Why does Gamboa seem to get a free pass....

God, do we really have to go through all of this again? Seriously?

- Nutrition knowledge has increased ten fold.

- Building strength without gaining body mass techniques have increased ten fold.

- Times between fights have increased, allowing better preparation periods for the fighters

- Access to fight libraries have increased through online media as well as more fights being broadcast, meaning better abilities to analyse a fighter - this isn't even mentioning angles and such from cameras and better slow motion abilities to properly analyse a fighter

- Weigh ins are 24 hours beforehand, meaning boxers have time to properly hydrate themselves after making weight, meaning they're actually bigger specimens in their weightclass than their yesteryear fighters were

I could go on and on and on, but you don't even want to realise what the differences between now and 20 years ago, you seemingly just don't have a clue.

The same way it would effect someone like Bjorn Borg playing against Roger Federer.

Different technologies were available for training, analysis, etc - different racquets were used (we now have different gloves in boxing compared to Sugar Ray's era)

You can't analyse "Who would win a match" between those two consistently, you can only use hearsay, and your hearsay isn't any good.

Name me a single fighter in any division in the Top 15 that works a secondary job from this era. The fact is, you can't.

I gave you the example of Roy Jones Jr fighting a fireman, that was just 10 years ago, well after Jones Jr was established as a champion.

Should I do all your dirty work for you? Just so you can disregard it because you're a stubborn opinionated person?

If you don't understand how better nutrition, more power to weight, more time to prepare, larger periods after weigh in to hydrate, more knowledge on how to sustain energy and performance and more ability to analyse the opponent you're about to face gives you an advantage, you're truly not someone anyone is ever going to be able to help.

Again, this comes down to the fact that outside of say Sugar Ray, most boxers couldn't live on the income of one fight for a year having to pay all their other expenses, Floyd Mayweather could take five years off based on his last fight... this means they have more time to prepare, they're more able to take time off to recover from injuries.

How many times did Duran step in the ring with injuries? We can praise him as a warrior but do you think he'd do the same in this era?

Not at all, I'm simply pointing out the harsh reality of why boxing is so frustrating to fans, the best fighters do not fight the best fighters.

If FMJ had fought Tsyzu, Cotto, Margarito, Mosley, Williams, Quintana, Witter, Winky, Spinks, etc etc... would he not be rated far higher ATG wise than he is now? Of course he would and I'd have loved to see all of those fights.. but I realise that the politics of making said fights isn't as easy as it was in the old era, which is why the big names don't face the big names.

But, whether or not they were able to fight all the big names is no indication on their abilities as a boxer, and like I've said above, analysing an era 20 years ago without taking into account all the intangibles that now exist that didn't back then is impossible to do accurately.

Top Fighters were fighting what, 5 times a year? Sugar Ray fought 9 fights in 1979 - sure, he wasn't yet at the elite level but 9 times in a year for a prospect starting to face fringe contenders is unheard of today.

Sugar Ray also had the benefit that he could take a shitload of time off in between fights compared to other fighters, other fighters couldn't get away with it, they weren't Sugar, they had bills to pay.

His years as a truely active fighter were what? 1977-1982? 5 year period where he clocked up 33 of his 40 fights?

Find me any top level boxer of today that had 33 fights in 5 years.

Cute, you're saying I don't understand boxing skills, drive, determination and experience and calling me a pseudo intellectual, all the while undermining the fact that better conditioned athletes who are stronger for their weight, more hydrated and more prepared can't possibly have advantages over people who aren't?

These are further intangibles, which again brings me to my point of "I DO NOT ANALYSE WHO WOULD WIN A FIGHT WHEN FIGHTERS ARE 20 YEARS APART"

I'm not saying FMJ beats Sugar Ray, I'm not saying Sugar Ray beats FMJ. I'm saying I don't bother analysing because too much time has passed and too many things are different.

btw, the only pseudo intellectual here is the guy that avoids the point of the debate to bring up other things that only prove my point further

Intangibles like "drive, determination, experience" - can you assess for sure that Sugar Ray had more drive and determination than Floyd Mayweather Jr? You'll say yes, but it's an opinion and quite frankly, your opinions aren't that worthy to me.

Look, I can give you all the answers you want, the problem is you'll keep thinking up questions because you're the type of person who will argue all day and night just to try and feel right.

