Jose Napoles

[Victor*KC]

De La Hoya ducked Tzyu.

Actually, De la Hoya wanted to fight Tszyu at 147. His early career was full of him fighting people at divisions in which they weren't comfortable. Further, De la Hoya had a big-money fight against Pernell Whitaker at 147, and his stay at jr. welter was really only a pit-stop.

When the Tszyu fight was going to happen, Tszyu took a defense against former crackhead, Vince Phillips and lost by kayo, ending speculation about the match.

Right on they were talking about this match-up Tszyu could of moved up when ever he wanted to...

[Victor*KC]

Right on they were talking about this match-up Tszyu could of moved up when ever he wanted to...

Tszyu only would've moved up to 147 to fight De la Hoya. If he'd fought Trinidad or Quartey, he'd have been sent back to 140 in a bodybag.

Yeah Quartey was a very strong fighter with power in both hands before he got hurt by Lopez he was more open with his offense then just going foward and throwing the jab.. Quartey nearly killed Phillips who came from the 140 Division he'd do the same to Tszyu.. I see Quartey backing him up with the jab and opening up by the 6 or 7 th round Tszyu would get stopped..

[cosand]

Write off the loss to Backus
By Billy's own admission, it rained blue the night he beat Napoles.
Jose was totally disoriented and intimidated being on Backus's home turf and hometown, (Hell hath no fury like an upstate NY boxing fan or sports writer) and Billy had the fight of his life.
I make Napoles a top 10 all time P4P, and the number 2 all time WW, but behind SRL, not SRR

1 SRL
2 Napoles
3. SRR
4 Armstrong
5 Griffith

[silkov]

Write off the loss to Backus
By Billy's own admission, it rained blue the night he beat Napoles.
Jose was totally disoriented and intimidated being on Backus's home turf and hometown, (Hell hath no fury like an upstate NY boxing fan or sports writer) and Billy had the fight of his life.
I make Napoles a top 10 all time P4P, and the number 2 all time WW, but behind SRL, not SRR

1 SRL
2 Napoles
3. SRR
4 Armstrong
5 Griffith

I dont see how you can rate Leonard over Robinson, which ever way you look at them Robinson was either Leonards equal or master in everything....

[cosand]

silkov Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Write off the loss to Backus
By Billy's own admission, it rained blue the night he beat Napoles.
Jose was totally disoriented and intimidated being on Backus's home turf and hometown, (Hell hath no fury like an upstate NY boxing fan or sports writer) and Billy had the fight of his life.
I make Napoles a top 10 all time P4P, and the number 2 all time WW, but behind SRL, not SRR

1 SRL
2 Napoles
3. SRR
4 Armstrong
5 Griffith


I dont see how you can rate Leonard over Robinson, which ever way you look at them Robinson was either Leonards equal or master in everything....

I rate SRL and Napoles over SRR based on the eras they fought in. All 3 had similar accomplishments, but a comparable 145 lb fighter in the 70s and 80s, is going to be stronger, faster and better conditioned then one from the 1940s.
IMO

[silkov]

silkov Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Write off the loss to Backus
By Billy's own admission, it rained blue the night he beat Napoles.
Jose was totally disoriented and intimidated being on Backus's home turf and hometown, (Hell hath no fury like an upstate NY boxing fan or sports writer) and Billy had the fight of his life.
I make Napoles a top 10 all time P4P, and the number 2 all time WW, but behind SRL, not SRR

1 SRL
2 Napoles
3. SRR
4 Armstrong
5 Griffith


I dont see how you can rate Leonard over Robinson, which ever way you look at them Robinson was either Leonards equal or master in everything....

I rate SRL and Napoles over SRR based on the eras they fought in. All 3 had similar accomplishments, but a comparable 145 lb fighter in the 70s and 80s, is going to be stronger, faster and better conditioned then one from the 1940s.
IMO

Well how do you work that out?... Robinsons opposition matches and surpasses Leonards, he also fought far more often and was still fighting for world titles in his 40s, so how can you say he wasnt as well conditioned as Leonard...

[cosand]

silkov Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:54 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
silkov Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Write off the loss to Backus
By Billy's own admission, it rained blue the night he beat Napoles.
Jose was totally disoriented and intimidated being on Backus's home turf and hometown, (Hell hath no fury like an upstate NY boxing fan or sports writer) and Billy had the fight of his life.
I make Napoles a top 10 all time P4P, and the number 2 all time WW, but behind SRL, not SRR

1 SRL
2 Napoles
3. SRR
4 Armstrong
5 Griffith


I dont see how you can rate Leonard over Robinson, which ever way you look at them Robinson was either Leonards equal or master in everything....


