happened in a fight doesn't quite compare to actually seeing it.

[SLAKKA]

[quote=SLAKKA;6428853]

Are Ray and Nate forum members? LOL You're missing the point.

Im a forum member relating what these pros said, that's making a point!

Talking about Greb and others is great... sometimes I prefer to discuss people we all have actually seen though. Reading about what happened in a fight doesn't quite compare to actually seeing it.
Buba 2+2 = 4 this is a classic forum wherein the above takes place. If it rubs u the wrong way disappear!

[Hookie]

To Hookie,and all the other exponents of the "latest is greatest"....I'm an oldtimer,and darn proud of that fact...There reasoning that"well after all I never saw Greb, Gans, Leonard, etc,so how good can they be"? Is flawed and silly...Well I never have seen Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill,and other acknowledged great men, but I know them by their deeds,and words...To bring up the films just found of Greb fooling around with his then trainer old Phil. Jack O'brien,then in his fifties in 1925, as an example of the immortal Greb's ability, makes me sick...Hookie. how the hell would YOU act for the new fangled camera in 1925,sparing with your old uncle who incidentally owned the Gym in NY in 1925? I go by the word of my father who as I have posted saw Greeb/Tunney,in 1922,and also saw the likes of a prime Sugar Ray Robinson in the 1940s, as I have...What he and I ,have seen with our eyes in boxing history, you can't even imagine...In the course of human evolution,100 years is like a grain of sand in a desert.. What makes one boxing era better in general then othereras is the amount of active fighters,how often they fought, and how good were the trainers of their time...From the 1920s to the 1960s there were probably 5 times the pro boxers,fighting very often, learning their hard craft, in much tougher and less pampered times, than today...Thus in general,a better crop of fighters...One final point...By your reasoning...If perchance if the human race survives a hundred years from now...A boxing fan from the future watched a film of Robinson vs Ralph Tiger Jones in 1955, he would deduce from that film "Hell this Ray Robinson legend wasn't that good"..That statement would be false and silly then, as you and todays"revistionists" are now...Keep punching though....

If you think that I am a person who thinks that the "latest is greatest"... you are very wrong. I love all things boxing, past and present. I know as much as anybody and more than most.

The only division where any of this really matters is HW.

For example, a LHW is still a LHW. A prime Ezzard Charles would be a great LHW anytime in history.

Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Benny Leonard, Mickey Walker, Barney Ross, Harry Greb, Stanley Ketchel, Joe Gans, and so many other great P4P fighters would be great fighters in any era.

I'm just not convinced that some of the smaller Heavyweights from the past like Bob Fitzsimmons, Tommy Burns, even Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Ezzard Charles (who I think is top 5 all-time P4P) could beat some of the bigger HWs who were not only bigger but very talented like Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, either Klitschko, etc.

It has nothing to do with things being better today... trust me, I'm not one of those guys.

As for the smaller HWs? Some of them would make great CWs.

Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Bivins, Archie Moore, Pattterson, Machen, and Folley as CWs in todays game? Damn, that would be nice!

[PowerPuncher]

To Hookie,and all the other exponents of the "latest is greatest"....I'm an oldtimer,and darn proud of that fact...There reasoning that"well after all I never saw Greb, Gans, Leonard, etc,so how good can they be"? Is flawed and silly...Well I never have seen Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill,and other acknowledged great men, but I know them by their deeds,and words...To bring up the films just found of Greb fooling around with his then trainer old Phil. Jack O'brien,then in his fifties in 1925, as an example of the immortal Greb's ability, makes me sick...Hookie. how the hell would YOU act for the new fangled camera in 1925,sparing with your old uncle who incidentally owned the Gym in NY in 1925? I go by the word of my father who as I have posted saw Greeb/Tunney,in 1922,and also saw the likes of a prime Sugar Ray Robinson in the 1940s, as I have...What he and I ,have seen with our eyes in boxing history, you can't even imagine...In the course of human evolution,100 years is like a grain of sand in a desert.. What makes one boxing era better in general then othereras is the amount of active fighters,how often they fought, and how good were the trainers of their time...From the 1920s to the 1960s there were probably 5 times the pro boxers,fighting very often, learning their hard craft, in much tougher and less pampered times, than today...Thus in general,a better crop of fighters...One final point...By your reasoning...If perchance if the human race survives a hundred years from now...A boxing fan from the future watched a film of Robinson vs Ralph Tiger Jones in 1955, he would deduce from that film "Hell this Ray Robinson legend wasn't that good"..That statement would be false and silly then, as you and todays"revistionists" are now...Keep punching though....

Human memory is often the least reliable of evidences, in trials a witness will often be convinced that an innocent man is guilty, because the memory is not accurate. Then you have rose tinted glasses, imagining something was the best, because it was a happier time. Add to that viewing fights live unless ringside usually gives a horrible view and the atmosphere of a crowd and general crowd feeling will alter your sense of perception

All sports have generally progressed, its not the evolution of man but standards increase, its normal, nothing wrong with celebrating pioneers though

[PhillyPhan69]

Oh well...I always like being in the minority!!!! Everyone keep's telling Hookie to disappear or to go and expletive himself...But I hope he stays around!

His post history isn't bad or as agenda laced as some of the trolls who frequent our board, and while I don't necesarily share his sentiments he surely has the right to convey his thoughts! Hopefully the classic forum will impact him as much as it has myself and many others who over the course of time gain new insights and a better depth of understanding (Not implying that he does not have a suffecient knowledge already!!!!) from debating and listening to first hand accounts and debates to better understand certain positions we might hold!

Hookie good luck, it seems the numbers are against you, hopefully that does not drive you away as it has some in the past! I would only encourage you to devour as much information on the past (and present) to give you a better total overall understanding...irrespective of how high or low your current understanding is!

PEACE!

[PetethePrince]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

:lol:

This is the legendary Harry Greb? A bit underwhelming I must admit. Kind of like when I realized the tooth fairy and Santa Claus didn't exist.

Honestly, I think I could take him. :lol:

[Hookie]

Oh well...I always like being in the minority!!!! Everyone keep's telling Hookie to disappear or to go and expletive himself...But I hope he stays around!

His post history isn't bad or as agenda laced as some of the trolls who frequent our board, and while I don't necesarily share his sentiments he surely has the right to convey his thoughts! Hopefully the classic forum will impact him as much as it has myself and many others who over the course of time gain new insights and a better depth of understanding (Not implying that he does not have a suffecient knowledge already!!!!) from debating and listening to first hand accounts and debates to better understand certain positions we might hold!

Hookie good luck, it seems the numbers are against you, hopefully that does not drive you away as it has some in the past! I would only encourage you to devour as much information on the past (and present) to give you a better total overall understanding...irrespective of how high or low your current understanding is!

PEACE!

Nah, I'm not going anywhere. Like I've stated before, I've been doing the boxing forum thing for over 10 years. I still frequent other forums, I prefer talking about the legends of old on this forum though.

What's funny is that in the past I was looked at as being an old timer even though I was in my early/mid 20's at the time (I'll be 36 later this year and have been a boxing freak for damn near my entire life). I would always talk up the old guys in order to educate people about them. To be honest with you I didn't feel like I had to do that here. I felt like most of us here knew enough already. I've grown older and I feel that I'm discussing with my brain more than my heart now.

Sometimes you have to give a man his due. I used to hate on Lennox Lewis during his reign but now I have a ton of respect for the man. I feel like some of you guys could come around on some of the more modern fighters. That's really all I'm trying to say... be more open minded people!

Some fighters gained respect toward the end of their career or after they retired like Michael Spinks, Virgil Hill, and James Toney for example.

To say I have no respect for the old legends is insane though. I am a boxing freak. When most kids were studying for tests I was reading boxing books and Ring magazine.

[SLAKKA]

:lol:

This is the legendary Harry Greb? A bit underwhelming I must admit. Kind of like when I realized the tooth fairy and Santa Claus didn't exist.

