Controversial statements on boxing that you stand by...

But Jack would get the EVT win by shagging Wlad's friend/ex Hayden.

 

Jack TKO1 Hayden by talking her across state lines :deal

 

Cruiserweight is a more interesting & competitive division than heavyweight at the moment.

It produces better fights & all the top guys actually fight each other.

 

Being harsh on Jack Johnson, the guy regined from 1908 to 1915....this is what I mean by having two distinct era when we rank fighters.

Its unfair for someone of the time period that Johnson lived in to have to fight someone in the world we lived in today. Life is easier, transport, the best trainers, food etc.

Jack Johnson would not have had things like eggs, meat in huge quantities when he was younger, he was dirt poor.

The guy was huge for then, 6'1 1/2 and 210 pounds in his prime.


I honestly believe Sonny Liston with his weight of 215-220 at 6'1 ushered a new era for big heavies with 'skill'.


Again Jack Johnson would have more chance against Liston than Wlad not because of greatness but how far apart the time is.

Just like Rocky would be able to give Ali a go, whereas Ali woud have whupped Wlad.


When your talking a 100 years, its just a moot point....its too far apart.

Before I think 1961...the world championship had stuff like the paris, london and New York commision.

Thats how John L Sullivan won it, becuase he had the best claim, there wasnt some sort of actual belt...then you had the linear stuff....then 60s...WBC, WBA, 80s IBF, WBO....etc

 

Thats another good point, Johnson had to deal with loads of stuff from the public, I mean he reigned before World War 1 for godsake, loads of crap was going on. Many were vastly poor.

Again..its like saying who would win the great Roman armies of Julius Cesar, or the Libyan ragtag boys of today.........well the Libyan would smash them up woudlnt they....but it just totally out of context.


If you look back at my posts....i said

1970s
1990s
2000s

The top 3 decades head to head.........for a reason.

 

Styles make fights, you have to think about the mindset too.

Lennox Lewis would have beaten Foreman, Ali and Frazier...he would have taken the threat seriously....then he would come up against guys like Lyle and Shavers...think he could easily outbox them and lose.

Tyson way, was smashing decent, good fighters, but guys who had will and skill....prime Ali, prime Holmes, prime Lewis could have too much for him.

Could easily see Lewis outboxing Foreman with ease over 12 rounds, then outbox Shavers, for 4 or 5 then lazily get hit...he wouldnt have got back up.

 

Black, I don't really get your point. If Sonny Liston changed the face of HW boxing in 61, does that mean there hadn't been any improvements in the last 50 years?

Wlad would have beaten jack not because of modern training, but because his style would have given him hell.

And I still believe Jack Johnson beats every HW in history that was smaller than he was

 

I want to have a controversial opinion in order to get this thing rolling again other than Black's theories, but I really can't fathom anything that would be seen as such.

 

Lacking confidence, ''Del Boy'' Chisora purposely came in over-weight for his fight with Tyson Fury so to have a perfect excuse for all to see when he lost the fight, although he hasn't made much noise about it he has blamed the weight a few times

 

Why not start with:

"If Audley would've got to the later rounds...."

 

LP, that's actually not a bad theory. He certainly didn't fancy a Fury fight for whatever reason

 

Im not saying Liston changed the face of boxing....I just think a cut off point is needed. I think Frazier would have beaten Johnson and he was smaller.

I just think its unfair...to have huge time disparities...it makes it more akin to pound for pound talk. Johnson was so long ago, totally different mindset and rule set. The guys style was that of a different era...smaller gloves...rules different.

For example Willard didnt defend his title for 3 years, that woudlnt happen if we had an undisputed champion today in the heavyweight ranks as he would be derided. The only thing i can think of is G. Jones who hold 1/4 of the belts at Cruiser...and that's because he is from Panama where some of the top people in orgs are from.

We keep thinking of the world then as some sort of paradise with loads of top athletes wanting to make serious money, sports werent making serious money, there wasnt specialists in all kinds of fields with vast knowledge in sporting preparation and science. Hell doctors told the population that weight training was bad...the political climate was hot, thus people didnt have time to train in a specific sport...they were working to get bread on table. Conditions are so vastly different. Only North America and some parts of Europe took boxing seriously. Comeon guys this was 1910 we are talking about. Again the world changed dramatically after 1945...families saw huge wealth, availabilities of food, resources, facilities to train in.

There will be a point when our type of era is gone...in a sense...from Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Vitali and Wlad... they are close enough in time to not have such huge disparities..so these type of mythical match-ups can be made in terms of debate...similar guys fought each other so we get a good idea. Holmes beat Mercer and McCall so we have an idea how he would do...he was still a good sized heavy...and his time early 80s isnt vastly different to now.

One of the reasons why a Liston or an Ali some 30 years ago can still compete now, is because boxing has ruined itself with fighters cherry picking and avoiding certain fighters. We have diluted the sport so much...that virtually every 5 pounds a new weight class exists. A. Khan would not be a champion if a division for every 15 pounds was about.

With less fights, and avoidance of fellow top fighters....a slow down in skill has emerged. Boxing hasnt applied evolution in all areas...only physical it has slowed down majorly in the skill department. This still does not take away from the fact that talking about who is great J. Dempsey or Bowe or Jeffries or Tyson is too much of a stretch. Why cant we give the Sullivan, Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Walcott, Marciano there due by saying how well they done for there time? Instead we want to think that Rocky smashes up any fighter today..its crazy talk.

 

Black you go off on tangents and don't really seem to be making any progress.

No one has said Marciano would smash everyone from today either.

 

Johnson style was pretty much the earliest versions of what Tunney, Ali, Holmes, Lewis, and Wlad does with his unique self to it.

Mid range pace, slow your opponent down by holding on to them, take your time, pick your shots, use the jab...this is why they have longevity...it does not require huge energy.

Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Tyson...all follow a pattern of being smaller in length then there opponents, closing them down, throwing huge amount of punches... overwhelm there opponents. Again each guy had a unique twist, Rocky threw loads of punches, but was dynamic in his movement and rushing forward...Dempsey and Tyson rushed forward as quick as possible.


Jeffries, Louis, Liston, Foreman, Bowe...use a mixture of being bigger and stronger than there counterparts..boxing and slugging when need be. Some slugged more than others, Foreman slugged more, but could still use his boxing, Louis boxed that bit more but again slugged it out alot.

 

Another thing Liston was the best heavy from 58/59 but Cus D'Amato trainer kept Floyd Patterson away from him...for a reason.