I rate SRL and Napoles over SRR based on the eras they fought in. All 3 had similar accomplishments, but a comparable 145 lb fighter in the 70s and 80s, is going to be stronger, faster and better conditioned then one from the 1940s.
IMO


Well how do you work that out?... Robinsons opposition matches and surpasses Leonards, he also fought far more often and was still fighting for world titles in his 40s, so how can you say he wasnt as well conditioned as Leonard...

There are some things that are simply true. The sun sets in the west, water is wet, dogs sniff each other hind quarters, and modern athletes are stronger, more athletic, and better physically conditioned then comparable athletes of the distant past. To think otherwise is the ultimate exercise in blissful, rose-colored glasses romanticized hindsight.

The old time all time greats were great for their era, against other fighters of their era, but to compare a fighter from the 30s with a fighter from the 70s and 80s on a head to head basis, is apples and oranges.

Nutrition, strength training and conditioning methods since the 70s make those of the 30s and 40s look like those of the dark ages by comparison

I know this doesn’t sit well with some who look back with an exaggerated view of the "glory days" of the sport. that however, doesn’t make it any less true

[silkov]

silkov Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:54 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
silkov Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Write off the loss to Backus
By Billy's own admission, it rained blue the night he beat Napoles.
Jose was totally disoriented and intimidated being on Backus's home turf and hometown, (Hell hath no fury like an upstate NY boxing fan or sports writer) and Billy had the fight of his life.
I make Napoles a top 10 all time P4P, and the number 2 all time WW, but behind SRL, not SRR

1 SRL
2 Napoles
3. SRR
4 Armstrong
5 Griffith


I dont see how you can rate Leonard over Robinson, which ever way you look at them Robinson was either Leonards equal or master in everything....


I rate SRL and Napoles over SRR based on the eras they fought in. All 3 had similar accomplishments, but a comparable 145 lb fighter in the 70s and 80s, is going to be stronger, faster and better conditioned then one from the 1940s.
IMO


Well how do you work that out?... Robinsons opposition matches and surpasses Leonards, he also fought far more often and was still fighting for world titles in his 40s, so how can you say he wasnt as well conditioned as Leonard...

There are some things that are simply true. The sun sets in the west, water is wet, dogs sniff each other hind quarters, and modern athletes are stronger, more athletic, and better physically conditioned then comparable athletes of the distant past. To think otherwise is the ultimate exercise in blissful, rose-colored glasses romanticized hindsight.

The old time all time greats were great for their era, against other fighters of their era, but to compare a fighter from the 30s with a fighter from the 70s and 80s on a head to head basis, is apples and oranges.

Nutrition, strength training and conditioning methods since the 70s make those of the 30s and 40s look like those of the dark ages by comparison

I know this doesn’t sit well with some who look back with an exaggerated view of the "glory days" of the sport. that however, doesn’t make it any less true

Thats just your opinion though, anyone who has watched Leonard and Robinson fight and looked over their careers would be hardpressed to say that Leonard was better conditioned, how can a guy fighting 2 or 3 times a year be better conditioned than someone fighting every month??.... it aint got anything to do with where the sun sets... if fighters are so better conditioned today how come most of them are gassed after 3 or 4 rounds??... answer me that?...

[cosand]

Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4802

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never been in fuller agreement with Silkov. About once a month, someone comes up with the "Linebacker" argument. Linebackers in football are stronger and faster, so therefore athletes in all sports are better. If humans are so hell-bent on improvement, how come no one in the 20th century even came close to matching up with the musical geniuses of the 18th century, like Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Handel, Clementi and Salieri?

Actually, the “linebacker” argument is not totally off base. A better argument would be to look at the times in the 100-meter dash, the records held by weight lifters, or the speed of a fastball now as opposed to 1935.

As for the example of classical composers, remember, everything is relative and just as in boxing, styles and venues change in that category, and well as in all catogories.

Who is to say if Mozart or Beethoven were alive today, if they would orchestrate, or if they would dub, edit and re-master?

Would they compose for strings and woodwinds, or synthesizers and electric guitars?

Anyway, by what divine decree is it written that modern composers like Stuart Dempster or Glenn Branca don't match the skill of the great masters of the past?

We are off on a tangent here, but back to sports in general, and boxing in particular, the evidence and plain common sense leave little question that indeed the modern athlete, compared to a comparable athlete of the past, is far superior in terms of physical strength, conditioning and performance.

silkov Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats just your opinion though, anyone who has watched Leonard and Robinson fight and looked over their careers would be hardpressed to say that Leonard was better conditioned, how can a guy fighting 2 or 3 times a year be better conditioned than someone fighting every month??.... it aint got anything to do with where the sun sets... if fighters are so better conditioned today how come most of them are gassed after 3 or 4 rounds??... answer me that?...

Remember, we are talking about COMPARABLE comparisons and COMPARABLE athletes here.

I don’t recall ever seeing Napoles or SRL gassed after 3 or 4 rounds, or even 10, and almost never after 15.