Honestly, I think I could take him. :lol:

Only an idiot would consider this qualifying as an example of Harry Greb.

[warchild]

I can see how someone would struggle with this. I rate boxers on how they box. Newspaper articles and sixty year old accounts aren't very reliable evidence.

For example, I've heard many people tell me how talented boxers like Joe Calzaghe and Zab Judah are....but there's video footage of them, and I've seen it....it's like someone insisting that you're seeing something that you're not....kind of insulting really.

Unfortunately, people will tell you what they would have you believe....not neccessarily what they know to be the truth, or even what they believe to be the truth....and they'll present it as if it's common knowledge and become verbally abusive if you don't agree.

I believe that welterweight Robinson and Greb were probably great boxers, but I haven't seen them box, so I don't know.

[reznick]

To Hookie,and all the other exponents of the "latest is greatest"....I'm an oldtimer,and darn proud of that fact...There reasoning that"well after all I never saw Greb, Gans, Leonard, etc,so how good can they be"? Is flawed and silly...Well I never have seen Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill,and other acknowledged great men, but I know them by their deeds,and words...To bring up the films just found of Greb fooling around with his then trainer old Phil. Jack O'brien,then in his fifties in 1925, as an example of the immortal Greb's ability, makes me sick...Hookie. how the hell would YOU act for the new fangled camera in 1925,sparing with your old uncle who incidentally owned the Gym in NY in 1925? I go by the word of my father who as I have posted saw Greeb/Tunney,in 1922,and also saw the likes of a prime Sugar Ray Robinson in the 1940s, as I have...What he and I ,have seen with our eyes in boxing history, you can't even imagine...In the course of human evolution,100 years is like a grain of sand in a desert.. What makes one boxing era better in general then othereras is the amount of active fighters,how often they fought, and how good were the trainers of their time...From the 1920s to the 1960s there were probably 5 times the pro boxers,fighting very often, learning their hard craft, in much tougher and less pampered times, than today...Thus in general,a better crop of fighters...One final point...By your reasoning...If perchance if the human race survives a hundred years from now...A boxing fan from the future watched a film of Robinson vs Ralph Tiger Jones in 1955, he would deduce from that film "Hell this Ray Robinson legend wasn't that good"..That statement would be false and silly then, as you and todays"revistionists" are now...Keep punching though....


You are on of my favorite posters I've seen since I joined the site :)

You guys have to understand, that the Art of Boxing may have been around since the days of Ancient Rome.

Like Burt says, 100 years is NOTHING to the human evolution. Same with boxing. If boxing was around for 1000 years, then how significant can the last 100 be in terms of people learning the sport better. If anything the art is diminishing in many aspects, and teachers of the game are getting worse!

Many trainers in gyms do not even teach kids how to punch these days. They just teach them the different punches, but they don't teach the art of punching. Many great boxers used to have an arsenal of defensive and offensive moves to make. Many boxers of old would learn at least 3 different techniques in how to catch a jab. They would learn how to block and parry from all angles, for all different types of punches. These days we still call it the Sweet Science, but back then it really was a science.


So yes, I'm sorry if you don't enjoy the thought, but if John L Sullivan was here today, all you would have to do is throw him a pair of our modern gloves, and the heavyweight division as we know it, would be done for.

[Hookie]

I can see how someone would struggle with this. I rate boxers on how they box. Newspaper articles and sixty year old accounts aren't very reliable evidence.

For example, I've heard many people tell me how talented boxers like Joe Calzaghe and Zab Judah are....but there's video footage of them, and I've seen it....it's like someone insisting that you're seeing something that you're not....kind of insulting really.

Unfortunately, people will tell you what they would have you believe....not neccessarily what they know to be the truth, or even what they believe to be the truth....and they'll present it as if it's common knowledge and become verbally abusive if you don't agree.

I believe that welterweight Robinson and Greb were probably great boxers, but I haven't seen them box, so I don't know.


Solid post!!!

[PowerPuncher]

You are on of my favorite posters I've seen since I joined the site :)

You guys have to understand, that the Art of Boxing may have been around since the days of Ancient Rome.

Like Burt says, 100 years is NOTHING to the human evolution. Same with boxing. If boxing was around for 1000 years, then how significant can the last 100 be in terms of people learning the sport better. If anything the art is diminishing in many aspects, and teachers of the game are getting worse!

Many trainers in gyms do not even teach kids how to punch these days. They just teach them the different punches, but they don't teach the art of punching. Many great boxers used to have an arsenal of defensive and offensive moves to make. Many boxers of old would learn at least 3 different techniques in how to catch a jab. They would learn how to block and parry from all angles, for all different types of punches. These days we still call it the Sweet Science, but back then it really was a science.


So yes, I'm sorry if you don't enjoy the thought, but if John L Sullivan was here today, all you would have to do is throw him a pair of our modern gloves, and the heavyweight division as we know it, would be done for.

In the same boat as Harry Greb then arent they :yep John aLco Sullivan would be knocked out in a round by 100s of boxers today. Boxing hasnt been common for a 1000years, it was semi-pro through allot of the 1800s-early-1900s

[PowerPuncher]

I can see how someone would struggle with this. I rate boxers on how they box. Newspaper articles and sixty year old accounts aren't very reliable evidence.

For example, I've heard many people tell me how talented boxers like Joe Calzaghe and Zab Judah are....but there's video footage of them, and I've seen it....it's like someone insisting that you're seeing something that you're not....kind of insulting really.

Unfortunately, people will tell you what they would have you believe....not neccessarily what they know to be the truth, or even what they believe to be the truth....and they'll present it as if it's common knowledge and become verbally abusive if you don't agree.

I believe that welterweight Robinson and Greb were probably great boxers, but I haven't seen them box, so I don't know.

Theres Welter-Robinson footage and amateur feather Robinson footage kicking around

[Hookie]

Even a crude guy John Ruiz would box circles around John L. pretty easily.

[SLAKKA]

In the same boat as Harry Greb then arent they :yep John aLco Sullivan would be knocked out in a round by 100s of boxers today. Boxing hasnt been common for a 1000years, it was semi-pro through allot of the 1800s-early-1900s

Keep in mind you honestly present Harry Greb clowning around with his trainer as an example of his fighting abilities, you have about as much cred as any flim flam man I could ever think about.

[burt bienstock]

Power Puncher,you post that "human evidence is often the least reliable of evidences ".True at times, but being this is a classic boxing forum, comparing fighters to each other, what other logical means do we have left ? If the opinions of experts of yesterday are not to be believed,because of "faulty memories",what do we have left to evaluate,great fighters of the past, but not to heed what they have seen with their own eyes?.Close our minds to the PAST,and regurtitate the idea,that every sport imporoves. Yes people run faster,are heavier in general,etc....But boxing is different than other sports...There are weight divisions,eight to be precise, that negate ,today is better,because were bigger today's theories...If we could by magic,be transformed to the early 1900s, we would see boxers then ,walking like us ,throwing the same punches as we do today, trying to evade punches as now etc...I believe the difference is the amount of fights those oldtimers had,topnotchers averaging way over 100 bouts...This experiences made for better fighters.in a much more competitive time..Thus we must go to the record books, to judge the merits of great fighters of different eras,I believe... For example,a fighter such as Jack Britton, Welterweight champion, who had 344 fights, being kod only once,in a twenty year career, beating almost everyone of note,being rated way below a Ray Leonard [great as he was ], who had less than 50 fights, is something, I cannot understand...Does that mean that Ray Leonard perchance fought the same 344fights against Brittons opposition he would have [if he survived],would have done better? I think not...I say the past records of a fighters career are the best judge of their place. in boxing history...What say you ?

[warchild]

Theres Welter-Robinson footage and amateur feather Robinson footage kicking around

Really? As far as I know, as of a year or two ago, there wasn't any known video footage of welterweight Robinson in existence. If you could provide any links or any way to obtain such footage I, and many others, would be very interested in seeing it. And if you own any, I imagine that you could probably be a very wealthy person if you wished to put the originals on the market, wether at auction or on the private collector's scene.

