Just spent 2 hours watching Ray Robinson and...

God, boy, keep embarassing yourself, it´s funny as hell.

 

:good

 

You certainly are the man I'm talking about Mr Garfield.:good

I should have said guys actually because now I remember burt has seen a lot of him also
.

 

Robinsons KO record was impressive when you consider that he was always known as a boxer, not a slugger who would be expected to have a lot of knockouts.

 

Robinson was an aggressive fighter though. Not a slugger but not a "dance around the ring, stick and move" type boxer either. Actually all three Sugars were fairly aggressive, even Leonard, despite how people too often remember him.

Robinson carried a lot of fighters, on orders from the Mafia, so that lowered his KO ratio.

 

Ill give you some time to recheck that mate.

You haven't really seen a lot of the fighters you are talking about have you? And I mean really looked at them, not just a few highlights here and there...and not necessarily the fights they had with Robinson.

You seem pretty well versed on Hagler's opposition Ill give you that but to seriously say a guy like Willie Munroe was doing things that these guys werent is pretty silly.

If you have seen a decent catalogue of Ralph Dupas, Joey Archer, Joey Giardello, Rocky Castillini, Bobby Dykes, etc say they didnt use jabs, angles or good footwork than you either didn't have that yellow cable plugged into the T.V that actually shows the picture from the DVD or quite frankly you just have never seen those guys.

If you have seen a decent catalogue of Jake Lamotta, Kid Gavilan, Tiger Jones, Henry Armstong etc say they didnt throw a lot of punches consistently then see above and check that cable again.

Very important you do the research so you can understand the context of how style developed in those days also.

Its not necessarily always as clear cut as one era does something better than another because things a have changed in boxing, ie the rules and their interpretations, the equipment and the culture of the sport in general.

As I said before look into that stuff I highlighted and we can talk again a bit later.

Cheers bra.

 

you're perfectly entitled to keep your horrible opinion.

 

:deal

 

:-(Jesus Christ, and I didn't think it was possible to dig a deeper hole. You're now insinuating that things such as music and art are on a constant rise? I bet you think Transformers was better than The Godfather. How about The Beatles? They don't hold a candle to Nickelback, do they?

atsch

 

In fairness to TS, I mean even in the clip posted you can see obvious weaknesses that someone as skilled and talented as Mayweather could capitalize on. I mean then fighters at least most, stood in the center of the ring and slugged it out with each other until one fell, they give and take to a degree that by today's standards would be unheard of. It makes for great entertianment, but it's not really inline with the fighters of today, on a technical level. Now if you want to make the argument, I think the better way to frame it would be if SRR were to come along today, and was exposed to the science and sophistication of training, the knowledge of professional trainers, could watch film etc would he be better...yeah probably so. The problem is that he would be at such a disadvantage due to advancements in technology, training methods, diet, what's been learned by boxing people through history and experience, and the vast changes in the way fights are conducted that it would be a lot to overcome even for someone as talented as SSR. I mean when you watch the clips it's almost like watching a different sport, not saying it's better or worse, it's just different. If you took PBF and put him in 1943 I think he gets his ass beat, but I think if you took SRR and put him in 2012 I think PBF beats him, just my two cents.

 

Either you are trying to make the case evolution doesn't exist, is working backwards, or not acknowledging the phenomenon at all. Based on your logic you are stating that essentially even though science is far advanced, athletics in general are far advanced, training and nutrition are far advanced, that the people are simply less talented or skilled? The same principle can/should/would be applied to essentially anything...yes movies are better (better produced, more effects, etc etc), yes Music is better more exposure of artists, more radio stations and mediums available in turn more people exposed to more music by shear probability its going to be better. Things evolve, things change, typically for the better...cars today out perform cars from the past, athletes, entertainment, etc. There is more money in it, more people devote greater amounts of time to it, far better technology, I mean the list goes on and on. You take far fetched examples like comparing the Beatles to Nickelback or Transformers to The Godfather...I mean that's not an apples to apples comparison. Would The Beatles have taken off the way they did if they had as much competition as musicians now? I don't know, I love The Beatles, I have tremendous respect for them and what they've accomplished but they one upped Elvis, who one upped whoever, who one upped whoever, etc etc. It's natural progression man, things are going to get better as we learn from past mistakes, past failures, and past successes.

 

In boxing, you either got it or you don't.

All the "modern" techniques in the world won't necessarily make you a good and certainly not a great fighter.

Just like some guys are gifted with speed and power, and some guys aren't.

Mayweather is a better defensive fighter than Robinson, but Robinson had far more power, threw devestating combinations, and wasn't afraid to let his hands go.

I'm not sure he would beat Mayweather by KO, but his blazingly fast hands, counterpunching ability, and one punch KO power would be enough to make Mayweather tenative and fight too negative.

Robinson's workrate would be enough to win the fight and considering Robinson was never knocked out, and Mayweather isn't a big puncher, he would take risks in order to hit Mayweather with some hard shots.

And no matter how good Mayweather's defense is, it still had holes in it that can be exploited by speed an angles.

Nobody has a perfect defense and Robinson will get some punches through, and his punches can hurt Mayweather.

 

Unfortunately, Reppin, what you're saying only applies to changes in technology and base athleticism, not mental acuity/creativity charged past-times such as film-making (outside of the technological aspect), acting, poetry, writing, music, and yes, sports reliant on mental fortitude/turn-on-the-dime adjustments, etc. such as boxing. These things typically rise, peak, decline, and eventually attempt to recreate their former success by adopting the retro method. Of course that route can't feasibly be taken with a sport such as boxing, and the steadily decreasing participation in the sport in favor of others like football, basketball, etc. isn't helping, either.

Boxing is a one of a kind sport. Attempting to compare it to purely athletic events like track and field (or in other words, sports that do indeed benefit from the points you've made) which require minimal mental fine-tuning and experience by comparison is absurd.

If the talent pool is far diminished with the decreasing interest in the sport, the better trainers dying out (leading to more consistently elementary technique), and the sport reduced to a game of politics with the work of the sanctioning bodies/management (which in turn leads to lesser experience, breeding lesser craft), etc., do you really think the slight changes in athletic advancements will make up for it? What use are they in a sport that is 90% mental, anyway? History has shown time and time again that a great athlete devoid of skill is a sitting duck in the ring, regardless of the athletic ability of the finer-schooled fighter he's up against. Again, the points you bring up are simply not applicable when discussing this type of sport, or especially the arts. And believe me, boxing is more art than science, regardless of the "sweet science" moniker it's so often branded with.

 

Movies and music are different IMO, because that is much more about personal preference rather than Head to Head competition. What's the H2H competition with what is "better" music? Record sales? Does that prove who is the BETTER artist? I don't think so.

Whereas many fans have a personal preference for certain fighters, say Gatti for instance, but there's no denying Mayweather kicked his ass head-to-head.

Of course, when comparing generations, it's different since it's hypothetical, but we're still comparing them mostly by performances in the ring right? Wins and losses, not a particular type of film or music we like.

 

I hear ya yes the evolution of boxing when these days Heavy Weights are gassed after 5 rounds yet the supposed sub standard era of the Ali/Foreman days use to throw for 15 high paced rounds.