Controversial boxing opinions

Though very fine fighters the "modern mexican trio" of Morales, Marquez and Morales are all often overestimated imo.especially in relation to a number of other really good mexicans thoughout history.

Laguna, Marcel and el Feo all had a similar level of ability at their best(i expect most would rate Luis a few notches above)

Sibson vs Benn would be 50\50

Mark Kaylor would be a Froch level star today, instead of a forgotten fighter who lost his step ups to world class in relative obscurity outwith Britain.

 

Byrd-Ibeabuchi was a premature stoppage and Byrd would've won a decision if allowed to continue.

 

Hya B.You pose interesting questions,well varied.
First off, I am more interested in a fighter of the past's career record of who he fought, what part of his prime he fought certain fighters, and most of all how he was rated by expert boxing contemporaries ,who saw him, trained him, and FOUGHT the fighter in question.To me this counts the MOST as time ERODES, the true stature of a fighter of the past. Witness a Harry Greb, Benny Leonard, Jack Dempsey. Today 6 round favorites are being extolled to the sky
while old-timers are fading away from their true greatness, witnessed by their
peers of years ago.Human nature i suppose,as we remember a good cup of coffee,enjoying it LAST as we leave a restaurant.
2- I,who have seen Ali in the FOTC, cannot say with all honesty,that he would have survived ,or won from a Jack Dempsey, or Joe Louis,when both were in their primes. Ali never faced a powerful two handed puncher, as fast with their hands as Dempsey or Louis were. Ali had trouble with a Doug Jones,
who was not ponderous, and a good puncher, but not in the class with
Dempsey or Louis. They threw fast combinations,that was much faster than the massive slower Foreman,or an OLD, Liston. Yes they were powerful and hit hard, but Ali was able to avoid the next bomb by scooting away. Not with
the Dempsey that flattened 25 guys in the 1st round, and kod the crude but
powerful Willard, and Luis Firpo with2 punches in the second round, too fast
for the camera to pick up.Dempsey was when at his best as fast as some welterweights, but with heavyweight power. As for Louis,at his best in thge Baer fight, Louis wasdescribed as a "coil spring unwinding ",so powerful and
explosive was his punches...
3-as for mike Tyson he was when coming up the most explosive puncher
since Joe Louis, but for whatever reasons never lived up to his expectations.
He hit as hard as Dempsey, but Dempsey was when needed,so much faster on his feet,and more versatile and resilient in the ring. Tougher do or die attitude. But Tyson with a good frame of mind was a destructive force in the ring against ANYBODY... Cheers B:good

 

I believe Carlos Monzon KD'd Joe Frazier.

 

I think JMM's career at 126lbs is vastly overrated. Peden? Gainer? Otherwise he drew with Pacquiao and lost to John.

Gerry Penalosa was undefeated until 2009. I had him beating Cho twice, Tokuyama twice, and the De Leon fight was a draw.

Carlos Zarate was a "very good" fighter but not a great one. Canizales would have beaten him.

 

Prime Tyson would beat Holyfield and Lewis.....

 

Well, that's not very controversial.

 

Yeah, I saw that. Too late. That's what having a beer and watching football at the same time as posting does to the quality of my posts.

 

You gotta do better. Burley beats Hagler?

 

Carnera would be a solid top contender in any era....

 

Burley beats Hagler. Handily.

 

MN,yes things evolve, BUT not always for the BETTER.Has any scientist surpassed Albert Einstein, nor Isaac Newton. Has any opera singer come
close to Enrico Caruso,with his astounding tenor voice ? The answers to the above is NO... Every so often a baby is moulded that when mature, has certain unique characteristics that EVOLVE into a Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Jack Dempsey,Benny Leonard,or Joe Louis. What made them immortal in boxing was certain attributes, the vast majority of boxers never
approached. They would be who they were in any era of boxing. My dad who
boxed a little,and saw the first "golden age" era ,1916-1927, never mentioned to me that the fighters of my childhood "evolved" into a superior crop of
boxers than the Grebs, tunneys, dempsey's, Dundees, Flowers of his era. No sir. Just as I ,trying to be objective, certainly do not see today's crop pf fighters EVOLVED into a better bunch of the 1940s era,that spawned the likes of Robinson, Ike Williams, Beau Jack, Ezzard Charles, Burley, Moore, Gavilan, Tony Zale,Freddie Steele, Sandy Saddler,Joe Louis, Billy Conn, and a host of other great fighters. In England for example who as a crop of boxers today can compare with Wilde, Driscoll, Freddy Welch,Ted Kid Lewis, Jackie Kid Berg, Jock McAvoy,Eric Boon, Ernie Roderick, Tommy Farr, Randy Turpin
Ned Tarleton,and so many Brits of the past.So where is the great improvement you cite ? One other thing .I can assure you that Charley Chaplin walked differently than his herky-jerky films. He would walk today
just as you or i do. So in conclusion, todays fighters have not "evolved" into
a better crop of fighters than our ancesters, regardless of what old hand cranked films of yesterday mislead us. What does improve a fighter is how
often he fights,against the best the public demands. And the great full-time trainers guiding him. Testing himself often against the cream of the crop
often monthly. The cream then rises to the top. Having said this we are not improving at all,from the 1920s to the 1960s. Not at all. Cheers....

 

Willard would give either Klitschko hell over 15 rounds

Rocky gets beaten handidly by any top 10 ATG HW

Liston would easily dispose of prime Tyson

Moore would beat Foster

Hagler loses to Hopkins

Why has there never been a Mexican HW champ?