[PowerPuncher]

Even a crude guy John Ruiz would box circles around John L. pretty easily.

Ruiz is a master compared to John L, seriously pre-Tua Ruiz was a much more exciting fighter, like Wlad was pre-Sanders

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

Even a crude guy John Ruiz would box circles around John L. pretty easily.

Based on what?

There is no film of Sullivan but contemporary acounts do not suggest that he was in any way crude by the standards of his era.

[janitor]

In the same boat as Harry Greb then arent they :yep John aLco Sullivan would be knocked out in a round by 100s of boxers today. Boxing hasnt been common for a 1000years, it was semi-pro through allot of the 1800s-early-1900s

There were a lot more active professional fighters around in Harry Grebs era than there are today.

[essexboy]

Look, I know this is the "Classic" forum but some of you guys need to quit talking up some of these old timers.

For example, I'm not saying that a guy like Harry Greb wasn't as great as many say he was... but with no film evidence I find it a little bit funny how some guys get so worked up over a guy they've never really seen.

Some people get so pissed in their debates, making guarantess... how in the hell can you make a guarantee when you're talking about fighters from different eras?

Keep it fun guys? Don't always pick the fighter from an earlier era just because you feel like you have to. Quit bringing up fighters you know very little about like Harry Wills, Sam Langford, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVea, Peter Jackson, etc.

If you know your shit, fine, talk about what you know... but it seems like some of you guys are just pulling names out of a hat sometimes.

Another thing... why do certain fighters get so much love around here? I'm talking about fighters who were pretty much average. Guys like Jerry Quarry. Is it because he was white? Quarry was good but not great. He was a 6' 195 Lb. fighter with a 72" reach. He wasn't fast, he wasn't elusive, and he wasn't a big puncher. He had heart and he had a pretty good chin. He was also a bleeder. If you wanna love the man, fine, but don't rewrite history.

Another one is Tommy Morrison! Morrison sucked! He had a powerful left hook and he even had decent hand speed but he was far from great. Very far!

Your post was not necessarily right but fair enough up until the 'is it because Jerry Quarry was white' comment, then I stopped reading.

[PowerPuncher]

Really? As far as I know, as of a year or two ago, there wasn't any known video footage of welterweight Robinson in existence. If you could provide any links or any way to obtain such footage I, and many others, would be very interested in seeing it. And if you own any, I imagine that you could probably be a very wealthy person if you wished to put the originals on the market, wether at auction or on the private collector's scene.

Its been posted on this forum, via youtube, I forget the fight, it wasnt a big 1 like a Galivan/Armstrong. Amateur footage of Robinson is also kicking around on youtube, when he was a FW.

My personal belief is Robinson will have been close to his prime in the final Lamotta fight, although he certainly would have more physical advantages at the WW limit. Obviously the comeback MW fights after his Mayweather style retirement saw him past his prime

[bodhi]

Even a crude guy John Ruiz would box circles around John L. pretty easily.

Put Ruiz in with Sullivan under Sullivan´s rules and he knocks Ruiz out in the first.

[PowerPuncher]

Power Puncher,you post that "human evidence is often the least reliable of evidences ".True at times, but being this is a classic boxing forum, comparing fighters to each other, what other logical means do we have left ? If the opinions of experts of yesterday are not to be believed,because of "faulty memories",what do we have left to evaluate,great fighters of the past, but not to heed what they have seen with their own eyes?.Close our minds to the PAST,and regurtitate the idea,that every sport imporoves. Yes people run faster,are heavier in general,etc....But boxing is different than other sports...There are weight divisions,eight to be precise, that negate ,today is better,because were bigger today's theories...If we could by magic,be transformed to the early 1900s, we would see boxers then ,walking like us ,throwing the same punches as we do today, trying to evade punches as now etc...I believe the difference is the amount of fights those oldtimers had,topnotchers averaging way over 100 bouts...This experiences made for better fighters.in a much more competitive time..Thus we must go to the record books, to judge the merits of great fighters of different eras,I believe... For example,a fighter such as Jack Britton, Welterweight champion, who had 344 fights, being kod only once,in a twenty year career, beating almost everyone of note,being rated way below a Ray Leonard [great as he was ], who had less than 50 fights, is something, I cannot understand...Does that mean that Ray Leonard perchance fought the same 344fights against Brittons opposition he would have [if he survived],would have done better? I think not...I say the past records of a fighters career are the best judge of their place. in boxing history...What say you ?

1 common misconception is fighters from yesteryear had more ring experience. Most top pros have over 300fights before they turn pro, sometimes for many years against other world class amateurs. Whitaker actually had more total fights than Chavez when they fought. Back in the day their were less amateur careers.

Fighting regularly definately improves skills but so does sparring, boxers today cant. I would agree that most fighters go down hill when they become innactive

Generally speaking over the last 30years I believe their to be better athletes in boxing, faster men, harder P4P hitters. Physically the sports moved on in most instances

Today you have more youngsters starting boxing from the age of 7, developing and learning their ring craft from an early age, thats quite an advantage over someone starting at 16-20

The main way I see the sportgoing backwards is the loss of boxing clubs and trainers since the 80s

Personally I like to believe what I can see, other peoples opinions are decent secondary sources but believe it o not most of the Froch-Dirrell crowd thought Froch won (he didnt), the crowd is a deceptive place to be albeit a fun 1.

Sounds like you've had some great boxing experiences and seen some history though my friend

[PowerPuncher]

There were a lot more active professional fighters around in Harry Grebs era than there are today.

I see little evidence of this and few were full time professionals, Walcott wasnt a full time boxer until the end of his career

[janitor]

I see little evidence of this and few were full time professionals, Walcott wasnt a full time boxer until the end of his career

The evidece is the number of operating boxing gyms and boxing shows in inner city areas.

The number of active professional boxers peaked around the 1920s.

[reznick]

In the same boat as Harry Greb then arent they :yep John aLco Sullivan would be knocked out in a round by 100s of boxers today. Boxing hasnt been common for a 1000years, it was semi-pro through allot of the 1800s-early-1900s


What do you mean by semi-pro?

Jack Broughton was the reigning champ during the 1730's. He was probably the most popular man in England for a very long time. To say his status as the greatest fighter in the world was not recognized is simply ridiculous.

There is a statue from ancient rome of a fighter who used gloves. In the statue, it was clear that he was worn down and had cauliflower ears.

The art of two men trading punches has been around probably longer than history is recorded.

I know with globalization it is easier to learn other peoples moves and techniques. But honestly, how vital do you think 100 years is, when talking about a sport that has been around for so long?

I bet you Tom Molineaux would Knock out every serious contender today, just to ruffle your feather a bit more.

These legendary boxers.....even the very great ones...they exist today, but they are simply just not boxing. Some of them are on the football field, some of them just never became athletes. They exist today the legends.....but they do not find their way to the boxing gym like they used to.


In the old days, if you had a good build, everyone would hound you to go the the gym to learn boxing. Not anymore....it's basketball or football.

[reznick]

1 common misconception is fighters from yesteryear had more ring experience. Most top pros have over 300fights before they turn pro, sometimes for many years against other world class amateurs. Whitaker actually had more total fights than Chavez when they fought. Back in the day their were less amateur careers.



Wouldn't one skilled chap going against another in the ring be considered the same thing as an amateur bout? Just because they weren;t recorded in official books, it doesn't mean old fighters didn;t have tons of amatuer experience. We just don't know of it.

Jack Johnson participated in Battle Royals, where he and other would be blindfolded in a ring, last man standing wins. He mighta gained some boxing intuition from these experiences that fighters of today never experienced.

[PowerPuncher]

What do you mean by semi-pro?

