Josh Taylor Retires

The sport has evolved and changed like all sports. Fighters today don't have 80 or 90 fights in a career. Taylor could easily have spent 2 or 3 years fighter useless nobodies so that he had a padded record. How can you compare a guy who lost 39 fights out of 102 and never won a world title to someone who won four world titles against the best in the world. Your trying to compare a guy who fought local and regional guys in the 30s with a world renowned elite level fighter today.

What if I said theres a random guy from my hometown who is better than jim Brady. He never achieved anything but personally I think he's better because achievements mean nothing, according to you. Thats how daft your argument is.
If achievements mean nothing then why do you randomly think Jim Brady is that great? You weren't old enough to watch him live. What makes him so great? He lost 39 fights.

 

I am very curious to know who you are mate. Educated, knowledgeable and strung together very valid reasoning in your points.
Not sure if you are from this game or a very good scholar.
You might be missing what is right in front of you though, not many fighters from Scotlands past who are better than prime Taylor.
Again, just an opinion I suppose.

 

get Random out of your thinking, no one is citing random fighters... Brady lost 39, but he WON 125 or 150 or whatever it was.

he fought atleast 40 or more NOTED Fighters, Champions & Contenders among them, as I said that makes a huge difference.

because the More TOP Guys you fight...

Well, along comes a Tarver or Catterall and the more you fight still, you will 'usually' face a good few of them.

 

I'm just a Collector & Researcher who once had over 100 years of Boxing Material, I still have either side of 30 years of Material.

Loads forsale IF anyone interested. Cheers.

 

Noted to who? Its impossible to really tell how a guy like Jim Brady would do in the modern game. Would Jim Brady beat top level guys today like Taylor has. The sport has evolved and changed. Fighters are technically gifted these days and are great athletes. The amount of ppl on the planet as well means theres a much larger talent pool.
I have no problem with you thinking Taylors not the greatest but to suggest he's not "Scotlands cream" is just daft. He was in the top 10 p4p in the world. Was Jim Brady ever anywhere near that level?

 

The guys just plain daft. He's trawling up half decent Scottish fighters from the 30s and comparing them with an elite level operator in Taylor. I could understand benny lynch or guys like Buchanan or watt but to suggest Taylor isn't up there with the best Scottish fighters ever just proves what a crackpot the guy is. It's all very well reading up on boxing history and knowing Scottish boxers from the past but if you can't properly relate and compare it to the modern game in a fair manner then it's pointless. I have researched plenty on Scottish boxers of the past, guys like McGowan and lynch but the idea that Taylor doesn't compare to them is bat**** crazy. Scotland doesn't often produce a top 10 p4p fighter and less than a handful of our fighters have ever hit that level. It's not just what Taylor achieved but its the exceptional boxing ability he showed in fights. It's sickening to see him retire because I doubt we produce another Taylor for a long time. His ability was up there with Buchanan in terms of how entertaining and skillful he was.

 

Okay cheers. You mention Lloyd Marshall a couple of time. I read Murderers Row couple years back which I'm guessing you probably have as well. Fascinating read.

 

Haha I think I can see his reasoning to an extent but it has one major fundamental flaw, not accepting prime Taylor is about as good as the country has ever produced.
But hey interesting debate.

 

Great run, great fighter. In the history books.

 

Extremely impressive posts. A privilege to read them, mate. Thanks.

 

one more consideration, that MOST People nowadays don't think about or have to apply the consideration - STATURE!

what, what do you mean Stature?

answer - HEIGHT & 'Natural' WEIGHT - up until the 1970s (Generally), Fighters fought near or close to their Natural Weight, they didn't walk around at 175, 180lbs and fight at Welterweight for example, NO!

they fought at Middleweight and/or L-HW.

they Didn't have 4, 5 or 6 months or more to cut 30, 40lbs in weight to compete.

so a Josh Taylor and damn near all fighters, Not All, but Damn Near Most, today fight in a Division or two (2), 'Lower' than their natural weight, because they are afforded the TIME to do so...

Back in the Day, Fighters Could NOT Do that,
they fought close to 'their' natural weight so as when called onto too make weight, they only had to cut a few pounds or up to about 10lbs gernerally speaking, so a Lightweight for example WAS a Lightweight cum welter - Not like today a L-HW cum Welter.