I do recall however, seeing SRR almost expire from exhaustion during the Maxim fight. (yeah I know it was 160 degrees in the shade and 170% humidity, there was a blast furnace at ringside, and the metal poles were melting from the heat blah blah blah ) I often wonder if the people who give SRR that excuse, think Maxim had an air conditioner in his trunks that night, or had some super human power to control HIS body temperature????


Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying SRR was not in shape or his time and that he wasn’t a courageous fighter. But the exaggerated hindsight and revisionist tall tales of the past, especially when it comes to guys like SRR, Louis and others, are a bit silly sometimes.
.

[silkov]

Indeed, although its poetic justice almost that with all the 'world champs' now available and all the various 'nutritional suppliments' that are being guzzled (yeah Roy you got caught!) ...never has the world scene been populated by such a bunch of over tanned, over musceled, asthmatics, incapable of going more than 3 or 4 decent paced rounds before pooping their pants!!.... the poster boy for this is Shannon Briggs!... 290 pounds of pure Roid and unable to throw more than three punches without having a near heart attack!... I actually just watched his recent 'title winning' effort today and didnt know whether to laugh or cry, ...Jack Dempseys got more life in him and he's been dead for 25 years!!....

[silkov]

Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4802

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never been in fuller agreement with Silkov. About once a month, someone comes up with the "Linebacker" argument. Linebackers in football are stronger and faster, so therefore athletes in all sports are better. If humans are so hell-bent on improvement, how come no one in the 20th century even came close to matching up with the musical geniuses of the 18th century, like Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Handel, Clementi and Salieri?

Actually, the “linebacker” argument is not totally off base. A better argument would be to look at the times in the 100-meter dash, the records held by weight lifters, or the speed of a fastball now as opposed to 1935.

As for the example of classical composers, remember, everything is relative and just as in boxing, styles and venues change in that category, and well as in all catogories.

Who is to say if Mozart or Beethoven were alive today, if they would orchestrate, or if they would dub, edit and re-master?

Would they compose for strings and woodwinds, or synthesizers and electric guitars?

Anyway, by what divine decree is it written that modern composers like Stuart Dempster or Glenn Branca don't match the skill of the great masters of the past?

We are off on a tangent here, but back to sports in general, and boxing in particular, the evidence and plain common sense leave little question that indeed the modern athlete, compared to a comparable athlete of the past, is far superior in terms of physical strength, conditioning and performance.

silkov Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats just your opinion though, anyone who has watched Leonard and Robinson fight and looked over their careers would be hardpressed to say that Leonard was better conditioned, how can a guy fighting 2 or 3 times a year be better conditioned than someone fighting every month??.... it aint got anything to do with where the sun sets... if fighters are so better conditioned today how come most of them are gassed after 3 or 4 rounds??... answer me that?...

Remember, we are talking about COMPARABLE comparisons and COMPARABLE athletes here.

I don’t recall ever seeing Napoles or SRL gassed after 3 or 4 rounds, or even 10, and almost never after 15.

I do recall however, seeing SRR almost expire from exhaustion during the Maxim fight. (yeah I know it was 160 degrees in the shade and 170% humidity, there was a blast furnace at ringside, and the metal poles were melting from the heat blah blah blah ) I often wonder if the people who give SRR that excuse, think Maxim had an air conditioner in his trunks that night, or had some super human power to control HIS body temperature????


Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying SRR was not in shape or his time and that he wasn’t a courageous fighter. But the exaggerated hindsight and revisionist tall tales of the past, especially when it comes to guys like SRR, Louis and others, are a bit silly sometimes.
.

Spoken truly like someone whose fight collection probably goes no further back than 1995... what was Ray Leonards excuse for his losses to Norris or (hahahaha!) Comacho!!!.... or his loss (whoops! I mean DRAW???? :x :x ) against Hearns??... or even his 'throw punches for the last 30 seconds of the round and hope to win the fight' performance against Hagler???.... was this all the result of his SUPERIOR CONDITIONING???... I suppose thats why he got Lalonde to come in at 168 and got Hagler to fight over 12 and not 15 rounds!!... hell its probably the reason why Lalonde floored him once and Hearns floored him twice! (IN THEIR DRAW!!! ) ...it was all due to Leonards superior conditioning!!.... shame Robinson didnt have that conditioning when he was still fighting for world titles and going 15 rounds at past 40!!!... :x 8)

[cosand]

silkov



Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 7102
Location: LONDON
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4802

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never been in fuller agreement with Silkov. About once a month, someone comes up with the "Linebacker" argument. Linebackers in football are stronger and faster, so therefore athletes in all sports are better. If humans are so hell-bent on improvement, how come no one in the 20th century even came close to matching up with the musical geniuses of the 18th century, like Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Handel, Clementi and Salieri?