Jack Broughton was the reigning champ during the 1730's. He was probably the most popular man in England for a very long time. To say his status as the greatest fighter in the world was not recognized is simply ridiculous.

There is a statue from ancient rome of a fighter who used gloves. In the statue, it was clear that he was worn down and had cauliflower ears.

The art of two men trading punches has been around probably longer than history is recorded.

I know with globalization it is easier to learn other peoples moves and techniques. But honestly, how vital do you think 100 years is, when talking about a sport that has been around for so long?

I bet you Tom Molineaux would Knock out every serious contender today, just to ruffle your feather a bit more.

These legendary boxers.....even the very great ones...they exist today, but they are simply just not boxing. Some of them are on the football field, some of them just never became athletes. They exist today the legends.....but they do not find their way to the boxing gym like they used to.

In the old days, if you had a good build, everyone would hound you to go the the gym to learn boxing. Not anymore....it's basketball or football.

Sports progress. People have run for as long as they have fought, and runners today are performing at a far far higher standard than 50 or a 100 years ago in every single event, that much is provable fact. Boxing is harder to measure than running, but we can see boxers are faster and slicker.

Semi-Pro means boxing not being the full time job, most boxers had other jobs and boxing was their supplementary earning. Walcott was pretty much an amateur because he had to work full time as most did in those times. You simply cant become as profecient at a sport if you dont have the time to train at it and people back then didnt

We judge boxers based on wha we see of them on film, on film boxing has progressed throughtout the 1900s, its obvious to anyone with good eyesight. Fighters are faster, better defensively, generally more 1 shot power and fight at a higher pace if you compare the best with the best

[Unforgiven]

What do we mean by "revisionism" ?

Opinions always differ on fighters, at the time then are fighting and looking back in retrospect.

And writers, fans, and all manner of "experts" are fickle. We all change our minds a lot, or express opinions on fighters in different ways.
Most of the time I dont know where I really rate a fighter. :lol:

So, what is revisionism ?

[PowerPuncher]

Wouldn't one skilled chap going against another in the ring be considered the same thing as an amateur bout? Just because they weren;t recorded in official books, it doesn't mean old fighters didn;t have tons of amatuer experience. We just don't know of it.

Jack Johnson participated in Battle Royals, where he and other would be blindfolded in a ring, last man standing wins. He mighta gained some boxing intuition from these experiences that fighters of today never experienced.

A long career of amateur boxing is more of a modern, especially at the world level. Fighters have worked harder for world level amateur success since they saw the lucrative opportunities Patterson and Ali.

I'd imagine pre-Patterson boxers would like Julio Ceasar Chavez aim to turn pro at the first opportunity in order to earn money from their talent

I know all about battle royals and I'm not sure they are particularly conjusive to learning the sweet science. I bet the cunts at the time pissed themselves laughing at them though

Welcome to the forum by the way

[Seamus]

In the old days, if you had a good build, everyone would hound you to go the the gym to learn boxing. Not anymore....it's basketball or football.

When did they invent this basketball and this football?

A few years ago? Right about the time Yanks lost control of the heavyweight division.

I guess they did not exist in the days of Ali, Holmes, Tyson and Holyfield.

[reznick]

Sports progress. People have run for as long as they have fought, and runners today are performing at a far far higher standard than 50 or a 100 years ago in every single event, that much is provable fact. Boxing is harder to measure than running, but we can see boxers are faster and slicker.

Semi-Pro means boxing not being the full time job, most boxers had other jobs and boxing was their supplementary earning. Walcott was pretty much an amateur because he had to work full time as most did in those times. You simply cant become as profecient at a sport if you dont have the time to train at it and people back then didnt

We judge boxers based on what we see of them on film, on film boxing has progressed throughtout the 1900s, its obvious to anyone with good eyesight. Fighters are faster, better defensively, generally more 1 shot power and fight at a higher pace if you compare the best with the best

I dont know the history of sprinting so I won't pretend like I will.

However I do know that 200 years ago, running tracks weren;t made as efficiently today as back then. 500 years ago, I doubt the shoes runners were wearing were nearly as nice as today. Were they even wearing shoes when they competed in sprinting in Ancient Rome?

How complex is the technique of running? Can it be compared to a chess match? How drastically does one runner differ from another stylistically? You see, running, weight lifting, and other sports like that, are not dynamic sports that require the decision making that a sport like boxing requires. The art of running is something that can be improved on over time, because everyone in the sport is competing at who can do that one thing the best. In boxing one man might be the most powerful fighter, but a quick man might still beat him. Boxing is not a sport that can be measured like running can.


Also, what do you think a father is morel ikely to teach a child in any era of the human history? How to run, or how to fight? Everyone knows how to run. Not every 2 year old can say, I know how to fight and protect myself. They can all run.


Anyways your analogy comparing running to boxing for the sake of this argument is simply not logical.

[reznick]

When did they invent this basketball and this football?

A few years ago? Right about the time Yanks lost control of the heavyweight division.

I guess they did not exist in the days of Ali, Holmes, Tyson and Holyfield.

I don't get what your hinting at. Are you saying that my argument is incorrect because people like Ali Holmes and Tyson found their way to the ring?

Because if you think basketball and footballs popularity in the 60's-70's compares to the times of today, your mistaken.


Any I guess we'll just have to agree about the old timers Power Puncher :)

And thank you, this forum is great.

[reznick]

We judge boxers based on wha we see of them on film, on film boxing has progressed throughtout the 1900s, its obvious to anyone with good eyesight. Fighters are faster, better defensively, generally more 1 shot power and fight at a higher pace if you compare the best with the best


You cannot see many things clearly in old fight footage. Fighters on old footage would look much much more quicker and sharper in their movements on modern cameras.

Someone like Floyd Patterson would look like a lightning bolt on modern cameras.

[mattdonnellon]

The old Harry Greb chestnut rises again so I have one question; would the guy messing around with Jack O'Brien, beat Loughran, Tunney or Walker that we have on film,?Simple question.

[Unforgiven]

Some of the old-timers had hundreds, perhaps thousands of amateur fights, and unrecorded bouts.

The old "smokers" back in the day, the young fighters would fight every week, many bouts, tournaments, for a small prize they usually exchanged for a dollar or two. This was a massive subculture of the fight scene, and wasn't reported as part of the professional "prize-fight" or "boxing" circuit.
Not to mention when the amateur tourney scene really kicked of it was teeming with far more amateurs then it was in later years, and I'm going back to the 30s.

Then there's the boxing booth circuit in Britain. Hundreds of unrecorded bouts happened in the booths, often several rivalries between good locals and well-known booth fighters, quality boxing I've heard from people who were there. Many of the best Brits started out in the booths and finished up in them too.

It's a fact that the old-timers fought far more fights and rounds than the newer generations.
And that's probably a good thing for the moderns from the standpoint of avoiding brain damage !

It's a fact that the peak of boxing in Western Europe and America was back in the pre-WW2 days and maybe a decade after, 50s and the latest. Because in those days there was boxing clubs, venues everywhere, amateur and pro.
London used to have boxing halls all over the place.
Boxing was taught to every schoolboy and every military recruit. It was way more widespread. And before the days of welfare-state, and when wages were low (pre-50s) the working class young men were drawn to boxing to make a few coins, even if they were just small unrecorded bouts. There were far more boxers. There may have been surges in participation intermittently since then, but not on a large enough scale to turn the general trend and decline in boxing.
And the introduction of TV in the 50s didn't help the small hall and club pro scene either, for well-documented reasons.

These are just facts.
Historical facts. The boxing game has been in decline since the great depression and the second world war ended.

[bodhi]

Some of the old-timers had hundreds, perhaps thousands of amateur fights, and unrecorded bouts.

The old "smokers" back in the day, the young fighters would fight every week, many bouts, tournaments, for a small prize they usually exchanged for a dollar or two. This was a massive subculture of the fight scene, and wasn't reported as part of the professional "prize-fight" or "boxing" circuit.
Not to mention when the amateur tourney scene really kicked of it was teeming with far more amateurs then it was in later years, and I'm going back to the 30s.

