Sir, are you aware you are posting in the "classic" forum? It's like you're in an orphanage complaining about the children.
Classic...????? more like pre-historic, and as your on the topic of children, the moron who posted this sounds like a big kid, just because someone does not agree with him he replys with nonsence, and your "orphanage" statement is rather childish and embarrassing in itself..:scaredas:.
I pulled you up because your stylistic analysis amounted to 'he knocked out most of his opponents'. I'd suggest an apprenticeship inthe General
Hilarious comments here. I stick by my original assumption on how the fight would go by the way, that's just how i see it. Driscoll impresses me everytime i see that footage.
I like Naz in this fight im not to impressed by the footage although Driscoll does look as akward(spelling lol) as hell. Probably be a ugly looking fight I believe Naz would start nailing him at some point and take him out.
I think Driscoll is incredibly impressive for an 'old timer'. Of course, opponent/ruleset have to be taken into account but his style/punching form seem to suit well to more 'modern' fighters IMO. Due to the intangibles I'm happy with either being picked here, as long as its supplemented by sufficient analysis/reasoning:good
The only factor for me is the lack of footage of Driscoll against other guys that everyone could agree are able to compete in any era. I don't know anything about Frank Robson but if someone was telling me he was a great fighter and Driscoll performed like that then i'd have no problem picking Driscoll over Naz allday. On the only footage available of Driscoll, well he looks superb to me, he's busy, he's a general, just dominating the centre of the ring with some circular movements and stepping around here and there, his right hand is not telegraphed much. Nazeem could end up a counter puncher with nothing to counter like in his only actual loss. I understand the philiosophy behind why people are reluctant to pick Driscoll fully, but i'm picking him definitely.
That's why I found it interesting, and also why I picked Naz, as we are well aware of his deficiencies. When you start discussing things like Driscoll vs Arguello, or Pedroza, or Sanchez, I think it would be nigh on impossible to come to a decent enough conclusion.
Yeah i agree, if pushed i'd take Pedroza most likely, and i'd take Sanchez against almost any feather. On Pedroza, like you say, we just don't have any grounds to build a basis upon in terms of assessing how Driscoll would deal with the styles match up, who knows? And Arguello just looks great and is so easy on the eye.
A massive shame there isn't footage of him against a multitude of opponents with different styles. Not only would it give us a better gauge in judging him in a hypothetical matchup, it would also be beautiful to watch:yep
Yeah i agree for a 'old timer' boxing master he is good and is obviously is greater than naz in a historical sense. Who is the most impressive old timer in your opinion flea? Mine is joe gans the man looks pretty enough modern for me.
I'm not that impressed with Gans to be perfectly honest, though his resume and talent (for his time) cannot be denied. Langford is a bit like a mini-George Foreman, very impressive.