If You Could Change One Boxing Injustice..What one would it be???

So you think Floyd couldve fought in the 20's? With HIS hands?

Those guys were fighting top opposition once a month, as always you don't really know what you're on about.

Middleweight Hopkins I'll give ya. But could Hop of today keep, say, Archie Moores regime at the same age?

Even as a Naz nuthugger myself, I won't even bother responding on that one.

 

I'd like to say just with boxing but having met me you'd know I was talking bollocks :good

 

So could the fighters in the 20s havent beaten say Mosley, Mayweather and Pacquiao in consecutive months, I think you'll find its you whos talking rubbish.
Looking at Archie Moore's record he fought a lot of people with double figure losses on their records which by today's standards would be considered journeymen, what does beating people like that prove??
Based on pure skill Mayweather could easy handle it in any era.

 

Mosley and Pac would be fighting many times themselves, making it an even playing field. Love your amazing Boxrec analysis of Archie Moore

You said any era, not me. Floyd would not live with the punishing schedule that those guys fought in, and as either a lightweight or welter (no super feather or light welter back then) would be in a seriously deep talent pool, fighting with 6oz glove and less strict referees.

There's no point guessing. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. I assume your knowledge of the old guys ain't up to scratch, fair enough, but don't say Floyd, who is a terrible example by the way, would hang in any previous era. You think he'd survive in the Cuevas-Palomino-Duran-Leonard-Hearns era of Welters? He probably wouldn't even get in the ring with 'em.

Any era at light or welter and there's probably a fighter with more 'pure skill' than Floyd. Fighters nowadays just don't make the cut compared to fighters from previous eras.

The skill level is probably there, no doubt. But the depth? The resume? The punishing schedule? Nope.

 

I have a dozen Brodie fights, but not that one :think:verysad

 

No I hate Leonard and Tommy one of my favourite fighters ever. But under ten point must you cannot score that fight better than 113/112 for Hearns. A draw was a fair result

As for Benn/EubankII: from 9000 feet up in the air watching the fight, I had Benn 8/4; but watching it on TV a few days later I had it 6/6; again, a draw was a fair result IMO.

 

Terrible statement I'm not a classic boxing nut but this is back when the best fought the best losses were common unlike today were modern phenomena's like Tyrone Brunson can be made to look like murders.

 

Put it this way, you don't even have to look that far back.

Look at Freddie Pendleton: he'd be 35-0 (35) with titles in two weight classes by now.

More than ever boxing is a business forthe fighters as well as the businessmen.

In a world where Ricky Hatton is considered a 'two weight world champion'

 

That statement on archie Moore, who faced the best opposition of any fighter I can think of, gets more ridiculous the more I contemplate it.

Truly one of the worst things I have ever seen anyone say on here. Clutching at straws at it's most primitive.

 

Don't bad mouth Hatton - he beat Pendleton :yep

 

:rofl

 

brodie got the decision against jorrin.

taylor gets to continue and finish against chavez.

tyson gets off of the **** charge in 92 and fights holyfield when he still had something left. :bbb

 

guys like sanchez, gomez and saddler would have walked all over hamed. :yep

 

Least its no a geeky subject, at least boxing is fairly cool and masculine.

I'm not saying Hopkins past prime stuff is as impressive as Moore's it is definitly comparable. Also I do think Hopkins could have kept a good schedule as he clearly found it easy with Pavlik and Orneleas.

The thing he could have been finishing was his life