Benny Leonard v Roberto Duran

[Kalan]

the fact that I am speaking of Leonard II (was at the end of it all) and the fact that Benny was now campaigning at welterweight.

Yes, you are.

A fat, balding Leonard who had retired years earlier.

Benny Leonard started fighting in 1911. He won the lightweight title from Freddy Welsh in 1917.
He retired as lightweight champion in 1924.

He lost to Mclarnin in 1932, when he decided to come back as a fat, balding welterweight after he lost everything in the 1929 stock market crash.

Yes that is why I prefaced my remarks with the statement - because the timing mattered. I thought I was making it clear that I understood that. - The one thing fighters don't lose with age is their strength (some say punch), and in that post it was strength that was at issue. - I still say Duran bullies him; if he could bully Leonard, he can bully Leonard. (OK, it's a bad pun but you gave me a hard time, so I made you read it.) And why are you giving the guy a hard time about losing his hair?

Right... Nobody ever says anything about Bobo Olson losing his hair or Floyd Mayweather losing his..

Every old timer who I've ever talked to from the 1950's thought the current crop of fighters were shittholes -- compared to Benny Leonard, Tommy Ryan etc. from their generation.. Now Ryan was probably pretty good. He was stopped only once in 99 fights and his other loss was by DQ.. That's of course, according to Boxrec.

Leonard not only looked very small, short, skinny, and weak for a lightweight, but 83% of his streamlined losses came by KO -- 5 of 6.. His actual record is listed with 21 losses going into the McLarnin fight -- so he ended up with 22 losses.. Boxrec gets around that by throwing out consensus opinion by boxing writers and only accepting judges' opinions. So Walter Brooks who is represented as 9-4-5 for purposes of building up Leonard's printed record -- had an actual career record of 1-16 with ZERO knockout wins according to the final compilation by Boxrec.

[APerno]

Yes, you are.

A fat, balding Leonard who had retired years earlier.

Benny Leonard started fighting in 1911. He won the lightweight title from Freddy Welsh in 1917.
He retired as lightweight champion in 1924.

He lost to Mclarnin in 1932, when he decided to come back as a fat, balding welterweight after he lost everything in the 1929 stock market crash.

Yes that is why I prefaced my remarks with the statement - because the timing mattered. I thought I was making it clear that I understood that. - The one thing fighters don't lose with age is their strength (some say punch), and in that post it was strength that was at issue. - I still say Duran bullies him; if he could bully Leonard, he can bully Leonard. (OK, it's a bad pun but you gave me a hard time, so I made you read it.) And why are you giving the guy a hard time about losing his hair?

Right... Nobody ever says anything about Bobo Olson losing his hair or Floyd Mayweather losing his..

Every old timer who I've ever talked to from the 1950's thought the current crop of fighters were shittholes -- compared to Benny Leonard, Tommy Ryan etc. from their generation.. Now Ryan was probably pretty good. He was stopped only once in 99 fights and his other loss was by DQ.. That's of course, according to Boxrec.

Leonard not only looked very small, short, skinny, and weak for a lightweight, but 83% of his streamlined losses came by KO -- 5 of 6.. His actual record is listed with 21 losses going into the McLarnin fight -- so he ended up with 22 losses.. Boxrec gets around that by throwing out consensus opinion by boxing writers and only accepting judges' opinions. So Walter Brooks who is represented as 9-4-5 for purposes of building up Leonard's printed record -- had an actual career record of 1-16 with ZERO knockout wins according to the final compilation by Boxrec.

I think I see what you are saying; I may not be understanding this correctly but BoxRec does seem inconsistent with Walter Brooks. On Brook's page they refuse to list his newspaper decisions in with his official record, OK, but then they include them when he is listed as Leonard's opponent. - I don't think BoxRec is 'colluding' to build up Leonard; I think it is a glitch in the way their computer program is displaying the data. (Sorry had to use the word, because it's so popular today.)

When you search out a fighter's name and the available list appears, the records offered contain all of the fighters fights (including the NWS decisions); this also holds true when a fighter appears as an opponent on another fighter's page. (This is consistent with Leonard's record, with Brooks, in reverse.) Only when you are on the fighter's actual page does BoxRec see fit to remove the NWS decisions. Me thinks computer glitch, not record padding. (Or maybe not a glitch, maybe a logic they're not sharing.)

