Unpopular opinions

Perhaps, but I'd bet that plenty of those great athletes would have made great boxers if they'd taken up the sport. Think of how many guys rose to the top of boxing as champions or contenders only after they couldn't cut it in their sports of choice.

In any event, that's consistent with my point. Reznick was the one who was trying to argue that the best boxers are the best athletes, or whatever.

 

Sonny Liston quit on his stool against Ali. Muhammad Ali quit on his stool against Holmes. Frazier quit on his stool against Ali. Floyd Patterson quit on his stool in the Ali rematch. Mike Tyson quit on his stool against McBride. Vitali Klitschko quit on his stool against Byrd. Wlad Klitschko essentially quit in his corner against Brewster. Not to mention quitters like Sugar Ray Robinson (against Maxim), Pernell Whitkaer (against Bojorquez), Roberto Duran (against Lawlor and Leonard), Julio Cesar Chavez (against Randall 2, De La Hoya 2, Wiley), Oscar De La Hoya (against Pacquiao), Bernard Hopkins (against Dawson 1), Thomas Hearns (against Grant), Jose Napoles (against Monzon), Kostya Tszyu (against Hatton), Max Schmeling (against Sharkey), Ezzard Charles (against Young Jack Johnson), the "Man of Steel" Tony Zale (against Cerdan), Marcel Cerdan (against LaMotta)...

Going out on your shield hasn't exactly been en vogue in the last 60 or 70 years. That doesn't disqualify you from ATG status.

You wouldn't have much of an ATG list without Ali, Robinson, Frazier, Tyson, Whitaker, Duran, Chavez, Hopkins, Hearns, Charles, Zale, Cerdan, Schmeling, the Klitschkos, Napoles, Tszyu, De La Hoya, Patterson, Liston ... you get the point.

 

Ross Enamait a pro boxing trainer has said he's met and trained pro fighters who were mediocre at best in other sports. Some couldn't even run and dribble a basketball at the same time. But they could do one important thing and that was fight.

 

I could jog a 4.4 40 yard dash and bench 340 while weighing 180 (humble brag).

I was a barely manageable boxer and the guys who beat me could never outrun, outlift or out jump me. I had faster hands and faster feet and hit real hard. They were just better fighters. And boxing is still primarily fighting.

That's my story. Maybe I'm wrong. I just didn't see a lot of crossover between athletes and fighters.

 

Two opponents who Floyd Mayweather was criticized for fighting, Ortiz and Guerrero, at the time they fought, were actually better than anybody Kostya Tsyzu ever beat in his career other than Zab Judah, who was also beaten by Mayweather while in top form.

 

Sure, not all very good athletes will make good fighters -- especially if they take up boxing relatively late in life-- but there have been enough examples of crossover athletes to suggest that at least some of the super-athletes in the NFL and NBA could have been dominant boxing stars had they taken a different path in life.

http://www.boxingforum24.com/thread...thletes-in-other-sports.568548/#post-18030902

 

There have indeed always been good reasons for young athletes to join other sports, but it doesn't always pan out so neatly. Ali joined boxing at 12 after getting his bike stolen. Jack Dempsey boxed to eat, going town to town on trains. Tyson was just a freak of nature kid spotted by a boxing trainer.

There are other things to factor in too. People were a bit more barbaric just 50 years ago, and fighting on the street with your fists used to be way more common. Especially in the 20's. And there were tons of gyms around for good fighters to go to.

Also, it seems like boxing was a better avenue for black americans in the early 20th century than most other sports. Black fighters were taken seriously, and competed at the world stage. They could also make some good money doing it.

In 2016, we live in a much more sophisticated world. People are generally less violent. The average wealth, and health per person has gone up. Youth programs and schools have sophisticated programs to cultivate young athletes into other sports. But back in the day, these institutions, and processes were way less developed. The sports themselves were undeveloped. Basketball and Football are way more popular now than they were in the 50's and 20's.

If you're good at something, you pursue it. Boxing is an athletically demanding sport, so you would think some athletically gifted guys would find their way there.

 

i agree with you, like you said roy jones would look ordirnary next to iverson yet in boxing ring he was probably the greatest specimen ever... buster douglas played basketball and didn't make it, he was also probably ordinary on the court yet in the boxing ring he was maybe the superheavyweight with best athletic ability, making other superheavyweights crude, stiff and slow...
nfl, nba, atheltics are just loaded with best athletic specimens human kind has.

really in boxing there are so little great athletes it's really not comparable... holmes, monzon, frazier etc... there are kids in highschool that are way better athletes than them... holyfield was too small for footbal... even ali who was a specimen in boxing ring would look rather ordinary compared to some nfl and nba players... even jon jones, probably the best mma fighter ever wasn't good enough to make it in football like his brothers, and his basketball ability is horrendous

 

Isn't that kind of like saying Simone Biles a bad athlete if she can't play WNBA?

Certain sports require specialized skills, body types, etc. There is a very strong argument that boxing requires the most athletic skill.

 

But as Seamus pointed out, there is a much stronger argument that boxing success is less dependent upon pure athleticism and more dependent upon sport-specific skills than the other sports we've been discussing.

 

I think Seamus was saying that being athletic was not enough for boxing. Doesn't mean boxing is less athletically demanding. In fact it seems like it's the opposite, and boxing is the most athletically demanding sport.

 

It had to be said.

 

Not going to speak for Seamus but I'm pretty sure he agrees that the most athletic athletes aren't boxers. We've had plenty of great boxers who probably would have fared poorly against average athletes from other sports by virtually any indicator or measure of athletic prowess.

 

Mine's the most unpopular of all, that Norris was better than leonard

it's only unpopular for the reason it exposed Leonard's weakness as a fighter and can never be disputed

Norris 120

srl 106

That's greatness

 

Read much history? Much of the knowledge we've acquired as a civilization in the last 300 years was in fact common knowledge in ancient civilizations all over the world millennia ago, lost, and only rediscovered. Significant aspects of Math, Astronomy, Astrology, Geography, Architecture, Medicine, Engineering, Masonry and other trades related to building.

Just look at the early Egyptian pyramids that are perfect and compare them to the massively flawed pyramids from the later dynasties. How does that happen if your assertion is true? We didn't know Antarctica existed until 1818 IIRC yet there are maps showing it accurately from more than a millennia ago. Shut off the electricity for 2 weeks in a major city and watch hundreds die from sheer incompetence, unable to even cook food let alone acquire their own and other **** a 7 year old could do 100 years ago. What % of the population do you think can read a compass or navigate back to civilization using only the stars if lost in the wilderness?

I have experienced this with work many times, come across something i'v never even heard of that i learn used to be common knowledge and regularly utilized one, two, three centuries ago. Mention it to people and they've never heard of it themselves yet its a genius solution to a problem.