BoxRec

Jon Saxon wrote:

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

What a fuking great post, could not agree more mate.

simon fox wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

simon fox wrote: That was a good post Carlos. I did hold a similar logic and then read the book; 'The Arc Of Boxing' Mike Silver. That got me thinking some. Though I agree that modern boxers are better athletes and have less body fat and bigger muscles; the boxers of 50 - 80 years ago learnt the trade, there were many more good class fighters around and the true top professionals had far more bouts. They were artisans of the ring. The very top class champions are legends and rightly so; they were masters of their discipline.

Joe Louis was not just a 'so so' heavyweight who happened to be World Champion; (it was a fair bit harder to be champion in his era). He was a good size heavyweight who wrecked big, strong decent class heavys with punches that were very fast, very accurate and very powerful.

For the most part the very heavily muscled boxers are 'pushing' heavy shots out; the punches are not thrown out. The muscle mass impedes the power of the shot.

There is no denying that Frank Bruno was a massively popular boxer who gave his all; I enjoyed his bouts against the other top men of his era (and hated the mismatches).

We keep beating records in every sport that records them, the older fights were great for their time but Joe Louis was as slow as a week in the jail, Haye would bomb him out in 1 I think.

It's simply a matter of evolution.

I simply have to disagree Jon; evolution does not occur over a 100 year span but over many thousands of generations.

Louis' knockouts are simply breathtaking; he does not 'overpower' a man through physical size and strength; he destroys them through sheer precision hitting.

Nonito Donaire is a fantastic and exciting fighter; with evolution do you think he hits harder than Olivares or Zarate?

simon fox wrote:Is he perhalps the greatest con job in British boxing history?

That would make for an excellent thread Jon; I was going to pinch it but won't.

crusader wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

simon fox wrote: That was a good post Carlos. I did hold a similar logic and then read the book; 'The Arc Of Boxing' Mike Silver. That got me thinking some. Though I agree that modern boxers are better athletes and have less body fat and bigger muscles; the boxers of 50 - 80 years ago learnt the trade, there were many more good class fighters around and the true top professionals had far more bouts. They were artisans of the ring. The very top class champions are legends and rightly so; they were masters of their discipline.

Joe Louis was not just a 'so so' heavyweight who happened to be World Champion; (it was a fair bit harder to be champion in his era). He was a good size heavyweight who wrecked big, strong decent class heavys with punches that were very fast, very accurate and very powerful.

For the most part the very heavily muscled boxers are 'pushing' heavy shots out; the punches are not thrown out. The muscle mass impedes the power of the shot.

There is no denying that Frank Bruno was a massively popular boxer who gave his all; I enjoyed his bouts against the other top men of his era (and hated the mismatches).

We keep beating records in every sport that records them, the older fights were great for their time but Joe Louis was as slow as a week in the jail, Haye would bomb him out in 1 I think.

It's simply a matter of evolution.

lmfao....1 round?!?

McCannW14 wrote:

simon fox wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote: We keep beating records in every sport that records them, the older fights were great for their time but Joe Louis was as slow as a week in the jail, Haye would bomb him out in 1 I think.

It's simply a matter of evolution.

I simply have to disagree Jon; evolution does not occur over a 100 year span but over many thousands of generations.

Louis' knockouts are simply breathtaking; he does not 'overpower' a man through physical size and strength; he destroys them through sheer precision hitting.

Nonito Donaire is a fantastic and exciting fighter; with evolution do you think he hits harder than Olivares or Zarate?

What a fantastic post. I was watching Louis with a mate last night. I said to him you know some if this footage is nearly 80 years ago?

His timing is incredible and his accuaracy and leverage and handspeed, yes handspeed would destroy the posing and low handed Haye. very early. To suggest Haye has even earned the right to be mentioned in the same sentence is, quite frankly, an insult to Louis memory.

Jon Saxon wrote:

McCannW14 wrote:

simon fox wrote: I simply have to disagree Jon; evolution does not occur over a 100 year span but over many thousands of generations.

Louis' knockouts are simply breathtaking; he does not 'overpower' a man through physical size and strength; he destroys them through sheer precision hitting.

Nonito Donaire is a fantastic and exciting fighter; with evolution do you think he hits harder than Olivares or Zarate?

What a fantastic post. I was watching Louis with a mate last night. I said to him you know some if this footage is nearly 80 years ago?

His timing is incredible and his accuaracy and leverage and handspeed, yes handspeed would destroy the posing and low handed Haye. very early. To suggest Haye has even earned the right to be mentioned in the same sentence is, quite frankly, an insult to Louis memory.

He was slow and chinny, Floyd Patterson was fast and chinny and small, I think would have chinned Louis in a great fight.

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

McCannW14 wrote: What a fantastic post. I was watching Louis with a mate last night. I said to him you know some if this footage is nearly 80 years ago?

His timing is incredible and his accuaracy and leverage and handspeed, yes handspeed would destroy the posing and low handed Haye. very early. To suggest Haye has even earned the right to be mentioned in the same sentence is, quite frankly, an insult to Louis memory.