[Kalan]

One thing you can say about the opinions of sportswriters... They're neutral -- not paid to tilt the D in the direction of the house fighter.

"Official" decisions tended to work for the famous or financially backed boxer -- and newspaper decisions worked better for their opponents.

[APerno]

One thing you can say about the opinions of sportswriters... They're neutral -- not paid to tilt the D in the direction of the house fighter.

"Official" decisions tended to work for the famous or financially backed boxer -- and newspaper decisions worked better for their opponents.

I agree there - In the '20s it was common for bookmakers to use a particular NWS decision from which to pay off on. (Same way they would agree on a particular racetrack's daily handle as the source of that day's 'number.')

[Cojimar 1946]

Olympic and world records are frequently being broken. To my knowledge in swimming and men's running there are not any records prior to 2008 that have not been broken or tied. In weightlifting they are also frequently broken.

[Kalan]

I hate to be the one to sh,it on your parade, YET AGAIN, but look up a guy called Sir Steve Redgrave before you waffle on about Olympic, and World records crumbling.

I had to crap all over your dimwitted head... Olympic and World records DO crumble every 4 years... Speaking of Sir Steve Redgrave, most world records for rowing have been set in THIS DECADE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... _in_rowing

Conversely... how many world rowing records still exist that were set in the 1970's???

Sir Steven Geoffrey Redgrave CBE DL (born on 23 March 1962) is a retired British rower who won gold medals at five consecutive Olympic Games from 1984 to 2000. He has also won three Commonwealth Games gold medals and nine World Rowing Championships golds. He is the most successful male rower in Olympic history, and the only man to have won gold medals at five Olympic Games in an endurance sport

Now!! Exactly what were you waffling about Olympic and World records " crumbling " every 4 years, and some other nonsense about 70's rowing when referring to Redgrave?

Redgrave's records have been broken you doltish dummy... That why I showed you that MOST world rowing records have been set THIS DECADE!!!

[Kalan]

But just as Olympic and World records crumble every 4 years -- athletes in every sport get better with each generation.. Gymnasts are doing 10 X the difficulty as way in the past.. Figure skaters too with quadruple spin jumps that were unheard of.. A better athlete is a better fighter.. Some people still work two 8-hour jobs and get 5 or 6 hours sleep.. They catch up on life on weekends.. For an athlete, their sport is an 8-hour job.. Discipline is their job.. Eating right is their job.. Sleeping right is their job.. Ignoring the Internet is their job.. Basically everything is their job..

Would you therefore say that today's fighters are fitter and better conditioned than championship fighters in, say, the 1950s/60s? Is Anthony Joshua better conditioned for boxing than Muhammad Ali at the same stage in his career was, for example?

Are you kidding??? ... Joshua goes through many hours of strength training routines... speed and coordination drills... and conditioning programs... He stays super fit between fights... Ali got fat as a pig between fights ... and would be sexing up as many partners as possible.

Most boxers were lax back then. The comp was limited -- Tom McNeely... Pete Rademacher... Roy Harris... Brian London... Henry Cooper... Karl Mildenbugger... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Jean Pierre Coopman... Leon Stinks... Terry Daniels... Dave Zyglewitz... Manuel Ramos... Ron Stander... and Richard Dunn are examples of Heavyweights who couldn't get a shot at Joshua today -- but were fine circa 1950's --70's.

[APerno]

Are you kidding??? ... Joshua goes through many hours of strength training routines... speed and coordination drills... and conditioning programs... He stays super fit between fights... Ali got fat as a pig between fights ... and would be sexing up as many partners as possible.

No doubt there is a physical advantage today, but somethings are lost too. The old timers fought instead of trained, and while I admit that kind of physical conditioning is not as advantageous as today's "strength training routines" there were many intangibles that old time fighters learned from their busy careers.

One such intangible is the ability to relax in the ring and not burn up energy with unnecessary movement, let alone the mental energy that gets expended with stress; fighters back then even, even at a young age became (very) experienced veterans who, for a lack of a better way to say it, 'looked at home in the ring.'

