Boxing is Dead - Pac and Wlad are the Proof

Oh wow. Another one of these threads.

Seriously, you guys keep moaning about how Boxing is dead and how certain matchups didn't happen. These type of threads only put me down.

I rather focus on the ****ing positives than read **** that's already obvious.

Can't we just move on and accept what it is and look forward to what have instead of sulk about this ****.

 

You got what I would call "*****itus." You could only come up with 3 names to beat him? That shows right off the bat that your the one who doesn't know boxing. I could come up with 10 off the top of my head without breaking a sweat. He's not nearly as good as you think he is.

Problem with Floyd fans is they think that because their favorite fighter is the best boxer around right now that they know the in's and outs of the sweet science. If you can only think of 3 guys to beat him, you really don't know what your talking about. He's not the best boxer ever, or even one of the best. He's not even close. Roy Jones did everything he does offensively, and better. Toney, Hopkins, Pep, Whitaker, Walcott (and others) did everything he does defensively and better. Floyd's a great potshot artist, not a great boxer. Learn the difference.

 

[quoteHow does Boxing come back from the dead ?? Is there any way back for the sport we all love ??[/quote]


you nailed it,
give life too the past,
REMINDING the present where and WHO they came from,
and NOT the same names over and over and again & again either.

every magazine and boxing writer should take a hint here,
and all the TV and PayPer View should do features on greats along with their shows and especially build ups.

then watch boxing get a boost,
and also the often faked, most of the time rediculous, flame wars and arrogant wannabe greats will be humbled enough to shut up and Just Fight, preferable Top opponents!!!

 

masterfully off-base. there are many fighters today who would fare well in earlier times... Either Klitschko, for instance, would absolutely dominate pre-1920 heavies, the 40's and 50's heavyweight scene, the post-Foreman Ali reign and the mid-80's jumble of alphabet champs... even Axel Schulz had a title in the great 90's.

Paq, too, I believe would fare well in almost any era. Your dismissal of a guy so successful over so many weights belies an agenda at the very least. Power and speed translate well to any era. Conversely, Mayweather would actually have to fight in earlier era's rather than hide behind the ref, careful matchmaking and in the case of Castillo I, some generous judging. Furthermore, if he had to tally number of fights guys from the 50's did, his record would not be so pristine. He's talented sure, but a bit of a contrivance as a fighter.

 

Why do you have to throw the 40s-50s heavyweight scene under the bus? What makes the 1960s heavyweight scene better? I notice you didn't include that. 1940s-50s was filled with ATG heavyweights, hall of famers, masterful boxers, and dangerous punchers. The era was a lot tougher than you think.

 

Please. It's just not at one of it's high points right now.
And why is this in the classic if this is recent?? Go to the general forum and see what happens.

 

I wouldn't be so depressing.

You have a solid point when you mention the magic of free TV, and how it makes true sports heroes accessible to the common man.

PPV places great live sporting moments off-limits to the impoverished masses: the very pool of life vital to a sport like boxing.

But let's stress the positive and do our part to help the sport along. Because, in the end, in our time decisions are made based on money-making potential, and boxing must be ready for the right time to capitalize on this.

What I mean: generally speaking, in the past couple of decades, we here in Mexico were fed a steady diet of free-TV pro wrestling as a main entertainment course. During this time, the country as a whole, and the PPV audience in particular, saw the rise of excellent boxers such as Barrera, Morales and Márquez. Someone decided good boxing-is-a-good show-is-good-business and placed it back on free TV. Now, both powerhouse national TV companies broadcast Saturday-night fights watched the country over, at all levels of society. Today, even a well-to-do teenage girl with no interest whatever in boxing will tell you who Antonio Margarito is.

In my humble opinion, I believe what we need more than anything is moral renewal in society at large. True heroes are lacking, not only in boxing, but in our world as a whole.

African kids with no access to television ran out of the thickets to excitedly greet "Muhammad Ali! The Greatest!", in no small measure due to the champ's standing by his convictions. Alexis Argüello gained many fans by going after a fourth weight-class belt by seeking out the best champion he could challenge. Joe Louis had so many of his people listening intently to a scratchy radio broadcast and joyfully pouring out into the streets after he crushed Schmeling, eventually winning over his race --the human race-- by conducting himself with honor.

This is what we lack today.

Look at Hank Aaron. The man hit 755 home runs. Boom! I can roll that number out instantly, because it means something. Because Hammerin' Hank did it the right way. How many homers did Bonds or McGwire hit? Man, I have no idea and I couldn't give a horse's behind, to tell you the truth.

It's all money today. But, in pursuit of money, we may be devaluing other things, intangible things, that in the end are infinitely more valuable than money.

I enjoy telling stories of my favorite fighters to nonfans --as well as what boxing has done for me-- and seeing how their interest is awakened by these genuinely fascinating characters and profession.

Please spread the word.

 

It was a great era certainly, but I believe the heavyweight rank is unique in its evolution. By definition it is the only class in which the participants have gotten bigger over the decades. And I do not mean the presence of a Willard or Baer or Carnera, but that the overall size of those controlling the division, say the top ten, has increased. It's just a fact. And over the course of a career, size does matter. Maybe as a one-off a smaller, quicker fighter can exploit some deficiency in a larger, flawed foe, but if that fighter sticks around the division long enough he is exposed.

Thus, by sheer size and strength, the best of the heavies of the 90's & 00's would be extremely competitive in any era and under any ruleset.

 

Absolutely. We are in agreement.

Yes...Size in the heavyweight division has increased..especially since 1980. However, could the reason be because of increasment in supplements/steroids/weight training benefits/health science, and increased study of proper nutrition? What if fighters like Zora Folley, Roland Lastarza, Ernie Terrell, Elmer Ray were given the same modern benefits? Might they have been a bit bigger too?

 

Its ridiculously redundant, and also worse clichéd. If the Internet existed decades ago I'm sure we'd be hearing the same beat the dead horse bull****. The same doom and gloom.

Seriously, ****ing can it. Stop comparing the present the past. Stop attacking something that's been through hard times but will, assuredly, exist in 50 years time.

 

I must have missed Wlad fighting Arreola.

 

Imagine if people are saying this same bull**** in 50 years?

 

Americans seem really to think there is no world outside of America. Things like PPV are a problem there but not in most other countries.

 

Well, I dont really find much current boxing worth watching at all, and it barely interests me.
I cant blame PPV or anything else other than the fact that most of the fighters of the last 10 - 15 years have been boring. Fights to get excited about are very few and far between, and it's reached a point where there's nothing realistic on the horizon worth going crazy about. Or maybe it's just me, maybe I'm older and less easily impressed.

I'd pay to see Wladimir smash David Haye's face in - or more likely paw at him for 12 sleep-inducing rounds. But that fight probably wont happen.

I'd pay to see Mayweather-Pacquiao, but only because it's such an "event" and a true "mega fight". I dont actually expect it to be a good fight. In fact, it will probably be a pre-arranged "split decision" to leave them open for rematch or the illusion of a rematch looming.

Boxing's always been a bit fake and completely based on profit though, it's not a moden phenomenon.
If PPV can make promoters and fighters a lot of money then it's "good for the sport" by definition.
I just think there are far less genuinely exciting fighters around these days, even for the hardcore fan who follows the sport closely.

But there are other things in life. I have a variety of interests.
And besides, in this age of internet and DVD, we've still got fights from years gone by to catch up on.