Things about Classic Boxing Discussion That **** You Off

The intense 'cliqueness'

 

People who insist on believing that just because a fighter has a legendary name that a less known fighter from a more competitive era couldn't beat him.

 

It has evolved, it just peaked at a certain point. Around the 40's I'd say, with pioneers coming a bit earlier. Since then, it hasn't really evolved.

Anyways, my pet peeve is when they put down someone like Roy Jones(writing him off as flash), and refuse to acknowledge his abilities, which were greater than any who's ever laced em up, at least that I've witnessed.

 

That's there's no "ignore red rooster" feature.

 

That dempsey and marciano are over rated,its obvious its because there white,most on here know thats true,they get accused of so much **** its untrue,yet a black heavy like liston(who i love) never gets ripped on for diving in the worst case of throwing a fight ive ever seen,if that had been rocky or jack,you would have never heard the end of it on here,talk about double standards.

 

Well it's funny how Archie Moore, who started boxing professionally in the 30's, was a "good old-timer" up until the 40's, but when the 50's kicked in, and all the new boxers woke up smelt the coffee and these superior techniques "evolved", much like our ancestors learning to stand upright, he began losing every fight.

So your pet peeve is people expressing an opinion that isn't consistent with your own? If that's the case, forums are not for you.

 

Good observation

 

I would've thought that it had something to do with the fact they're the two smallest dominant heavyweight champions in history - It's not like Floyd Patterson gets a fair shot either, people are tipping him to lose to Buster ****ing Douglas for Christs sake!

 

Analyzing head to head match-ups when one, or both, of the fighters have limited to no video footage.

You can compare their resumes. You can compare what people wrote about them. You can't, however, give a reasonable analysis without viewing a fighter in action. Even if you have some of a fighter's opponents of film. You can give an accurate analysis of that opponent, still not the unfilmed fighter.

 

money and the liberty of not needing to diet so much

 

are you mad

dempsey had 6 defences of his title in 7 years:roll: against good but not steller oppostion.losing in the end to a legiteamate light heavywieght champion

marciano had 7 defences of his title. his wins were over faded lightheavies. Now im not saying that him being 180 pounds means it gave him an unfair advantage but remember the heavywiegtht divison was over 175 and most of these men hadnt fought over that barrier where as marcinao had. holyfield was fighting bowe who was way bigger than most gyus marcinao fought.


it's not that they are white it's purely coincidental they are given this status as atg becuase marciano retired undefeated. if he had lost to somone by lets say robbery his myth is gone he is just another brawler.

dempsey was the original tyson. an arse kicker who came from nothing.
his all action style is what made him famous not his resume

 

Re-read my post a bit more throughly before trying to be a smartass next time. I said around the 40's, with pioneers coming before. Nice try though.:good

And this is a thread about pet peeves of other posters and consensus opinions, so obviously I'm gonna post a pet peeve, that seems to make sense, doesn't it? Wow, you missed on all cylinders with that post, didn't ya?

 

I missed the pioneers bit, my bad - I still disagree with you though. In my opinion it was James J. Corbett who developed the style of fighting which truly made brute force bow down to skill. Jabbing, counterpunching, etc. Tunney is sometimes credited with being a "pioneer" but he referred to sparring with Corbett in the 20's as "The most amazing thing he ever experienced"

Jack Johnson and Gene Tunney were both great admirers of Corbett's ring philosophy and ability.

As for your last point - Everytime I post anything about Roy Jones, you're ghosting me, getting your knickers in a twist and defending your idol with all rationale thrown out the window. So it's no surprise you quoted my post (Which didn't even mention RJJ) and responded by bringing him up again, unneccessary as it was.

 

You honestly think Corbett was a modern fighter style-wise? That he could compete in the modern era?

You're a bit of a Jones hater, I've noticed this from previous posts, but my mention of RJJ had absolutely nothing to do with you. I simply responded to a point you made in your post, and then responded to the thread title in the next paragraph. And "with all rationale thrown and the window"? I have never once posted in this forum on a serious topic in that manner, don't bull****.