The best example I can give for this is Foreman I and Foreman II - yes I recognize that with Foreman that maturity came with actual age, but many of the old timers reached that level of ring command/relaxation while they were still in their 20s. (It just take 50 to 100 fights, that's all. LOL) - But I believe it's a real advantage, an advantage some (maybe many) of today's fighters never attain; you can't learn it in the gym.

(I realize that the next example I am about to give has a great size discrepancy attached to it, but its the personalities and experience of the fighters involved I want you to think about.) Can you see Anthony Joshua in the ring with 'The Mongoose"? - Can't you just see Moore leaning back (with a sly smile on his face) just waiting the kid out? Eventually any 'strength training' will diminish with the rounds.

Or let me say it this way, can you see any of today's fighters winning a fight where they're not the physically superior fighter: better conditioned, stronger, better skilled? I don't. --- But Archie, he won half his fights that way.

Certainly what you said is true, I sometimes think of Holyfield as the first 'modern fighter.' But while somethings have been gained, those gains may be offset by other things lost.

. . . actually Nino was using aerobics back in the '60s, but back then it looked 'kinda sissy, ya' know what I mean.'

[cfang]

A dam fine post. I was thinking this when the 6.1 fighter was up against Joshua recently. He had little skill but just standing back and showing a little head movement seemed to make him last ten rounds. How would a genius super smooth and fast athelete like Ali have done?

Are you kidding??? ... Joshua goes through many hours of strength training routines... speed and coordination drills... and conditioning programs... He stays super fit between fights... Ali got fat as a pig between fights ... and would be sexing up as many partners as possible.

No doubt there is a physical advantage today, but somethings are lost too. The old timers fought instead of trained, and while I admit that kind of physical conditioning is not as advantageous as today's "strength training routines" there were many intangibles that old time fighters learned from their busy careers.

One such intangible is the ability to relax in the ring and not burn up energy with unnecessary movement, let alone the mental energy that gets expended with stress; fighters back then even, even at a young age became (very) experienced veterans who, for a lack of a better way to say it, 'looked at home in the ring.'

The best example I can give for this is Foreman I and Foreman II - yes I recognize that with Foreman that maturity came with actual age, but many of the old timers reached that level of ring command/relaxation while they were still in their 20s. (It just take 50 to 100 fights, that's all. LOL) - But I believe it's a real advantage, an advantage some (maybe many) of today's fighters never attain; you can't learn it in the gym.

(I realize that the next example I am about to give has a great size discrepancy attached to it, but its the personalities and experience of the fighters involved I want you to think about.) Can you see Anthony Joshua in the ring with 'The Mongoose"? - Can't you just see Moore leaning back (with a sly smile on his face) just waiting the kid out? Eventually any 'strength training' will diminish with the rounds.

Or let me say it this way, can you see any of today's fighters winning a fight where they're not the physically superior fighter: better conditioned, stronger, better skilled? I don't. --- But Archie, he won half his fights that way.

Certainly what you said is true, I sometimes think of Holyfield as the first 'modern fighter.' But while somethings have been gained, those gains may be offset by other things lost.

. . . actually Nino was using aerobics back in the '60s, but back then it looked 'kinda sissy, ya' know what I mean.'

[Kalan]

Now!! Exactly what were you waffling about Olympic and World records " crumbling " every 4 years, and some other nonsense about 70's rowing when referring to Redgrave?

Redgrave's records have been broken you doltish dummy... That why I showed you that MOST world rowing records have been set THIS DECADE!!!

No you didn't you LIAR, you waffled on about 70's rowing in relation to Redgrave, who rowed, AND WON gold EVERY TIME in the Olympics between 1984 and 2000. Yet again your shite talk was exposed.

Were not talking about how many times Redgrave won Gold dumbass... But whether the records he set have be broken... They have lying ass.

[ewenhay]

One thing you can say about the opinions of sportswriters... They're neutral -- not paid to tilt the D in the direction of the house fighter.

"Official" decisions tended to work for the famous or financially backed boxer -- and newspaper decisions worked better for their opponents.

Newspaper sportswriters and their employers have agendas all the time. Political, financial and personal.

