Do you think technique evolves?

Hagler is one of the most well rounded boxers of all time he could box on the front foot, could box on the back foot, one of the best switch hitters of all time, great balance, good fundamentals, very good jab, good variety in his offence, good defence, there is no real glaring weakness in Hagler's game. That's why out of 67 fights the only real convincing loss he has is probably vs Willie Monroe who he beat convincingly in 2 other fights.

 

Except Canelo is a much better fighter then Trinidad and has looked better at the weight while Trinidad was noticeably the smaller man in his fight. Jacobs, Canelo and Derveyanchenko are better then anyone Hopkins beat at middleweight considering they were actual middleweights (Jacobs being a huge middleweight at that) even more impressive since he was past his best when he fought them. And bringing up Hopkins fight in another division doesn't do anything when you're comparing their performance at middleweight.

 

Golovkin never beat Canelo though where as Hopkins destroyed Trinidad.

The poster asked = "What was the standout performance of Hopkins' career for example?"

So i brought up Tarver he never specified it had to be at Middleweight he said "career" and i don't see why we can't bring up another weightclass ? isn't Hopkins beating a big Light Heavyweight and established fighter in Tarver a good example of Hopkins beating an upper echelon fighter in a standout performance ? no.

Trinidad and Tarver are better wins than Derveyanchenko, Jacobs, especially the manner in which Hopkins won his fights. Where as the Jacobs fight was a very close decision and the Derveyanchenko fight was highly controversial in which a considerable amount of fans think Golovkin lost.

 

Regarding Hagler lunging in, he was good at timing those lunges and had a knack for either taking the angle so that he could land what was now the lead hand hook as the opponent pivoted, or landing the punch on the unsuspecting opponent. Pus. he was moving his head off line, so that made countering clean an extremely difficult proposition.

There was a lot of nuance to his game and to his switch hitting and that should be appreciated, imo.

 

I can´t believe we are discussing this. Jacobs, Deveryachenko ? A couple of honest pro fighters, they are probably stand up guys but c´mon.

 

Hagler is my favorite fighter and the reason why I even watch boxing so I've deep dived into him probably like no other boxer ever. Him being considered primitive fundamentally by anyone is downright silly.

 

This is about how I feel…

Fighters hardly ever have any rhythm or smoothness anymore and are usually not inventive at all… There are exceptions to the rule - but as a general statement it’s true and not hard to see at all levels of the sport..

 

The more you post, the worse it gets for you.


Regarding Golovkin, I’ve seen most of his fights. And before you joined the forum, I spent hours and hours on here defending some of his career decisions against many members who used to trash him.

I like Golovkin. I’ve always been a fan of him. I like his style. His respectful attitude. And I hated the way he was ducked and strung along by Oscar, in order to delay the Canelo fight for as long as possible. So don’t be referring me to fights that I’ve already seen. I am very educated on him.

Now you have trashed all of the greats that have been mentioned, and have routinely noted some of their flaws. Yet like them, Golovkin also has flaws. So I don’t need to watch him beat a B level guy in Lemieux. This is just you cherry picking again. I have watched many of his fights. And I admire his technical skills. But he is not a great defensive fighter. He has always been easy to hit. So one fight against a B level David Lemieux doesn’t mean a damn thing.


Regarding Marvin, I never said that being a switch hitter automatically meant anything. But Marvin was very versatile. He could box in a technical boxing match, like against Duran. And he could fight toe to toe in a shootout, against the likes of Hearns. He could both box or fight from either stance.

I’ve also never said that any skills have been lost in time.

So not only have you pathetically cherry picked certain points in certain fights, in order to suit your own narrative, you’re now just flat out saying untruths.


Once again, I have given plenty of praise to today’s fighters. I’m a fan of Usyk and Terence Crawford etc. Again, boxing is in a good place. We have plenty of great talent around.

So don’t imply that I’m being biased and nostalgic.

It’s you who’s been disingenuous.

It’s you who’s in this delusional fantasy world, where you think everything newer is better.

Now once again, if you’d been watching the sport for as long as I have, you’d KNOW that there’s been great fighters in every era, where the sport has simply ebbed and flowed for decades.


Are the fighters and divisions today the best of all time? No.

