Your unpopular boxing opinions

The first fight betwen between Hearns and RAy was while they were at their best, I don`t care about their rematch.

 

I agree and got roasted when pointing out that Dell Valle caught Jones flush and really hurt him.

 

Neither do I was just replying to grapefruit's post

 

Do you know much about street crime in London?

 

Benn took G-man`s punches better than he would have taken Jackson`s.

 

Agreed but for the first 3 minutes he didn't take McClellan's very well

 

Highlighted reply
World Class Boxing Channel4 hours ago
@Mark Ant Ray is the kind of fighter that you have to establish your jab against. Especially if you are the guy with the shorter reach. Ray is just a marvel with his skills and tough to fight period, let alone a second time. You sound like a boxing historian. Very knowledgeable!

 

* A lot of the reasons used to diminish FMJ's biggest wins (Pac, Canelo, and Corrales) don't hold that much weight.

* Tyson wasn't that far removed from his best when he faced Douglas in Tokyo; and even at his absolute peak might well suffer his first loss against Buster.

* Too much emphasis is placed by (certain members of) this particular forum on textbook punching technique, and not enough placed on overall effectiveness. Marciano, Monzon, and these days Hurd are hardly the most aesthetically pleasing fighters to watch, but all were undeniably effective in their own way- and performed well against and defeated fighters would have "textbook" technique.

* Along the same lines, talk of how certain fighters from the past wouldn't fare well in modern times because they look crude on film don't necessarily resonate with me since overall effectiveness at higher levels tends to matter more, as far as I'm concerned.

 

My opinion is that Mark Ant should stop making threads.

 

I totally agree with you in regards to form / technique and effectiveness. Otherwise, how would we have people Sung Kil Moon winning titles?

 

Agreed

 

I actually agree with more than I disagree with.

The second point you made on Robinson.
The Greb comment- without footage, its tough to say what he'd be like. It may be safe to assume hes a brawler, but noone knows.
The Ezzard Charles and Charley Burley comments.

 

What completely blows that Greb theory up though, ut that while we may not have footage of him in action, we DO have footage of a number of really good fighters he beat. At the end of the day, the results are there, whether or not any of us have personally seen it. He beat a lot of really good and great ones. To simply dismiss factual results out of hand because one hasn't seen film of the proceedings strikes me as more than a little self-absorbed and narcissistic.

 

Nothing to do with his decline? Suuuureeeeeeee

 

You are inferring a lot beyond what I said. Greb was marginally better than Mickey Walker, that means he was amongst the very best of his time period. However Greb is too often talked about on forums and the like as if he was this awesome beast, taking the often exaggerated journalistic descriptions of his feats from his era as gospel. Those quality fighters that he defeated that we do have footage of reveal boxers that were exceptional for their time, but most definitely not exceptional from the vantage point of 2019. That isn't even a criticism of these fighters, you can't expect any more than what they produced, but it is a criticism of people acting as if they are being historical by proclaiming how great the abilities of those fighters were, all that really reveals is a lack of historical knowledge and ignorance surrounding historical change.