[Kalan]

One thing you can say about the opinions of sportswriters... They're neutral -- not paid to tilt the D in the direction of the house fighter.

"Official" decisions tended to work for the famous or financially backed boxer -- and newspaper decisions worked better for their opponents.

Newspaper sportswriters and their employers have agendas all the time. Political, financial and personal.

They're not appointed to boxing bouts by inside dealing Boxing Establishment commissioners... Their opinions are more likely to be independent.

[Kalan]

And is there really anything NEW under the sun when it comes to the striking art? If you can point to some "breakthrough" post Sullivan then lay it out here, but the basics of great boxing seem to be static.

There's nothing static in a world full of innovation and inventiveness -- not even in boxing which seems so stuck in the mud at times.

Strength training methods have improved generation to generation.. Lomachenko has invented new training methods, as well as new moves and ways to get openings for punches and combinations that no boxer has ever done before.. He's also developed new balancing routines, speed development methods, and ways to train his mind that have never been used before.. He may become a trainer after his career is over.

Nobody ever fired as many decoy punches as Rigondeaux, just to set up a punch... I don't know how much that will catch on, but it is different..

You never had any southpaws fight for the Heavyweight Championship of the World---ever in history---before 1966.. Even Lennox Lewis never faced a Southpaw in his career.. The discrimination against southpaws in the Heavyweight ranks took a long time to overcome...but there's so many southpaws today that they can't be avoided.

Another innovator is Terence Crawford.. You haven't seen a switch-hitter of his status up until today, although Keith Thurman is known to switch hit.. Crawford likes to use it against shorter right handers like Yuriorkus Gamboa to get the right hook in.. Bryant Jennings was pretty much at Luis Ortiz's mercy throughout their fight because he had faced so few southpaws in his very limited amateur and pro careers.. He was destroyed.. Any boxer who could work from both sides with equal skill---if that skill happens to be mind blowing---would be formidable indeed.

[ewenhay]

One thing you can say about the opinions of sportswriters... They're neutral -- not paid to tilt the D in the direction of the house fighter.

"Official" decisions tended to work for the famous or financially backed boxer -- and newspaper decisions worked better for their opponents.

Newspaper sportswriters and their employers have agendas all the time. Political, financial and personal.

They're not appointed to boxing bouts by inside dealing Boxing Establishment commissioners... Their opinions are more likely to be independent.

In theory. Sadly not in practice.

[cfang]

Far be it for me to agree with Kal but I'm going to here. He's spot on about the rowing. He was saying that all the world records for rowing have been set recently and he's right (apart from a german team all the records are 2012 to date). Redgrave's name doesn't appear on any of the teams currently holding a world record in rowing so current teams of guys are faster. For whatever reason, that is a fact. He was great for his longevity and in his time but its not like him and his team mates (its important to note he wasn't on his own) were superior or faster than the era that came after because thats not true.

Many athletes are dominant like Redgrave for a long time but that shouldn't be held up as an example of athletes not getting better. Anyway he's one man, its better to look at a sport generally to see if people are better. Rowing isn't a good example anyway, theres so many different events in rowing to be able to win and lets be honest its not exactly a large participation sport like football.

Anyway, in the vast majority of sports the current are better. I saw some stats on premiership football sprinting levels and they've gone up like 40% in just the last few years. Athletes are bigger and faster and better coached, eat better - all this is fact. However, boxing is a bit of an exception to this. Firstly apart from heavys all the guys are the same weight (theres the weigh in thing off but generally speaking). Also, boxing was more popular in the past and also boxing isn't just an athletic event - its one on one so theres intangibles like toughness and mental strength.

So in effect Im agreeing with Kal, a rare thing but there you are :)

No you didn't you LIAR, you waffled on about 70's rowing in relation to Redgrave, who rowed, AND WON gold EVERY TIME in the Olympics between 1984 and 2000. Yet again your shite talk was exposed.

Were not talking about how many times Redgrave won Gold dumbass... But whether the records he set have be broken... They have lying ass.

What you said you cretinous piece of poo, was " olympic records crumble every 4 years " well seeing as he won 5 consecutively his obviously didn't did they? Not only are you a pathological liar, you are in fact a moron. What part of the man was unbeaten in the olympic rowing events he entered for 16 years is too difficult for you to understand?