He was slow and chinny, Floyd Patterson was fast and chinny and small, I think would have chinned Louis in a great fight.

What you think Haye isnt Chinny. And as for Louis being slow. Have you seen Haye breathing out of his arse after 5 rounds. Louis would have anihilated Haye.

Jon Saxon wrote:

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
He was slow and chinny, Floyd Patterson was fast and chinny and small, I think would have chinned Louis in a great fight.

What you think Haye isnt Chinny. And as for Louis being slow. Have you seen Haye breathing out of his arse after 5 rounds. Louis would have anihilated Haye.

If you must comment pay attention to my earlier post...
"he who lands fist"
Lol he (Louis)was on the deck all the time, hell Two Ton, Pete (ONE fight) Radamcher, McNeely had him over.
Haye would bang him out no probs..Haye would "moider dat bum in one"

Jon Saxon wrote:

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
He was slow and chinny, Floyd Patterson was fast and chinny and small, I think would have chinned Louis in a great fight.

What you think Haye isnt Chinny. And as for Louis being slow. Have you seen Haye breathing out of his arse after 5 rounds. Louis would have anihilated Haye.

If you must comment pay attention to my earlier post...
"he who lands fist"
Lol he (Louis)was on the deck all the time, hell Two Ton, Pete (ONE fight) Radamcher, McNeely had him over.
Haye would bang him out no probs..Haye would "moider dat bum in one"

simon fox wrote:

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

That was a good post Carlos. I did hold a similar logic and then read the book; 'The Arc Of Boxing' Mike Silver. That got me thinking some. Though I agree that modern boxers are better athletes and have less body fat and bigger muscles; the boxers of 50 - 80 years ago learnt the trade, there were many more good class fighters around and the true top professionals had far more bouts. They were artisans of the ring. The very top class champions are legends and rightly so; they were masters of their discipline.

Joe Louis was not just a 'so so' heavyweight who happened to be World Champion; (it was a fair bit harder to be champion in his era). He was a good size heavyweight who wrecked big, strong decent class heavys with punches that were very fast, very accurate and very powerful.

For the most part the very heavily muscled boxers are 'pushing' heavy shots out; the punches are not thrown out. The muscle mass impedes the power of the shot.

There is no denying that Frank Bruno was a massively popular boxer who gave his all; I enjoyed his bouts against the other top men of his era (and hated the mismatches).

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

What a fuking great post, could not agree more mate.

As much as I like and rate Bruno he would not have beaten Snipes and Cooney. His stamina would have been an issue against Berbick, and I couldnt ever see him beating a fit Witherspoon. Having said that I would never see Haye beating any of these guys either.

I am not sure people really appreciate just how BAD the Heavyweight Division is today. It has NEVER been worse.

simon fox wrote:Hey Carlos; I can to some extent really appreciate your point. Living standards are far better for some of us now than they were 80 years ago. Better nutrition, medicine etc has improved our lot.

I would argue though that there were big men years ago and for most of them their physical mass was to the detriment of their boxing skills and ability. I am sure that if Joe Louis and Frank Bruno were to punch a power measuring device then Frank would have the heavier punch. There is far more to a knockout punch than just weight of punch. Max and Biddy Baer were amazing physical specimens with very hard hitting power, much like Frank; by no chalk were they the best of their time though.

There is an argument that the body beautiful approach to boxing has been at the expense of tutoring in important skills. Boxing is an obviously physical sport but it doesn't necessarily follow that the better developed physique always wins, or is necessarily a harder hitter.

There is also an argument that tougher times make for tougher people, with a strong mind set. If a fighter boxes once or twice a year; maybe for £1,000,000 he (she) is not going to be as ring competent as a boxer who's boxed 6 times in the year.

I can see that without an upper weight division limit, Heavyweight boxing is different to the other weight divisions. I would say though that sheer muscle mass and height does not negate the skills involved in serious high level boxing and hitting.
:)

MachoMan09 wrote:

kingfinn wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Lewis wasn't in his prime when he fought Frank, he was still developing.

Bruno would be ranked lower than Povetkin and on a level with the Chambers, Dimitrenkos and Peters of the world; probably the best of that bunch.

Pretty sure he was a world champion when he fought frank. Maybe not at his absolute peak now i think about though i'll give you that, but still superior to the one that vitali fought.

I'd disagree. Lennox got cuter as he got older. He still made a lot of rudimentary mistakes at the time he fought Bruno (93) and whilst he was a world champion, he hadn't beaten a world champion to get the belt.

Fat Git wrote:

simon fox wrote:Hey Carlos; I can to some extent really appreciate your point. Living standards are far better for some of us now than they were 80 years ago. Better nutrition, medicine etc has improved our lot.

I would argue though that there were big men years ago and for most of them their physical mass was to the detriment of their boxing skills and ability. I am sure that if Joe Louis and Frank Bruno were to punch a power measuring device then Frank would have the heavier punch. There is far more to a knockout punch than just weight of punch. Max and Biddy Baer were amazing physical specimens with very hard hitting power, much like Frank; by no chalk were they the best of their time though.

