Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by surfinghb, Jun 29, 2021.
clarks resume is better than listons easily!
Really good post, but I have found it odd that Sonny Liston talked about throwing the two fights against Muhammad Ali in 1964 and 1965.Many think that his talking too much led him to his demise.
Then I'm a bit curious about what you consider a strong era?
Liston would have a lot more losses if he fought 7 different hall of famers instead of 2 and if he fought them on average 5 times! I look at the wins , it wasnt easy to beat The elites , of course you factor primes inside the wins (hence why mclarnins win over benny leonard doesnt hold the same weight as willie ritchie beating a more in prime leonard)! I dont think Clark was some all world heavy not top 20 or anything like that but beating 4 hall of famers and fighting them multiple times after his prime and still having a respectable record does account for something , (clarks heavyweight era to me was deeper than listons ) who were the killers in Listons era , patterson and ali, Clark had jeannette ,Langford ,mcvey, wills (and jack johnson if he would have sacked up and fought these guys) the whole white guys dodging black fighters argument is always made in boxings color line era , jeff clark was a part of that group or at least fought that group (mcvey langford wills and jeannette)
the post james jeffries era with langford , wills , Jeannette , mcvey and johnson as champ was the strongest era for heavies ,
lightweight you have post mcfarland til leonards retirement loaded with great fighters( packey was a beast too)
welter hasnt had a jam packed era (most boxers either were light or jumped to middle) thought the post sugar ray robinson at welter era with gavilan might be the strongest era (black murderers row had elite boxers fighting at welter ala burley ,cocoa kid,holman williams etc!
light heavy you had the 1920s
middle was post ketchel til walker was a super strong era , freddie steele era and the black murderer row eras are all very strong eras( thats why monzon and hagler are overrated to me as well dominating really weak eras)
featherweight was 1910s (you had feathers fighting elite bantams moving up and lightweight boxers ) thats why pep isnt the goat at feather to me his era was weak sans sandy saddler
flyweight Jimmy wilde era etc
Ah, you're the "boxing has only declined since the 1920's variety"? That's after all a fairly fresh agenda for a new? poster here, since the new ones have mostly been Tyson devotees of lately.
The 70's had 4 fighters that are more or less consensus 1-12 among HWs. Two of them went on to have success in their 40's in another era that many consider as strong. I'd say that that qualifies as a strong era. Probably the strongest HW era.
the opinions on the 70s heavies are all guys who didnt watch the johnson era , in fact when you look at all time greatest lists from guys who seen both eras, a lot of 70s guys dont make it anywhere on the list, I can acknowledge ali , he beat the crop but the rest of the crop are guys with 1 fluke win over ali(norton and frazier) and foreman who beat those 2 guys ,no other all time heavies on their lists. If Norton ,Ali,Frazier, Foreman all had some wins over each other that would count for something and maybe if there were some other heavies in the mix beating 3 2 to 3 of those guys and they had wins over them then maybe you can put it up with the 1910s era (that is what you had happen)
A horse named Sonny Liston won yesterday at Sandown Park price 18/1.So upset i didn`t back it
You don't seem to know much about the 70's era, that's fairly clear. I'll be frank with you. This and previous posts from you show me that this will be a bit of waste of time. Good bye.
I know about the 70s I am not a groupie for 70s boxers like you are and most casual fans. That big 4 of the 70s, who did frazier beat in the big 4 (ali foreman norton frazier) other than ali 1 time outta 3, how about Ken Norton , Foreman at least beat 2 of the guys and Ali the 2nd best heavy beat all 4 but guys like frazier and Norton overrated , sure they beat all those journeyman but the elite of the elite 1 fluke win for both guys. Also casual dorks love to boost the 70s non all time greats like theJerry Quarrys,ron lyles ,the jimmy ellis, thats a product of having a decent amount of good footage of these guys, how much more of a ratings boost would clark get or kid norfolk ,or godfrey get if there was a good amount of decent footage like the 70s heavies ,I am willing to wager you wouldnt see the 70s heavies as far and away the best heavyweight era!