Then there's the boxing booth circuit in Britain. Hundreds of unrecorded bouts happened in the booths, often several rivalries between good locals and well-known booth fighters, quality boxing I've heard from people who were there. Many of the best Brits started out in the booths and finished up in them too.

It's a fact that the old-timers fought far more fights and rounds than the newer generations.
And that's probably a good thing for the moderns from the standpoint of avoiding brain damage !

It's a fact that the peak of boxing in Western Europe and America was back in the pre-WW2 days and maybe a decade after, 50s and the latest. Because in those days there was boxing clubs, venues everywhere, amateur and pro.
London used to have boxing halls all over the place.
Boxing was taught to every schoolboy and every military recruit. It was way more widespread. And before the days of welfare-state, and when wages were low (pre-50s) the working class young men were drawn to boxing to make a few coins, even if they were just small unrecorded bouts. There were far more boxers. There may have been surges in participation intermittently since then, but not on a large enough scale to turn the general trend and decline in boxing.
And the introduction of TV in the 50s didn't help the small hall and club pro scene either, for well-documented reasons.

These are just facts.
Historical facts. The boxing game has been in decline since the great depression and the second world war ended.

Thank you. :good

[TBooze]

Everything you look back on is revised, without revision there would be no Internet...

[mattdonnellon]

One small point about the decline in American and British boxing, which of course is correct, but there is a big World out there.

[anarci]

In terms of what? There are so many aspects of boxing to pinpoint 1 era, boxing is evolutionary rather than revoluntary, and there are so many styles and individuals that make

For instance generally the 40s/murderers row era-Robinson/Pep era saw innovations and obvious technical improvements over the likes of Gans/Johnson/Langford era or the Tunney/Dempsey/Walker/Loughran era.

In many ways the 40s was the golden era and the likes of Toney/Hopkins study their techniques, however that doesnt mean Toney/Hops are inferior versions of these men as some say. In other ways these men have been surpassed, ie Robinson was the greatest combination thrower of all time in the 40s, now hes been surpassed

Having said all that since the 80s and early 90s skills overall have seriously diminshed. There were allot of slick fighters in those days
Excellent post:good:good Agreed with everything except for the Robinson Comment His combination punching is elite and extraordinary in any era.

[burt bienstock]

mattdonnellon, TOUCHE'....or Jack Dillon,Gunboat Smith. Battling Levinsky,Billy Miske,Underated Tommy Gibbons, Bill Brennan etc...To boot...
I truly believe that some of todays revisionists,would take this approach today...If Fighter Joe Smith in 1920 or so knocked out 50 fighters in a row,top contenders,they would most likely contend that the ko victims ,lost by heart attacks..How could those fighters ko 50 top opponents ? they were so primitive in the "old" days...I, cannot understand how todays fighters with maybe 40-50 fights,can be expected to be as good,as the 1940s, when top notchers had 100 to 150 bouts,in a talent richer era ? Boggles my mind...

[anarci]

I've watched 3 fights in the last 48 hours: Ross - McLarnin, Harold Johnson - Ezzard Charles, and Dirrell - Abraham. Admittedly it's a small sampling, but to believe that todays fighter are somehow superior to those of the past is delusional. Abraham was exposed for the limited fighter that he is. Dirrell has some tremendous physical tools but obviously is a little shy towards the pressure and for the second fight in a row flopped around when under pressure. Physically gifted, technically lacking. I attribute this to a lack of experience and a lack of high quality trainers.
I personally refrain from head to head analysis of Harry Greb, so I'll grant that point, but his record is unmistakeably awesome. Ok But you are comparing a good fighter from today against ATGs from the past, so of course you are gonna see things that way.

[duranimal]

Some of the old-timers had hundreds, perhaps thousands of amateur fights, and unrecorded bouts.

The old "smokers" back in the day, the young fighters would fight every week, many bouts, tournaments, for a small prize they usually exchanged for a dollar or two. This was a massive subculture of the fight scene, and wasn't reported as part of the professional "prize-fight" or "boxing" circuit.
Not to mention when the amateur tourney scene really kicked of it was teeming with far more amateurs then it was in later years, and I'm going back to the 30s.

Then there's the boxing booth circuit in Britain. Hundreds of unrecorded bouts happened in the booths, often several rivalries between good locals and well-known booth fighters, quality boxing I've heard from people who were there. Many of the best Brits started out in the booths and finished up in them too.

It's a fact that the old-timers fought far more fights and rounds than the newer generations.
And that's probably a good thing for the moderns from the standpoint of avoiding brain damage !

It's a fact that the peak of boxing in Western Europe and America was back in the pre-WW2 days and maybe a decade after, 50s and the latest. Because in those days there was boxing clubs, venues everywhere, amateur and pro.
London used to have boxing halls all over the place.
Boxing was taught to every schoolboy and every military recruit. It was way more widespread. And before the days of welfare-state, and when wages were low (pre-50s) the working class young men were drawn to boxing to make a few coins, even if they were just small unrecorded bouts. There were far more boxers. There may have been surges in participation intermittently since then, but not on a large enough scale to turn the general trend and decline in boxing.
And the introduction of TV in the 50s didn't help the small hall and club pro scene either, for well-documented reasons.

These are just facts.
Historical facts. The boxing game has been in decline since the great depression and the second world war ended.

Good read mate:good Yeh my late father & grandfather used to earn a few shillings in the booths pre/post-war up in geordie land at the fun-fair, no work about & when there was it was down the pit's, they'd go to all the county fair's & take on allcomers, some of his tales were hilarious at what went on in them.

Sort of thing like a punter would pay say 5/10 shillings for a incredible prize of £25 nicker if he could last 3 minutes without getting knocked down, good biz he said, one in the guts of the local toughie who was full of ale & who'd spew it all over yer he said:lol: That was at the lower end of coarse, but there were circuits that used to travel around giving 3 round expo's in the booths. It was the norm then & helped put bread & butter on the table when times were hard, which they were back then.

I was 5 years of age in 1961 when attending my 1st ever P.E. class we were all handed mitts then all lined up, put into guard then jab/guard/parry, remember it like yesterday, all my teachers were ex-military so it was the absolute norm to have some boxing coaching at P.E. my mum was over the moon that we did it.

What a fucked up lesbian PC ruled world we live in today what we these creep cunts ruling us with their health & safty bullshit laws. fuckin wankers, i hate the cunts, remember when Amir Khan got the Olympic medal, those labour/socialist shitbags Tony Blair & crew were up there in a flash for the photo shoot promising this & that & how there's bring boxing back into schools ect ect, rode outer town & ai'nt been seen since:bbb

[reznick]

Great post unforgiven


I bet Albert Westphal, the guy that got knocked out by Sonny Liston would run over todays heavyweight division, minus the Klit bros.

[PowerPuncher]

I dont know the history of sprinting so I won't pretend like I will.

However I do know that 200 years ago, running tracks weren;t made as efficiently today as back then. 500 years ago, I doubt the shoes runners were wearing were nearly as nice as today. Were they even wearing shoes when they competed in sprinting in Ancient Rome?

How complex is the technique of running? Can it be compared to a chess match? How drastically does one runner differ from another stylistically? You see, running, weight lifting, and other sports like that, are not dynamic sports that require the decision making that a sport like boxing requires. The art of running is something that can be improved on over time, because everyone in the sport is competing at who can do that one thing the best. In boxing one man might be the most powerful fighter, but a quick man might still beat him. Boxing is not a sport that can be measured like running can.

Also, what do you think a father is morel ikely to teach a child in any era of the human history? How to run, or how to fight? Everyone knows how to run. Not every 2 year old can say, I know how to fight and protect myself. They can all run.

Anyways your analogy comparing running to boxing for the sake of this argument is simply not logical.

