Britain's greatest ever champion

[Tomasino]

greb wouldn't have a chance today ,stlyes change technique . no fighter from before the 30's would cut it today you can real off the list of champions he beat but that means nothing at all because none of them fought like modern boxers .plus greb couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag with a 15% ko rating i think off the top of my head .

What an embarrassing post to make. This offensive offering, combined with your contributions to Boxers of the Past, really underline the fact that you are a special needs-level boxing fan.

I imagine you think some modern 30-0 (30) ESPN fighter would walk through Harry Greb without breaking a sweat. Please return to remedial class, you're holding back the bright kids.

wow how up your own arse are you ..... i believe that boxing like every other sport in the world has moved on in the last 100 years , name me any sport were where the athlete's aren't much better today , i presume you think fred perry would beat nadal or that Pele is better than messi which anyone with eye's can see isn't correct but for some strange reason you think this doesn't apply to boxing when in fact boxing has change as much as any sport i presume you believe that jack johnson would beat vitali as well even thou the film of johnson shows he wouldn't of been a champon today .

maybe you need to watch some real boxing instead of living in the past .....here's a clip from gene tunney vs tommy Gibbons ...now watch this and tell me these guys would champs today ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs45EQEHmDs

and heres a more recent fighter at the same weight ,now try watching with your own eyes and make a judgement on who appears to be the better fighter ,this may be hard for you making your own mind up instead of just repeating what others have said .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpDuSas6aAE

Honestly Stevedoc, you are digging a big hole. Roy Jones, chin of glass, cherry picker, never won a true give and take fight, over Tunney and Gibbons? that's without factoring in Roy's steroid abuse.

Can't you understand the filming techniques were terrible compared to the HD cameras in use today? Look at those guys records. Do you truly think folk moved about in slow motion back then?

[Tomasino]

e="stevedoc"]

greb wouldn't have a chance today ,stlyes change technique . no fighter from before the 30's would cut it today you can real off the list of champions he beat but that means nothing at all because none of them fought like modern boxers .plus greb couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag with a 15% ko rating i think off the top of my head .

What an embarrassing post to make. This offensive offering, combined with your contributions to Boxers of the Past, really underline the fact that you are a special needs-level boxing fan.

I imagine you think some modern 30-0 (30) ESPN fighter would walk through Harry Greb without breaking a sweat. Please return to remedial class, you're holding back the bright kids.

Have you posted here before, under a different username? Your posts seem familiar...

who me?.... only this account[/quote]


No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

[orbtastic]

Not loadedgloves/overhand right, then?

Easy bait to tempt him with, talk about O'Connor or WBO world title fights.

[expe]

No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

I suspect he's one of a recent influx of former ESB posters, probably explains half of the mongy posts on here.

[stevedoc]

No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

I suspect he's one of a recent influx of former ESB posters, probably explains half of the mongy posts on here.

i hate it when some plumb hears something then just repeats it like it's law

[palooka]

No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

I suspect he's one of a recent influx of former ESB posters, probably explains half of the mongy posts on here.

i hate it when some plumb hears something then just repeats it like it's law

Like Debbie Maggee getting shagged by that great dane?

[Tomasino]

"expe"]

No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

I suspect he's one of a recent influx of former ESB posters, probably explains half of the mongy posts on here.

i hate it when some plumb hears something then just repeats it like it's law

Like Debbie Maggee getting shagged by that great dane?[/quote]

Was it not an Alsatian?

[Ambling Alp II]

You can, but many people don't have the interest. Some people think the sport began the day they were born and have little interest in what happened a long time ago.

You can compare a fighter who fought in 1980s to one that fought in the 1990s and make a decent evaluation who was better and by how much. You can compare one who fought in the 1970s to the 1980s. Since you can do that, you can compare a fighter from the 1970s to the 1990s.

You can compare a fighter from the 1960s to the 1970s. Since you can do that, you can compare one from the 1960s to the 1990s. You can keep doing that and go back 100 years if you want to. Probably best if you use a bar graph or take notes. It can be done.

Not when you have a wife and kids it can't.

I have an interest in the sport from way back before I was born -1983 - but rather than wonder if Jack Johnson or Max Schmeling would have defeated Evander Holyfield I just respect them for being amongst the best in their respective eras.

I have a wife and kids too, I know how it is.
It isn't nearly as time consuming as you might think. If you already have a decent idea of boxing history, you can list every heavyweight champ form say Corbett to Lewis for example, and have a rough draft in half an hour. You can then tweak it from there whenever you get a chance; adding any contenders that you want and making slight changes.

