Your thoughts on the Arc of Boxing

Christ almighty!... I don't think, I've ever seen this much nonsense assembled in one place before!

 

actually there were alot of valid reasons and reasoning what the trainers said. its the best book on boxing i have ever read. i know where these guys are coming from. the golden age of boxing was the 20s through the 50s imo

 

youd have to read the whole book

 

Pavlik probably was an alcoholic at that point but more important he was still taking prescription drugs for Bronchitis he had, had a left elbow injury, was fighting at 170lbs and would always have trouble with a guy who made good use of lateral movement and constantly makes him have to reset his feet like Sergio and Hopkins demonstrated.

 

... "Hagler could not beat Rocky Graziano. And beleive me, Graziano was no great fighter".
... "Tommy Loughran at 185 lbs could have outpointed Mike Tyson".
... "Firpo would have destroyed Lennox Lewis".
... "Gene Burton wouldn't have any problem with Mayweather and DLH".
... "Tami Mauriello at 190 pounds would go out and find Lennox Lewis's chin" (presumably meaning he would have knocked him out!).
... "Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Oscar DLH, Pernell Whitaker - they'd be ordinary contenders".

So what, in your opinion, would be valid reasons for making statements like the above - other than old timer nuthuggery?

 

its quite a long and detailed book. hopefully you can find it at a library and read it. regards

 

silver has some interviews at doghouse boxing that are interesting

 

When you have 4-5 titles in a division, naturally you will get inferior champions. When in the time of Ali there were just 2 belts and everyone knew who the lineal champion was most of the time, you could have great boxers like shavers or ron lyle who never won a title. Now you have the opposite, guys who maybe dont deserve the title having it.

 

Interesting observation.

 

I agree there absolutely was an arc, but the point is unfortunately lost in the ludicrous claims that JRR, Hagler, Duran, Leonard and others couldn't compete with past champions.

The biggest difference between now and then in my opinion is the depth of divisions, and champions fought better opposition. A "top ten" contender meant more back then than it does now.

 

I tend to think some of the contenders of the past are underrated where more recent boxers are given extra credit for being well known alphabet title holders.
Fighters such as Tommy Bell, Bernard Docusen and Gil Turner deserve their mentions and almost certainly would pick up welter world titles in the era of multiple versions, and very possibly for multiple defences too.
Instead they seem a lot more obscure to some than do the likes of Cuevas, Trinidad or even Breland or McGirt or Quartey.

 

I guess the Asian and Latino and greater proportion of Black fighters that replaced these legends don't pass the "Eye Test" for Classicists... If you get my drift.

 

"Only a tiny percentage of today's contenders would have gotten past the better four- and six-round fighters of the 1930s, '40s and '50s. They would have been crushed by the competition." - Manny Stewart

Hmmmm

 

Anyone claiming boxing is done and on the decline is not a fight fan in general and need to watch something else then.,unless they are stuck in a specific timeperiod and enjoy that limited content( which is o.k)..But why watch something if you think you missed something from the past ? To the extent to read a book for what is probably only financial gain of the author? Like most nostalgists who are snickering at the gullible who eat it up? though wouldnt look past them bc some actually do believe in the misleading info they write.

These types of books are the very reason i see such delusion throughout boxing history and it trickles down also from anyone from trainers,so called boxing experts( laughable )to all medium platforms...

 

No, it's not racism.
Loads of the old-timers' legends were black, latino and asian.