Could Emile Griffith be champ today @ 147?

Really? I would have thought, that the long careers of many old-timers would result in the exact opposite!

Imagine having 100-200 (and some times even more) fights under your belt. The wear and tear, the thousands of punches you'd be taking - surely that would not make you sharper, but instead dull your reflexes.

 

It works currently for all the top Muay Thai fighters (who usually have 300+ bouts, some then going to boxing afterwards and dominating their classes). Wales' best boxers were also produced during the era of Boxing booths. Not everyone they are fighting are on the same level, just sharp enough for a workout, High level domestic etc.

It is constant, hard level sparring before fights that ****s fighters over. They leave parts of themselves in the gyms. The 60s - 80s had the best balance of activity levels + training imo.

 

I know nothing about Muay Thai... I'm questioning the idea, that old time boxers with a lot of fights were "so much sharper" than today's boxers.

 

It is comparable, and many of them become top boxers, even ATGs, anyway - so they can be mentioned as they are like the boxers of old in their activity levels. The simple fact is the more you do something regularly, the more likely you are to get better at it, than someone who does it less regularly and doesn't keep as sharp. Common sense. Current fighters do much more sparring, at a much harder pace, to replicate what fighters of old got as pro experience. You could argue that older boxers were sharper as they were much more used to the actual event, and had more regular practice in preparation due to this, which sparring can't give you.

Obviously, a fighter having too many bouts, too soon, after a beating or when he is past his best is just going to ruin him - as it did to Nipper Pat Daly.

Anyway, boxers are too individual to make sweeping generalizations in either manner, so I'll stop now.

 

Simple, the more one does a task usually the better one becomes. If a boxer is fighting 6-7 times a year, imagine how much sparring he's doing in between? Not gym wars as what burned out many good Philly fighters mind you but sparring for sharpness, half speed.
They were always practicing and applying their craft in the ring. Learning what they did well , learning to read what the opponents will do, just by a shoulder shift,or his foot movement or how he shift his weight, not missing countering opportunities that so many fighters today miss. Great countering is rarely seen in today's game, there's a reason for that.

 

He would be in the thick of it. But he was hardly unbeatable, even at his best.

 

The more one does a task usually the better one becomes. Sure, for most things this is true. For example, if you want to become a concert pianist, you have to practice a lot - and the more you practice, the better you become.

But does it really take 200 fights to bring the best out in a boxer? I don't think so. After 100 fights, I don't believe an additional 100 makes you any better.

Look at Ray Leonard, retired with only 40 pro fights under his belt. Does anyone really think, he wouldn't be able to cope with the old-timers, because of lack of experience? That another 40 "keep busy" fights would have made him even better?

Andrew Ward had but 32 pro fights. He didn't dominate the best SMs of his time because he had a lot of fights - but because he was extremely talented. He could fight from the outside, and knew how to in-fight and handle himself in the clinches. His ring IQ was through the roof, which gave him the ability to "read" an opponent, better than most boxers I have seen. He didn't need 100 fights to bring that out in him.

Lomachenko hasn't even had 20 pro fights yet. But with almost 400 amateur fights behind him, he was almost fully "educated" when he turned pro. All he needed was to adjust to the longer distance - and after just a handful of fights, he was already as good as he'll ever be. He has likely already peaked, and I don't expect him to get any better with more fights.

Same with Usyk… very, very talented, despite his few fights.

My point is, that if you have exceptional talent, it doesn't take 100 pro fights to learn how to fight - especially not if you have a long amateur career at the highest level behind you.

To make unsubstantiated claims about how the old-timers were much better and sharper than today's boxers, because they had so many more fights, is neither here nor there. Nobody knows if this is true or not.

 

This 'more fights = sharper skills' arguement has genuine merit imo. How often do you hear commentators talking about inactive periods, ring rust, lay offs ect. as boxing is a skill, how do you improve skills? By practicing. The best way to practice boxing, is to have boxing matches. The more you fight, the more experienced you get; the more situations you've tailored yourself to, been in and overcome. The more you're in the ring, the higher your ring IQ will be.

Back in the day, you fought every style, week in, week out, and it wasn't 'light sparring', it was genuinely two guys competing to win. That sort of experience is priceless.

 

Are you saying, that if Mayweather had been in 100 pro fights rather than just 50 - he would have been a better boxer?

You don't think Lomachenko and other great, long-time amateurs practiced their skills in all those amateur fights?

 

Well, he'd have more experience. He'd have an even higher ring IQ, and be even more comfortable in the ring. So yeah. The only way it starts to be negative is if he was burned out, but 100 fight in 25 years is just 4 times a year. It's not gonna burn him out.

Yeah I do, actually. It's probably why he and his contemporaries are so well schooled.

The idea isn't that someone mediocre becomes immensely talented just through fighting more, it's that the experience increase helps polish you're skills and make less mistakes. Ie: be sharper in the ring.

 

Not unsubstantiated, study film, use common sense. Usyk and Lomencheko had great amatuer careers, but their have been numerous fighters that had 100's of amateur fights, but were nothing as a pro. It's a different game. Also the competition they've faced as pros not one will be in Canostota.
I agree they won't get much better with under 20 fights, but in their 30's. Most great fighters from past era's proved their greatness well before 30.
Ward was good,but if you look at his career until his retirement, he was averaging about 4 fights a year. He was active. That activity along with his ability made him a good fighter.
Leonard was very active before he was 25yrs of age, his greatness proved before he was 25, by the competition he faced. But Leonard also is a great example of what happens when inactive.
Leonard faced the hardest punching, and one of the fastest welterweights in history, a top 5 at welter in Hearns, he faced one of the greatest brawlers in history, a top 10 fighter on the GOAT list at any weight in Duran His ass didn't touch the canvas once.
But after a layoff he gets dropped by Kevin Howard? Whose biggest claim to fame is dropping Leonard. And your claiming activity and number of fights doesn't mean anything?
I never gave a number of fights, what I was comparing is the fact of the 3 welter champs today have averaged around 6 fights each since 2016. In comparison to Griffith averaging that number every year of his career. Griffith would've been much sharper than the fighters of today. And because he'd be sharper, he would be better.

 

How so? The only person to rightfully beat a prime Griffith was Luis Rodriguez. Who no one today would win a round against.

 

I think that Emile Griffith could be a champion today at 147 lbs. But there would be very stiff competition just as their was in his era. Ruben Hurricane Carter did stop Emile in round 1 of their 1963 non title encounter. But in a fight with Errol Spence that would be tough. Spence is both quick and could hit hard. Bud Crawford is very technically sound, but I think that Emile could beat Crawford by decision. Manny Paquaio would be very tough, he is so quick and has very good boxing skills. Remember Griffith had Gil Clancy in his corner, and I think that Emile wins a very hard fought majority decision, by using constant pressure and using his quickness as well. Emile and Spence is a chess match, Emile would taste the canvas once in this match, but rallies to stop Spence in round 12.

 

"Griffith, if we could time travel him from his era to this one, he'd have no serious issues with any of the fightes today". That's your opinion, and not a fact! I might as well say, that I believe he would have plenty of problems with someone like Spence. Are you gonna tell me, that I'm wrong?

 

It is my opinion, based on substantial evidence. Like theirs plenty of evidence for lack of activity and training Isn't a recipe for success if one wants to become a great fighter.And your opinion is number of fights or activity doesn't mean anything? To most knowledgeable boxing fans I'm sure my opinion makes more sense than yours...