You might have Corbett and Fitzsimmons about the same, Jeffries a bit higher, Hart a bit lower than Corbett and Fitz, Burns higher than Hart but lower than Corbett and Fitz, Johnson a little higher than Jeffries and so on. If it helps you, give each guy a number from 1-100 or something like hat. Or use a bar graph.

Of course it's just going to be a matter of opinion no matter what you do.

If you have no interest in rating fighters from an historical perspective, fine, that's fair enough. I just think it's silly when people say it can't be done; of course it can be.

This isn't splitting the atom here. If you have a strong knowledge of the history of the sport (or want to) and can be unbiased it can be done. And it's fun.

[Datsue]

No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

If he's Goodnight Irene come back, ask him who the original inhabitants of the British Isles are.

If he thinks it's the Anglo-Saxons, it's him.

& I am a somewhat tetchy poster. Irene was just a socially-maladjusted homophobic misogynistic racist pudendum.

[Counter-puncher]

No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

If he's Goodnight Irene come back, ask him who the original inhabitants of the British Isles are.

If he thinks it's the Anglo-Saxons, it's him.

& I am a somewhat tetchy poster. Irene was just a socially-maladjusted homophobic misogynistic racist pudendum.

[Tomasino]

No Tuan Jim. Reminds me of goodnight Irene, a knowledgable though somewhat tetchy poster.

If he's Goodnight Irene come back, ask him who the original inhabitants of the British Isles are.

If he thinks it's the Anglo-Saxons, it's him.

& I am a somewhat tetchy poster. Irene was just a socially-maladjusted homophobic misogynistic racist pudendum.

I never took you as tetchy, more dry/harsh wit.

I seen Irene post mostly in BOTP where I used to visit most so didn't see him behave like you've described. Although I'm not doubting it for a second

[Datsue]

Naw, thanks mate. Didn't mean to come across as harsh in this instance, it's just the mention of that name brings me out in hives.

Ruined the fuckin' song for me, too.

[dookus]

The chief problem with stevedoc's argument, which on the face of it looks quite truthy, is:

a) In most other sports, achievement primarily depends on the physical conditioning of the athletes. As he says, modern boxers are better-trained (in terms of strength and probably power, anyway) and so should have this advantage over their forebears.

b) However, boxing is a sport in which physical conditioning is only a part of the overall equation. Toughness, chin, the ability to think and plan under pressure: these abilities depend mostly on a combination of innate ability and prolonged competition. The talent pool for boxers was five times larger than now in the early twentieth century; those who made it to the top of this much tougher boxing world did so to a large degree because of their innate toughness and smartness, not to mention their far greater number of fights against others in this huge talent pool, rather than because of training methods.

The old-timers may not have had the physical strength of today's fighters (in particular as they couldn't weight-drain like modern fighters) but the top guys were far tougher and smarter through having much more competition and superior genetics from the talent pool being so much larger. Boxers are more than just athletes; they're thinkers and tough men, too, and the boxing world of 60-90 years ago produced champions who were tougher and smarter than what we have now.

[Tomasino]

Naw, thanks mate. Didn't mean to come across as harsh in this instance, it's just the mention of that name brings me out in hives.

Ruined the fuckin' song for me, too.

It's not him.

[palooka]

The chief problem with stevedoc's argument, which on the face of it looks quite truthy, is:

a) In most other sports, achievement primarily depends on the physical conditioning of the athletes. As he says, modern boxers are better-trained (in terms of strength and probably power, anyway) and so should have this advantage over their forebears.

b) However, boxing is a sport in which physical conditioning is only a part of the overall equation. Toughness, chin, the ability to think and plan under pressure: these abilities depend mostly on a combination of innate ability and prolonged competition. The talent pool for boxers was five times larger than now in the early twentieth century; those who made it to the top of this much tougher boxing world did so to a large degree because of their innate toughness and smartness, not to mention their far greater number of fights against others in this huge talent pool, rather than because of training methods.

The old-timers may not have had the physical strength of today's fighters (in particular as they couldn't weight-drain like modern fighters) but the top guys were far tougher and smarter through having much more competition and superior genetics from the talent pool being so much larger. Boxers are more than just athletes; they're thinkers and tough men, too, and the boxing world of 60-90 years ago produced champions who were tougher and smarter than what we have now.

I can understand where you're coming from with the rest of your post but if you'd explain this bit further I'd appreciate it.