There is an argument that the body beautiful approach to boxing has been at the expense of tutoring in important skills. Boxing is an obviously physical sport but it doesn't necessarily follow that the better developed physique always wins, or is necessarily a harder hitter.

There is also an argument that tougher times make for tougher people, with a strong mind set. If a fighter boxes once or twice a year; maybe for £1,000,000 he (she) is not going to be as ring competent as a boxer who's boxed 6 times in the year.

I can see that without an upper weight division limit, Heavyweight boxing is different to the other weight divisions. I would say though that sheer muscle mass and height does not negate the skills involved in serious high level boxing and hitting.
:)

Could any cruiserweight today campaign successfully as a heavyweight staying at 200lbs? Any cruiserweight that does move up like Adamek fights in at 215-220lbs and even at that weight - it just isn't big enough to deal with Vitali Klitsckho. (I know people bring up Chris Byrd but that was a shoulder injury defeat - Klitsckho was dealing with Byrd on the scorecards) I am all for the fact that yesterdays fighters had their own pluses in regards how they fought especially when it comes to ring activity like you alluded to but comparing them how they were to todays fighters who have all the medical, scientific and nutritional advantages - bit unfair to the chaps of yesteryear - again if Joe Louis was born in 1980 with his 1935 skills - he would have hammered the big Ukrainian freak - but not at 197lbs. (Which he wouldn't be if he was born today)

reggaereggae wrote:I think it's unhelpful to compare heavyweights of different eras, because of size differences.

You can compare fighters of other weights more fairly but one cannot doubt that improved training regimes, diets and to be clear PEDs have made a difference.

I know looks are not everythings, but the difference in physiques and athleticism between boxers now and then is astounding.

PS back to the topic - Bruno was an honest, strong, puncher - but slow, basic and a vulnerable. He never won a fight against a fit, decent fighter.

(his three biggest wins are: Coetzee (didn't train. over the hill, and came for teh holiday) McCall (very tough but still not a great boxer and also a crackhead) ANders Eklund (a big and OK heavy, but one that got ironed out early by Noeal Quarless and an Old Witherspoon))

He's the ultimate media creation

Jon Saxon wrote:

crusader wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote: We keep beating records in every sport that records them, the older fights were great for their time but Joe Louis was as slow as a week in the jail, Haye would bomb him out in 1 I think.

It's simply a matter of evolution.

lmfao....1 round?!?

yeah ONE very quick round, why the question mark?

simon fox wrote:

reggaereggae wrote:I think it's unhelpful to compare heavyweights of different eras, because of size differences.

You can compare fighters of other weights more fairly but one cannot doubt that improved training regimes, diets and to be clear PEDs have made a difference.

I know looks are not everythings, but the difference in physiques and athleticism between boxers now and then is astounding.

PS back to the topic - Bruno was an honest, strong, puncher - but slow, basic and a vulnerable. He never won a fight against a fit, decent fighter.

(his three biggest wins are: Coetzee (didn't train. over the hill, and came for teh holiday) McCall (very tough but still not a great boxer and also a crackhead) ANders Eklund (a big and OK heavy, but one that got ironed out early by Noeal Quarless and an Old Witherspoon))

He's the ultimate media creation

Good post :) I don't agree with all of your points; in particular.

Even up to around 20 years ago a World Championship was decided over 15 rounds. The rounds 12-15 were seen as Championship rounds. There is great athleticism in stamina and that called for the body to be trained differently.

The fashion for gleaming muscles and very low body fat ratios today can be a detriment to a long hard fight. I am in no way saying that a healthy, athletic physique is not desirable but now a fighter may spend more time on conditioning than learning the craft of boxing. Muscles are handy but they have to 'pay their way'.

Boiling down in weight and PEDs and other supplements (some boxers and other athletes eat more powders than food) may further their individual achievements but is detrimental to their health and to the sport.

Bruno was not a great boxer or fighter and his power was mostly proved against men who had very little chance. He was hugely popular and gave British boxing a needed boost so should be respected for that.

crusader wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

crusader wrote: lmfao....1 round?!?

yeah ONE very quick round, why the question mark?

Because I wasn't sure if you had made a typo. Look at all the fighters Haye has struggled with or been unable to stop in a round. To say that he would destroy an all time great so quickly is silly. Mormeck, Fragomeni, Harrison, and Ruiz are also "as slow as a week in the jail," and overall they are far inferior fighters compared to Louis--where was Haye's first round blowout in these fights?

I see you've now changed your prediction to a 4th round stoppage, but I still think Louis could last longer than Monte Barrett did.

Jon Saxon wrote:Evolution usually wins the day it's funny when you see all the sporting events from the 1920's and they all look so slow.

Scottrf wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:Evolution usually wins the day it's funny when you see all the sporting events from the 1920's and they all look so slow.

That's the way it's filmed.