Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-09-2012, 04:02 AM   #106
TheSouthpaw
Champion
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,919
vCash: 500
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

[quote=burt bienstock;13948079][quote=young griffo;13946855]
YG, thank you for your kind support...I can take criticism about boxing
opinions but to be called "senile" by some creatin called Southpaw reaches a new low...Life is hard enough to survive ,but to called senile if you do dodge death is not a pleasant feeling...So yg,thanks for your support...[/quote

Im sorry about that Burt
TheSouthpaw is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-09-2012, 04:21 AM   #107
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,616
vCash: 1210
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Ah, come on, you know better than that, Louis beat quite a few very good, even great hws, before, during adn after his reign. Yeah, he fought his fair share of average fighters but who didnīt?
"Bum of the month club" is sensational journalism, easy to throw around but meaningless in the end.
Sorry, but I don't consider Schmeling a great boxer either. Conn wasn't great heavyweight. So we are only left with Jersey Joe Walcott, Louis beat him, but he didn't look impressive at all (true, he was past his prime, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't struggle with Walcott if he were younger).

Claiming that the Klitschko brothers beat only bums has as much weight as making the same claim about Louis' opposition. I actually think they both beat better opposition than Louis did, but that's just my opinion.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 04:31 AM   #108
YUZO WANTANABE
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 88
vCash: 500
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Boxers are far better today than in any era previous.

A Corvette Stingray is fun to look at but it gets blown away by a Bugatti Veyron. Simple enough, things progress. Bolt would blow the doors off Owen. Klitschko would humiliate Louis, Marciano and Ali.

All hail progress.
boxers arent just muscle machines and usian bolt doesnt need to have more courage or more cunning than any ordinary man can have to run really fast
YUZO WANTANABE is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 04:33 AM   #109
bodhi
So I can die easy ...
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,492
vCash: 1337
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
Sorry, but I don't consider Schmeling a great boxer either. Conn wasn't great heavyweight. So we are only left with Jersey Joe Walcott, Louis beat him, but he didn't look impressive at all (true, he was past his prime, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't struggle with Walcott if he were younger).

Claiming that the Klitschko brothers beat only bums has as much weight as making the same claim about Louis' opposition. I actually think they both beat better opposition than Louis did, but that's just my opinion.
Well, I consider Schmeling great (in the Top15-20 sense) but then Louis also lost to him. If an old Louis can beat Walcott than itīs quite save to say a young one would have done the same and looked better. Itīs hard to look impressive against someone like Walcott.
Conn wasnīt a great hw thatīs true but nevertheless he proved to be very good. As was Baer and even others like Carnera, Nova, Bivins, Savold, Lewis, Farr.

To me thatīs by far more impressive than what Vitali did and still quite a bit better than what Wlad did. But you are right in a way. Louis opposition is now blowing away either ones but combined with the number of defences, dominance, variaty of styles and "old age" success he ends up clearly above both and everybody els not named Ali. Wlad should be rated highly as well though, similar to Louis - and Holmes - he has loads of defences against generally average opposition, he also has the dominance and advanced age success. IMO he outranks someone like Dempsey by now - even so I think Dempsey has a fairly good chance of beating him - and warrants a borderline Top10 position.
bodhi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 04:52 AM   #110
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,861
vCash: 75
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

I'd say Wlad is greater than Dempsey too.

I guess not thinking he's top 5 is 'underrating' him.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 05:02 AM   #111
TheSouthpaw
Champion
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,919
vCash: 500
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flea Man View Post
I'd say Wlad is greater than Dempsey too.

I guess not thinking he's top 5 is 'underrating' him.
Wlad would have destroyed Dempsey inside of 3 rounds...Wlad is just to big, strong and in too phenomenal shape for Jack to stand a chance..It woold have looked ike a HW fighting a WW. Amd hes not in my top 5.
TheSouthpaw is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 05:05 AM   #112
hernanday
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 204
vCash: 500
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
You are making assumptions.

"All experts who were alive claimed Joe Louis was the greatest boxer who ever lived"? I don't think you can find many experts from that time who made such claim.

They would beat the "bums" of today based on whose opinion? Are you an expert on 1930-1940s heavyweights, or is it a claim made by somebody who was born about 100 years ago and is still alive, who had seen those heavyweights fights live?

