Gavilan With Some Entertaining Footwork

There is no doubt, in my opinion, that any fighters from the 1940's on would be not only competitive with today's fighters, but also probably often times beat them.

Most changes in style after the 1940's have been the result of changes in the actual rules of the game...evolutions of the sport, not the martial art. A lot of these old fighters had unbelievable talents.

 

No, you got it wrong, I just don't bother arguing with kids who only want to incite a personal slurring match, especially when that kid follows me from thread to thread trying to incite said slurring match.

 

Judging by footage, certain fighters definitely would have their chances in this era but for the most part, weight class by weight class, fighters are taller and physically stronger (in terms of weights, etc) today compared to yesteryear according to many of the more respected trainers I've had a chance to talk with, including Steward.

The physical peak is here and now, the problem is that more athletes who may go to boxing, are going to other sports these days.

But those that stick with boxing? Most trainers don't have an issue pushing fighters of today as being better than yesteryear counterparts, it's usually fans/journalists that do.

 

I gave you their comparative resumes. In both threads where I've done so you've been more than happy to respond to all of my other posts, including after posting it in the original thread. Respond to it. Again, it deals with facts, not rhetoric. You can't bull**** your way put of this one.

You believed LaMotta to be similar to Baldomir because he beat the champion in the division(even though that analogy was wrong as well, as usual with your posts) and made his name off of that. What you didn't know was that LaMotta had a very extensive resume outside of that win as well, unlike Baldomir, making your comparison invalid aside from a few minor details that I could make a comparison with any two fighters.

 

Those Sugar Ray Robinson vs Kid Gavilan fights are the greatest welterweight fights that we'll never see.:twisted:

What I would give to find a video of those fights. . .

 

You gave me a list of names, that I, as an educated fight watcher who has been watching boxing since the early 70s and watching as many fights as possible on DVD. I have no doubt that I've watched as much, if not more than the majority of people who have this point of view that I have..

However, I haven't heard of half the names on your list, I didn't bother scrutanising them because the efforts in your post aren't to discuss, they're to argue, you come across as an insecure ignorant child at times and I don't bother arguing with people of that demeanor.

Accomplishments are not "rating" fighters vs fighters, I could say Baldomir would be a significant challenge for LaMotta and you'd scoff all day long, what's the point of that when you don't seem capable of analysing the usage of a simple word, let alone the intricacies of fight styles.

This is the last post I'll make towards you, mostly because I don't like your attitude.

 

Agree, I've tried all my sources, there is no footage of the fight, not a single sausage. I even wrote in to ESPN regarding their classic fights series and they don't have any footage either.

 

So, as someone who's been watching since the 70's, you believe you see changes in skill between fighters like Leonard and Hearns and Mayweather? If not, then you go against your case of fighters evolving along with training, techniques, supplements, diet, etc.

At least I'm not a blatant liar. The names I named were all quality opponents. You're simply nowhere near as knowledgable as you seem to think, and it has been proven time and time again on this forum, with nearly every post you make. You're a fool, and likely a lying fool.

Probably because Baldomir is a mediocre WW, whereas LaMotta was arguably a top 10 all time MW, who happened to be more natural at LHW. For someone who's seen so much and been around as long as you, your knowledge is amazingly limited. What amazes me even more is how you make completely wrong statements all the time, trying to back up your illogical points.

And when did I "rate" fighters in that sense anyway? I simply gave you their resumes. Are you not capable of noting the simple differences between a resume and a head to head comparison? At least make this challenging.

:shock: Whoah, you're a tough one.

 

The guy picked Margarito over Robinson?

Doesn't get any worse than that. Robinson TKO 1 Margarito.

 

So not only can't you do anything but idolise particular fighters and get yourself wet over them, you can't read either.

I stated that Margarito would have a good shot over Gavilan - completely different fighters.. next time you come in attempting to make a statement, read what's posted.

 

Question: Is this guy Revolver?

 

Come on man, you dont know **** if you dont know the guys Pea quoted, they were great fighters in a great era.

Them guys were tougher than now, that goes on character and the individual, not training methods. That particular era was great, and if guys today fought that often, you dont think theyd have a few more losses??

Anyway, on the subject that you created - there is no comparison to be made between the accomplishments of Baldomir and Lamotta, you have looked at face value and also compared styles. When the first and foremost aspect you should lookat when it comes to accomplishments is resume. No comparison

 

Let's see him walk into a left hook out of nothing and get KO'd ala Jones Jr. :deal

 

clip doesn't work