Questions for Burt: Legends vs. the 90's

Retribution for a ***** slapping, lol when was this oh Blind Man ??

Read my reply to Kevin for my reasons earlier, I think you are too often in a hurry and don't really read whats said half the time.... Burt clearly states Vingo was in a very real chance of dying, he was near death Burt said... it sounds to me the sort of beating that finishes careers, did you see that ? if so did you consider it ? or do you just think Burt has no clues as to what he is talking about..... as for all your arguments on the thread I have not dismissed those have I.... one last thing is something I feel is a fair question is.... is it fair to call brave men tomato cans even if they are bad fighters ? and would you say it to them if you met them ?

I really have no recollection of this ***** slapping incident at all.

 

Vingo was fighting local professionals around the New York area.
He was fighting the guys prospects fight.

He lost one fight, 4 round decision, to another prospect and NY Golden Gloves heavyweight champion who turned out to be a decent professional.

I'm not sure who was favourite going in to the Vingo-Marciano fight. But Vingo was apparently considered a good prospect to the crowd in Bronx and NY city in 1949, and that's good enough for me.

 

In terms of credibility, I don't see why the remembrances of someone who saw something 70s years ago should trump all the other forms of information we have at our disposal. It wouldn't in any other realm of life, but boxing fans desperate to romanticize the past take what they can get, I guess.

 

Edited for decency..

 

I feel romanticizing even happens now. Everyone overrates whatever era they feel was the best.

 

I don't have much information on Carmine Vingo at my disposal so I certainly do especially appreciate any eyewitness input on such fighters.

If there's a load of film out there of Vingo then eyewitness remembrances become less valued, but I doubt any of you have seen anything much of Vingo apart from his boxrec page and a few seconds of grainy footage.

 

Well I'll tell ya this... He was no Rudi Lubbers.

 

Oh that was you, well I posted after that clarifying my position there and if I recall I apologised if I had annoyed you but you didn't give me a slapping in any way shape or form... you simply sounded angry..... well I have seen ample proof here of bias from quite a few Americans here but I should add I know of a few who are not and quite decent people, I have made friends with lots of americans but the amount of times I have seen lists by many of you guys seem to always dismiss foreign greats and often doubt they could barely even fight let alone be great..... I take everyone as I find them by their words and actions nothing more. I can tell you there are many Australians who see this the way I do but it is not in any way a personal attack on you either, you have the most world champs by far of any country

what do you mean ?... I have no intentions towards you, i see you as a poster who has good and bad statements... in other words I agree with some stuff you say or at least understand your point of view, I can't reply to every word you get right, just try and debate what I don't agree with or to what I think needs clarifying

 

Yeah I pretty much deleted that post but you responded first. All good

 

Rez, if you mean what did top fighters do better in the 1940s and 1950s better than today I have a simple explanation...take the 1940s [when I first attended boxing matches in NY]. There were at least 8 times or more licensed pro fighters in America fighting often in thousands of fight clubs across the country. Why in New York City alone there was at least one or more fight cards every night of the week except Sunday. And of course we had the old MSG where a main event fighter averaged 40 or more bouts to get into the main event.
And take the golden Gloves amateur finals at MSG where they had THREE rings going at the same time because of the amount of young amateurs they had those days...The top fighters of the 1940s were many fighters as Ray robinson, Ike Williams, willie Pep, Archie moore, Kid Gavilan, Beau Jack,Ezzard Charles,
Sandy Saddler, Chalky Wright, Henry Armstrong, Tony Zale, Jake LaMotta etc
who fought one hundred or more times , to compete with a deep pool of experienced fighters, and these guys knew every trick in the trade...What a guy like fritzie Zivic knew in the ring can hardly be imagined today. Then the advent of TV came about and hundreds and hundreds of local fight clubs had to close up because customers stayed home watching the free fights sipping a brew from the comfort of their living rooms and young fighters could no longer earn a living and learn their trade and boxing started to decline , for the most part...
I don't talk from sentiment R, I talk from facts... Those days there were 8 weight divisions and champions fought many many contenders a year against top opponents the public demanded. When there are so many pro fighters with so many great contenders the champions had to be great to remain on top...
So R, it is the reason why those days spawned so many great experienced fighters we read about today, the more fighters, the deeper the pool of
experienced contenders leading to the great champions of yesteryear...cheers.

 

It's not fair to compare.
Lubbers is rival only by Tubbs.

 

It was a goofy rant in that you completely ignored the substance of his comment, yelled at him for using the admittedly unflattering "tomato cans" when such terms get used all the time around here, and especially in that you offered to broker a fight with him and a 6'5 heavyweight, for no discernable reason whatsoever. I enjoy Burt's posts too but you guys who cry foul when people express reservations about his recollections or disagree with his inferences are acting irrationally.