Please name...

All you fools who think the fighters in the 1800's or early 1900's are more highly rated than todays fighters need to stop smoking the ****.

Modern nutrition, scientific training and recovery methods, supplements and PEDs make todays elite fighters on average way better physically than those in history. Eg the Storm runs $3m deficits despite reaching every grand final in the last 4 years and having one of the best sponsorship packages in the NRL. If your wondering why, its because they blow it on all on recovery therapy and sports science ****.

Rocky is the stuff of legends but match him against Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield and he more than likey gets his ass handed to him.

History is for DEAD PEOPLE.

 

[quote="DJ";5954090]And wasnt his first "World Title" fight only a "World Title" because Ottke was upgraded to WBA "Super" Champion?[/quote]

His first, AND his second!

Kessler was also made Super Champion and his regular belt went back into circulation. Mundine won it by beating Sam Soliman who hadn't fought at Super Middle in 5 years.

Before that Mundine won Ottke's title, after Ottke was made Super Champion, by beating Echols who never held a major belt at 168.

Mundine's WBA belts are bull**** titles, they shouldn't even exist. It's ironic the two guys who's titles he won (after they were made Super Champion), both destroyed him in the ring.

The only legitimate title Mundine has is the IBO belt he won from Geale.

Lucky he didn't make weight to take the IBO 154 belt beating Medley. This clown was claiming he was going to make history by winning major titles in 3 divisions going down in weight. He was shamelessly putting his name up there with the ATGs of the sport. Sickening how uses those bull**** titles to claim his greatness.

 

Then grow up a bit. It you want to talk boxing then i'm happy to but stop acting like a 14 yr old with insults because i don't think Tszyu would have blown away De la Hoya at 140 like you think. I think Oscar would have boxed Tszyu's ears off myself for a decision win.
By the way i agree with you that only unified champions are real world champions (i champ per division) but in this day and age of a million organisations and WBA regular champions etc etc that is never going to happen. The most legitimate belt is the ring mag belt by a long long way but after that imo comes the big 4 belts then belts such as the IBO.

 

Act your age you old ****.....:bbb...stop calling people names and call for a fresh commode bowl..:hey:hey

 

Donkey.. I'm not referring to fighters from the 1800's or early 1900's in my last two posts.

The names of the Champs listed is a good start for any arguement, because everyone of them held/holds a version of a title. Every one of them appeared in CLASSIC battles that will be spoken of more a fkn long time.... some more so than others. Think hard about it... Do you think there was a bloke more capable than Barry Michael, of absorbing offensive punishment. 61 Pro bouts and NEVER knocked off his feet. To say B.M is under rated in modern terms is a gross understatement.

Fighters are rated nowdays by P4P crap.. No longer quality of bouts, but quantity of titles. Moving UP in divisions is so bloody commen, its a race to capture as many titles for a fkn P4P ranking..?? Why?? Simple.. SSSSSSS

Do you think Robbie Peden (C/Wealth games GOLD Medalist) having spent his career in the USA, being the NABF Champ & IBF jL/W Champ should be less regarded than Mundine?? I hope not.

What about Jeff Malcolm?? Battled through about 130 Pro bouts.. Multiple Aust champ.. Commenwealth Champ... faced the Very best on offer here for years and years. Should he be forgotten because he did not win a WBA interim belt?? NO.

History is NOT for the dead.. each of these blokes are alive and well.. As are countless others who deserve more credit. Challenge yourself... read about them.. read between the lines... Then place them in some kind of order. :hi:

 

Ring Mag Belt?? Since Nat Fleischer died in 1971-72, that belt means sweet FA. Loubet (Nats son in-law) is a crook.

I request we place a local petition forward in hope of a 'Fist Mag' belt.

 

The ring mag belt is the best easily of all the belts.

 

"Act your age you old ****"?? ..... I'd rather "Act a **** in my old age" Time will tell. lol.

 

Your theory as to why the Storm is losing money is laughable

As to your point about fighters being physically better, boxing is one sport where bigger is not better. While sprinters and rugby players may be 20 kgs heavier than their old time counterparts without losing speed. A welterweight is still a welterweight. The only division where your argument is relevant is the heavyweights and I'm pretty sure most people would laugh at you if you suggested the current crop is better than historical fighters.

 

****. Oztriker could be your son:admin

 

Its not a theory its a fact. Melbourne attracts more sponsorship dollars than anyone else except perhaps for Brisbane. Crowds are on par with the less popular Sydney teams. There is the salary cap. Yet they run the biggest loses in the competition. So where does all the News Ltd money go? Its spent on rehab, coaching, and sports science.

Bigger is not better in boxing, yes. But how about being faster, having more endurance and having more power at the same weight? These are the things sports scientists can help athletes with. Modern training methods, nutrition and recovery techniques produce a superior athelete compared to 100 years ago, hell even 20 years ago.

The advances in sports science is no more obvious than in weight lifting. Why are records continuously broken when the lifters are the same weight? They are generating more power with the same mass, period.

Ali is a better boxer than Haye. There is no question about that. But that is an irrelevant point. What you need to ask is this "Would Ali have been a better boxer if he had the benefits of modern nutrition, recovery techniques and statistical analysis?"

Some misguided fool was trying to argue that boxers 100 years ago would outbox modern fighters because there were more "pro" boxers then. Thats delusional at mental hospital level. Pro then meant fighting for 5 pounds after your job at the docks. Pro meant you were the biggest gorilla at the local pub. Not training 356 days a year with full time coaching, medical doctors and sports scientists at your disposal.

 

I appreciate some elements of your argument. Definitely.

However, boxing is very different to a lot of other sports. For example Mundine has world class athleticism and world class skills but has not produced world class results.

There are so many variables and intangibles in boxing that even predicting results between contemporary fighters is often difficult let alone fantasy match ups from different eras.

 

fighters of old often fought 20 round bouts. darcy did, all the time.

yes nutrition and medicine is better, and boxing tactics have evolved, BUT...!!! you cant teach 'chin', 'hunger', 'raw talent', nor can you find better talent in a smaller talent pool!!!!!!!. and our talent pool is tiny by comparison.

if it were possible to bring fighters of earlier eras back to the future, re skill them, and unleash them on the current mob, it would be total carnage. the modern fighters would be destroyed. and it wouldnt take 20 rounds.

les darcy was a blacksmith. he bashed steel all day from daylight to dark. he got a half day off on saturdays so he could fight at night......he then often fought 20 rounds. ....and won most of them against the worlds best. he wasnt even 20 when he won most of his fights. he fought all of them from middle to heavy. those boys were TOUGH!!!

mundine by comparison is a nancy boy.

 

shows you know nothing about boxing. you are a ******, a fool, and even worse, are probably khoder nasser....:barf

 

The talent pool is reduced because the unskilled and fighters just tryin to make a little bit but of money are run out the sport whereas the ones left are viable fighters. Heart, hunger etc is a hypothetical measurement on which to base an argument on. Give me a fighter who trains effectively rather than an anvil jockey. The useful methods from the past are incorporated into modern training whilst the ineffective ones are expunged. Being tough means nothing de la hoya and pbf beat gatti (rip) up badly and he was arguably the toughest about.

Nostalgia and wanting your points to be true doesn't make it so.