Actually, the “linebacker” argument is not totally off base. A better argument would be to look at the times in the 100-meter dash, the records held by weight lifters, or the speed of a fastball now as opposed to 1935.

As for the example of classical composers, remember, everything is relative and just as in boxing, styles and venues change in that category, and well as in all catogories.

Who is to say if Mozart or Beethoven were alive today, if they would orchestrate, or if they would dub, edit and re-master?

Would they compose for strings and woodwinds, or synthesizers and electric guitars?

Anyway, by what divine decree is it written that modern composers like Stuart Dempster or Glenn Branca don't match the skill of the great masters of the past?

We are off on a tangent here, but back to sports in general, and boxing in particular, the evidence and plain common sense leave little question that indeed the modern athlete, compared to a comparable athlete of the past, is far superior in terms of physical strength, conditioning and performance.

Quote:
silkov Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats just your opinion though, anyone who has watched Leonard and Robinson fight and looked over their careers would be hardpressed to say that Leonard was better conditioned, how can a guy fighting 2 or 3 times a year be better conditioned than someone fighting every month??.... it aint got anything to do with where the sun sets... if fighters are so better conditioned today how come most of them are gassed after 3 or 4 rounds??... answer me that?...


Remember, we are talking about COMPARABLE comparisons and COMPARABLE athletes here.

I don’t recall ever seeing Napoles or SRL gassed after 3 or 4 rounds, or even 10, and almost never after 15.

I do recall however, seeing SRR almost expire from exhaustion during the Maxim fight. (yeah I know it was 160 degrees in the shade and 170% humidity, there was a blast furnace at ringside, and the metal poles were melting from the heat blah blah blah ) I often wonder if the people who give SRR that excuse, think Maxim had an air conditioner in his trunks that night, or had some super human power to control HIS body temperature????


Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying SRR was not in shape or his time and that he wasn’t a courageous fighter. But the exaggerated hindsight and revisionist tall tales of the past, especially when it comes to guys like SRR, Louis and others, are a bit silly sometimes.
.


Spoken truly like someone whose fight collection probably goes no further back than 1995... what was Ray Leonards excuse for his losses to Norris or (hahahaha!) Comacho!!!.... or his loss (whoops! I mean DRAW???? ) against Hearns??... or even his 'throw punches for the last 30 seconds of the round and hope to win the fight' performance against Hagler???.... was this all the result of his SUPERIOR CONDITIONING???... I suppose thats why he got Lalonde to come in at 168 and got Hagler to fight over 12 and not 15 rounds!!... hell its probably the reason why Lalonde floored him once and Hearns floored him twice! (IN THEIR DRAW!!! ) ...it was all due to Leonards superior conditioning!!.... shame Robinson didnt have that conditioning when he was still fighting for world titles and going 15 rounds at past 40!!!...

Once again my nostalgia obsessed, rose color hindsighted friend.... apples and oranges.

Babe Ruth never face a 98 MPH fast ball..I'll let you ponder how that relates to your above comments...good luck on that

News flash son:
Had a man with the body, strength and physical makeup of SRR fought in the era of SRL, Napoles, or Monzone, the prime of their career, at best, would be as a gatekeeper fighting ten rounders at state fairgrounds, and lesser contenders from the 30s would be doing 4 round walk out fights after title matches.

By the way,,,did you hear ?
The 4 minute mile is NOT a great accomplishment anymore either.
It has been broken LOTS of times!

[Ambling Alp]

Ok, Silkov and cosand, both of you have gotten pretty silly.

Silkov- If you are going to count the Camacho and Norris fights against Leonard when he was past it, then how these Ray Robinson losses:
Denny Moyer
Phil Moyer,
Terry Downes
Micky Leahy
Memo Ayon
Ferd Hernandez

Should these fights count against Robinson? Of course not. Neither should Leonard's fights with Norris and Camacho.
Yes Leonard got knocked down by Donny LaLonde, and Robinson got knocked down by Rocky Castellani.

Leonard beat Marvin Hagler after having q1 fight in5 years. It was Leonard's first fight at middleweight. He was given almost no chance to win. This is bigger achievement than beating Fullmer or LaMotta.

Having said that, I agree with silkov and disagree with cosand about Robinson being #1. He is the only welterweight that I don't rank Leonard ahead of. Robinson never lost to another welterweight and he beat some good ones.

This modern day athelete stuff is total baloney. First of all, there is such as thing as skill. Even if someone has better measureable physical gifts than another guy, that doesn't mean that he is going to be better. You have to have the skill. Of course there also things such as ring smarts, chin, heart etc to consider.

You can have a fast 40 yard dash time, that doesn't you are a great reciever.
You can bench press a lot,that doesn't mean you are a great lineman.

You can have a great vertical leap, that doesn't mean that you are a great basketball player.

