Sam Langford vs Razor Ruddock

Whatever you say. Btw, do you even watch footage??

 

This has nothing to do w modern vs old time fighting .. Langford is one old timer that holds up very well on film but he was essentially the size of Dwight Qwai .. Ruddock was a huge guy and a head case .. he started out as a talented boxer but once his punch came out he gave that up and became an awkward slugger , looking for the bomb and becoming less effective as he might .. on size along , essentially fifty plus pounds you have to favor Ruddock .. no doubt Sam could have hurt him badly but if he could have hit him is another issue ..

 

No, I don’t.

I study it!

 

What makes you feel superior in that regard? Thinking that Louis never dominated a fight with his jab? You have a bias towards modern fighters based almost exclusively on size.

You use virtually every thread to discredit patently great fighters, yet wax lyrical about Morrison or McCall.

I have had differences of opinion with reasonable posters like McVey on various fights, but he at least makes arguable points without a blanket "you know nothing" response.

I don't claim to be a boxing expert, but I know more than you think I do.

Have some humility.

 

1) I didn't say that Louis never dominated a fight with his jab. I said that he didn't do so regularly the way that great modern jabbers did. I also said that jabbing technique and proficiency in the heavyweight division took a leap forward with Liston and Ali. And I stand by that 100%. Should be plain as day for anyone who understands the different types and uses of jabbing. Watch some Louis fights and then watch Ali, Holmes and even some lesser heavies fight. The bottom line is that for all we rave about the skills of ATG technician types like Moore/Charles/Walcott even, there were lesser 80s heavies who had far more advanced and effective jabbing techniques and abilities.

2) I've never waxed lyrical about either of those men. Let's be clear. The problem is that for a lot of the more simple-minded posters here, it's sacrilegious to suggest that certain non-ATG heavyweights have physical tools and abilities that they could use to defeat even much smaller ATG heavies from the past. People who think this way live in a fantasy world in which physics, video, and common sense are all irrelevant and the only thing that matters is the prevailing folklore-based conventional wisdom about who is "greater" than whom.

3) I've never said that you don't know anything about boxing. To the contrary, I think you've read a lot about the history of the sport and know a lot of the type of rankings & records info that I mentioned above. Problem is, you base all of your arguments on such things, even when they lead to absurd outcomes. It gives the impression that you don't actually watch much boxing or understand some of the fundamentals, mechanics and general principles of the sport . Maybe I'm wrong but that's certainly how you come across quite often...

 

You are wrong. I watch lots of boxing, both on TV and live. I have seen loads of amateur boxing(and believe me, some amateurs are bloody good!).

I understand boxing technique, I did boxing training for years and was around boxing gyms for even longer.

I've won good money betting on boxing. I picked Prescott to beat Khan, Rahman to beat Lewis, even Danny Williams to beat Tyson!

I rate fighters based on styles, strengths, weaknesses etc. I factor in size, too!

I call it as I see it, for instance I really rate Mayweather's abilities, whereas some old timers would not. I think he and other modern fighters belong in any era; quality is quality, in my opinion.

In the same way I feel Basilio, Napoles or Hagler would still be great today.

On heavyweights, generally, I think size and weight is a factor; maybe not as much as you but definitely a factor. I agree with you that sometimes a size discrepancy is a lot(and sometimes too much) to overcome. This could very well apply to the fight being discussed.

I agree with you that blindly picking a "legendary" fighter is wrong, without further ****ysis.

I hope that this has clarified my position.

 

Yes it does. I sincerely apologize for lumping you in with some of the others!!

(how did you pick those upsets though?)

 

Prescott due to his power, range and jab.

Rahman because of Lewis's distractions in the build up to the fight.

Williams due to Tyson slipping and the big odds given to Williams.

Cheers for the hearing me out!

 

It's so weird how much of this post I think applies to you and your views.

Shows you how polar people can be with their opinions and the way they see things.

 

Actually, I think that most of it applies to you...weird indeed.