Braddock a great boxer? Give me a break. He wasn't great even for heavyweight division, regardless of weight he'd have a hard time getting in Top 500.

Anyway, my point was, yes Joe Louis looks great on film, offensively. But probably that was because he was facing very weak opposition? Ie, the same thing the Klitschko brothers are being accused of now.
Yes you can, you'd be hard pressed to find an expert from the 11 years Louis was hw champ even going into the ali years who did not believe Joe Louis was the greatest. Several major bozing publications have him listed as such.

There has not been a fighter since Mike tyson to unify the belts, there hasn't been a fighter since lennox lewis

"In 2005, Louis was ranked as the #1 heavyweight of all-time by the International Boxing Research Organization,[3] and was ranked #1 on The Ring's list of the 100 Greatest Punchers of All-Time.[4]" wiki

And bum of the month club was because louis was fighting so often against guys ranked in the top 10 that he was making them look like bums. but those bums had comparatively more skill than anyone around today and anyone who is in doubt just watch the films.

And I can't think of any other heavyweight champion who went 61 fights before incurring their 2nd loss.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Explains why louis was so damn good
Espn rated him #1 in 2007, Big book of boxing read poll rated him #1 in 78,John durant rated him #1 in 76, in 75 nat loubet rated him #1, world boxing rated him #1 in 74.

Louis fought every contender and beat 6 world champs, he fought all the best fighters of the 30s, 40s and 50s. I don't see weak competition, and his only 3 losses are to top champions of those eras, and none in his prime, 2 came when he was too old and should have stopped fighting but was in irs trouble, and the other b/c he was drinking too much bubbly and he avegened it with a round 1 ko. The only fighter he may have never beat was possibly marciano,and I see no shame in that, he was up on the score cards in round 8 of 10. PS, there is a reason why that fight was scheduled for 8 and not 10 rounds, it was well known Louis could not fight 12-15 rounds and marciano only agreed to it to help out louis.
hernanday is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 05:19 AM   #113
hernanday
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 204
vCash: 500
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Now vlad beat dempsey, ha ha ha, people do not understand, Vlad is facing grossly underwhelming competitors who lack hand speed, power and do not know how to get past a jab. Basic boxing skills. The few who do know how to get past his jab simply are either too fat, too slow, or just too unskilled to hit. Dempsey would draw Vlad's lead,jump inside and knock him out with a right in round 1. There is a reason big tall guys like 6'6 were never win much in the hw division untilthe 90s. A moderately skilled guyunder 6'3 can hit a better skilled tall guy (6'6 and up) 5-6 times before he can counter with short shots, and its the short shots that knock guys out not these big wide shots from outer space.

You have a huge decline in skill,then of course, the biggest guys like valuev and klitscko will rule because with equal skill (low), speed (slow) talent (low), footwork (low), head movement (low) then the taller guy dominates because all he has to do is jab the short guy all night long.
hernanday is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 05:23 AM   #114
hernanday
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 204
vCash: 500
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Go watch lomachenko and see what happens to tall guys, they are just a big target who,have 1 arm, cannot hit back, big target, slow hands, have predictible punch patterns, you fight Klitschko, u know he is going to jab, if you can't slip the jab and hit him with hooks and overhand shots and work him on the inside your either slow, have a shit trainer or are a shit boxer. For a tall guy to be successful he use to require comparatively more skill to make up for this.
hernanday is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 05:33 AM   #115
bodhi
So I can die easy ...
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,492
vCash: 1337
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanday View Post
Now vlad beat dempsey, ha ha ha, people do not understand, Vlad is facing grossly underwhelming competitors who lack hand speed, power and do not know how to get past a jab. Basic boxing skills. The few who do know how to get past his jab simply are either too fat, too slow, or just too unskilled to hit. Dempsey would draw Vlad's lead,jump inside and knock him out with a right in round 1. There is a reason big tall guys like 6'6 were never win much in the hw division untilthe 90s. A moderately skilled guyunder 6'3 can hit a better skilled tall guy (6'6 and up) 5-6 times before he can counter with short shots, and its the short shots that knock guys out not these big wide shots from outer space.