Btw, people that tout modern day training techniques they don't mention things such as :

Joe DiMaggio time around the bases was faster than Ricky Henderson's.
Sammy Baugh average single season punting record was around for decades.
The fastest pitchers from the 1960's are faster than the pitchers now. they may have before that but there weren't reliable ways to measure until then.
Pitchers threw every four days and went 9 innings for decades until the late 1970's. This is too hard for modern pitchers with all of their training techniques.
Free throw shooting in basketball is down from years ago.

[dr_devious]

Ray Leonard was the same age when he lost to Terry Norris, as Marvin Hagler was when he "lost" to Ray Leonard. Also, Marvin had many more fights at this stage and more miles on the clock.

[The Great John L]

Ok, Silkov and cosand, both of you have gotten pretty silly.

Silkov- If you are going to count the Camacho and Norris fights against Leonard when he was past it, then how these Ray Robinson losses:
Denny Moyer
Phil Moyer,
Terry Downes
Micky Leahy
Memo Ayon
Ferd Hernandez

Should these fights count against Robinson? Of course not. Neither should Leonard's fights with Norris and Camacho.
Yes Leonard got knocked down by Donny LaLonde, and Robinson got knocked down by Rocky Castellani.

Leonard beat Marvin Hagler after having q1 fight in5 years. It was Leonard's first fight at middleweight. He was given almost no chance to win. This is bigger achievement than beating Fullmer or LaMotta.

Having said that, I agree with silkov and disagree with cosand about Robinson being #1. He is the only welterweight that I don't rank Leonard ahead of. Robinson never lost to another welterweight and he beat some good ones.

This modern day athelete stuff is total baloney. First of all, there is such as thing as skill. Even if someone has better measureable physical gifts than another guy, that doesn't mean that he is going to be better. You have to have the skill. Of course there also things such as ring smarts, chin, heart etc to consider.

You can have a fast 40 yard dash time, that doesn't you are a great reciever.
You can bench press a lot,that doesn't mean you are a great lineman.

You can have a great vertical leap, that doesn't mean that you are a great basketball player.

Btw, people that tout modern day training techniques they don't mention things such as :

Joe DiMaggio time around the bases was faster than Ricky Henderson's.
Sammy Baugh average single season punting record was around for decades.
The fastest pitchers from the 1960's are faster than the pitchers now. they may have before that but there weren't reliable ways to measure until then.
Pitchers threw every four days and went 9 innings for decades until the late 1970's. This is too hard for modern pitchers with all of their training techniques.
Free throw shooting in basketball is down from years ago.

Excellent post Alp.

[silkov]

silkov



Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 7102
Location: LONDON
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cosand wrote:
Quote:
Decagon



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 4802

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never been in fuller agreement with Silkov. About once a month, someone comes up with the "Linebacker" argument. Linebackers in football are stronger and faster, so therefore athletes in all sports are better. If humans are so hell-bent on improvement, how come no one in the 20th century even came close to matching up with the musical geniuses of the 18th century, like Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Handel, Clementi and Salieri?


Actually, the “linebacker” argument is not totally off base. A better argument would be to look at the times in the 100-meter dash, the records held by weight lifters, or the speed of a fastball now as opposed to 1935.

As for the example of classical composers, remember, everything is relative and just as in boxing, styles and venues change in that category, and well as in all catogories.

Who is to say if Mozart or Beethoven were alive today, if they would orchestrate, or if they would dub, edit and re-master?

Would they compose for strings and woodwinds, or synthesizers and electric guitars?

Anyway, by what divine decree is it written that modern composers like Stuart Dempster or Glenn Branca don't match the skill of the great masters of the past?

We are off on a tangent here, but back to sports in general, and boxing in particular, the evidence and plain common sense leave little question that indeed the modern athlete, compared to a comparable athlete of the past, is far superior in terms of physical strength, conditioning and performance.

Quote:
silkov Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats just your opinion though, anyone who has watched Leonard and Robinson fight and looked over their careers would be hardpressed to say that Leonard was better conditioned, how can a guy fighting 2 or 3 times a year be better conditioned than someone fighting every month??.... it aint got anything to do with where the sun sets... if fighters are so better conditioned today how come most of them are gassed after 3 or 4 rounds??... answer me that?...


Remember, we are talking about COMPARABLE comparisons and COMPARABLE athletes here.

I don’t recall ever seeing Napoles or SRL gassed after 3 or 4 rounds, or even 10, and almost never after 15.

I do recall however, seeing SRR almost expire from exhaustion during the Maxim fight. (yeah I know it was 160 degrees in the shade and 170% humidity, there was a blast furnace at ringside, and the metal poles were melting from the heat blah blah blah ) I often wonder if the people who give SRR that excuse, think Maxim had an air conditioner in his trunks that night, or had some super human power to control HIS body temperature????


Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying SRR was not in shape or his time and that he wasn’t a courageous fighter. But the exaggerated hindsight and revisionist tall tales of the past, especially when it comes to guys like SRR, Louis and others, are a bit silly sometimes.
.


Spoken truly like someone whose fight collection probably goes no further back than 1995... what was Ray Leonards excuse for his losses to Norris or (hahahaha!) Comacho!!!.... or his loss (whoops! I mean DRAW???? ) against Hearns??... or even his 'throw punches for the last 30 seconds of the round and hope to win the fight' performance against Hagler???.... was this all the result of his SUPERIOR CONDITIONING???... I suppose thats why he got Lalonde to come in at 168 and got Hagler to fight over 12 and not 15 rounds!!... hell its probably the reason why Lalonde floored him once and Hearns floored him twice! (IN THEIR DRAW!!! ) ...it was all due to Leonards superior conditioning!!.... shame Robinson didnt have that conditioning when he was still fighting for world titles and going 15 rounds at past 40!!!...

Once again my nostalgia obsessed, rose color hindsighted friend.... apples and oranges.

Babe Ruth never face a 98 MPH fast ball..I'll let you ponder how that relates to your above comments...good luck on that

News flash son:
Had a man with the body, strength and physical makeup of SRR fought in the era of SRL, Napoles, or Monzone, the prime of their career, at best, would be as a gatekeeper fighting ten rounders at state fairgrounds, and lesser contenders from the 30s would be doing 4 round walk out fights after title matches.

By the way,,,did you hear ?
The 4 minute mile is NOT a great accomplishment anymore either.
It has been broken LOTS of times!

Utter rubbish, have you even seen any of Robinsons fights??.... you still havent said why if fighters are so better conditioned now they have such poor stamina??.... many of them struggle to go 12 rounds let alone the old route of 15!... boxing isnt about physiques its about fighting ability and having a good physique doesnt give you stamina or ability in the ring, in fact far from it, one of the problems with fighters today is they are too heavily built and it affects their stamina. You've obviously seen very little pre 90s boxing...

[Ambling Alp]

Ray Leonard was the same age when he lost to Terry Norris, as Marvin Hagler was when he "lost" to Ray Leonard. Also, Marvin had many more fights at this stage and more miles on the clock.

Leonard was 34 when he fought Norris. Hagler was only 32 when he fought Leonard. 2 years is a significant difference when a fighter is in his 30's.

[silkov]

Ok, Silkov and cosand, both of you have gotten pretty silly.

Silkov- If you are going to count the Camacho and Norris fights against Leonard when he was past it, then how these Ray Robinson losses:
Denny Moyer
Phil Moyer,
Terry Downes
Micky Leahy
Memo Ayon
Ferd Hernandez

Should these fights count against Robinson? Of course not. Neither should Leonard's fights with Norris and Camacho.
Yes Leonard got knocked down by Donny LaLonde, and Robinson got knocked down by Rocky Castellani.

Leonard beat Marvin Hagler after having q1 fight in5 years. It was Leonard's first fight at middleweight. He was given almost no chance to win. This is bigger achievement than beating Fullmer or LaMotta.

Having said that, I agree with silkov and disagree with cosand about Robinson being #1. He is the only welterweight that I don't rank Leonard ahead of. Robinson never lost to another welterweight and he beat some good ones.

This modern day athelete stuff is total baloney. First of all, there is such as thing as skill. Even if someone has better measureable physical gifts than another guy, that doesn't mean that he is going to be better. You have to have the skill. Of course there also things such as ring smarts, chin, heart etc to consider.

You can have a fast 40 yard dash time, that doesn't you are a great reciever.
You can bench press a lot,that doesn't mean you are a great lineman.

You can have a great vertical leap, that doesn't mean that you are a great basketball player.

Btw, people that tout modern day training techniques they don't mention things such as :

Joe DiMaggio time around the bases was faster than Ricky Henderson's.
Sammy Baugh average single season punting record was around for decades.
The fastest pitchers from the 1960's are faster than the pitchers now. they may have before that but there weren't reliable ways to measure until then.
Pitchers threw every four days and went 9 innings for decades until the late 1970's. This is too hard for modern pitchers with all of their training techniques.
Free throw shooting in basketball is down from years ago.

Are you serious??... Robinson lost to those guys when he was in his mid40s!... Leonard was washed up in his early 30s... Robinson was still fighting for the world title at 42... if we're going to hold the Maxim fight against Robinson (I would have loved to see Leonard against Maxim considering the meal he made out of beating the one armed Lalonde, who wasnt even allowed to come in over 168!!) then we should hold the Norris and Comacho fights against Leonard... most of the guys Robinson lost to even in his mid40s were contenders (Downes was to be champ soon remember!!) Comacho was just a joke by the time Leonard got to him!...

[The Great John L]

Babe Ruth never face a 98 MPH fast ball..

