Who could have beaten prime RJJ at 160 of 168

What makes Virgill Hill better when Hearns beat him, being that Hill held a title until last year, well after RJJ stopped him?

How can you completely state "Hearns beat a better version of Hill?"

It's hearsay and based on opinion, I rather deal in trends, you can't compare the trends of Hearns vs RJJ because they fought in different eras.

 

Okay, I misunderstood your position.

Do you consider it pointless to analyze matchups between current fighters and past fighters because you believe you'd have to argue the older fighter's merits and not their styles?

 

Not with Louis and Ali, but most certainly for the fighters we were just discussing, as I just gave examples in my post.

Also, simply analyze the footage and the fighters to get a good view of their technique and skill level, it's not that hard to compare.

 

Hearns beat a younger version, a more athletic version.

And what does that last part mean, I just directly linked them and gave a pretty clear breakdown of how your argument regarding eras is off.

 

But the thing is that you can analyze fights between fighters of the past and more recent fighters. Obviously we'll never know the outcomes, but based on styles and film, it's very possible to give a logical, educated analysis.

All you have to do is look at their strengths, weaknesses, what styles they shined against and what styles they showed difficulty against.

 

Fighters are not trained differently? Tell me how many fighters used Kettlebell training techniques back in Sugar Ray Robinsons day.

Tell me how many fighters in SRR's day had specialist nutritionists and personal trainers who utilised scientific testing in order to get the best power to weight ratio for their fighters.

Tell me how many fighters put on 10-20lbs overnight after a weigh in, having dehydrated themselves down to a bone weight to make a weight for their weight.

The political changes to the sport have meant that fighters do not need to fight every month in order to earn a good living, meaning the fights they do have, they should be more prepared for, no?

Some might say that having a higher number of fights was the best way to stay prepared, I won't argue that - what I will argue is that the era is completely different and thus any intelligent comparison between the two cannot be done, yet like the usual internet boxing fan, you're trying to goad me into an argument about which era is better.

**** man, I don't know which era is better, I don't know if Lennox Lewis would dominate in 1970. I don't particularly care either, I know Lennox Lewis dominated from 1995-2005.

You won't get me arguing "Who is better, RJJ or Hearns" because I'm not about to attempt to analyse it, Take a fighter, subtract 10 years and add 10 years at the end of each of his career, chances are you can compare the range of fighters they fought

Any more time than that and you can't make an intelligent analysis, you're simply predicting based on opinion.

 

If analysis was that easy, why would bookies still be around in boxing considering there are oh so many knowledgeable boxing fans such as yourself who can analyse fighting styles to the point that they could say a fighter from 1960 could beat a fighter from 2008?

How many millions of dollars have you made in the gambling business? I'd love to know, because if you can predict results like that, you must be creaming it.

 

I consider myself a wealthy, yet unemployed man.

 

I think it's pointless to argue the merits of 1960 vs 2008 because both have their merits. I'd rather look at the here and now and the recent stuff.

 

Well, that's where we differ, and I loved your responses to my questions.

 

delete

 

I think the gman..He was aggressive as hell and cud hurt anybody..guys with that kinda style..the gman n charlie zellenoffs of the world giv him fits

 

And do the kettlebell training techniques make a massive difference in performance? Do the nutritional programs make a massive difference in stamina?

Okay, I'll settle for this: the basics are still the same as far as boxing training, but there's been advances in supplementation from a nutritional and performance standpoint. However, I really don't think it makes as much of a difference as some do, especially when you watch guys like Leonard, Armstrong, and Hagler on film who were all able to go 15 hard rounds without gassing fighting at a high skill level throughout.

Even with this advanced training and nutrition, fighters still gas. As I pointed out, De La Hoya for example.

Fighting every month can wear you out which is why many of the greats dropped fights to less than stellar opponents. I'm a believer in fighting 3 times a year. Gives you an adequate time to rest and a good deal of time to train and stay sharp/in shape.

I'm really not arguing which era is better, what I really want to get across that the past eras weren't worse simply because the fighters didn't benefit from high-tech scientific training. The examples I'm bringing up are extremes, to make a point. There's great fighters competing right now that could have been champions in any era.

You can most certainly make an intelligent analysis. How do you think you can analyze current fighters who have never faced common opponents? You watch the film, take notes of their styles, how they fare against fighters of similar styles to their opponent, and make your best guess. If you do your homework correctly, more often than not, you'll be right.

 

Fair enough. I like to look at past vs past, past vs present, and present vs present. Looks like I'll be seeing you on the present vs present threads.

 

Incorrect.

You brought up the difference in eras and posted your feelings on why they cannot be compared and that other posters couldn't make an objective analysis on different eras for a variety of reasons. Brooklyn (nor anyone else from what I read) never tried to goad you into an argument over which era was better, but rather he and others posted their objections to your opinion that they couldn't analyze fighters from different eras.

If anything, it was you who produced the argument about which era was better by saying the era prior to 1985 was primitive which insinuates that you feel the current era is "better".