Taylor & Burns for example are 5' 10" Tall, their Natural Weight is 'eitherside' of 170 - 180lbs,
so In the Past they would be fighting at Middleweight & L-HW, some fighters that size, though few, 'maybe' at welter, few.

and it Only Works ONE Way comparing Fighters...
up to roughly the 70s these Past Fighters DID IT, it's Recorded History, so for proper comparison, you Can't for instance say Middleweight/Super Middleweight 6' tall Carl Froch is Fighting all the Past Middleweights, NO, not with such busy & regular Fight Scheduals,

Froch then, would do just like we all do and that is do what our 'contemporaries do'... so Froch would have been fighting as a Light- Heavyweight cum HW back then, so go have a look and see just whom he might have Had to Face in the 1950s say.

It sure changes things doesn't it.

now the same 1950s L-HW's & HWs fighting today with MONTHS to CUT Weight would do just the same as their 'would be contemporaries' of today would do, which is cut 30, 40lbs and fight at Middle or Super-Middleweight.

Very few people look at that, but It IS True, it's Recorded Boxing History, the sport/BUSINESS today IS a different & 'wounded' animal.

and YES, there ARE HUNDREDS & Hundreds of True Great Fighters in a 150 Years of Boxing History - Champions, Contenders and Fringe Contenders a like.

So people can think as they will, but just because a fighter wins a world title 'strap' with 15 or 20 or 25 fights it doesn't automatically throw him into the Pantheon of TRUE GREAT Fighters & Competitors.

Fit, Strong, Skilled and Capable Athletic Men & Woman have been around since the Dawn of Time, and not just since in this 'selective' coloured moving pictures period.

Have a thought, a look through Boxing History, gather the Facts for the Great & the Good and see just 'Who' Some of them, many of these fighters really were - plus or minus an Historical Placement which will then be better determined!

Cheers.

 

What difference does it make if all fighters can do the same? In what way does it make fighters from the past greater?
Also theres no way burns or Taylor walked around at anywhere near 180lbs, especially when burns was a super feather weight. Burns lived a fairly clean lifestyle and I highly doubt he was walking around at 12 and half stone and then dropping down to fight at 9 and half stone. He was usually in decent shape between fights so it's highly unlikely.
We all know that guys in the past would be fighting at lower weight categories today than they did but what difference does that make if it was the same for everyone.
Taylor didn't just win one title strap did he?
We all acknowledge that winning a world title in the past was much harder because there was usually only 1 or 2 world titles but Taylor managed to win all four and did it against guys who were mostly unbeaten and who were high level fighters. He did it all in a short space of time rather than allowing himself to pad his record out with bums which was often the case in the past. He also did it with alot of style and aggression. He didn't just edge out fights in a defensive boring way. He went out to win and entertain the crowd.
Nobody is suggesting Taylor is an atg but he's easily up there with the best Scotland has ever produced.

 

His posts are just daft nonsense. He's rambling about stuff everyone already knows. We all know it was harder to win a world title in the past and we all know fighters today cut weight down to fight in weight classes that are lower than what they should be fighting at but it's the same deal for everyone. If you can't see Taylor as one of the best Scottish boxers ever then you shouldn't be following the sport. It would be like claiming Andy Murray isn't one of the greatest Scottish tennis players ever. It's just pure daftness.

 

I would fancy froch to do well at light heavyweight if he fought in the 60s or 70s. Hes 6ft and has good skills. Most light heavyweights around that period were between 5ft 10 and 6ft. Froch had good skills and was pretty intelligent in terms of strategy. Would he have been as successful? I think he would struggle at heavyweight from the 70s onwards because most heavyweights started to be 6ft 2 or 3 and had naturally heavier builds than froch but I doubt he would jump up to heavyweight anyways if he was around in the 70s.
Another factor you haven't considered is the weight training that boxers do these days. Froch might be a lighter and less muscular guy if he was around in the 60s and 70s and might have fought at middleweight instead.

 

Knows his stuff mate. Honestly felt privileged to be able to read it on a free forum