He didn’t? How do you know that? In fact, it’s very possible that Ruth himself threw a 98+MPH fastball during his pitching stint.

[silkov]

Babe Ruth never face a 98 MPH fast ball..

He didn’t? How do you know that? In fact, it’s very possible that Ruth himself threw a 98+MPH fastball during his pitching stint.

He must have told cos himself I guess!...

[dr_devious]

Ray Leonard was the same age when he lost to Terry Norris, as Marvin Hagler was when he "lost" to Ray Leonard. Also, Marvin had many more fights at this stage and more miles on the clock.

Leonard was 34 when he fought Norris. Hagler was only 32 when he fought Leonard. 2 years is a significant difference when a fighter is in his 30's.

Hagler was nearly 33 when he fought Leonard and had a lot of hard miles on the clock.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, ok, then you could say that Leonard was "almost" 35 when he fought Norris.

The "miles" excuse for Hagler is pretty weak. No one (besides Leonard) was saying that before the the fight with Leonard. Almost everyone was saying that Hagler would destroy him.

When the other guy is fighting his first fight at middleweight, and had one fight in the past 5 years, the "miles" excuse is pretty weak.

[Ambling Alp]

Ok, Silkov and cosand, both of you have gotten pretty silly.

Silkov- If you are going to count the Camacho and Norris fights against Leonard when he was past it, then how these Ray Robinson losses:
Denny Moyer
Phil Moyer,
Terry Downes
Micky Leahy
Memo Ayon
Ferd Hernandez

Should these fights count against Robinson? Of course not. Neither should Leonard's fights with Norris and Camacho.
Yes Leonard got knocked down by Donny LaLonde, and Robinson got knocked down by Rocky Castellani.

Leonard beat Marvin Hagler after having q1 fight in5 years. It was Leonard's first fight at middleweight. He was given almost no chance to win. This is bigger achievement than beating Fullmer or LaMotta.

Having said that, I agree with silkov and disagree with cosand about Robinson being #1. He is the only welterweight that I don't rank Leonard ahead of. Robinson never lost to another welterweight and he beat some good ones.

This modern day athelete stuff is total baloney. First of all, there is such as thing as skill. Even if someone has better measureable physical gifts than another guy, that doesn't mean that he is going to be better. You have to have the skill. Of course there also things such as ring smarts, chin, heart etc to consider.

You can have a fast 40 yard dash time, that doesn't you are a great reciever.
You can bench press a lot,that doesn't mean you are a great lineman.

You can have a great vertical leap, that doesn't mean that you are a great basketball player.

Btw, people that tout modern day training techniques they don't mention things such as :

Joe DiMaggio time around the bases was faster than Ricky Henderson's.
Sammy Baugh average single season punting record was around for decades.
The fastest pitchers from the 1960's are faster than the pitchers now. they may have before that but there weren't reliable ways to measure until then.
Pitchers threw every four days and went 9 innings for decades until the late 1970's. This is too hard for modern pitchers with all of their training techniques.
Free throw shooting in basketball is down from years ago.

Are you serious??... Robinson lost to those guys when he was in his mid40s!... Leonard was washed up in his early 30s... Robinson was still fighting for the world title at 42... if we're going to hold the Maxim fight against Robinson (I would have loved to see Leonard against Maxim considering the meal he made out of beating the one armed Lalonde, who wasnt even allowed to come in over 168!!) then we should hold the Norris and Comacho fights against Leonard... most of the guys Robinson lost to even in his mid40s were contenders (Downes was to be champ soon remember!!) Comacho was just a joke by the time Leonard got to him!...

Of course I don't hold these losses against Robinson, and I said so.
However it's ridiculaus for you to hold Leonard's loss against Camacho against him.

Leonard was 40 years old. He had not fought in 6 years. Come on.

Ripping Leonard for the Norris fight is a stretch. Leonard hadn't been very active and was getting old. He clearly was past his best.

Your mocking Leonard for the LaLonde fight and in the same sentence bring up Maxim?

Leonard who had never fought that heavy, had two fights in the last 6 years, still knocked out LaLonde.
Robinson lost to Maxim. Yes it was extremely hot, but you know darn well if the situation was reversed and Leonard had quit in a fight (no matter how hot it was) he wouldn't get a free pass for quitting which Robinson gets.

A knockout win (even though he got knocked down himself) over LaLonde is than quitting against Maxim.

If getting knocked down is such a big deal, why don't we make a big deal of Robinson getting decked by Rocky Castellani, a fighter who couldn't crack an egg?

As I have said before, I don't rate Leonard over Robinson at welterweight. (I have explained this before and have also said that Robinson is the only welterweight that I wouldn't rate Leonard above) If you want to criticize Leonard for the first Duran fight, fine. That's fair enough. However, lets be realistic here. If you are going to count fights when a fighter is clearly past this best (which I don't like to do) then you have to count every fighter's past-his-prime fights against him, not just Leonard's.

