Controversial boxing opinions

U, I am not sure of why revisionist history has taken a toll on the truly great Manassa Mauler.!
But i can hazard a guess. Many posters who see a film of a past boxing great
are swayed by what film they have before them. For example,they only see a film of an old ,rusty Jack Dempsey ,after a THREE year layoff ,without a tune
up fight losing to a prime razor sharp Gene Tunney. This is THE Jack Dempsey they see and EVALUATE his standing amongst the great heavyweights. But of course more aware posters know that this is NO MORE
Jack Dempsey, than the Ray Robinson of the Ralph Tiger Jones defeat, nor
was Ali the true Ali, of the Spinks, Holmes and Berbick debacles.
So U, the question arises as to why a Robinson or an Ali,have not suffered
as an equally great Jack Dempsey's standing has today ,85 years later ?
I, right or wrong place not too much value on one or two films available today of a great fighter of the past, while disregarding 95% of his true record and how far from his prime,when these fights were filmed. a little perspective
goes a long way in evaluating a boxers place in history,I believe. And so with
the truly immortal Manassa Mauler. Cheers U...

 

The exact same thing can be said of John L Sullivan. (Okay admittedly the film is limited) but he definitely shows that he knows how to throw a right hand in a modern way, that looks to demonstrate better technique than say Jim Corbett does on film.

And Sullivan, Corbett, Jackson and Fitz were considered a class above both their own era fighters and the era that followed them. In fact, even after the Dempsey era, it seems that those who saw both largely considered these three as the masters of all. Now there are 4 heavyweights whose legacies are really denigrated nowadays, compared to how they were ranked and viewed by those of their time. And no one has ever really seen any one of them fight at their very best.

 

Here's my additions to this thread:

I always thought Barrera and Morales were a bit overrated. Especially Morales, I felt outside of his legendary trilogies with Pac and Barrera (in which he lost 2 out of 3), he was semi-protected by Top Rank and had his career fleshed out with fights against carefully selected "name" opponents that were old or faded (ie: Zaragoza, Jr. Jones, Kevin Kelley, Espada in the rematch) or had already been "exposed" (McCullough). To be fair, he did surprise me with his "upset" win over Pac in their first fight, and being the last man to have decisively beat Pac has raised my estimation of him.

In the same vein, I always thought Raf Marquez and Israel Vasquez were basically as good jr. FWs as Barrera & Morales had been, even if they don't have the overall career achievements to prove it. I always thought Marquez and Vasquez fought each other too many times in too short a span, and took a toll on each other. I also always thought JMM was better than Barrera and Morales, although perhaps that opinion isn't so "controversial" as it once had been.

I always thought Ruben Olivares was a touch overrated. He certainly was an ATG bantam, but I don't agree he has a claim to the #1 spot. I think like a lot of fighters who are explosive and visually stunning, people tend to isolate his impressive showings (ie: vs. Lionel Rose) and ignore or excuse his flaws and embarrassing losses (twice to Herrera). He looked awesome against fighters he could simply overwhelm with his intensity and power, but he seemed to me like he showed some questionable toughness and resilience when fighters stood up to his onslaught and matched him on the inside.

 

Well said.
Yet even the limited film of a close-to-prime Dempsey (film from 1919-21) confirms he was as rugged, destructive and devastating as they say,

Yes, not one of these revisionists can satisfactorily explain how so many experts, fighters, fans, writers and insiders who witnessed Dempsey could be so "mistaken" for so long about his greatness.

Dempsey was spoken of in the same breath and category as Louis, Greb, Robinson, etc. by many of the same people who helped secure and preserve the legends of those fighters too. Many revisionists want to disregard what was said of Dempsey, for reasons I don't know. I think it's just that his inactivity while champion opens him up as an easier target.
Sadly I expect revisionists to make a dent in the legacies of those greats too, as can be seen from time to time. Louis comes in for attack by some quarters too, despite his activity levels and record number of defences.
And some want to pretend Greb never even existed, because they can't see him on film. So it's not just Demspey. But Dempsey certainly gets the brunt of it around here.
As if two or three generations of boxing people could all be wrong !

