Who could have beaten prime RJJ at 160 of 168

:rofl

 

:rofl :rofl :rofl What say you Brooklyn, you up for it again or do you want to ignore this one?

 

Leonard and Hearns would have starched the guy in my avatar early. Not bad for two guys who are primative by today's standards.

 

For the purposes of comparing this era to theirs, yes. They're primitive.

In the time frame since they stopped competing at a higher level, there have been huge changes to the boxing scene, including how many times a fighter fights per year, how much money is involved in the sport, the science in and around the sport, the way in which athletes are trained in general.

I know boxing is different to athletics but at a time where peak power to weight ratios are being found in boxing due to the weigh in system, I don't think you can compare a 1985 boxer to a 1995 boxer to a 2005 boxer unless they have linking fighters.

i.e Pernell Whitaker via Oscar De La Hoya can be linked to Floyd Mayweather Jr - but even then, we're not talking 1985.

 

**** it. I'm up for it. You?

 

What a ****ing idiot.

Canadianfan, try better next time.

 

So explain to me how a boxer like Tommy Hearns can have his prime at WW in the late 70's and 80's, and then, when past his prime years and well past his best weight, win the Light Heavyweight title against a top notch 90's Light Heavyweight in Virgil Hill? Was Hill primitive as well, despite holding his title until late 90's(for 7 years) when he got stopped by Jones Jr.?

 

I'm high, so it might be fun.

 

Mind telling me what your problem here is?

I'm not saying "Sugar Ray Leonard would lose to Kelly Pavlik".
I'm not saying "Old era fighters would lose to their new era counterparts".

I'm simply saying "You cannot compare 1985 to 2008 because there are no boxers left competing at a high enough level with which to do a comparison"

This isn't about old vs new, this is about Roy Jones Jr's career, in which I do not believe comparing him to anyone prior to 1985 is worth the effort.

What is your problem with this? Why do you have to argue the merits of a fighter like Hearns who hasn't existed at an elite level in a boxing ring since 1990?

 

And based on Hearns beating Hill and RJJ then beating Hill - do you think you can accurately analyse what would happen between RJJ and Hearns considering the different stages of Hill that fought?

 

That's my problem, I don't get what that sentence means. What the hell does the fact that he was past elite level in 1990(actually 1991) have to do with anything? You think the sport has progressed since then?

 

Two of the three changes in the sport that you described are political changes - money and regularity of fights.

You mentioned that fighters are trained differently, but in reality, that's not the case. Fighters have always put in roadwork away from the gym and done the basics in the gym (shadow boxing, sparring, hitting the mitts, jump rope, sit-ups). I realize that some fighters use scientific weight lifting regimins and specialized diets, but how much has that helped? It obviously hasn't improved their stamina compared to guys of the past who were able to go 15 hard. De La Hoya gasses after 8 usually, Hopkins can't throw more than 20 punches a round, Samuel Peter can't get his fat ass off of the stool once the 1 minute rest time is up.

Look at the techniques used by today's fighters and compare it to the techniques used by the guys from the 1980s. It's exactly the same. I'd go as far as saying the quality of fighters since the 1980s has decreased for the most part, especially in the welterweight and heavyweight divisions. We're not talking about a massive time gap such as the Fitzsimmons/Ketchel era's and the Monzon/Hagler areas.

If you consider fighters from 1985 and before as primative, then you consider Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson primative. How can they be considered as such while these plodders like the aforementioned Peter, Briggs, and Maskaev are considered modern marvels?

 

Hearns beat a better, younger version of Hill than the one Jones beat, though Jones did so more convincingly. Either way, what does it mean for Jones or the supposed new era, considering Hearns is a natural WW and past his prime?

 

I'm not saying if the sport has progressed or regressed, I don't know - what I am saying is that you can't capably compare two fighters from different eras and expect to have an accurate analysis.

It's almost stupid to think you can.

"Mohammad Ali vs Joe Louis in their prime, who wins" is a stupid argument because no one can make an accurate prediction or analysis, there are not enough common fighters between them with which to do so.

 

This ought to be Game, Set, and Match but I bet homeboy will think it's still at a stalemate.