You have a huge decline in skill,then of course, the biggest guys like valuev and klitscko will rule because with equal skill (low), speed (slow) talent (low), footwork (low), head movement (low) then the taller guy dominates because all he has to do is jab the short guy all night long.
Youīve got some right and wrong points. Yes, Dempsey beats Wlad but not because of his lack of skill, speed or anything but because, as you pointed out Demspey knows how to get past his jab, would be more aggressive than anyone Wlad fought and put him into "panic mode" which will end in him getting knocked out.

Wlad is very skilled albeit limited in what skills he uses. His simple style serves him very, very well and the majority of hws in history would not get by his jab, close enough to hurt him and even less would be able to get off before getting clinched or able to avoid clinching alltogether. I wouldnīt pick more than about a handfull to beat him. Dempsey is one with a very, very good chance due to his style advantage, but Wladīs combination of size, speed (and he is quite fast, look at his fight with "Fast" Eddie Chambers, he didnīt look any slower), power and skill makes me quite unsure about that one.
bodhi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:14 AM   #116
TheGreatA
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,098
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hernanday View Post
Ward is a great now . He is on the right track to be a great, I'd say he is a great-prospect, lets see how he looks at 30-40 fights, if he is still whipping guys the same, then he could be a great.

Mayweather - I've already commented on him. great at making money and dodging guys who could ever beat him

Klitschko- He is in a tomato field. Its not fully his fault. But when I see how corrie sanders demolished him and his difficulties with lamon brewster, and him being rope a doped by ross puritty, it makes me raise an eyebrow. These were not Hashim Rockman lucky punches that blind sided him when he was joking around, you are talking about early round knock outs where his opponent just completely destroyed him, outclass, outskilled, and outpunched him. The whole corrie sanders thing leads me to believe the Vlad is objectively a mid-low grade contender rather than a champion fighting in an era where the next best fighter are journeymen. Then you have the whole Klitschkos refusing to fight a guy 10 years their senior, evander holyfield, who has been calling them out ever since he was robbed in the valuev fight. I can't think of any other champion who has refused to fight a 50 year old man so consistently. Further Vlad has not even faced highly skilled opponents, never faced anyone with great head movement nor head speed, nor knock out power, so in several areas he is untested. I could be wron, maybe vlad is great and I just can't see it because there is too much tomato in the way. Vlad vs a Lomachencko style fighter is what is missing from his resume, someone who actually knows how to beat bigger people. It also seems he has lots of trouble beating people who are near in height to him who he can't just jab all fight long. he is skilled, but its like a 6/10 beating guys who are 3/10 sure it will look impressive for him to beat them.

Pacquiao - probably will be remembered as great.
Your post could've been taken seriously until this.

It's these kinds of posts that create disdain towards the "old timers" among modern fans, utterly clueless criticism of current boxers mixed with excessive praise for any past fighter regardless of their true ability.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:38 AM   #117
Senya13
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 3,616
vCash: 1210
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

"Boxers" are not limited to heavyweights. You should have clarified that you only meant the greatest heavyweight.

I repeat my question, are you an expert on 1930-1940s heavyweights to claim they were called bums unfairly? They were called that by people who lived there and saw the fighters he beat in multiple other bouts. They were called bums because many of them were worse than mediocre. Even the best ones were average when compared to best fighters in other weight divisions, excepting Conn and Walcott.
Senya13 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:48 AM   #118
MagnaNasakki
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,829
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Having been in the ring with the Klitschko bros and many of the best of the 90's, Wladimir is easily in their class. Easily. The best favor anybody could do a Klitschko is take them lightly.

Massive mountains of muscle with incredible range, educated jabs, boa constrictor strength, and in Wlad's case, concussive power? Yeah. Easy night. I had this boxing thing all wrong, those guys were pussies! Few short shots in between their straight punches, and thy'd have just fallen down. Man oh man. Wasted opportunities, I tell ya.
MagnaNasakki is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 06:52 AM   #119
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,861
vCash: 75
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

I reckon they're on 'roids though. What you thin Magna? I know you've trained with Wlad and I hope I'm not putting you in a bad position but my drawing on any sessions you had with Klitschko would you say anything else points to that?
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2012, 07:43 AM   #120
Lester1583
Can you hear this?
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,213
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flea Man View Post
I'd say Wlad is greater than Dempsey too.
He definitely is.
Lester1583 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013