Comparing classic to modern fighters thread

I'll give some of these a try for fun:

Nino Valdez=Tough guage. Big durable guy with a strong jab, claimed to be avoided. Quite a force at his best, some really great wins, top contender for many years, but inconsistent. Pinklon Thomas or Ruddock but a much stronger resume.
Roland LaStarza=Chris Byrd...successful long time contender, criticized for defensive mind set and lack of offense, makes opponents look bad. Byrd has a better resume though.
Lee Q Murray=Ron Lyle maybe but deeper resume. Long time contender, Big with a decent punch and skills.
Bob Baker=Tim Witherspoon. Inconsistent big, skilled, puncher. Lots of ups and downs.
Tommy Jackson=Oliver McCall. Durable and unpredictable. Good wins, bad loses.
Coley Wallace=Michael Grant.
Ceaser Brion=Ray Mercer. Failed prospect turned tough gate keeper.
Omelio Agramonte=Difficult spoiler, briefly claimed a ranking. Tony Tubbs, Mathis Jr., or something.

 

is this a trick question beside lastarza i have never heard of any of these others:think

 

And yet you jump into every thread and claim that the fighters who beat them would lose ... :roll:

 

who are you what are you talking about do you know me you seem very interested in my posts i have only heard of lastarza the rest i have never heard of:think

 

Perhaps you need to do some more reading. Those names are hardly obscure.

 

Just f*ck off.

 

i am a boxing historian and other than lastarza i have never encountered nor read about any of the rest i am not going to go and rack my brains out to find some book on unknowns:think

 

yeah dude, no offense but as historian there are some keys names on there to know. i mean, even bobick should be known if only as a ****ing joke

 

so why dont you post something and try and make some sort of comparison i have never heard of these guys and i only know lastarza because he fought marciano:think

 

Valdez doesn't look near the quality of Thomas/Rudduck on film, he looks more like a smaller Sugar Valuev

 

:rofl atsch

 

hahahahahaha i am not claming to be a historian and probably most people here know more about boxing then i do. but even i know more fellows from that list then you. WOW that makes me smarter then a real historian.

 

:dead

Oh, please. In terms of pure ability and style, Valdez and Ruddock is a fair analogy. Both had strong jabs when they used them but utlimately they were defenseless brawlers that relied far too much on their size, power, and durability to overhwelm their opposition. Valuev is slower than both men and lacking in punching as well as physical power, he would never be able to crowd and maul an Ezzard Charles to a point victory. Sugar Valuev is another story however.