The sad fact is that you're wrong and you don't realise it, you don't even realise by pointing out other intangibles like drive, determination and skill that you're just making my singular point "20 years is too far apart to measure fighters against fighters" all the more proven.

How long do you want to keep this going, bubs?

 

These usually need a grain of salt, but here's a little boxrec nugget that can't be ignored. Six of Willie Limond's wins came against fighters with more than 24 professional losses. His first professional fight outside of the boxing mecca of Scotland was his bout with Khan.

Now since the following isn't "research" based it's open to opinion, but based on what I saw from Limond in the clips I've seen of him against Khan, I'd be very confident picking him to lose against at least one of Jimenez's previous conquerers, Miguel Angel Huerta, and also picking him to lose to at least one of Huerta's "L"s, Kid Diamond. These fighters aside, he'd probably have his hands completely full with a badly over the hill Javier Jauregui as well. And let's not even get into how badly he'd lose to Gamboa.

You're making decent points in this thread PP, mainly regarding Blocky's well worn "march of time" and sports science argument, but the implication that Willie Limmond is vastly superior, or superior at all to Darling Jimenez isn't one of them. Which brings us back to the original thread topic, which is why some people have greater doubts currently about Khan than Gamboa. Khan found himself in dire straits against a very marginally "world class" fighter. I applaud how he recovered, but that performance is not at all on a par with Cotto's recoveries against real world class fighters like Corley and Torres. It was and is genuine cause for concern.

I wouldn't bother arguing with you for a second, however, that the win over Kristjansen puts Khan ahead of Gamboa careerwise at this moment. Of course, Gamboa also seems to have higher aims than sitting on a Frank Warren purchased WBO belt for the next five years. I hope Khan turns out to be the type of fighter who seeks out challenges in his division as a pro. If he does, I'll give him all the credit he deserves.

 

As for time periods between fights, again, you're confusing eras. We are talking about the 80's here. Give examples of this. Guys like James Toney, Roy Jones, Winky Wright, etc all fought over 50 fights, Toney up to 70-some odd, while a guy like Leonard only fought about 40 times. So give me the facts behind this that support that fighters nowadays get more time in between fights. I just disproved it rather easily. And once again, amount of time to prepare for each fight doesn't exactly make for a better prepared fighter than guys who fight tune ups often in between fights, as they did in the 50's and prior eras.

I know the arguments, I just don't see how they prove your point, considering very few of them have to do with explaining how fighters today are more skilled, more driven, more experienced, etc. If techniques had changed since then, you'd have a point. But film very clearly disputes this, just the way it disputes a completely asinine statement like Hearns and Leonard being primitive in any way to a guy like Floyd.

That's Robinson, not Leonard. Leonard was the one who fought in the 80's. Try to keep up son.:good

It's actually quite simple. Watch the film. Not that hard. Bringing up meaningless stats about who has a few more grams of protein in their diet does nothing at all to improve your analysis.

Jones was openly mocked for that, it's not like the guy was a top notch fighter. And it was a former police officer from what I understand. Guys like that are few and far between. And you were talking of Leonard's era anyway. You've done the research, so provide me with names on any of the top fighter's resumes or top contenders that have anything to do with proving the game is superior to nowadays.

You said very clearly that you've done the research. Everyone and their mother is aware that Jones was criticized for fighting a lower level in Frazier for one of his defenses, you're not blowing anyone's skirt up. Give me examples that relate to your point. If anything, the fact that Jones fought a fighter of that level just proves MY point, as that is unquestionably a modern day scenario, rather than an 80's scenario, as I asked for.

The problem is, once again, you're confusing the eras. You're acting as if we're talking about the 30's, when we're talking about relatively modern eras like the 80's. I don't care about your hypotheticals, I care about your explanation of how fighters of that era were clearly better on film if the advances in technology have helped us so much from a fighters's standpoint. Frm what you're saying, combatants should have third arms by now and stand 8 feet tall, when the film clearly shows the inferiority of a fighter like Cotto compared to a guy like Duran. How does a guy like De La Hoya gas after 9 rounds while guys back in the 40's and 50's such as Marciano fought 15 rounds and had unlimited stamina?

No, what you fail to realize is that this is another reason why fighters fought more often, to earn their living. Though that is not the only reason.

Fighters step in the ring with injuries all the time. All the ****ing time, even nowadays. Are you joking right now? Advancements in technologies can't help what you're going to pull in training prior to a fight, and it's not as if they're going to call the fight off.