[dookus]

The chief problem with stevedoc's argument, which on the face of it looks quite truthy, is:

a) In most other sports, achievement primarily depends on the physical conditioning of the athletes. As he says, modern boxers are better-trained (in terms of strength and probably power, anyway) and so should have this advantage over their forebears.

b) However, boxing is a sport in which physical conditioning is only a part of the overall equation. Toughness, chin, the ability to think and plan under pressure: these abilities depend mostly on a combination of innate ability and prolonged competition. The talent pool for boxers was five times larger than now in the early twentieth century; those who made it to the top of this much tougher boxing world did so to a large degree because of their innate toughness and smartness, not to mention their far greater number of fights against others in this huge talent pool, rather than because of training methods.

The old-timers may not have had the physical strength of today's fighters (in particular as they couldn't weight-drain like modern fighters) but the top guys were far tougher and smarter through having much more competition and superior genetics from the talent pool being so much larger. Boxers are more than just athletes; they're thinkers and tough men, too, and the boxing world of 60-90 years ago produced champions who were tougher and smarter than what we have now.

I can understand where you're coming from with the rest of your post but if you'd explain this bit further I'd appreciate it.

Simply that where a) you have a significantly greater number of participants (as there used to be far more boxers than now) and b) proficiency in the sport depends on a significant number of factors that are almost entirely influenced by genetics and cannot significantly be improved through nutrition and training (such as punch resistance, reflexes and ability to plan ahead during a fight), the likelihood is that those participants who make it to the top have on average superior genetics in terms of their suitability for the fight game.

[palooka]

The chief problem with stevedoc's argument, which on the face of it looks quite truthy, is:

a) In most other sports, achievement primarily depends on the physical conditioning of the athletes. As he says, modern boxers are better-trained (in terms of strength and probably power, anyway) and so should have this advantage over their forebears.

b) However, boxing is a sport in which physical conditioning is only a part of the overall equation. Toughness, chin, the ability to think and plan under pressure: these abilities depend mostly on a combination of innate ability and prolonged competition. The talent pool for boxers was five times larger than now in the early twentieth century; those who made it to the top of this much tougher boxing world did so to a large degree because of their innate toughness and smartness, not to mention their far greater number of fights against others in this huge talent pool, rather than because of training methods.

The old-timers may not have had the physical strength of today's fighters (in particular as they couldn't weight-drain like modern fighters) but the top guys were far tougher and smarter through having much more competition and superior genetics from the talent pool being so much larger. Boxers are more than just athletes; they're thinkers and tough men, too, and the boxing world of 60-90 years ago produced champions who were tougher and smarter than what we have now.

I can understand where you're coming from with the rest of your post but if you'd explain this bit further I'd appreciate it.

Simply that where a) you have a significantly greater number of participants (as there used to be far more boxers than now) and b) proficiency in the sport depends on a significant number of factors that are almost entirely influenced by genetics and cannot significantly be improved through nutrition and training (such as punch resistance, reflexes and ability to plan ahead during a fight), the likelihood is that those participants who make it to the top have on average superior genetics in terms of their suitability for the fight game.

Thanks for your explanation and I think I'd be able to argue that it wasn't 'genetics' that caused the higher standards - probably more due to competition in a hard scrabble era. It wasn't the fighters offspring fighting each other and then being breeded with other offspring - that would be genetic wouldn't it?

[dookus]

Thanks for your explanation and I think I'd be able to argue that it wasn't 'genetics' that caused the higher standards - probably more due to competition in a hard scrabble era. It wasn't the fighters offspring fighting each other and then being breeded with other offspring - that would be genetic wouldn't it?

With respect, that is exactly my point. Greater competition meant that those with superior genetics rose to the top, especially as those genetically bestowed abilities are so important in boxing.

[Datsue]

^ All of the above is at the heart of my (& Brother Naazim Richardson's, I know I'm name-dropping but it's nice to be in exalted company for once) contention that there are far too many athletes who box compared to actual fighters--percentage-wise--in the modern game.

& this as dookus has so patiently pointed out is why: think of the majority of talents (heavyweight especially) who start out doing another sport. They haven't been "selected" because of their propensity for being really good fighters; they've been "selected" (or rather, selected the sport) because they believe their athletic prowess (gained in the main in other, unrelated areas) will stand them in good stead.

& it does. & then they get old & their reflexes go & no-one can quite work out how their falls from grace can be quite so sudden.

