Keep in mind you honestly present Harry Greb clowning around with his trainer as an example of his fighting abilities, you have about as much cred as any flim flam man I could ever think about.
Power Puncher,you post that "human evidence is often the least reliable of evidences ".True at times, but being this is a classic boxing forum, comparing fighters to each other, what other logical means do we have left ? If the opinions of experts of yesterday are not to be believed,because of "faulty memories",what do we have left to evaluate,great fighters of the past, but not to heed what they have seen with their own eyes?.Close our minds to the PAST,and regurtitate the idea,that every sport imporoves. Yes people run faster,are heavier in general,etc....But boxing is different than other sports...There are weight divisions,eight to be precise, that negate ,today is better,because were bigger today's theories...If we could by magic,be transformed to the early 1900s, we would see boxers then ,walking like us ,throwing the same punches as we do today, trying to evade punches as now etc...I believe the difference is the amount of fights those oldtimers had,topnotchers averaging way over 100 bouts...This experiences made for better fighters.in a much more competitive time..Thus we must go to the record books, to judge the merits of great fighters of different eras,I believe... For example,a fighter such as Jack Britton, Welterweight champion, who had 344 fights, being kod only once,in a twenty year career, beating almost everyone of note,being rated way below a Ray Leonard [great as he was ], who had less than 50 fights, is something, I cannot understand...Does that mean that Ray Leonard perchance fought the same 344fights against Brittons opposition he would have [if he survived],would have done better? I think not...I say the past records of a fighters career are the best judge of their place. in boxing history...What say you ?
Really? As far as I know, as of a year or two ago, there wasn't any known video footage of welterweight Robinson in existence. If you could provide any links or any way to obtain such footage I, and many others, would be very interested in seeing it. And if you own any, I imagine that you could probably be a very wealthy person if you wished to put the originals on the market, wether at auction or on the private collector's scene.
Ruiz is a master compared to John L, seriously pre-Tua Ruiz was a much more exciting fighter, like Wlad was pre-Sanders [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AybdTFUHCI[/ame]
Based on what? There is no film of Sullivan but contemporary acounts do not suggest that he was in any way crude by the standards of his era.
Your post was not necessarily right but fair enough up until the 'is it because Jerry Quarry was white' comment, then I stopped reading.
Its been posted on this forum, via youtube, I forget the fight, it wasnt a big 1 like a Galivan/Armstrong. Amateur footage of Robinson is also kicking around on youtube, when he was a FW. My personal belief is Robinson will have been close to his prime in the final Lamotta fight, although he certainly would have more physical advantages at the WW limit. Obviously the comeback MW fights after his Mayweather style retirement saw him past his prime
1 common misconception is fighters from yesteryear had more ring experience. Most top pros have over 300fights before they turn pro, sometimes for many years against other world class amateurs. Whitaker actually had more total fights than Chavez when they fought. Back in the day their were less amateur careers. Fighting regularly definately improves skills but so does sparring, boxers today cant. I would agree that most fighters go down hill when they become innactive Generally speaking over the last 30years I believe their to be better athletes in boxing, faster men, harder P4P hitters. Physically the sports moved on in most instances Today you have more youngsters starting boxing from the age of 7, developing and learning their ring craft from an early age, thats quite an advantage over someone starting at 16-20 The main way I see the sportgoing backwards is the loss of boxing clubs and trainers since the 80s Personally I like to believe what I can see, other peoples opinions are decent secondary sources but believe it o not most of the Froch-Dirrell crowd thought Froch won (he didnt), the crowd is a deceptive place to be albeit a fun 1. Sounds like you've had some great boxing experiences and seen some history though my friend
I see little evidence of this and few were full time professionals, Walcott wasnt a full time boxer until the end of his career
The evidece is the number of operating boxing gyms and boxing shows in inner city areas. The number of active professional boxers peaked around the 1920s.
What do you mean by semi-pro? Jack Broughton was the reigning champ during the 1730's. He was probably the most popular man in England for a very long time. To say his status as the greatest fighter in the world was not recognized is simply ridiculous. There is a statue from ancient rome of a fighter who used gloves. In the statue, it was clear that he was worn down and had cauliflower ears. The art of two men trading punches has been around probably longer than history is recorded. I know with globalization it is easier to learn other peoples moves and techniques. But honestly, how vital do you think 100 years is, when talking about a sport that has been around for so long? I bet you Tom Molineaux would Knock out every serious contender today, just to ruffle your feather a bit more. These legendary boxers.....even the very great ones...they exist today, but they are simply just not boxing. Some of them are on the football field, some of them just never became athletes. They exist today the legends.....but they do not find their way to the boxing gym like they used to. In the old days, if you had a good build, everyone would hound you to go the the gym to learn boxing. Not anymore....it's basketball or football.