 

If I had to pick one heavyweight to beat any other heavyweight. My pick is Riddick Bowe.

 

I think that you are right about this, Burt. Although i dont necessarilly agree that old rust fights tell us nothing about greats. In fact, when they are old and rusty, i think it tells us plenty. This is because when in their primes they are never tested because they are often faster stronger and hit harder than their opponents. When any ATG fights other ATGs prime for prime, there is always going to come a stage where they find themselves not being the better fighter but needing to find a way to win anyway. The champions are set apart by the way they find that win.

This is the main reason i rate Ali no1. He should have lost a lot of fights in the 70s, but he won anyway and found a way to win. Even the Berbick and Holmes fights, he fought bravely to the end. You know with Ali, even if you outclassed and outfought him,you are not guaranteed to win.

Joe Louis as great as he was, and he showed just how great he was, in his tests where fighters did manage to give him as much as they took, can be beaten by landing on him as hard and often as he lands on him. He was rarely fought on equal or better terms because he was so classy but when he was matched, he could be broken easier than Ali, it seems.

Tyson was the shining example. Great fighter, never really challenged in his prime, and he took plenty of punishment, but once he reached his breaking point, he crumbled.

Jeffries is an interesting one. I considered him similar to Tyson but as i type and think, i am starting to change and put him up a bit. Against Johnson, he kept trying right to the end despite it being a hopeless case. And he was also outfought or seriously challenged by Fitz, Corbett, and Sharkey and even choynski. But he found a way to win or draw each of the fights. He was certainly a champion.

Dempsey himself is one i just dont know what to do with. He obviously looked great and thinking about it, he handled adversity brilliantly. Ko d Firpo, Knocked down Tunney and found a way to win against Sharkey when he was right up against it. There is no doubt that he was a great and beats many other greats.

I am interested Burt, though (slightly off topic but so be it), how highly do you rate Mike Tyson. Mike Tyson has that same devastation as Dempsey had. In fact, i dare say, that Mike Tyson seems to have an even better concussive KO to dempsey, whose knockouts from admittedly past prime dempsey seem to be more of a hybrid of the Tyson concussive type and the foreman bludgeon type. Tyson was seen in a very similar manner to Dempsey. How would you compare the two? Do you see it possible that Tyson may have even been an improvement on Dempsey?

 

Daniel Zaragoza was a handsome *******

 

:rofl

Winner.

 

.the monte cox method that nearly irrationally made me hate Gans.

 

Absolutely true.
But it's also true that a fair few "old-timers" when Dempsey was champion believed he was on a par or better than those before him, and that's a rarity. Corbett himself was one of those who rated Dempsey and Tunney alongside the legends of his own time.

 

* Had Saoul Mamby met Aaron Pryor in a unification fight circa 1980-81 he would have given the Hawk absolute hell....And might well have won the decision.

* Ben Villaflor is probably hardest punching jr. lightweight that I've seen on film, and that includes the likes of Alexis Arguello and Mann Pacquiao.

 

I've thought this before as well. He was monstrous for the weight. He looked like a Welter in there with Shibata for example.

 

Israel Vasquez, whilst we're on the topic, is a highly underrated boxer. He barely has any legacy at all outside the Marquez fights, two of which he lost.

Anyway, can't come all this way without venturing a 'controversial opinion,' so...Pacquiao - Marquez I was not a very close fight. I'm no ******* (Mayweather will win a UD when they get it on), but Pacquiao won by somewhere between three and six points. One of the judges scoring round one 10-7 is a scandal which is often overlooked. And as for Stevie Wonder having Marquez winning by five points...:yikes

 

It would be easier to list my non controvertial opinions.

I think that Sam Langford would have beaten any heavyweight that ever lived once in a series of three.

I think that Barbados Joe Walcott could potentialy beat any light heavyweight around today.

I think that Bob Fitzsimmons is to this day a top 20 all time heavyweight.

I would not be in the least bit shocked if John L Sullivan defeated all of todays heavyweight top 10, or if Young Griffo beat Floyd Mayweather.

If you believe in the superiority of modern fighters, then your best bet would be to shoot me and start again from scratch.