Why wont old timey fans see sense???

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpWYYstdUk4[/ame]

:hi:

 

So, let's see. You would favor Frazier over Lewis even though Frazier had 3(1 KO)-5-1 record against guys bigger than 6'2" 210lb?

 

Sure, but hagler/duran/hearns/robinso/camacho/sweet pea/ leonard/ali/benitez/pryor/arguello/billy conn belong in there with anyone their size, too, and have a shot against all the guys near their size on that list, and the welters should be favored over delahoya for sure.

It's hard to argue that Lennox and the Klits are the best superheavies ever, of course, but I think Ali would be surpisingly competitive at times on his very best nights. He would give up 3-4 inches and 30 or so pounds. Remember how Evander stacked up against Lennox? An ex cruiserweight?

 

I find it staggering that people think skills have went backwards in spite of video tape and now the internet. So they have no effect?

Classic posters often seem to point to infighting and body punching as a lost art, but with fighters moving around the ring more of course there will be less of those aspects of boxing. Elite fighters now don't plod toward each other flat footed and slouching over as if they've just learned to walk.

Honestly, just watch some footage of Dempsey then watch Money Mayweather. Floyd's skills didn't exist in the 20s, Floyd a G

:deal

 

What do you make of skills in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s?

 

Pretty vastly improved from the 20s, with a general steady improvement between the 50s and 80s

 

I know man, I know, I shook my head too.

It seems EVERY sport has evolved massively over the last 80-100, except boxing, those guys could still compete.........:roll:

I don't have so much of an issue with the lower weights, but the HW talk is just crazy imo.

 

:huhFrazier only had 4 losses in his entire career, so how could his record against guys larger than 6'2, 210 be 3-5-1? You failed to mention that those losses came to Ali (whom he beat the hell out of in their first fight when in his prime) and Foreman (was was stylistic kryptonite for Frazier, and indeed pretty much any swarmer), all when on the downslide as a fighter.

Lewis relied on controlling the pace of the fight, and when he couldn't he tended to struggle, often relying on other tactics to pull him through. Even an old Holyfield was able to give him a hell of a go in their rematch for similar reasons. Frazier would fight him differently, though. He'd be in his chest all night long, he wouldn't give Lennox a moment's pause to find his range and box. He'd force an in-fight. Yes, Lennox was the bigger man, but this is boxing, not wrestling. Frazier would work his way inside behind the jab and slippery upper-body movement, where he'd work the body all night long, switching between upstairs and down. I don't necessarily believe he'd KO Lewis, but he'd do the more effective work in the end by nullifying most of Lennox's key attributes.

 

Well you ARE a ****ing idiot huh? Lennox was 6'5 and Dempsey was 6'1! How was Lennox 7 inches taller? The athletes today are not necessarily bigger and stronger and the proof of that is someone like baseball player Babe Ruth. Just because someone fought a long time ago doesn't mean he was less strong. Power is power. Do you know what all time great means? It means great in ALL TIMES you dumb Irish ****! Prime for prime Dempsey would crack Lennox and his glass chin in round 1 or 2. Height doesn't matter,weight doesn't matter either really. A 200 pound man can KO a 250 pound man. This **** has been proven time and time again. Do you know anything abiut the history of boxing? ****ing dumb ass.

 

deal

 

Are you fn kidding me?
Look at what Foreman did to Frazier, Lewis would be 10x worse...
LL is much bigger and heavier than Foreman, hits at least as hard, is technically much more sound, it would be a fn mismatch dude.

I always thought you know your stuff but that prediction is absurd.

 

Do you think there's any improvement at all from the 80s to now? Because rather than just being a talking point for nostalgic people, there's an actual causal story at work behind the idea that skills are in decline today. That story is one of knowledge loss due to the number of trainers linked to previous generations decreasing in numbers. All the videotape in the world isn't going to turn guys like George Peterson into competent boxing trainer nor are they going to give Paul Williams anything like strong fundamentals.

 

Not so much between the 80s and now, but then there have been fantastic fighters in that time and we've seen the emergence of athletic big men which wasn't really the case until the 90s. Also some defensive masters. I suppose time will tell. I imagine in 20 years time it will be a lot easier to look back and see how boxing has improved in the last 20-30 years

What's to say the styles of the great fighters in the last 20 years won't become the norm for fighters of the next generations? The styles of guys like Mayweather Jnr, Calzaghe and Wlad Klitschko may become more common or even be implemented better by fighters in 10 or 20 years time. I don't think for a second boxing peaked 40 years ago.

 

The existence of more athletic big men though of course says nothing about their actual skill levels. Of course it's easier to assess things in the future, but there's a specific trend one can see right now concerning a decline in boxing fundamentals that's not a function of those skills becoming obsolete but instead a result of the loss of knowledgeable trainers in the sport IMO.