Current Fighters On P4P Lists... Do You Have The Following...

You must know he is joking. When I rate Hopkins my #4 middleweight, pick Mayweather over Williams and speak highly of Whitaker, I'm not doing it just for shits and giggles.

 

Remember the Hagler-fest

 

Just you get yourself on messenger for a chat mate and don't worry about my wind ups.

 

I know. But I rate Morales' win against Pac higher than Pac's against him (because of the visible decline in Morales between fights). I'm not sure though, Pac would probably be around Morales in the rankings. I didn't take it too seriously.

 

I can agree to this. They will most likely move up in the ranking once they retire.

 

No?

 

good way to look at it, what that boxer accomplishes in his era.
I also look at quality of opposition and how dominant that fighter was
at his weight. Then the most important test of true greatness: the challenges and chances that the fighter was willing to take. The willingness to seek challenges creates the seperation in my estimation.

 

I think that there is some kind of correlation between age and tendency to get overenthusiastic about flashy things like speed and power. In other words, those posters or laymen or TV analysts or whatever you want, who are under ~40 are more susceptible to get starry eyed over style and simply don't have the patience to appreciate substance. To much video games during their teenage years. ADD is the result for a whole generation.

How many 20 year olds do you know who could watch and appreciate 15 rounds of Laguna-Ortiz? And yet they think they are watching true art when Jones destroys midget Paz in 6 rounds. Or they see Tyson mutilate Bruno or Mayweather talking like a fake thug and making the speed bag dance on HBO 24/7.

Boxing is a character sport in the end. Modern fighters haven't come from the same kind of blood and guts backgrounds that those of previous generations came from.

Dempsey was tough. Tyson feels sorry for himself.

Floyd literally cries to America about how mean his daddy was to him and got a title shot in his 18th start. Hagler, one of 7 children to Ida Mae, came out of Newark's tenements and had no daddy. Race riots brought him to Brockton, MA which was comparatively a paradise. But it ain't. He got a title shot in his 50th bout.

When the middleweight pros started ducking him, he called them a "bunch of sissies." He fought anyone. Jones, Floyd, Oscar, et al. are cherry pickers. That hurts their legacy in my opinion.

Sammy Angott had 20 fights in a 4 year period. Listed in that period is Pep, Robinson x2, Ike Williams x3, Henry Armstrong, Montgomery, and Beau Jack. All in or not far out of prime. He fought Robinson 3 weeks after fighting Montgomery.

Archie Moore fought 14 times in 1945 -meeting Bivins, beating Cocoa Kid and Lloyd Marshall twice, and splitting one a piece with Holman Williams. Floyd Mayweather has had 14 fights since May of 2001, where he took his first title. Moore finished with 220 fights. Floyd will finish in the 40s if he doesn't retire now and avoid Cotto and Williams.

Boxing was better then. And it is not exactly irrational to say that boxers were better then as well. More men tasted poverty then and came from backgrounds that breed fighters. More men were in the professional ranks then, they fought more often then, and they fought each other -several times.

Everything -substantial- points to the conclusion that boxers "then" are superior to boxers "now".

 

Stonehands is dissing you Manassa.

 

Ha!... Sweet Pea with the rapier-like wit. Many younger ones on this site are exceptions, Manassa particularly.