Does Gamboa have more talent than Sugar Ray Robinson?

Sure they're a bit different, but they don't evolve a human being like they do technology which is what you seem to be having a very difficult time grasping. There are very subtle changes over a long period of time in physical ability with the things you mention, but none of the other intangibles that go with boxing.

Again, you're saying we can't have fantasy matchups between fighters now and ten years ago because all of the revolutionary changes that have been happening in boxing. Anyone with a brain should see how off these statements are by simply watching the film and knowing the information.

What it all comes down to, is that you badly over-exagerrate the effects of certain dietary plans, supplements, etc especially in such a mental and intangible sport, especially over such a short period of time in a sport that has reached it's technical peak and far surpassed its peak in the sense of having a deeper talent pool.

The ridiculousness of your views is it allows you absolutely nothing on a boxing forum, except to spout these nonesensical views, because obviously the majority of fantasy and classic matchups and events will allow you nothing to post but argument against any of it, which anyone can see is absurd. You exagerrate to an unbelievable extent. It's quite childish.

 

Not to mention PP, wouldn't you actually agree with this thread?

 

Only guy performing on a skill level higher than gamboa right now is Charlie Zelenoff.

 

I agree. Plus, Gamboa was trained by Chuck Norris, who Gamboa defeated as the last part of his training. No one can hurt Chuck Norris except for Chuck Norris... and Gamboa.

But on a more serious note, I could understand if you were comparing the potential that he has, but to claim that he is more fluid than SRR is hard to do, as from what I am told there is little to no existing foottage of SRR at WW.

 

i hear he brought elian gonzalez back to the US and established democracy in cuba. but then again he has beat nothing competition in a division devoid of the superstars that made it famous. so maybe hes not christ reborn

 

[YT]hnTsSjoNPHE[/YT]

 

You underrate him when you say "could potentially" before "become THE greatest in the history of the sport". Gamboa needs no such "cover your ass" statements, and will henceforth KO them with an 8 punch combo.

 

This is what I have claimed and backed up with various analogies from other sports about 6 months ago on this site - however, it is considered to be a quite heretic statement on these sites, and should only be considered for all other sports than the pugilistic ones - or so it seems here...

Is Roger Federer a bigger talent than Rod Laver? Who knows, but does he know more about nutrition and training methods? Definately.

 

Yes he did... and he almost get rid of the sharks at Key West when he realised that he left his mouthpiece home so he had to swim back all the way, put it in and swim to Florida again. But at midnight, just when he spotted the red, white and blue lights of Florida, he remembered that he forgot to say hello to his amigos. But this time, he waited for the Ciclon de Guantánamo and swam back on it's back.

It's a true story.

 

So you agree that young James Toney was primitive as a MW but later on improved through improvements in technology and nutrition at higher weights?

 

No, because you completely misread my point every time I make it.

I don't attempt to say who is better or worse. I don't attempt to claim who is more talented, I don't say old is better than new or vice versa.

I say that training methods, fight science, weigh ins, boxing technology (gloves and boots), time between fights for preparation, boxing libraries for analysis and the changing state of the boxing world (for instance, all the soviet fighters) mean it is NOT WORTH analysing fighters twenty years apart from their primes.

I can analyse a fight between Roy Jones Jr and Joe Calzaghe because they had primes within 10 years of one another.

But to analyse say Roy Jones Jr against Ezzard Charles or even Michael Spinks? Pointless.

Once again, your zealot nature towards older generation fighters means you never quite take my point, which isn't to say that new is definitively better than old, but simply to say that new is definitively DIFFERENT to old.

Intangibles make all the difference in the sport of boxing, it is the reason why Boxer A beats Boxer B who beats Boxer C who beats Boxer A.

But you're too thick in the head to understand nor realise this concept, all you do is bring it back to your same old rhetorical point, attempting to make me seem like I don't rate older generation fighters at all, when never have I said that.

Now, grow the **** up and realise when you're done. Cause you are.

 

Give it up, a guy like Sweet Pea won't take the inference that you can't compare people from different generations because you can see footage and footage shows all.

When I mentioned something like Bjorn Borg dominating his opponents in the older era, or a guy like McEnroe serving powerful aces - compared to Federer, he didn't even take the point.

Like I mentioned in that other thread (If you want to see the arguments, it's under "Why does Gamboa always get a free pass") - boxing likes to pride itself on being timeless because it wants a reason to idolise it's greats.

Where other sports HAVE to realise the improvements have changed the way in which people perform, boxing doesn't, because boxing believes technique is solely the reason a fighter is good or isn't good

Yet, we see non technical fighters like Mayorga beating Forrest solely out of physical attributes.. funny that.

 

James Toney as a MW was fighting OTHER MW's of his era, he wasn't fighting MW's of this era and what's more, out of ALL the fighters you could have mentioned, Toney is the ONE guy who benefitted most from 24 hour weigh ins, so his fat unmotivated ass could beat the weight.

James Toney evolved as boxing evolved, with access to all the new technologies, fight science, money, preparation periods, etc..

Did he use them to his advantage as much as say, Wladimir Klitschko or Lennox Lewis? No... but he did try and use new age steroids and masking agents to beat the system, going to deny that?

 

It'd be a better idea for your to just stop posting in order to make your point because you just enforce it every time with statements like this.

A fighter who's prime is mid 80's is incomparable to a naturally smaller fighter who's prime was mid-90's. That is what you're saying.

You are saying that we can't compare eras because of the changes made it in each one, I understand that, but what you're implying whether you admit it or not, is that we must take each higher generation because the advancements made to them. You argue and argue that the advancements are better for each era, but you're not trying to argue that the fighters in general are because of this?