Which helps my case, once again.

That has to do more with Floyd being a cherry-picker than anything, but we'll save that for later. The fights all come down to the fighters and their willingness to fight. It sounds simple because it is. Fighters in the older eras were just as capable of refusing to fight as fighters of today.

For God's sake, no it's not! That's the problem, you're completely over-doing it.

Honestly, do you think the slight difference of fiber in his diet will help Floyd to defeat Tommy Hearns if the fight goes down the stretch? Will the different angle Miguel Cotto saw of Duran on film give him the edge needed to win a war of attrition?

It's really much simpler than you're making it. We're dealing with people here, not computers.

Gamboa has fought 3 times this year and is set to fight again before June is over. He fought 7 times in his first year. Just because you seem to think it makes sense and goes better with your argument doesn't make it true. Sorry, those are just facts.

Leonard. Leonard. Leonard. Leonard. Not Robinson. Many fighters of that era had the same luxuries that Leonard had. Get your ****ing facts straight man. You act as if you're this afficiando when you make the most elementary of mistakes.

James Toney's years as an active fighter were what? 89-97? 8 year span where he clocked up 58 of his 80 fights?

Is James Toney primitive as well since he fought in the early 90's? Odd that a natural MW in the 90's was still able to be successful as a fat, out of shape HW in the 2000's, all the while being primitive.

Odd how George Foreman was so primitive in the 70's, yet he's able to come back 20 years later and recapture the HW title in the modern era while over 40 years old. But hey, it was the advances in nutrition, right?

 

yo this is ****in intense!

 

I found you a close enough example already.

Floyd was stronger for his weight than Hearns, Benitez, Leonard, etc? Guys who fought up to CW and were clearly larger for their weight classes?

There in lies the problem. You over analyse the technicalities of the sport rather than simply the fighters, which disprove your argument. You may be right on certain supplemental and nutritional changes, but you vastly exagerrate the effect on fighters.

It's not that, it's just that the points you are trying to prove, and your stance on eras is just useless.

I'll take my opinions over your false and to this point oft-disproven "facts" any day.:good

No, that's what you'd like to think, because you don't like to take into consideration that my more simplistic attitude toward fighters and eras may be the right one. Mine is certainly the one backed by footage and logic based on what we've seen.

This argument is going nowhere, I know that. I just think it's funny how easily explainable your points are while you think them to be gospel. Hint, gospel ain't fact, and it don't always hold true. In fact it rarely if ever does.

 

Very informed post, a shame the other guys don't take your attitude when it comes to researching things before stating your argument.

My intention wasn't to prove that Limond was definitively a better opponent than Jimenez, it was simply to bring some balance to the fact that Limond was being called a domestic creampuff fighter, despite having an impressive record and despite only losing to a guy who is now a champion..

That record can be scrutanised, but then so can Jimenez, which I showed above. What I think we can agree on is that neither Jimenez nor Limond are likely to wear a title and neither will be anything more than gatekeeper fighters and can't really be used to analyse how Khan nor Gamboa will do at the higher levels.

 

I will admit to being off on one point. The 24 hour weigh-ins. The point you brought up there is true. Still, I don't see how you consider fighters today naturally larger or stronger because of this when you have guys like Hearns, Leonard, Benitez, and even a natural LW in Duran who moved up beyond MW, while clearly smaller guys like Floyd and Cotto are pretty much maxed out.

 

I'm not confusing eras here, did James Toney ever fight 33 fights within the space of 5 years? Sugar Ray Leonard wasn't even an active fighter past his first five years, he had seven fights in 15 years there after!

James Toney started fighting when? Ah yes, 1988. He's had a 20 year career, averaging 4 fights a year, hardly as active as say Duran during his prime years, nor as active as Sugar Ray Leonard during his.

We're talking prime fighters of THIS era, James Toney hasn't been a prime fighter for what, 10 years?

Winky Wright, Jones Jr - also had very very long careers, starting in a different era to this one, so realistically, how again do they relate to say, PBF vs Sugar Ray Leonard?

4 fights per year is considered a high workload not only for top fighters but most prospects these days, it was considered below average in Sugar Rays era and the era in which Winky, Toney and Jones Jr started in.

Well, seeing as you can't quite grapple an easy task..

Who was more skilled at boxing, Duran or Leonard?
Who was more physically prepared in their first encounter? Duran or Leonard?