I'm willing to wager if there was a decent amount of footage of the era you're so besotted with, you might take your sepia-tinted glasses off. At least, you might if you weren't so set on presenting yourself as some superior knowledge above all 'casual dorks'.
The fact is - and this is a fact, not an opinion - there just isn't enough footage, let alone decent quality, to form a fair opinion of the men from the 20s and before based on what we can view. You are, therefore, basing your opinions on contemporary writers who didn't have the benefit of seeing what came after. For the most part, they didn't even see what was happening in their own time unless it happened locally, this being before the era of the aeroplane and broader travel.
So these writers, who are your only real source of data and information, were neither impartial nor particularly well-rounded in their knowledge. That's not their fault. They wrote about what they saw but what they saw was very limited, both in terms of geography and timeline. An intelligent person takes what they say with a pinch of salt, consequently, and treats their words as entertainment rather than gospel on which to evaluate anything that came across the rest of the world in the following 100 years.
That's what an intelligent person does. And yet you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Can you see what I'm saying in that last sentence or, like my joke about Duran's crudeness, do I need to spell it out for you in big letters?
I disagree that Joe Frazier is overrated. The pre-1971 version of Smokin' Joe was about as fearsome and dominant as Mike Tyson was in the '80s. He steamrolled a lot of tough heavyweights over a five-year period. Frazier vs Marciano would've been something to see! But Joe was never physically the same after he beat Ali in the Garden.
I believe Liston could have defeated both Frazier and Tyson -- the former by overpowering him and the latter by intimidation. But he might've been outsmarted by guys like Tunney, Walcott and Ezzard Charles.
I put myself above the lot of you guys (including you) cuz you do not know how to decipher boxing skills that appear on film, to know whos a good or bad boxer . I have done this for years now, its nothing personal but yall are lazy never understand why or how boxers did things back then , you guys saw the modern way and went welp that is how its done ,boxing has evolved .Never mind you guys can not point out how or where it evolved , you can see the change in technique but you can not say why its better or worse. Any how I do not base anything on writers of yesteryear , what I do see is the footage of boxers available , see how good they were and skim records of guys who have beaten them (or could not beat them) sometimes you have footage of more than 1 great boxer.
In the case of greb one can discern hes great based on the footage of guys he beat like Tunney , Loughran,Mike and Tommy Gibbons,jimmy slattery ,kid norfolk etc. Dude had to have skills to beat as many guys as he did ! The footage thing is for you guys not me , I can look at 5 minutes of footage(jim driscoll) and decipher hes a flawless boxer on film, The footage just have to be clear. Again I put pieces together with context clues you guys need film as clear as day hence why you guys have high opinions of eras a lot of available footage and low or poor opinions on eras that lack footage.
an example of what I would do is say you have no footage of walter johnson or cy young but you have film of like 20 great batters of their era and they look really good on film , lets say i look up their numbers (if available ) against elite pitchers I notice they perform like dog **** against walter and cy young, I will then compare that to a modern pitcher (like clayton kershaw) and lets say against the elite batters of his era (they still perform to their averages ) hmm I would lean Walter Johnson and Cy young . Now I will also compare eras to see changes ,lets say in Cy and Walters era , you had to bat and pitch at the same time ,you had to play 3 games in one day ,you were only allowed to under hand pitch (just an example) the fences were 300 ft back instead of 400 ft back etc(meaning a homerun didnt have to travel as far as it neeeds to in kershaws era) if they put up similiar numbers then I lean the early guys who did better against their own era , and had to play with more handicaps etc.
Boxing is a little different since pitchers and hitters have been hitting the same since day 1 (far as I know ) meanwhile we have had technique devolve in boxing. (The technique was paramount in the 20s hence why they get rated higher from me )
depending on writers and film watching without understanding what is happening is the lazy **** you and a lot of guys on here do!
Jesus Christ, this has gotta the worst post ever posted here.