Boxing needs a shot in the arm...

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 09 Jun 2006, 19:42

What fighter in any division in history would you throw into todays mix to generate the interest of the days of yore. Explain why.

For me it would be Harry Greb. in both middle and Lightheavy. Id like to see how todays fighters would deal with "The Human Windmill".

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 09 Jun 2006, 20:20

I'd like to say Henry Armstrong, but the featherweight to welterweight scene is okay at the moment. He'd still rip them all up, but there are other divisions that could do with a boost.

Perhaps Archie Moore at light heavyweight. For the most part, he was exciting yet at the same time very masterful. I could see a lot of new fans both enjoying his fights and also admiring his skills.

ferocity · Post by **ferocity** » 10 Jun 2006, 19:46

I aggree the welterweight and around the division are good, as well as the featherweight division and around their are good.

The smaller division are good too, but not enough exposure for them.

I actually think boxing has been good for many years now and every other year and somtie a couple of year have been really good.

If their anything to complain about in todays boxing it is soley the heavyweight division.

Their is a lot of talent coming from europe, from middleweight to super middleweight from the ones i've heard about. And they dominate the heavyweights today.

I think boxing is good, we just need another joe louis, or muhhamed ali or mike tyson or jack dempsey to liven up the heavyweight division. Cause in my opinion boxing is doing great! and has been for many years now!

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Jun 2006, 11:47

We need a group of fighters to come along, all roughly the same age, all roughly the same weight and from different parts of the world. So much is talked about certain great eras and it's these different personalites, styles and backgrounds which make them so great.

Ali-Foreman-Frazier-Norton

Hagler-Leonard-Hearsn-Duran-Benitez-Cuevas

These are 2 obvious groups that come to mind. It's this cluster of tip fighters that makes for such anticipation. Of course they ahve to actually fight one another.

We had Toney-Jones-Mccallum-Benn-Eubank-McClellan but many of the fights didn't coem off even though it was still a very good era.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 13 Jun 2006, 12:24

Harry Greb would give boxing a wake up call.
Archie Moore would give it a 4 alarm fire alert.
Joe Jeanette would Clear out the HW division.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 13 Jun 2006, 12:27

Careers get de-railed for bad days too easy these days. In the old days you needed a few losses to get your head on straight and hone your craft. Nowdays it spells the end. It's really pretty goofed up in that respect.

Hopkins is an example of a guy who kept chuggin forward giving little attention to his "bad days on the job". Of course if you ask him he's never had a bad day on the job. That's an attitude more boxers should have.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 13 Jun 2006, 12:42

BoxBuzz wrote:Careers get de-railed for bad days too easy these days. In the old days you needed a few losses to get your head on straight and hone your craft. Nowdays it spells the end. It's really pretty goofed up in that respect.

I think that’s due to the fact that so many careers span only about 40 fights or so. If fighters fought on a more regular basis as they did in previous eras, then there would be more competitive fights, and more fighters truly learning their trade, whether they win or lose. Of course, we’d need quite a few more active boxers for this to happen, so I guess maybe I’ll get back to the question posed.

How about Joe Louis? A modest fighter who destroys everyone in his path on the way to unifying the belts of the four families. No arrogant boasting and no excessive clinching. Just total and complete destruction of all of these losers in the current crop of HWs.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 13 Jun 2006, 13:56

Hey John L.....food for thought

do you think boxers are taking "bigger beatings" these days and that explains their shorter careers..

OR

Does no one want to take the an "old fashioned" beating these days so fighters get out of the game faster.....

Or

Do people just want to protect each other more these days so careers are encouraged (one way or another) to be shortened.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 13 Jun 2006, 14:10

BoxBuzz wrote:Hey John L.....food for thought

do you think boxers are taking "bigger beatings" these days and that explains their shorter careers..

OR

Does no one want to take the an "old fashioned" beating these days so fighters get out of the game faster.....

Or

Do people just want to protect each other more these days so careers are encouraged (one way or another) to be shortened.

Actually, I don’t think the careers are shorter. They just have less fights. And I think that’s primarily due to the fact that there are less fighters and less fight cards than there were 30+ years ago. At least in the US. Not sure about the rest of the world, but in most areas of the US, there are very few fight cards. Here in the Akron area we have at best 2-3 per year, although the last scheduled one got cancelled due to poor ticket sales. In the late 60's early 70's there were 6-8 boxing gyms in the area, now there is one. The Akron area golden gloves used to be a 3 night event and would draw full houses at the old Armory all 3 nights. The few Akron GG fighters now must fight in the Cleveland regional golden gloves, which is smaller than the Akron one was 35 years ago, even though it now encompasses most of NE Ohio.

Hell, when I was in school, boxing was actually taught in gym class. You don’t see that anymore. And if there are no places to go to learn, then there can’t be many boxers produced.

Unfortunately, boxing just doesn’t have the fan base or enough active fighters to support the number of fight cards necessary to see many fighters with 70+ fight careers.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 14 Jun 2006, 04:16

It's understandable that fighters in developed coutnries will fight less fights. They get paid quite well and they are aware of the dangers. I just hate the fact that everyone wants an unblemished record. It does a fighter no harm at all to lsoe a few early on. There's nothing like the bitterness of defeat to really motivate and mature any sportsman. I give Holyfield a lot more cred for going 1-2 with Bowe than iof he ahd never fought him at all.

There seems to be a lot of over-managed fighters. I only first ntoiced it with Ray Leonard and Mike Trainer although I'm sure it's always been a part of the sport.

If there's one thing that's odd about boxing it's that top fighters can co-exist and never face one another.

Professor X · Post by **Professor X** » 14 Jun 2006, 05:29

[quote="Ezzard"]If there's one thing that's odd about boxing it's that top fighters can co-exist and never face one another.[/quote]

Right. In the end, Mike Tyson turned off millions of people from watching boxing... but absolutely what is turning me off is the way good fighters regularly avoid each other.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 14 Jun 2006, 06:04

Professor X wrote:
Ezzard wrote:If there's one thing that's odd about boxing it's that top fighters can co-exist and never face one another.
Right. In the end, Mike Tyson turned off millions of people from watching boxing... but absolutely what is turning me off is the way good fighters regularly avoid each other.

It's this fear of losing... maybe promoters should sing fighters up to series. Mind you boxing contracts and clauses seems to mean very little in practice.