Controversial statements on boxing that you stand by...

Reverse counterbaiting:nono

:yep

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llf0ewoRKhM[/ame]

 

I mean an entrance like Eubank's in this with the lights and the better music:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4uvmHquZYA[/ame]


I would have loved to have been at one of fights just for the entrance lol!!

 

To be honest, it probably helps to enjoy the modern game :good

When I watch boxing nowadays I just think 'what a poor standard' and get fed up. I'm happy to be able to watch what I consider 'the best' stuff, but that's just me :good

If it's pyrotechnics you want in boxing then you're right: This era is probably the best for you.

 

I'd say the main reason for my lack of knowledge on past fighters is because I'm too lazy. Fighters nowadays, I watch them as much as I do because there's still more to come from them, and I'd like to gauge how much success I believe they will acheive.

It's pretty short-sighted, but I do believe that it is, maybe subconciously, why I don't watch as many classic fighters as I should. I always plan to broaden my horizons, but never quite follow through with it for whatever reason.

 

I watch a lot of old fights because I spent a lot of time as a kid reading boxing books about these guys and now with the Internet, YouTube, torrents etc I've finally got the chance to see them.

 

I watch a fair amount of old fights, often ones that have been reccomended in the classic, and I have watched footage of many of the great fighters of the past.

But the one thing that gets me is that some older fights have extremely poor quality, some to the point where you can barely even see the punches land. Just look at the footage of the Kid Chocolate-Canzoneri, a great fight, but the quality of the footage would nearly put you off watching it

 

That sums me up really well!!

 

Chocolate-Canzoneri I assume you mean :good

And for me, it's worth persevering with. That fight is amazing, just requires a bit more patience to see what's going on.

I'm willing to do it, though I can totally understand if it's off putting. Joe Louis' fights are, in general, great quality, and there's nothing 'old fashioned' about him. I'm sure those 'skeptics' (not you :good) as there are quite a few, could at least find him easily digestible?

 

I can never fathom why people rate Joe Louis over Muhammed Ali.

 

Me either. Its even a kind style match up for Joe.

 

Yeah had them two Gavilan and Chocolate up with all this Gavilan talk

I think ''sceptics'' of old school boxing would find classic heavyweight fights easier to watch in general, because of the glamour and historical significance of the division. You could find even casual fans who have at least a basic knowledge of Dempsey, Johnson, Louis, Patterson etc. Not really any excuse for not checking out some of the older heavyweights.

I would watch any classic fight under the sun as far back as Jack Johnson if the quality was decent enough, but I suppose bad quality footage is better than no footage at all. And for the most part I do grin and bare the quality:thumbsup

 

Amutuer Boxing is terrible money buys medals even at amatuer level the more money you can throw at trainging camps and fighters eg make them full time the more chance of medal thats why the turnaround in British medal count at the last olympics
Boxing attracts a lot of dodgy characters
Strum beat Macklin fair and square

 

The Klitschkos (last 3 years version of Wlad) would have dominated Frazier and Liston

Fighters pre 1940's were very lacking in technique with guys like Jack Johnson showing what I would call awful technique even given the different dynamics of the time.

 

Ring girls are the biggest flaw of boxing. This ''tradition'' must be erased to make sweet science the complete art.