[APerno]

Far be it for me to agree with Kal but I'm going to here. He's spot on about the rowing. He was saying that all the world records for rowing have been set recently and he's right (apart from a german team all the records are 2012 to date). Redgrave's name doesn't appear on any of the teams currently holding a world record in rowing so current teams of guys are faster. For whatever reason, that is a fact. He was great for his longevity and in his time but its not like him and his team mates (its important to note he wasn't on his own) were superior or faster than the era that came after because thats not true.

Many athletes are dominant like Redgrave for a long time but that shouldn't be held up as an example of athletes not getting better. Anyway he's one man, its better to look at a sport generally to see if people are better. Rowing isn't a good example anyway, theres so many different events in rowing to be able to win and lets be honest its not exactly a large participation sport like football.

Anyway, in the vast majority of sports the current are better. I saw some stats on premiership football sprinting levels and they've gone up like 40% in just the last few years. Athletes are bigger and faster and better coached, eat better - all this is fact. However, boxing is a bit of an exception to this. Firstly apart from heavys all the guys are the same weight (theres the weigh in thing off but generally speaking). Also, boxing was more popular in the past and also boxing isn't just an athletic event - its one on one so theres intangibles like toughness and mental strength.

So in effect Im agreeing with Kal, a rare thing but there you are :)

Were not talking about how many times Redgrave won Gold dumbass... But whether the records he set have be broken... They have lying ass.

What you said you cretinous piece of poo, was " olympic records crumble every 4 years " well seeing as he won 5 consecutively his obviously didn't did they? Not only are you a pathological liar, you are in fact a moron. What part of the man was unbeaten in the olympic rowing events he entered for 16 years is too difficult for you to understand?

Yes, and there are only two records standing, per 2012, and they only go back to '91 and '92. I wonder if those two events are still even contested? Otherwise all the records are 2012 and after. - I wonder how much current boat design has enhanced speeds? - And also, what happened in Amsterdam, a big wind? There is something odd about the World Championships in Amsterdam 2014.

[APerno]

Oh! I answered my own question, it was the wind. LOL


"The Bosbaan in Amsterdam is not known as the fairest of courses and it lived up to this reputation during race week. The raging winds and fast water–if you found yourself in the right lane–made for a record-breaking streak as fourteen new world records were set. And that doesn’t include the multiple times a new record was set and then broken again in the same day. I don’t think there has ever been one regatta in which that many world best times were shattered."

https://meghanoleary.net/2014/09/20/201 ... ips-recap/

[Kalan]

I never said "ALL Olympic and World Records fall every 4 years" ... I said Olympic and World Records fall every 4 years -- because a very significant number of them do fall every 4 years... Over a generation or two 99% of them fall...

That's not saying freak records will never be set that some future athletes will ever be able to break... but any record that is set against sprinting or running times... swimming times... lifting poundage... throwing distance for any event... jumping distance... Jumping height... vaulting height... shooting accuracy... skiing or skating speeds or distances for any event... indeed, any record that can be accurately measured is vulnerable. It will fall sooner or later for the next 1000 years or so. Edwin Moses' best time ever has already been beaten by Kevin Young.

There may come a point in time in the future when the human race stops progressing physically -- and possibly starts to regress genetically for whatever reason there might be... That would be tragic -- but no more records will ever be broken after that is underway for a long time.

[Kalan]

Far be it for me to agree with Kal but I'm going to here. He's spot on about the rowing. He was saying that all the world records for rowing have been set recently and he's right (apart from a german team all the records are 2012 to date). Redgrave's name doesn't appear on any of the teams currently holding a world record in rowing so current teams of guys are faster. For whatever reason, that is a fact. He was great for his longevity and in his time but its not like him and his team mates (its important to note he wasn't on his own) were superior or faster than the era that came after because thats not true.

Many athletes are dominant like Redgrave for a long time but that shouldn't be held up as an example of athletes not getting better. Anyway he's one man, its better to look at a sport generally to see if people are better. Rowing isn't a good example anyway, theres so many different events in rowing to be able to win and lets be honest its not exactly a large participation sport like football.