The improvement in tracks argument can be thrown out the window when you see todays cross country runners, outstrip yesterdays track times. Some track runners run bare feet, so you can ignore the shoe argument. Yes running does have plenty of technique/form and its damn hard to maintain it while tiring

Its not just running, look at weight lifting, records have improved in all measurable sports

If boxing was measurable you'd clearly see improvement. Lets focus on visual measurements. How about we look at the fastest fighters of all time, the all came in the last 30years pretty much, minus Ali who was a genetic freak, thats a measurable improvement

[PowerPuncher]

You cannot see many things clearly in old fight footage. Fighters on old footage would look much much more quicker and sharper in their movements on modern cameras.

Someone like Floyd Patterson would look like a lightning bolt on modern cameras.

You're wrong, old timers would look slower on modern cameras because old timers footage was sped up. So they are slower than you think

[OLD FOGEY]

You're wrong, old timers would look slower on modern cameras because old timers footage was sped up. So they are slower than you think

No necessarily. What speed the film should be run at is often guesswork, so nothing is as hard to judge as the quickness of old-time fighters, one way or the other.

[PowerPuncher]

No necessarily. What speed the film should be run at is often guesswork, so nothing is as hard to judge as the quickness of old-time fighters, one way or the other.

Refs moving at 100mph is a good indication the footage is sped up :lol:

[OLD FOGEY]

Refs moving at 100mph is a good indication the footage is sped up :lol:

I haven't noticed the refs moving at 100mph in the Robinson or Louis eras. Perhaps on some films earlier.


Even with speeded up footage, some refs, such as Jack Welch, would have a tough time moving fast.


Bottom line is that comparing quickness across eras is difficult because of the different projection speeds, with old films often project slower than they should have been.

[Seamus]

I don't get what your hinting at. Are you saying that my argument is incorrect because people like Ali Holmes and Tyson found their way to the ring?

Because if you think basketball and footballs popularity in the 60's-70's compares to the times of today, your mistaken.


Apparently the boxing world for you ends with the US. Concurrent to the US decline in boxing participation, the Orient and Former USSR states have grown greatly and represent a much larger potential talent pool.

In regards to football and basket, let's turn the argument on it's head. Did the choice of sports for Holmes, Ali, Tyson and Holyfield deprive baseketball or football of a potential great player? I think not. Based on anecdotal evidence all four were pretty lousy athletes when it came to America's traditional sports.

[OLD FOGEY]

Apparently the boxing world for you ends with the US. Concurrent to the US decline in boxing participation, the Orient and Former USSR states have grown greatly and represent a much larger potential talent pool.

In regards to football and basket, let's turn the argument on it's head. Did the choice or sports for Holmes, Ali, Tyson and Holyfield deprive baseketball or football of a potential great player? I think not. Based on anecdotal evidence all four were pretty lousy athletes when it came to America's traditional sports.

You make good points, but:

1. East Asia might well have more than made up for the decline of the United States and other first world countries in the lighter weights, but what impact did these countries ever have from middleweight on up?

2. A bigger impact than other sports might well be a greater prosperity and level of education. A far greater percentage of the population goes to college today. How many are likely to pursue boxing as a career? There are so many other solid career options these days.

3. You pick athletes who might not have had other athletic options, but there were some who did. Sugar Ray Robinson was an outstanding baseball prospect at shortstop, but there was no real opportunity of his playing in the big leagues. Marciano got a tryout with the Cubs and failed, but with so many more pro teams today he might have stuck with one. Would Jeffries be a boxer today or a football player?

4. The impact of sports like basketball and football is more that they siphon off promising athletes in high school and allow them to achieve a college education. Why would a fellow who is a CPA try his hand at boxing? The boxers of generations ago probably did not even have high school educations more often than not.

[Dempsey1238]

Football has been around since the 1890's in the USA.

It didnt have a impact than, and I dont think it has the same impact today imo.

[OLD FOGEY]

Football has been around since the 1890's in the USA.

It didnt have a impact than, and I dont think it has the same impact today imo.


I don't know what you are saying, but pro football was basically a back-burner sport until the 1950's. Now it is by far the most popular sport in the country. College football was always popular among the college educated, but they were a tiny percentage of the population until after WWII.

The impact of gridiron football today is profound compared to what it was in the first half of the century, fed as it is by high school and college as well as pro teams.

[Dempsey1238]

I don't know what you are saying, but pro football was basically a back-burner sport until the 1950's. Now it is by far the most popular sport in the country. College football was always popular among the college educated, but they were a tiny percentage of the population until after WWII.

The impact of gridiron football today is profound compared to what it was in the first half of the century, fed as it is by high school and college as well as pro teams.


Sure about that??

Red Grange, Jim Brown, thsos guys are legends of the sport.

The sport was always big. I didnt think it had a impact on boxing than, nor now.

[OLD FOGEY]

Sure about that??

Red Grange, Jim Brown, thsos guys are legends of the sport.

The sport was always big. I didnt think it had a impact on boxing than, nor now.


Yes, as I matter of fact I am certain.

Jim Brown was from the fifties and sixties when the impact of pro football really began to hit and the shift began which saw pro football replace boxing as a top sport. Brown was considered a promising boxing prospect. but a college education and pro football career was probably far more appealing.

Red Grange was a graduate of the University of Illinois. If he hadn't pursued football, what do you think the chances were of him becoming a boxer rather than just going into a profession?

Red Grange became nationally famous playing in college, as did someone like Johnny Mack Brown. Brown bypassed the pros for the more lucrative career of a movie star. By the way, Grange also acted, and his serial, THE GALLOPING GHOST, is available for purchase for $5.95 from Alpha Video. I have to buy that some time.

[natonic]

Ok But you are comparing a good fighter from today against ATGs from the past, so of course you are gonna see things that way.

I've seen Abraham in some (not all) P4P top tens. I think that fight is fairly representative of this era. I know PowerPuncher would have us believe Barney Ross doesn't belong in the same ring with Mayweather, but there's enough film on Ross. I believe what my eyes see.
Mayweather, Pac, JMM, Donaire and a few others are certainly tremendous fighters. But there isn't the depth as in the past.

[reznick]

You're wrong, old timers would look slower on modern cameras because old timers footage was sped up. So they are slower than you think


yea the footage looks sped up because theres missing frames.

The old fight films do not show the subtle hand movements, the feints, the footwork, hell you can barely make out the jabs in the really old films.

People underestimate the ability to see the depth in a boxers muscles with modern day footage. These days you can see for yourself where a boxer is placing his weight, and how he is balanced, whereas you cannot with older footage.


If Tyson went back in time to beginning of the 1900's and fought someone, the film wouldn;t show him being super fast, super agile, bouncing from side to side. No it would show a much different, vulnerable looking Tyson. He would actually look SLOW, in comparison to the other fighters when you see how much of the ring they cover when theyre moving around.


When Jack Johnson jumps from the edge of the ring, to near the center of the ring, in one hop, it almost looks like he's a puppet. But with modern cameras he would look glamorous gliding around the ring.


If I become rich when im older, I'm going to buy an expensive camera from the 1920's and film modern boxing matches just to prove to ya! :)

[Seamus]

You make good points, but:

1. East Asia might well have more than made up for the decline of the United States and other first world countries in the lighter weights, but what impact did these countries ever have from middleweight on up?


You so blithely disregard the legacy of Shinji Takehara!

Seriously, though, the Eastern Europeans have made a huge impact on the middleweight up...

[PetethePrince]

What do we mean by "revisionism" ?

Opinions always differ on fighters, at the time then are fighting and looking back in retrospect.

And writers, fans, and all manner of "experts" are fickle. We all change our minds a lot, or express opinions on fighters in different ways.
Most of the time I dont know where I really rate a fighter. :lol:

So, what is revisionism ?

Like the treatment of the Ali vs Liston fight nowadays. Liston past it, washed up, an alcoholic, 3 rounds in 4 years, etc. I've seen you use the world quite often, actually for that very example I mentioned.