[silkov]

Ok, Silkov and cosand, both of you have gotten pretty silly.

Silkov- If you are going to count the Camacho and Norris fights against Leonard when he was past it, then how these Ray Robinson losses:
Denny Moyer
Phil Moyer,
Terry Downes
Micky Leahy
Memo Ayon
Ferd Hernandez

Should these fights count against Robinson? Of course not. Neither should Leonard's fights with Norris and Camacho.
Yes Leonard got knocked down by Donny LaLonde, and Robinson got knocked down by Rocky Castellani.

Leonard beat Marvin Hagler after having q1 fight in5 years. It was Leonard's first fight at middleweight. He was given almost no chance to win. This is bigger achievement than beating Fullmer or LaMotta.

Having said that, I agree with silkov and disagree with cosand about Robinson being #1. He is the only welterweight that I don't rank Leonard ahead of. Robinson never lost to another welterweight and he beat some good ones.

This modern day athelete stuff is total baloney. First of all, there is such as thing as skill. Even if someone has better measureable physical gifts than another guy, that doesn't mean that he is going to be better. You have to have the skill. Of course there also things such as ring smarts, chin, heart etc to consider.

You can have a fast 40 yard dash time, that doesn't you are a great reciever.
You can bench press a lot,that doesn't mean you are a great lineman.

You can have a great vertical leap, that doesn't mean that you are a great basketball player.

Btw, people that tout modern day training techniques they don't mention things such as :

Joe DiMaggio time around the bases was faster than Ricky Henderson's.
Sammy Baugh average single season punting record was around for decades.
The fastest pitchers from the 1960's are faster than the pitchers now. they may have before that but there weren't reliable ways to measure until then.
Pitchers threw every four days and went 9 innings for decades until the late 1970's. This is too hard for modern pitchers with all of their training techniques.
Free throw shooting in basketball is down from years ago.

Are you serious??... Robinson lost to those guys when he was in his mid40s!... Leonard was washed up in his early 30s... Robinson was still fighting for the world title at 42... if we're going to hold the Maxim fight against Robinson (I would have loved to see Leonard against Maxim considering the meal he made out of beating the one armed Lalonde, who wasnt even allowed to come in over 168!!) then we should hold the Norris and Comacho fights against Leonard... most of the guys Robinson lost to even in his mid40s were contenders (Downes was to be champ soon remember!!) Comacho was just a joke by the time Leonard got to him!...

Of course I don't hold these losses against Robinson, and I said so.
However it's ridiculaus for you to hold Leonard's loss against Camacho against him.

Leonard was 40 years old. He had not fought in 6 years. Come on.

Ripping Leonard for the Norris fight is a stretch. Leonard hadn't been very active and was getting old. He clearly was past his best.

Your mocking Leonard for the LaLonde fight and in the same sentence bring up Maxim?

Leonard who had never fought that heavy, had two fights in the last 6 years, still knocked out LaLonde.
Robinson lost to Maxim. Yes it was extremely hot, but you know darn well if the situation was reversed and Leonard had quit in a fight (no matter how hot it was) he wouldn't get a free pass for quitting which Robinson gets.

A knockout win (even though he got knocked down himself) over LaLonde is than quitting against Maxim.

If getting knocked down is such a big deal, why don't we make a big deal of Robinson getting decked by Rocky Castellani, a fighter who couldn't crack an egg?

As I have said before, I don't rate Leonard over Robinson at welterweight. (I have explained this before and have also said that Robinson is the only welterweight that I wouldn't rate Leonard above) If you want to criticize Leonard for the first Duran fight, fine. That's fair enough. However, lets be realistic here. If you are going to count fights when a fighter is clearly past this best (which I don't like to do) then you have to count every fighter's past-his-prime fights against him, not just Leonard's.

Robinson didnt quit, he was delirious, had he gone on he could have died. Big difference to quitting. Leonard was never in that position because for one thing he would never have faced a full 175 fighter... which is why he got Lalonde to come in at 168. Robinson was just 157 when he fought Maxim. And I think you'll agree that Maxim was 10 times the fighter Lalonde was. Basically Cosand brought up Robinsons loss to Maxim as an example of his poorer conditioning to Leonard, which is absolutely ridiculous... and certainly if Robinsons loss to Maxim is to be held against him then so should Leonards losses to Norris and Comacho.
And people who go on about the Maxim loss forget that Ray outboxed him for 12 rounds before the heat got to him... and this is the same Maxim who had close fights with Archie Moore and fought and beat heavyweights...

[KOJOE90]

Robinson didnt quit, he was delirious, had he gone on he could have died.

Didn't Ike Williams claim years later that Robinson took a dive against Maxim? I'm not saying it is true but was wondering if anyone alse had heard this?