Were all of the fighters and divisions of the past better than those of today? No.

It’s a mix.

Many are.

Many aren’t.

But the point is: There’s no CONTINUAL progression.

And again, that is very easily provable.

 

The game is played at a very high pace today, there is a lot of movement everywhere, fast punches all the time, fast footworks. You gotta be quick otherwise you can´t make it today. That is true. Boxing´s average pace today is much faster than before..
Now... is this good ?
This causes the sport to be less like chess, and more like table tennis, to me. Fighters lost the ability to deceive the opponent in a composed way, when you needed a fighting brain.. but these guys today don´t even fight... some of these top p4p guys today have 150 rounds fought in their lifetime in the ring.

I said some pages back, apparently nobody agreed, that guys today fight with a primary pattern based on combinations, and not on distance judgment like old school fighters.

 

These are the best WW’s today:

Crawford
Spence
Boots


These were the best WW’s of the early 80’s:

Duran
Leonard
Benitez
Hearns


That is a difference of more than FORTY YEARS!

Just think about that for a second.

FORTY YEARS.


Now, if you want to say that that was an anomaly, then these were the best WW’s of the late 90’s:

De La Hoya
Mosley
Whittaker
Trinidad
Quartey


That was over 25 years ago.

A quarter of a century.


Where’s the progression in skills and technique??

Most fans would rate the guys from the 80’s higher, from 40 years ago.


Now let’s look at the MW division today.

One of the most prestigious divisions in the sport’s history.


These are the best MW’s of today:

Alimkhanuly
Adames
Sheeran
Lara
Eubank Jr
Nursultanov
Cash
Smith


These were the best MW’s of the early 90’s:

Toney
McCallum
Nunn
Johnson
Hopkins
Jones
Jackson
Kalambay
Gerald
Collins


No disrespect to today’s guys, but the comparison is a joke. A joke in favour of those guys from over THIRTY years ago.


Now I’m sure that you’re familiar with today’s top 10 P4P list, even if the order is subjective.

Here’s one from 2002:

Hopkins
Jones Jr
MAB
De La Hoya
Mosley
Lewis
Mayweather
Tszyu
Forrest
Morales


So: Above are comparisons from around 20 years ago, 30 years ago and 40 years ago.


So WHERE is the PROGRESSION in skills and technique?

Please show me.


Now if you’d like to compare any other weight classes and/or eras, then please, be my guest.

We can look at any that you choose.


I’m very much looking forward to your response.


Thanks.

 

Absolute BS!

Are you for real?

Why don’t you go back and read through the thread.


I have debated you.

I have laid out objective and thought provoking posts.

I have given you many examples to consider.

I have given you facts and logical opinions.

I have asked you logical questions.


What happened?

You wouldn’t answer them.


Now you have been completely disingenuous all throughout the thread.

You spent an age cherry picking negative moments in specific fights in order to try and diminish the fighters in question.

You spent an age listing their flaws.

You then said that you were leaving the thread.

You then got upset and defensive, and implied that I was biased, when I also noted some flaws of one of your favourite fighters.


Regarding the Master?

He found himself in a debate with a great, intelligent poster, who was discussing Napoles.

And what happened?

He immediately jumped straight onto Boxrec to note how many losses the guy had on his resume.

He was sarcastic and disrespectful, both to the fighter being discussed, as well as to the great poster.


Neither of you have debated in good faith.

And I don’t know how you’ve got the audacity to talk about condescending behaviour and not being sincere.

You are the guy who has claimed that Danny Jacobs is better than Thomas Hearns, before highlighting where Hearns struggled with a guy like Roldan.

You are a joker.

You have been completely disrespectful in the manner in which you’ve debated.


Now the only reason you have typed this above, is simply because you have NO ANSWER to the points in my previous post.

So this is just a deflection tactic from you.


You like dishing it out, but you can’t take it.

When someone types something that you don’t like, you either threaten to leave or you ignore them.

Pathetic. And especially as you made the thread.


Now stop sulking and come and defend your position.


The WW’s today are not better than the ones from 30 and 40 years ago.

The MW’s today are not better than the ones from 30 years ago.

So come back and refute that.

 

Yap yap yap

 

This is your most worthwhile contribution to the thread.