Mike Silver's NEW Article..

The sport has a lot wrong with it, but silver is a jerk and should not be taken seriously.

 

Mr Doom & Gloom."Why back in the day"
He would make a good mate for Don Turner who thinks Ward and Mayweather would only be 6 round fighters ,"way back when,"

 

Yes Graziano was a moderate champion who feasted on welters. He was only competitive with Zale because Tony was past prime.

 

In what way?

 

Yeah I like this guys name. It’s sounds like a name for a great intellectual guy who knows what he’s talking about.

 

Well, I don't think he's totally off in his criticism of Fulton-Figueroa. Fulton is getting loads of credit for squeaking past a guy who looks barely better than his brother Omar. It wasn't particularly impressive.

 

Post of the day!

 

Not sure I agree.

You should be considered wrong, maybe, but putting the effort in and actually being consistent enough to bite that bullet is enough to merit being taken seriously.

It's often worth reading people who are interestingly and cleverly wrong, IMO. Sometimes you even learn something from them, since they see things through their skewed lenses that you might otherwise miss.

Too, it's better than the also-common practice of admitting the huge differences between boxing in 1925 and 2021, only to produce a generic top 20 that follows the forum consensus in lockstep, and treats Tunney and Floyd as if their competitors were all listed in the same issue of Ring magazine last month. Silver grapples with the differences in a committed way, even if his results seem odd.

 

Excellent article.

 

Not those guys.
But some of the 'world title holders' and 'challengers' of recent decades have been of that level. The proliferation of titles and divisions and the ease and which some fighters are quickly built up with a few TV fights has certainly had a dilution effect.

 

Furthermore these days we have "YouTubers" fighting main event big promotions and we have women fighting main events and semi finals. Mayweather fought Conor McGregor for crying out loud.
Mike Silver is more right than he is wrong.

 

I haven't seen the Fulton v Figueroa fight so I can't comment on Silver's observations there.

Tim Witherspoon actually made similar criticism of Fury v Wilder 3. Just a slugging match with no defensive skills or boxing craft being displayed.

 

You're right - the proliferation of titles certainly means, that we today have "world" champions, that would never have worn a crown "back in the day". I can only agree with that.

However, my point is, that the number of pro fights should not be a deciding factor, when it comes to judging the strengths of a boxer. Obviously, not everybody is ready to step up to world class after just a dozen or so fights. But some actually are - in which case a long "learning" period is unnecessary.

As for the "Arc of Boxing"... Mr. Silver is obviously a man who knows his boxing! But his bias against today's boxing/boxers is so over-the-top ridiculous, that I find it necessary to take what he says, with a pinch of salt. A BIG pinch!

 

Fair point. I think even a glance back at the 'golden age' would throw up some examples of superior fighters who had far fewer pro fights that some of their peers. Overall though, in total, ring experience is a factor in producing a good depth of good fighters.

 

I get his argument that many of the nuances of boxing have become rarities today, defence seems to consist of" rabbit ears",gloves held high to block shots, with the majority of fighters,no head movement or slipping of punches.It's all about offence but boxing is predicated on fan friendly TV nowadays, networks want exciting knock down drag, out fights,eg the Lopez v Kambosos bout, where both forgot about avoiding punches and just tried to ko each other .
Boxers are rushed in main events with only a handful of bouts under their belts, undue emphasis being placed on an unbeaten sheet.
Those that have great success with only a few fights are either,fighters with solid and extensive amateur backgrounds such as GGG,Usyk ,and Loma,or exceptions to the rule.
A young fighter I like now is David Benavidez,he has both power and composure ,but his defence is leaky , not a good recipe for taking on a seasoned guy like Canelo who has learnt his business .
Boxing was built up to a tremendous peak after WW2 TV did it,but it also damaged it because it's insatiable demand for "new faces " meant young guys were rushed,before they had properly learned their trade.TV both built stars and then it devoured them.
Now boxing has so many rivals contending for the public's money and attention , so boxing promoters hype and oversell what are really just decent prospects as the next Ali or Ray Leonard, and fighters with that kind of talent do not come around every other week.
We have Canelo, GGG who is aging,Inoue,Crawford,Spence and a few others who are well rounded fighters ,but the depth of quality is not there and hasn't been for some time.
Where I differ with Mr Silver is I don't wring my hands in despair I accept it for what it is and appreciate the real quality fighters.Pay for quality well matched bouts and leave alone the mismatches like Andrade's latest farce and the proposed, many years too late, battle of the retreads,Khan v Brook.
When I go to the fights now it is a totally different experience to when I went 30/40 years ago when the audience was composed of 95% men , and for the most part quite knowledgeable ones.The crowds nowadays seem to consist of groups of guys just there to watch the main event whilst eating a burger, the seats are largely empty until the top of the bill starts.The other seats are filled by men with overdressed girls endlessly trying to gingerly to negotiate the dark steps up and down the arena in extreme high heels.My conclusion is most of these crowds are casuals,they are familiar with the names
AJ, Fury,Whyte,but have no clue or interest as to who is in the supporting fights.
They are there," for the experience."to say to their workmates on the following Monday," I was up there watching Joshua Saturday night" [when they weren't in the toilets putting **** up their noses,]they don't know a jab from an uppercut , it's just a chance to dress up and parade in public with their current squeeze.
In an age when we all have huge tv screens its usually a better idea to watch fights from the comfort of your own recliner ,maybe with a couple of mates and the beverage of your choice,instead of being interminably forced to get up out of your seat in the middle of a nice little scrap between a couple of promising prelim boys,because some plank wants to "powder his nose".
Back when I first went to fights you waited till a round ended before leaving or occupying your seat that ,like common courtesy has disappeared.
Silver makes some valid points ,but his assertion that, if he were fighting today Archie Moore would be heavyweight champion strikes me as fanciful projection.
Sorry for the rant, I probably need my breakfast.