Your Unshakeable Boxing Opinions

Think he beats Whitaker circa 1988...?

 

Perhaps. But while I know I’m biased, the guys who are only here because they’ve been allured by the lore and mystique of older heavyweight champions (and maybe a handful of smaller “Legends”), and who don’t have much interest in or appreciation for the sport beyond them, seem like a special type to me. And there’s a lot more of them.

 

The version that beat Rosario and Mayweather... yes. Unshakably so.

 

Sarcasm at it's finest, unshakeable sarcasm even.

 

Stone, cold unshakable truth. JCC was a beast at 130 and 135. Not quite the same later.

 

Yes Charles might have felt faster at 175. I’m sure Evander Holyfeild felt faster at cruiserweight.

When was Evander at his best?

Muhammad Ali beat George Foreman but aesthetically he looked better against Cleveland Williams. Foreman was infinitely better than Cleveland Williams. Infinitely. And neither result tells us Ali from either fight beats Foreman more convincingly.

It’s kind of how I view the comparison of Charles in the the flickering film of the Lloyd Marshal fight and Ezzard on film beating better men like Walcott, Louis, Valentino, Oma And Satterfeild.

 

True, but Whitaker was a better beast, Unshakably better.

 

Some boxing fans don’t know boxing as much as they think they do.

GGG should have got the decesion over Canelo.

 

You know what, truth be told maybe I shouldn't have posted that comment in a thread that asks for "unshakable" opinions because I just rewatched that fight for the first time in three or four years and it looks a lot more legitimate than I remembered.

 

Joe Louis is overrated.

Max Baer is very underrated, and had he not broke his hand against Joe, he may have won.

JC Chavez would have beaten Oscar De La Hoya in their first fight , had he not had the cut sustained from sparring a few weeks earlier.

Oscar shaded Mayweather by one point, and Castillo won giving Floyd- 2 losses.

Sugar Ray Leonard was the least of the fantastic four, and is overrated a smidge.

Duran is top 5 ATG

 

Choklab, for the tenth time now, theie is no static proportion like that in the dynamic world of human beeing. Are you really pretending to be that simple, or are you just stubborn, knowing that your whole theory falls apart oderwhise?

They did not exist back then! Their amount was lower! The avarage height was lower! Big men were rare! How the **** do you know they were unsuitable, when the amount for trying was not there!?

I tell you something: The amount of men beeing equal or taller than 6'2" was also lower in the 50s. Are the the 6'2" to 6'3" men unsuitable for boxing too without PEDs, because they were missing in the same eras?
You recognize some bull**** in your theroy, do you?

The distrubution of height in men (and weight as well) in boxing eras correlates with the men out there in reality. Thats why the eras were different, you can hardly compare them. Plus you had enormous oppression of black men before the 70s. Case closed.
Please put the rest of that nonsense to another church where it belongs, but stop flooding the board with that garbage. It´s the minority here believing it anyway.

 

[QUOTE="


I tell you something: The amount of men beeing equal or taller than 6'2" was also lower in the 50s. Are the the 6'2" to 6'3" men unsuitable for boxing too without PEDs, because they were missing in the same eras?
You recognize some bull**** in your theroy, do you?[/QUOTE]

Have you got a source for this? I know of no reliable source of data that demonstrates that any differences in height between Americans in the 1950's and today are any greater, or even as great, as current differences among European nations.

 

I can eat 50 eggs.

 

we have many things like that. All of us can be stuck on what we believe and that will not change, especially as we get older. One thing which angers people on here is when I say Duran was overrated, which I think is true, and yet people do not hear what I am saying. I say he is not top 10, but he is top 30. I don't think that is an insult. I just don't think he beat enough greats to warrant top 10.. He lost to all the greats he fought, and then they say, well he moved up and was bloated or heavy, which to me adds to his excuses he made when he lost to greats, yet he is given credit for win against Moore and Barkley when he was older. So people do not like that. but I believe it. If he found even a little success against those great fighters, but he didn't. He did hit Hearns with a couple of right hands because Hearns likes to leave himself open when he is looking for a knockout. But against Benitez and Leonard in rematches he did not find any success to make me think a few pounds lower would matter. But I do think once we have these sorts of opinions they do not change, and we have favorite fighters which we might favor too much because we grew up loving them or seeing something which we admired. I like Holmes.. I think hew as better than people think and had he fought in the great era of the early 70s, he would have done well. Maybe come out on top, yet his flaw was being knocked down at times.. I don't think he had the chin of Ali.

 

Had Salvador Sanchez not died he would have beaten arguello and Pedroza and gone down as a top 10 p4p fighter of all time