Unpopular opinions

There is zero evidence to support that he'd be at the top of the profession today. If you blindly assume that someone who didn't know what a cell was would be a top scientist today, there's a word for you. The average person today knows much more about science than scientists back then did.

 

This suggests that passing time automatically means an advancement in the application of learned things during that time. It does not allow for the possibility that a set of knowledge has actually been set back for lack of good practitioners, fading interest, etc............I mean, people were better at speaking Latin back in the day, you know?

That's my whole problem with the "advancement" theory. It's ****.

 

77-78

 

I honestly think it's as big a leap of faith to think of that one way as the other, so fair play.........

 

I had Ali squeaking that one out. 8 - 7.

 

As I understand you,you are saying the science of boxing has in general deteriorated? If I'm correct in my assumption I would agree,we have advances in the physical side , nutrition,training etc but the standard of boxing ability has decreased,imo .
In simple terms, the latest is not necessarily the greatest.

 

Jeffries is a bit of an anomaly, he was a big man ,[for his times], fighting smaller and for the most part older men, he basically wore them down with his weight and strength ,today he would be a small to average sized heavyweight, one not able to rely on his physical advantages to out last opponents.
Could he adapt, quien sabe?

 

Jeffries had a terrible style....fought totally squared up, with his right up in the air and his left down by his waist. That's why a (UFC) style boxer like Johnson easily defeated him. I don't want to hear the "out of shape" excuses...look at the film of the fight; Jeffries was clearly lean and fit an in no way a fat slob like JL Sullivan became later on in his career.

So here's my unpopular Opinion (another one, actually):

Jeffries was a disaster waiting to happen. And it happened when someone with any decent style of fighting could take advantage of his defensive deficiencies. (Yes I know he fought Fitzsimmons in a 6X6 ring, outweighing Fitz by nearly 50 pounds while doing so).

 

Yes, correct; it's the "how you do this" aspect of it that suffers so much.

Though I would even throw in that all this fancy "modern training" stuff is no more effective than old methods for stamina. If it is, why are these fighters today as gassed or moreso than the older-time fighters who were strong all the ay through 15? I see no evidence at all that there's anything about modern methods that are any better.

 

I'm not sure if it's necessarily an "unpopular" opinion since no one argues it when I bring it up, but J.C. Chavez simply sped up Meldrick Taylor's inevitable decline, and Taylor was unlikely to be an ATG even if he never fought Chavez. He was always going to be a shooting star and have a short stay at the top. There was simply too much talent at 147 and Taylor had some weaknesses that would have caught up with him against this strong of a talent pool.

 

I could probably write a list just on Roberto Duran!

 

Don't be so hard on yourself, Perry. You would do better if you actually rewatched fights from time to time instead of relying on your memories from 30 - 40 years ago and things you've read online. You'd still probably overrate early/mid 20th century boxers ridiculously, but at least you'd know more about what you were talking about wrt more recent fighters.