Controversial statements on boxing that you stand by...

I don't disagree that 'styles make fights' of course :good So I think there would be winners from either, ahem, 'side' (not a word I like using, but good shorthand here I guess)

Although if you wanted me to pick the most versatile guys, they wouldn't be frm today. Modern conditioning doesn't make boxers of today 'better fighters' IMO, in fact there are some recurring traits I find fairly worrying in todays climate.

And I haven't seen a fight for years that rivals the correct blend of violence and astounding technical work I've seen in my favourite fights from yesteryear. I'd go as far to say there's been a decline since the 90s ACROSS THE BOARD i.e depth across the weights.

Too many weights
Too many belts
Not enough fights

 

This is a fair opinion but I can't see any viable reasoning behind it.

 

Not controversial, but I think Meldrick Taylor had a lot more 'sink or swim' tough fights than given credit for. He is the anti-Cherry Picker.

 

I just think his defence is unreal and he would find a way to win against anyone in history, just my opinion of course!!

 

Rightly or wrongly, I suspect you would be branded a "***git" and ignored. As often happens in the general if anyone has the nerve to state a true fact.

 

This has been one of my favourite threads because you get to see people's real thoughts without them being stupid.

 

Funnily enough I used to think it was.

I used to say the likes of Bob Fitzsimmons, Jack Johnson, Hell, Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey would fall to mere journeyman, I felt Joe Louis was 'too small' for todays Heavys, the most credit I ever gave Harry Greb in a hypothetical fight with Hagler was to 'take a beating for a couple of rounds before Haglers newer puncching technique takes him out'.

But then I realised I had no real cut-off points. 'If this fighters era is 'more modern' than the previous era than why did this guy, a veteran of years gone by, teach this fighter some real lessons and beat him to a pulp?'

Smaller gloves=More accuracy required. Timing goes hand in hand with that. So whilst output may be low by (SOME) modern standards, the reasoning behind it, and why it is no less effective than a so-called 'modern style' is clear. When it comes to clinching, only difference is that (MOST OF THE TIME) it is broken up far quicker.

What todays fighters may be able to bring to the table with 'modern conditioning' (that still makes some of them gas before more rounds than 'old timers' used to do) and 'improved punching technique' is obvious, but how they'd react to a beastly shot from a man in 4oz gloves is another thing entirely.

It cannot be denied: there is nothing in technical ability from about 1930 onwards (and some pretty fair examples of fighters from before who would need a minimum of tweaks to make their style referee friendly in todays game) you can watch a Willie Pep fight and see that we have learned nothing in movement, upper body or feet, in the last 60-odd years.

We can watch Joe Louis and see that we have learned no more about how to throw a punch in nearly 100 years.

It's not black and white with any era (no pun intended) every era has good or bad, great or poor. But the 'great' fighters from any era would last against the 'greatss' of any others.

At the very least, todays fighter is going to find say, Joe Gans, a very awkward customer. Fists hitting you in the head regardless of how old they are, and there have been little to no advancements made in TECHNIQUE and that cannot be denied, there is plenty of evidence (of fighters looking arguably better than their modern counterparts although that is subjective of course) so the only thing that could make todays fighters better is therefore conditioning.

Nope, not there either.

How 'modern' was this guys training methods?

This content is protected

Or his punching technique for that matter?

Which is why, since my epiphany, I say 'can't be one rules for one and one for the others'.

 

Id agree with this to a certain degree, its hard to rate a fighters ability if there is not fight footage of him. Obviously Greb has some fantastic wins and he should be rated very highly, but its difficult to make any head to head matchups on him. All we have is written reports from people who have seen him fight, to judge how good he was ability wise.

 

Of course, but you could say that of quite a few fighters, fighters with better offence, better opposition, and careers with much more depth, so I'd go for them over Floyd, just my opinion of course!!

 

I agree, which is why itt's lucky that 'he could beat him' isn't very high on criteria when ranking 'the greatest' fighters.

We have plenty of footage of his opponents. Some of them looking truly sublime. Masters of their craft in fact.

So the fact he absolutely beat the **** out of them must say a lot?

 

Also, this is one guy. Name some more please. :good

I don't rate John L Sullivan very highly for instance. In fact, I basically discount him, and only read him for the enjoyment of learning about that time. It really was a different sport, although he was obviously an advocate of gloves.

Barbados Joe Walcott, there is one :good

But we have footage of pretty much every 'great' fighter. Jack Britton, okay.

But this is not 'many old timers' though. Romanticism is one thing, giving evidence to back these claims up is not.

 

It should and it does, as ive said he should be rated highly, but the lack of footage still leaves a small question mark on him.

 

Well of course it does, we'll never really know what his style looked like for one.

But those question marks should be nothing to stop his unassailable reign as 'The G.O.A.T', which he is.

IMO ;-) :good

*Only feasible G.O.A.Ts are (in no order) Henry Armstrong; Harry Greb; Ray Robinson; Ezzard Charles; Sam Langford; Roberto Duran; Benny Leonard; Muhammad Ali. I don't think there's anyone else you could really argue into that spot, unless you have 'odd criteria', not saying you have :good.

 

Calzaghe's training methods were truly archaic, but the guy was naturally gifted with a terrific boxing brain and great ability - who's to know how good he would have been with a decent trainer and training methods, or if he would have been better at all.