BoxRec

I fail to grasp how you respect them given your earlier comments. They believe boxers from your past were better, and you said that anyone holding that view is an idiot.

We might learn from the past but there are many other factors you are ignoring.

Read this review. http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=2132

Scottrf wrote:I fail to grasp how you respect them given your earlier comments. They believe boxers from your past were better, and you said that anyone holding that view is an idiot.

We might learn from the past but there are many other factors you are ignoring.

Read this review. http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=2132

Hmm the book seems like a book for fools written by an bitter idiot who wants to ban our beloved sport.
You are out of your depth regarding this subject and it seems the reviews tend to agree.


This review is from: The Arc of Boxing: The Rise and Decline of the Sweet Science (Hardcover)
The book is thin for the $44 price tag, the scholarship is thin for a book intended to advance and support a thesis, and the actual contribution by the author himself is terribly thin for a book with his name on it.

It would be more honest to name the various experts interviewed for the book as co-authors rather than put Mr. Silver's name on it as sole author. A good 3/5 to 3/4 of the book is content provided by someone other than the putative author.

A college professor would give a paper written the way Mr. Silver wrote his book a 'D'... if they felt generous. The support offered for the book's thesis is simple: 'All these really smart people agree with me.'

The refutation of counter-arguments is equally simple: 'Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot because, see, all these really smart people agree with me.'

If you want to read some smart commentary on modern boxing by Teddy Atlas, Freddie Roach, and Emmanuel Steward and don't mind overpaying for it then the book might be worth it to you. If you want to actually read a book and expect to actually see the promise made in the forward, that the book will make you think, kept... give it a pass.

Said smart contributions by the trainers named above is the only reason the book rates a second star, in my opinion. Without it, the bad scholarship and inflated price would make it completely worthless.

You didn't answer the contradiction in my first sentence.

That review doesn't impact my argument at all because I'm not supporting the book but some of the theories contained within such as more fights and being tested earlier leading to a better schooling. He says some things I don't agree with. Equally he has some valid points. If you want to dismiss them without reading them then that's ignorant.

I believe a great from the past in Joe Louis beats a solid Heavyweight from recently in Frank Bruno. I've watched enough of both of them to give that opinion. You can't see any other argument and are concentrating on how other sports have improved rather than boxing knowledge so this is going nowhere.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/myth.html

Scottrf wrote:You didn't answer the contradiction in my first sentence.

That review doesn't impact my argument at all because I'm not supporting the book but some of the theories contained within such as more fights and being tested earlier leading to a better schooling. He says some things I don't agree with. Equally he has some valid points. If you want to dismiss them without reading them then that's ignorant.

I believe a great from the past in Joe Louis beats a solid Heavyweight from recently in Frank Bruno. I've watched enough of both of them to give that opinion. You can't see any other argument and are concentrating on how other sports have improved rather than boxing knowledge so this is going nowhere.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/fighterspast.html
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/myth.html

Sorry your not undertanding me.
Yes "Idiots" for thinking old is better so yes.
I mean come on.. there isn't an Einstien amongst them.. is there? bring me giants my good man not gym rats.

BTW The above link was again junk junk junk, I stopped when he was criticising Holyfield's tecnique (Holy is of course the best all round skilled HW in the history of the division) only a fool would do so.
and before you start his defesnce was great, he chose to rumble.

crusader wrote:

the truth wrote:You say valuev was one of the worst belt holders but what was his win loss record .....
Bruno was a half decent strong boxer but he would of shit himself v valuev I think
Haye would stop Bruno in about 6,7 rounds
Too fast and hits too hard , yes Bruno would of been dangerous but he too slow to land on haye.

What is David Rodriguez's win loss record?

Was rodriguez a WBA heavyweight champion with numerous defenses under his belt against decent contenders?? No

the truth wrote:

crusader wrote:

the truth wrote:You say valuev was one of the worst belt holders but what was his win loss record .....
Bruno was a half decent strong boxer but he would of shit himself v valuev I think
Haye would stop Bruno in about 6,7 rounds
Too fast and hits too hard , yes Bruno would of been dangerous but he too slow to land on haye.

What is David Rodriguez's win loss record?

Was rodriguez a WBA heavyweight champion with numerous defenses under his belt against decent contenders?? No

Right, but you didn't mention anything about that in your first post. I would also say that Valuev was one of the worst belt holders at HW. How many other champs were worse than him? Not many, and they would almost all be fighters who have been active since the mass proliferation of belts. Who were the decent contenders he beat? I'm guessing you're going to say Ruiz, Liakhovich, Barrett, etc. From a historical perspective these guys aren't even decent. However, it does have to be acknowledged that Valuev was a legit top 5 contemporary heavyweight when Haye beat him, which speaks more about the state of the division today than the ability of either guy.

Plenty champs worse then him at heavyweight , Morrison , Bent , Tubbs, Tucker, Page, Tate, Bruno , Hide, Smith , Briggs. Liacovich do you want me to go on ?
He wasnt a terrible champion but wasn't outstanding either not every champ can be a Tyson , Ali etc
You should give people credit do you know how hard it is to become a heavyweight champion I'm guessing extremely .
And to say Ruiz wasn't even decent is a joke.
As for going into the past I could name Braddock , Carnera, Patterson , Leon Spinks and numerous others all would have prob lost to Valuev or had serious trouble.

the truth wrote:Plenty champs worse then him at heavyweight , Morrison , Bent , Tubbs, Tucker, Page, Tate, Bruno , Hide, Smith , Briggs. Liacovich do you want me to go on ?
He wasnt a terrible champion but wasn't outstanding either not every champ can be a Tyson , Ali etc
You should give people credit do you know how hard it is to become a heavyweight champion I'm guessing extremely .
And to say Ruiz wasn't even decent is a joke.
As for going into the past I could name Braddock , Carnera, Patterson , Leon Spinks and numerous others all would have prob lost to Valuev or had serious trouble.

I guess we will have to disagree, because I think guys like Morrison, Tucker, Page, Bruno, and prime Briggs were better than or just as good as Valuev. As for the old timers, Patterson beat much better opposition than Valuev and displayed far more ability than the giant ever did. Patterson usually fought around 190 and Braddock fought most of his career at 180---so I can see how they could struggle with Valuev given that they would be small cruiserweights today. As for Ruiz, from a historical perspective, when we are discussing all the great champions and contenders in the heavyweight division, I don't think it is a joke to say Ruiz wasn't even decent.

Even if I concede that some of these guys were worse than Valuev, that is only a few former champs. I will reiterate again that by today's standards Valuev was a top five heavyweight, but I think that needs to put in perspective a bit when discussing hypothetical bouts between guys from different eras. Being top 5 today doesn’t mean much.

I think Bruno would have done about as well today as he did back in the eighties/nineties. Theoretically he had the tools to knock out someone like Haye, or even Wlad but I just get the feeling that he would fall short in either case, whilst making a very respectable account of himself. As for Vitali though, I wouldn't even give Bruno a punchers chance.

The only guy who could have beaten Bruno would have been vitali........

Wlad and haye would have Been close, the rest wouldn't have caused Bruno many problems.

I still can't believe how bad the heavyweight division has become, its an embarrassment.

To many ppl look at the past through Rose tinted specks
Who did Bruno really beat that were In their prime??
Haye would of kod a 38 yr old bugner in one or two rounds
Brunos best wins were anders ekland and an unstable Oliver McCall

I'd say he would be 4th... He would beat everyone except Vitlai, Wlad and Haye.

I would say 5th as I feel I'd of shit himself v valuev.