[mr. magoo]

For as long as the world of sports continues to march on, there will always be some who are partial to the current stars, while others who prefer to support their predecessors... Its the way of things and its human nature.. No need to make any more of it than that...

[Doc Dynamo]

Football has been around since the 1890's in the USA.

It didnt have a impact than, and I dont think it has the same impact today imo.

The real question is when did NFL players begin to earn more than HW boxers. I think the answer is in the mid-80s.

I remember reading about todays great athletic HWs just before I saw the Ruiz-Toney fight. Something didn't add up.

I think the big, fast HWs that should be out there are instead playing LB, DE and TE in the NFL.

[Seamus]

The real question is when did NFL players begin to earn more than HW boxers. I think the answer is in the mid-80s.

I remember reading about todays great athletic HWs just before I saw the Ruiz-Toney fight. Something didn't add up.

I think the big, fast HWs that should be out there are instead playing LB, DE and TE in the NFL.



The presumes that only good heavyweights come from the US. And also that Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield would have gone into the NFL were they around today, despite none of them had demonstrated any necessary talent for the sport. Though I guess a prime Ray Lewis would beat any of them anyway.

[janitor]

The presumes that only good heavyweights come from the US. And also that Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield would have gone into the NFL were they around today, despite none of them had demonstrated any necessary talent for the sport. Though I guess a prime Ray Lewis would beat any of them anyway.

Historicaly, boxing talent has tended to come from a small number of countries with boxing traditions. That tended to mean Britain and Ireland in the 19th century and America in the 20th.

You will of course always get the odd off the wall example such as Joe Walcott coming from Barbados but it usualy depnded upon them accesing or passing through a major boxing centre.

[PowerPuncher]

I've seen Abraham in some (not all) P4P top tens. I think that fight is fairly representative of this era. I know PowerPuncher would have us believe Barney Ross doesn't belong in the same ring with Mayweather, but there's enough film on Ross. I believe what my eyes see.
Mayweather, Pac, JMM, Donaire and a few others are certainly tremendous fighters. But there isn't the depth as in the past.

That was probably some German guy like Bodhi's top10 :lol: Anyway its not like there arent greats who didnt have stylistic nightmares with movers, ie Dick Tiger. Abraham looked pretty bad ass in his prior 35fights or whatever it was

[Unforgiven]

Like the treatment of the Ali vs Liston fight nowadays. Liston past it, washed up, an alcoholic, 3 rounds in 4 years, etc. I've seen you use the world quite often, actually for that very example I mentioned.

Yeah, I would definitely say that's a revision of the general opinion of the fight going in.
I use the word in that way, but I see people talking about all sorts of things on this thread.

The point is there are lots of different valid opinions, and they will differ.
It's definitely worth finding out various contemporary opinions of historical events, not just the general consensus. And as long as we're all being honest, there's no problem.

I predict there's going to be some serious adjustments of opinion from some members of this board in the next 5 - 10 years concerning Wladimir Klitschko. Some of the members who I suspect rate Lennox Lewis so highly are currently still knocking Klitschko. Some of them will stick to that, no doubt, but others will have to concede that Lewis and Klitschko are in the same bracket.
Personally, I dont think I'll ever rate Lewis or Klitschko highly, but I'm probably the least consistent ranker of fighters ever. :D

[PowerPuncher]

yea the footage looks sped up because theres missing frames.

The old fight films do not show the subtle hand movements, the feints, the footwork, hell you can barely make out the jabs in the really old films.

People underestimate the ability to see the depth in a boxers muscles with modern day footage. These days you can see for yourself where a boxer is placing his weight, and how he is balanced, whereas you cannot with older footage.

If Tyson went back in time to beginning of the 1900's and fought someone, the film wouldn;t show him being super fast, super agile, bouncing from side to side. No it would show a much different, vulnerable looking Tyson. He would actually look SLOW, in comparison to the other fighters when you see how much of the ring they cover when theyre moving around.

When Jack Johnson jumps from the edge of the ring, to near the center of the ring, in one hop, it almost looks like he's a puppet. But with modern cameras he would look glamorous gliding around the ring.

If I become rich when im older, I'm going to buy an expensive camera from the 1920's and film modern boxing matches just to prove to ya! :)

So basically you're agreeing old timers look poor on film, I agree with you. But your wrong its not because of the quality of the film, its because they werent as good.

The film doesnt look like its sped up, its actully sped up, to compensate for the missing frames. Put a Tyson DVD in and play it at 1.5 or times
speed and tell me how fast he looks. Then in turn slow the old timers footage down by the same margin

The reason you cant see a jab in the film, isnt because the films bad, itsbecause they didnt jab. The reason the balance isnt as good is because of generally poor footwork

The bad film doesnt take away from the details but it shows they indulged in boxing no nos like moving back in a straght line, carrying the hands low, no lateral movement, no jab, etc etc

[Unforgiven]

One small point about the decline in American and British boxing, which of course is correct, but there is a big World out there.

That's true, and we should be thankful for that.
The latest surge has been from Russia, Germany, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland and all that region.
I suspect that Mexican boxing has peaked but I dont know.
I'm confident boxing isn't dying, worldwide, but I dont doubt that it has shrunk in terms of small grassroots level that spawns large numbers of hungry fighters. I mean, even the Russians, Ukrainians and Poles seem to flock to Germany to get fights.
The monopoly of big promoters and the expectation of getting TV money seems to be common to almost everywhere, meaning less fights.

In a way this is PROGRESS though. Having 300 hundred fights for low pay and ending up with permanent injury may have meant more good hungry well-seasond skilfull fighters and more fights for the fans, but it reflected the social problems and hardships of the times.
Unemployment is high in Eastern Europe, Mexico and Phillipines are largely "third world" in the urban centres.

[OLD FOGEY]

Really? As far as I know, as of a year or two ago, there wasn't any known video footage of welterweight Robinson in existence. If you could provide any links or any way to obtain such footage I, and many others, would be very interested in seeing it. And if you own any, I imagine that you could probably be a very wealthy person if you wished to put the originals on the market, wether at auction or on the private collector's scene.

"There wasn't any known video footage of welterweight Robinson"

Robinson defending his welterweight title against Charley Fusari is on film and the film is currently available on youtube.

By the way, this film was available over the years and I have seen excerpts from it many times going back perhaps fifty years.

*Just as an aside, saying we can't evaluate Robinson as a welter when we have skads of film of him fighting LaMotta and others in 1951 seems just picky and not at all convincing.

[mr. magoo]

The presumes that only good heavyweights come from the US. And also that Ali, Holmes, Tyson, Bowe and Holyfield would have gone into the NFL were they around today, despite none of them had demonstrated any necessary talent for the sport. Though I guess a prime Ray Lewis would beat any of them anyway.


I don't think Holmes, Ali or Tyson would have been football players... But interestingly enough, both Ken Norton and George Foreman played football when they were younger. Norton was a player in college for a little while, and actually had a son Ken Norton Junior who was very successful in the NFL.. I don't know what Foreman's background in football was, but he might have played as a child and has often listed Jim Brown as one of his heroes..

[Seamus]

I don't think Holmes, Ali or Tyson would have been football players... But interestingly enough, both Ken Norton and George Foreman played football when they were younger. Norton was a player in college for a little while, and actually had a son Ken Norton Junior who was very successful in the NFL.. I don't know what Foreman's background in football was, but he might have played as a child and has often listed Jim Brown as one of his heroes..

Does anyone think there might have been someone potentially better in the NFL or NBA at the times of Ali, Holmes and Tyson?

[Titan1]

Witherspoon and Dokes also had some sucess on the gridiron, I think.

[Unforgiven]

Does anyone think there might have been someone potentially better in the NFL or NBA at the times of Ali, Holmes and Tyson?

Potentially, yes, of course.
Likewise there might have been someone potentially better working in a car factory.
There may have been boxers at that time who were potentially better too !