Let me give you one that even you can handle.

Who had the better boxing skills, Chris Byrd or Wladimir Klitkscho? Who won the fight? Wladimir Klitschko.

Or if you will, Who had the better boxing skills, Kosta Tszyu or Ricky Hatton? Who won the fight?

Boxing skill is one aspect of fighting, conditioning, power, endurance, chin - all these intangibles make up fighting, the fact that you can't see this makes you increasingly not worth my time.

Uh no, that's Sugar Ray Leonard - gloves and boots have changed since his Era. I like how you skipped other aspects of the argument such as time to prepare, weigh ins, etc etc... it's because you can't answer them

Was Duran as big a puncher as Cintron? Watch the film, film says yes, what does fight science tell us? Are fighters more durable now and more able to take heavier punchers?

This is all hearsay and opinion, you can't analyse this on fight film, to say you can is like everything else you argue - pointless.

Do I HAVE TO DO YOUR RESEARCH? I know the names of fighters that Sugar Ray fought that were semi professional, I just don't see why I should prove/disprove my own point to you when I've spent all this time disproving you and Amsterdam with my own research.. Stop being a lazy ****er and do the research.

Jibberish, complete utter waste of time.

Oh, so the 1980s and such, fighters were weighing in 24 hours before hand huh? Fighters had more time with which to prepare themselves, right? You're a joke at this point, a serious joke.

Comparing Marciano, a plodding heavyweight in a time of other plodding heavyweights vs De La Hoya, a 147-154lber who is facing other fast moving 147-154lbers is about as pointless as everything else you've mentioned.

Is De La Hoya renowned for his stamina at the level of say earlier Bernard Hopkins or Joe Calzaghe? Why not bring them into it? Oh that's right, selective point making.

Seriously... I'm done with you.

You're arguing for arguments sake, you're not making any points and you're now attempting selective argument which still fails for you.

Learn something from BlueApollo and do some research... until then, you're just wasting my time.

 

Wow, there's no double standard or "selective point making" here is there? You only include Leonard's fights in a 5 year period but when I bring up Toney's high activity over an even longer period you bring up the fact that he slowed down a lot at some point. Yet you don't take into account the same thing with Leonard.

Toney fought 4 times per year according to statistics over 20 years. But he fought roughly 8 times a year in the years span I mentioned, which is similar to what Leonard did in the years span you mentioned, the difference being Toney's span was actually a longer period, and therefore a more sustained amount of time in which he engaged in a large amount of fights per year.

If we average out Leonard's entire career like you did Toney's, it averages out to less than 3 fights per year. Selective point making can be dangerous to call on, especially when you do the same yourself.

No, he hasn't, he's been a fat, overweight HW who's still managed to fight successfully at a division far above his own. And I'll go out on a limb and say his conditioning had little to do with it.

I don't get the question or it's relevance. You're starting to stutter a bit.

So in essence, you're stating that the 90's was also a primitive era? This is beyond comprehension how people see this as a competitive debate when you're pulling nonsense like this out of your ass. They get sucked into your rhetoric and not the actual overall point you're trying to make, which is unbelievably simple and false.

I'll respond for the hell of it. What of fighters like Klitschko, who has averaged over 4 fights per year throughout his career, higher in previous years? What of Kessler? And if the fighters from Jones, Winky's era were in an era where they were to fight higher amounts of fights, what of Hopkins and his relatively low pace of fights over 20 years?

The points I brought up were just examples. Nothing serious. What I'd like to know is how you justify the fighters starting in a primitive era(10-15 years ago ) have adjuted so well to all the amazing advancements of nowadays? Do you have trouble analyzing fights between a prime Winky and today's top 154 pounders because he fought back in the primitive days of Windows 98? That is in essence what you said? You actually are stating that Winky's era when he started was primitive, but that it evolved as he went along, and he, in essence, evolved with it.

That is so far beyond absurd I just don't know what the hell I'm doing. Nice rhetoric, you might have some people fooled for the moment. But anyone who actually steps back and looks at this argument and sees what you're arguing will have second thoughts.

They were equally physically prepared. What is your point? Are you once again confusing simple facts and referring to the second fight where Duran was not as prepared?

These are two great fighters, one of which was not in shape for the fight due to conditions made by Leonard to have the fight soon after the first one, which barely allowed Duran to shed the pounds he routinely put on in between fights.

