why do so many old timers look so bad on tape???

You can include Eddie Cook in that too.

There wasn't a lot of method to whcat Scientist was saying anyway, he just needed to say something to discredit the more modern talent. That's all.

 

The film is perfectly fine is perfectly fine of Saldivar.He fought in the late 60s for christ's sake.

Coming to the conclusion that Barrera is better in whatever way, has nothing to do with quality of film imo.It's simply your judging of the fighters.Perhaps its because of the mindset you had while watching the films, already being a big fan and knowledgeable on Marco etc....and i don't see anything ridiculous or credibility destroying in thinking he was better, but i wouldn't agree myself.

 

Mckinney was a slow fighter imne of the main reasons Bungu trounced him twice and he such issues with the mobility and speed of N'cita was his relative lack of speed.

ridiculous that that a thread about old timers and the difficulties in watching them on film, has become a Saldivar vs barrera thread anyway.


And since when did Barrera become a speed demon anyway. i've seen a lot of references to blinding handspeed etc in recent months.the guy was quick in the generic sense most top fighters at the weights he fought in are, he only looked truly impressive speedwise when he was lambasting overmatched fighters with extended combinations, thrown with impunity.Pac made him look like he was standing in cement, he was so slow in comparison.Even considering the speed and worth of Manny, if Macro had truly notable speed that would never have happened.

Timing and the fluidity of his hands were much better attributes than Speed for him imo.


And featherweight was extremely deep in Saldivar's time, one of the best era's.It was immensely difficult for even excellent fighters to hold onto a title for any length of time.Sweet's comment isn't really too far from the truth, though i would have expected Barrera to be right in the mix, but not ahead of the pack.

 

Neither Morales nor McKinney were that quick. And Tapia, whilst quick, was pretty much near the end of his time when MAB got to him.

 

He's neither faster or stronger imo.

 

That's fine. But even the film of Saldivar isn't completely clear, not the film I've seen anyway. Sometimes you see his combination's moving but can't clearly see the placement of those shots, whereas with Barrera, everything is there in pristine quality to see. I think it makes a little difference when you watch the two, especially when your from my era, but that's not the reason I think Marco was Better. I just think technique-wise, speed-wise, Marco was superior. From what I have seen. Raging Bull is sending me some Saldivar in the mail...I look forward to getting my hands on it.

 

Saying MAB wouldnt be a champ in Saldivars day is a possibility, only the WBA/WBCA championships no 122lb or 130lb divisions. But MAB would benefit because he wasnt a weight drainer and he faced weight drainers like Morales and Pacquaio who were both bigger/stronger than him in the ring because of their weight draining. MAB would fit perfectly into the 126lb division in the time of same day weigh ins. I really think he'd beat Saldivar, if he didnt he probably wouldnt be a champ unless he won a rematch or beat Ortiz/Laguana at 135, and MAB could have been a fairly legit LW in the days of same day weigh ins.

 

Barrera would have been the best Featherweight Saldivar had ever fought, and vice versa.

 

Mkkinney was quick though, especially that right hand of his he just wasnt as quick as Bungu, who is a pretty underrated fighter and would have been a much bigger name if he wasnt from SA imo. Morales isn't the fastest but hes quite fast and he closes distance pretty quick, he also ofcourse was fast enough to beat Jones/Pacman too

Neither as fast as Pacman/Junior Jones but their as fast as some of the guys you listed imo. ANd I think Pacquaio beats Saldivar too, despite the somewhat 1 dimensionalness of Pac at 126

 

I think the technical style of boxing has changed over the years. The big difference in my opinion is you saw far more fighters fighting from a squared up stance, and keeping their guard a lot lower. You see it more on the inside on the old timers, that squared up punching.
The first thing you learn now when entering boxing is to keep your hands high and fight from a stance that has your torso turned sideways, to make yourself less of a target.

 

Mckinney was one of the slowest very good world class fighters at that weightclass.Because he was a good jab/ striaght right fighter with timing he made up for it to an extent.and i was a big fan of his, he jabbed Barrera's head in at times, despite the lack of speed.

 

He did very well against a 22 year old Marco, absolutely.

 

Probably agree although being slower than those men doesnt make you slow, I havent seen enough of Cermeno who was WBA champ then too. But the weight class was amazing then with MAB, Bungu, Morales, Junior Jones and Mkkinney. Any one of those maybe undisputed at the weight today

Now if you could combine Mkkinney with Jones speed you'd have something special

 

Contemperary reports suggest Sullivan, Corbett and Jeffries were all fleet of foot, shoulder, waist and precision.. I tend to believe the poor footage detracts from their personal brilliance that would capture todays training styles and make all appear ******ed.... NOTTTTTTTTTT... The old timers looked average on film.. as they would in the modern game.. The rule set, mind set & skill set is totally different.

 

And?