[Seamus]

Witherspoon and Dokes also had some sucess on the gridiron, I think.

Having "some success" and becoming a professional is a huge difference.

My point to this whole line of questioning is that the reason US heavyweight talent has declined is the same that talent in the other divisions has done the same... gyms closing down, programs losing funding... However, this does not mean the level of talent worldwide has decreased. Regions previously not allowed to compete in the pro ranks, or where the sport took little footing are now putting out championship level talents. This is much analogous to the succession ethnic groups which arrived in waves in the history of boxing in the US... except this is on a global scale.

[OLD FOGEY]

Potentially, yes, of course.
Likewise there might have been someone potentially better working in a car factory.
There may have been boxers at that time who were potentially better too !

It isn't just or perhaps mainly going into other sports, though. There were a huge number of Jewish-American fighters, including top heavyweights, between the wars. How many is there now? It isn't that they are playing football. They have simply gotten educations and moved into the professions.

[Unforgiven]

It isn't just or perhaps mainly going into other sports, though. There were a huge number of Jewish-American fighters, including top heavyweights, between the wars. How many is there now? It isn't that they are playing football. They have simply gotten educations and moved into the professions.

I agree.
There are many roads of opportunity for people nowadays.

Even a 9-to-5 unskilled job offers a much better standard of living these days than it did decades ago.
And that's such thing as welfare.

I cant discount that opportunities to play other sports may have an impact in some demographics. But it's not the reason.

[teeto]

That's fine; I couldn't understand how people got so worked up about Mijares, but I didn't object to people taking about him.



I can't think of a single poster on here who actualy does that.



Away and fuck off.

:lol:

[sitiyzal]

yea the footage looks sped up because theres missing frames.

The old fight films do not show the subtle hand movements, the feints, the footwork, hell you can barely make out the jabs in the really old films.

People underestimate the ability to see the depth in a boxers muscles with modern day footage. These days you can see for yourself where a boxer is placing his weight, and how he is balanced, whereas you cannot with older footage.


If Tyson went back in time to beginning of the 1900's and fought someone, the film wouldn;t show him being super fast, super agile, bouncing from side to side. No it would show a much different, vulnerable looking Tyson. He would actually look SLOW, in comparison to the other fighters when you see how much of the ring they cover when theyre moving around.


When Jack Johnson jumps from the edge of the ring, to near the center of the ring, in one hop, it almost looks like he's a puppet. But with modern cameras he would look glamorous gliding around the ring.


If I become rich when im older, I'm going to buy an expensive camera from the 1920's and film modern boxing matches just to prove to ya! :)

I double dare you to post this in the General forum.

[reznick]

I double dare you to post this in the General forum.

lol I just came to this forum, im trying to stay alive! Im too young to die

[reznick]

S
The reason you cant see a jab in the film, isnt because the films bad, itsbecause they didnt jab. The reason the balance isnt as good is because of generally poor footwork



Exhibit A:

3:55
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Can you count how many jabs johnson throws right there?

And yes johnsons right hand is down, but look what he does with it right when flynn steps into distance with him. He raises it to guard his chin, and then he uses it to clinch. Look how many jabs he can throw in a short time, passed his prime.


And yes, im saying that if old time fighter fought with modern day cameras in a modern day arena, they would look much better. People would have a lot more respect for them, once they saw the high definition film of Louis knocking someone out with a punch in close up slow mo. Jack Johnson would look nimble and quick, unlike what people have seen before. And if knockouts is what modern day fans please, knockouts is what he would give them.

[reznick]

They didnt jab?

Jack Dempsey would laugh at that statement. The jab has just gotten worse over time. Only a handful of great fighters utilize it well. But hey, maybe you think Dempsey didn't know how to jab either, lol.

Its one of the reasons I highly respect the Klit bros.

[MAG1965]

Boxing gradually improved in terms of skills and athletic performance, thats something this forum is in denial about. There has been a drop off since the 80s as there are less boxing clubs and less youngsters get to watch boxing

It doesnt seem to matter if an old timer feasted on past/pre prime opponents but if a modern fighter beats a 28yo ATG, it doesnt count as a win

Then theres the rule 'if a fighter I like loses hes definately past prime or 'insert other excuse''

And lets not forget the last rule of the classic forum, quantity is far more important than qualityGood post. I agree.

[Unforgiven]

They didnt jab?

Jack Dempsey would laugh at that statement. The jab has just gotten worse over time. Only a handful of great fighters utilize it well. But hey, maybe you think Dempsey didn't know how to jab either, lol.

Its one of the reasons I highly respect the Klit bros.

It's funny how people can seriously make statements about the old-timers not jabbing when every boxing manual and textbook from that era stresses the importance of the straight left lead and the left jab (or jolt, as Dempsey liked to call it).
Going back to the 1880s and further, the manuals taught the left lead as the primary weapon - the same as now.

[janitor]

It's funny how people can seriously make statements about the old-timers not jabbing when every boxing manual and textbook from that era stresses the importance of the straight left lead and the left jab (or jolt, as Dempsey liked to call it).
Going back to the 1880s and further, the manuals taught the left lead as the primary weapon - the same as now.

Every acount that I have been able to find of one of Jem Mace's fights suggests that the jab was his primary weapon.

He might have looked more orthodox today than sombody like Corbett or Fitzsimmons.

[Unforgiven]

Every acount that I have been able to find of one of Jem Mace's fights suggests that the jab was his primary weapon.

He might have looked more orthodox today than sombody like Corbett or Fitzsimmons.

:good And Jem Mace was 1860s !

[Hookie]

Hey, maybe one of the forum members is/was "potentially" better than Ali?

Yeah, probably not!

[bodhi]

Hey, maybe one of the forum members is/was "potentially" better than Ali?

Yeah, probably not!

Well, we have guys on this board who think they could have taken Demspey :lol:

[Seamus]

Well, we have guys on this board who think they could have taken Demspey :lol:

Serioisly?

[Dempsey1238]

Hey, maybe one of the forum members is/was "potentially" better than Ali?

Yeah, probably not!



I am pretty sure I can take Ali, he is what 68 years old, near brain dead, and shaking, not to mention that he is as slow as a snail.

[PowerPuncher]

Well, we have guys on this board who think they could have taken Demspey :lol:

Well we'll never know, if they are black theres no way he'd have the balls to fight them :yep

[PowerPuncher]

They didnt jab?

Jack Dempsey would laugh at that statement. The jab has just gotten worse over time. Only a handful of great fighters utilize it well. But hey, maybe you think Dempsey didn't know how to jab either, lol.

Its one of the reasons I highly respect the Klit bros.

Dempsey wouldnt know a jab if it hit him him in the face and he clearly didnt have a clue what was hitting him in the face when Tunney schooled him silly

[Hookie]

I am pretty sure I can take Ali, he is what 68 years old, near brain dead, and shaking, not to mention that he is as slow as a snail.

He'd probably still kick your ass though! lol

[johnmaff36]

I have fotage of Ali sparring a stuffed gorilla. If this was the only surviving footage of Ali you would be on here explaining why it proves Wlad is greater than Ali.




Yeah, Greb beat nobody of note really :lol:

Unlike Jones whose resume sits astride the era like a collusus.
ha ha ha. great Ali post. But seriously, i can kinda see what hes getting at although using Greb as an example is a poor choice. If i havent seen a guy fight, i have to take into account his resume, anything thats been written about him good or bad, his 'standing' inthe game and lastly eye-witness accounts. And only then can i form the basis of an opinion for myself. But thats as far as i would go. I would not feel comfortable debating the ins and outs of a guy that i had never actually seen fight as i would be just repeating somebody elses view. Obviously there are a few exceptions like Greb that the universal consensus is one of brilliance but these guys are the minority. I think the guys got a bit of a point IMHO but as for Quarry (another poor choice of an example) hes waaaay of the mark