That doesn't happen nowadays? What about guys(even with 24 hour weigh ins) like Castillo who are unable to make the weight for fights with Corrales because he wasn't prepared?

Klitschko on both counts. Hatton was not the more skilled boxer, but he was the younger, fresher fighter with the stylistic edge at that point.

When did I say anything against this? Your argument was not against fighters from previous eras not being fit, it was that today's fighters are far more fit due to advancements. I ask then how fighters have been going 15 rounds since the early days while certain top fighters gas before going the full 12?

I was in fact the one that brought up these intangibles earlier with things like drive, dedication, technique, etc. So don't try to turn this around on me.

I answered the weigh in part on a seperate post. You are the one who's yet to come up with an answer for it.

Time to prepare? Such as time in between fights? Didn't we just have a massive argument about that in which I handily defeated your half-assed points? Or did you miss that?

What has changed about gloves and boots since Leonard's era? And seriously, you're reaching now if the quality of the boots is what you've stooped to. But answer me, what has changed with the gloves? They have been regulation size since about the 60's and 70's.

But you're being ridiculous now. Again, anyone who stands back and truly takes a look at the general points in this argument will see how a simple-minded person such as yourself has researched all the useless info he could, without looking at it from a more basic, useful point of view.

What does fight science tell us? That Cintron is a B level fighter with no heart and a shaky chin? Surely science should've corrected that, but perhaps science doesn't fully describe the human potential. Once again, we're dealing with human beings here. We don't evolve like technology, that's what you seem to be missing, largely.

I can't believe I'm actually arguing such simple points. You have to reach with things that can't be fully proven but seem obvious enough to any simpleton to try to prove your points.

OK, I think we get it now. Nice try though.

More like "I can't argue it, so I'll just pout about it."

I've proven you wrong on the preperation point, just give that one up. I already stated my thoughts on the weigh ins, which YOU failed to answer you twit.:roll:

Really? Considering he has heavier weight to carry around, facing harder hitters, bigger, stronger fighters, and shows a much higher workrate, you're telling me Oscar expands more energy at his lower weight class(which, if you actually did understand fight science, you would know that fighters of the lower weights were generally quicker and enjoyed better stamina because of the lack of gravity and mass affecting them) fighting as conservatively as he does than Marciano did fighting all out for 15 rounds? Wow. I just love how you actually have the nerve to turn this on me.

Didn't I already call you out on this earlier? Do I have to do it again?

OK, stamina in era by era comparisons. If fighters today are so much better prepared with such better stamina, how could fighters pre 80's or thereabouts go 15 rounds as they did, with relentless workrates? And if you're not convinced by a guy like Marciano, what about a much faster, smaller, just as active fighter like Vicente Saldivar? Does he not compare to DLH either, considering he's smaller and far more active? You tryint to limit it to Marciano is comical. I could go on for days.

 

Considering I've already called you out on numerous inaccuracies dealing with eras and their regulations(such as you confusing the two Sugars and their eras), don't try to come to me about not knowing my stuff, as I already said the only thing I've gotten factually wrong was my statement earlier(which I later corrected by myself if you could learn to comprehend) about pre fight weigh ins. Check the fights, that's one for me, while you've stated nothing but inaccuracies when dealing with eras ranging from the 50's back to the 40's.

 

Sweet Pea vs PP is turning into an instant classic....

 

Do as I said in the argument. Actually step back and look at his points. He's arguing that the era Winky started off in was primitive and we can't compare fighters of today to that era. That is his actual argument. He's arguing that fighters of 10 or so years ago are primitive.

I can understand subtle changes in technology and nutrition, but to say they effect fighters within that small a time period to the point that you can't even compare them is beyond stupid. That is what he's saying. I could understand if he was arguing the same thing about fighters from the 30'ss or something, but this numbnuts thinks this of fighters from the 90's. It's all in his posts.

How can you guys sit back and just accept this nonsense?

 

Who knows? But I see no point in debating this type, it gets absolutely nowhere.

You can school him all day, it'll make no difference and he's not holding his own here, he just thinks he is.

 

I know but its fun reading. Plus im not as good with getting my point across as you are . And besides, at the rate he's talking we will be watching robots box in 10 years

 

I hear you. This is easy, but it's getting tiring. He thinks he's coming up with anything serious with his incredibly simple points, that's what gets me, his ego.