Anyway, in the vast majority of sports the current are better. I saw some stats on premiership football sprinting levels and they've gone up like 40% in just the last few years. Athletes are bigger and faster and better coached, eat better - all this is fact. However, boxing is a bit of an exception to this. Firstly apart from heavys all the guys are the same weight (theres the weigh in thing off but generally speaking). Also, boxing was more popular in the past and also boxing isn't just an athletic event - its one on one so theres intangibles like toughness and mental strength.

So in effect Im agreeing with Kal, a rare thing but there you are :)

Thanks for agreeing, but I don't agree with your comment that Boxing was more popular in the past.. We have record numbers of paying viewers for top events set in the 21st Century... In fact, in the last 3 years... Paid gate attendance at an event may date back to Dempsey v Tunney, which their fights pulled more than 90,000 fans I think.. Joshua pulled that many in for his Klitschko fight, but he also had PPViewers and various global TV rights that swelled the take.. Why travel all that way if you can view it on TV?

Boxing definitely has more traction in the United Kingdom and Worldwide than it ever had -- because a huge slice of the world that had no professional boxing at all is now steadily turning out world class boxers.. World wide revenues have shown a steady increase since 1990.. and there are more licensed professional boxers today, worldwide, than there ever was.. The sport would be growing even faster if it weren't for the efforts of American promoters and organizations to thwart the rise of Eastern Europeans and destroy promotions in Russia and Eastern Europe as a whole.. We have to shake loose of the idea that America is forever the Mecca of Boxing and all the greatest fights need to be venued here.

I vividly remember as a kid, Alabama Gov. George Wallace speaking loudly to a wildly cheering crowd yelling, "Segregation NOW... Segregation TOMORROW... Segregation FOREVER!!!" ... I remember thinking "You stupid, delusional backwoods hillbilly." ... The world changes.

[APerno]

Paid gate attendance at an event may date back to Dempsey v Tunney, which their fights pulled more than 90,000 fans

Not that it is important but the numbers usually* associated with Dempsey-Tunney are 120,000 (Philly) & 105,000 (Chicago) - but the Chicago fight had a better gate (2.8 million); higher ticket prices.

** I say usually because after spending the past 18 months on this board, and as of late, reading more primary material then secondary, I have come to doubt just about everything I have ever heard about prize fighting. e.g. Except for you and I, the whole world thinks it was 105 degrees in Havana, in April, and we know it wasn't. There is so much bad information out there; so many urban legends. - - - - So anyway those are the CW numbers usually thrown around.

Supposedly the Chavez-Haugen fight in Mexico topped 130,000, and holds the record, but it was Don King doing the counting, so who knows; and he may have given away many seats just to fill the stadium for PR purposes; to claim the record.

[Kalan]

Paid gate attendance at an event may date back to Dempsey v Tunney, which their fights pulled more than 90,000 fans

Not that it is important but the numbers usually* associated with Dempsey-Tunney are 120,000 (Philly) & 105,000 (Chicago) - but the Chicago fight had a better gate (2.8 million); higher ticket prices.

** I say usually because after spending the past 18 months on this board, and as of late, reading more primary material then secondary, I have come to doubt just about everything I have ever heard about prize fighting. e.g. Except for you and I, the whole world thinks it was 105 degrees in Havana, in April, and we know it wasn't. There is so much bad information out there; so many urban legends. - - - - So anyway those are the CW numbers usually thrown around.

Supposedly the Chavez-Haugen fight in Mexico topped 130,000, and holds the record, but it was Don King doing the counting, so who knows; and he may have given away many seats just to fill the stadium for PR purposes; to claim the record.

I am sure I once read the ticket prices were so incredibly cheap for that fight there was no need to embellish the attendance figures.

Right... The main number is total revenue from all sources... Not the total number of eyeballs watching something damned near for free... I'm sure Joshua-Wilder will top all numbers, past and present -- if Wilder can manage to beat a significant opponent beforehand -- say a Povetkin, Ortiz, Parker, or Haye... So far the only swinger who hit DW real good has been Duhaupas... Those 2 dinky shots Molina landed did almost nothing.