Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by OvidsExile, Aug 11, 2019.
I just watched one of the later Jake Lamotta fights. Was Lamotta even human?
Imagine if he had fought a hundred or just twenty or thirty more times? What if he fought Michalczewski, Rochigiani, Nunn, McClellan, Benn, Eubank, Collins, and Calzaghe (earlier)? Imagine trilogies with Toney and Hopkins.
With all of the flat footed, plodding, no footwork having, no punch technique having, no defense having boxers of today, those type of comments are simply pure ignorance.
It didn’t even seem to phase him much in later life like many other fighters.
So I do wonder?
I mean I was looking at this from entirely the opposite direction. More time to prepare, more time to recover, more time to hone skills. The opportunity for modern fighters to watch opponents before they box is a benefit he didn't enjoy. There's probably a happy medium but 12 fights a year leaves little room for anything else.
I mention all this in favour of boxers from the past, because comparisons are never made on a level playing field. If you lift a boxer from a previous era and transplant him to the here and now, you have to factor-in the variables to compare talent, like-for-like. That's the only comparison I'm interested in, to be honest...
The sport changes too. Imho 15 rounds boxing is a different sport than 12 rounds boxing. The difference is brutal, at least in my humble opinon, you cannot make the same boxing in 12 and 15 rounds, just you cant. Plus, HW is probably the weight that has changed the most.
You've chosen a bad generation though, I think that none of those fighters would win to prime wlad. Plus, Tyson is a dwarf, honestly, imo he's overrated as hell. Nevertheless that's a complete another story, 100% we will have the oportunity to discuss that in another thread.
I don't think he needed more time to prepare or recover. He was just always ready. Guys who fought ten times a year were obviously more disciplined than today's fighters. They are what I think of as a real fighter, always ready at a moment's notice. Some mugger grabs your wife in a dark alley. Are you going to ask him for a couple of months to prepare before you can defend yourself? The whole notion is sissified. It's the opposite of a fighter's mentality.
Frankly, while I didn't believe it, I respected that Floyd claimed he didn't watch footage of his opponents to prepare. He trained to fight anyone, not a specific person. He practiced to beat all styles, not one style. His opponent was never the other guy. He was always in competition with himself. A lot of these guys, I think that their time would be better spent perfecting their jab or lateral movement. You can use that in all of your fights. Also, fighters had plenty of opportunities to view their opponents fighting back in Robinson's time. You could watch Robinson fight a couple of times a year on television. Then they also had fight footage in gym collections and trainers used to send people over to scout out opponents at their fights or gyms. Remember how Tyson used to describe watching old fights on reel with Cus?
This content is protected
Adam Sandler: Thank you! Thanks! Alright! Uh.. Mr. Tyson, three years is a long time to be away from everything, so, being one of your biggest fans, I figured I’d help you out and fill you in on what’s been going on in the world the past three years.
Let’s start at 1993, November 5th: Some guy from the bank called me about paying back my student loan. I told him I don’t have the money yet, and he starts saying how he’s gonna repossess my car and cancel all my credit cards. Then he says, “Are you a boxing fan?” And I say, “Ye-eah.. what does that have to do with anything?” And he says, “Because, I have some things to say about that guy Mike Tyson. Tyson’s the worst boxer I’ve ever seen. Muhammed Ali could kick his ass! Ali’s daughter could kick his ass! And, if Tyson ever got out of prison, I would kick his ass!” Now.. the car and the credit card thing, I understand; he’s doing his job. But.. the stuff about you, that was just uncalled for! Anyway, if you wanna go ask him about it, he works at.. [ SUPER appears on screen ] ..First National Bank.. 325 2nd Ave., between 55th and 56th. His name is Sidney Crenshaw; do what you gotta do!
February 5th, 1994: My girlfriend breaks up with me, and starts going out with a guy named Peter Evans. I ran into Peter at a coffee shop, and I said, “I hope you and my girlfriend are happy.” Then he said, “Mike Tyson sucks!” I was, like, “What does that have to do with anything?!” [ laughing ] Then.. he starts doing an impression of you; he was, like: [ imitating Peter Evans’ impression of Mike Tyson ] “I’m Mike Tyson! I talk like a five-year-old girl! I could never beat up Peter Evans, ’cause I’m a little pansy!” Then he said some other stuff, about you saving up for a sex-change operation, or something; I don’t remember all the details, but Peter Evans might. [ SUPER appears on screen ] He lives at 1197 Horatio St., Apt 4-P, as in “Punch in the face”
Today there's a weaker talent pool.
Watching a couple of times a year, compared to dozens of fights a week on YouTube, is not comparable.You're pushing a boulder up the steep side of Polemic Hill with that one.
It's interesting that it seems you think I'm countering the basic premise that a fighter from the past as great as SRR would be good enough to beat the best from today. I'm not. I've asked here before for those who blindly opine that everything in boxing today is better to show me exactly how. Not physicality or conditioning or sports science, but the sweet science - that's the measure by which I chose to compare. And using that measure the greats of the past remain exactly that - great.
But to ignore the impact of modern training and the ability through media to study the sport and various styles - even the convenience of travel to evolve skills at different gyms in different countries - is sidelining advancements which make it tougher to say the greats from the past would dominate, without question.
I don't think you can say that, and you haven't made that case. But give SRR a level playing field to negate all I outlined in the paragraph above and without doubt... Primus inter pares.
lookks great from what I've seen even for that time.Physically maybe even more impressive than technically, Flurries fast like Leonard but sometimes he really looks like Hearns with his punching but built a lot sturdier, seemed to really have the best of everything and I'd say from what I've seen at least you can see why he was the real deal.
You can disguise it as you want to, this is primitive boxing
And his defense... well...what defense?
Flurries? yes, with his hand coming back to his waist, ridiculous.
But, men, it's sooooo obvious that his boxing is archaic when we compare it to, I dont know, lomachenkos boxing, mayweathers boxing, morales boxing, duráns, leonards, hearns haglers.... you live in pure denial if you dont see that. All of them have more evolved boxing, ALL.
There are flatfeet now? sure, and back then too, so what? stupid statement.
no defense? He doesn't get hit clean once in that clip so...
so what? you dont get hit you have defense? that's your point? what a point... dude. He's fighting another archaic fighter, that's why he doesnt get hit not because of his mediocre defense, had he fought cotto in this fight, a completelly disciplined modern fighter, robinson would have finished in the hospital. Not to talk about what pacquiao, or trinididad, or the same gg could do to a guy fighting like that, with suicidal instincts.
Miguel Cotto was better than Sugar Ray Robinson is that what you're suggesting