Years ago fighters tended to drop off gradually, because they were fighters; that is they were "selected" (or selected fighting themselves) because their number one thing was fighting, they then had to learn to be athletes. Look at the fighters who're dropping off gradually: JMM, Floyd, B-Hop. Look at Sergio Martinez, a fantastic athlete who during the course of twelve rounds (admittedly against a much bigger fella) seemed to age about ten years. Look at the subsequent struggle he had with Murray.

Nice one, dookus mate.



PS: My contributions above are as ever generalisations. I'm not getting into "older fighters were better!"/"Newer fighters were better!" shenanigans, I hold that in some cases modern training methods result in better fighters & in some cases the reverse was true (i.e. the experience gained through the landscape of the game & the selection for fighting ability above all else). I'm just filling out the back-story of the imo neglected first part of that hyperbolic reductio ad absurdum with my own opinion. This has been a disclaimer brought to you by Datsue, Inc, rhetorically hand-waving since 1979.

[dookus]

^ All of the above is at the heart of my (& Brother Naazim Richardson's, I know I'm name-dropping but it's nice to be in exalted company for once) contention that there are far too many athletes who box compared to actual fighters--percentage-wise--in the modern game.

& this as dookus has so patiently pointed out is why: think of the majority of talents (heavyweight especially) who start out doing another sport. They haven't been "selected" because of their propensity for being really good fighters; they've been "selected" (or rather, selected the sport) because they believe their athletic prowess (gained in the main in other, unrelated areas) will stand them in good stead.

& it does. & then they get old & their reflexes go & no-one can quite work out how their falls from grace can be quite so sudden.

Years ago fighters tended to drop off gradually, because they were fighters; that is they were "selected" (or selected fighting themselves) because their number one thing was fighting, they then had to learn to be athletes. Look at the fighters who're dropping off gradually: JMM, Floyd, B-Hop. Look at Sergio Martinez, a fantastic athlete who during the course of twelve rounds (admittedly against a much bigger fella) seemed to age about ten years. Look at the subsequent struggle he had with Murray.

Nice one, dookus mate.



PS: My contributions above are as ever generalisations. I'm not getting into "older fighters were better!"/"Newer fighters were better!" shenanigans, I hold that in some cases modern training methods result in better fighters & in some cases the reverse was true (i.e. the experience gained through the landscape of the game & the selection for fighting ability above all else). I'm just filling out the back-story of the imo neglected first part of that hyperbolic reductio ad absurdum with my own opinion. This has been a disclaimer brought to you by Datsue, Inc, rhetorically hand-waving since 1979.

Many thanks. All we have to do now is stop people from claiming that boxers in the West keep on getting taller and we're nearly there...

[milpool]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...whilst Joe was active, he had plenty of knockers and many a time you would read comments about "his poor level of opposition", "his staying at home and keeping his WBO title warm", "ignoring his biggest rivals at the time", "he doesn't punch, he slaps" and so on...

Now he's retired he's been touted as being an all time great and someone who should be held up alongside Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali.

I think there is a strong case of nostalgia when talking about Joe. Sure he was good but he certainly wasn't a great IMO.
His record is littered with iffy opposition and had Hopkins retired after being beaten by Joe, maybe Joe's legacy wouldn't have been so strong?

I can't knock him for his achievements. But for me he didn't demonstrate being Britain's greatest ever champion, not by a long way.

[dREAMFIGHTER]

Joe was easily on resume one of the weakest long term british champions ever. His only meaningful defences were against Reid, Lacy and Kessler. If any other champ tried to make one decent defence nearly every 4 years, they'd be stripped of their belt.

British supermiddles Eubank, Benn and Froch have done more than those 3 defences, in a fraction of the time.

[dREAMFIGHTER]

Funnily enough, Joe wasn't pasted by Reid or Hopkins inside 2 or 5 rounds, he beat both on points in close decisions.

Hopkins doesn't paste anyone when hes 40something.


reid simply wasn't good enough to do a Rahman.

[dREAMFIGHTER]

And I'm not saying Calzaghe was the greatest. My point is not so much about the fact Lewis was KO'ed twice, it's WHO he was KO'ed by. Losing to fighters of that calibre would have been like Calzaghe getting sparked by Charles Brewer and Richie Woodhall.

please, woodhall was retiring with a ruined back and brewer was way past it, no way do they compare to prime rahman and mcall.

and therein is the reason for it - calzaghe didn't want to fight primes, so as not to lose to them.