Page 2 of 2
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 30 May 2016, 13:50
by Chepppaaa
Tony1244 wrote:Chepppaaa wrote:the era is good, only the big fights need to happen now
Good point. An era is only as good as its match ups.
true, the era is very weak, nothing happens at all
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 30 May 2016, 14:24
by Kalan
Tony1244 wrote:
Kalan wrote:Tony1244 wrote:
I didn't skip over them. I was pointing out some of the terrible Heavyweights who got World Title fights in those weak eras... Lets look at your list: Ron Lyle was very slow, hittable, and unskilled. Lyle didn't become a pro boxer until he was 30.... Jimmy Young was 20-5-2 when he outboxed the hittable Foreman, who outweighed him by 16 pounds. Young was a feather hitter with no body attack. After he beat Foreman Young lost 3 of his next 4 fights, 2 of them to a cruiserweight who had 11 fights.... Bonavena was 5'11" X 203 when he fought Ali. He was the slowest and most ungainly Heavyweight ever.... Ken Norton was a poor defender and blooper puncher who was knocked out 4 times - including by a 188-pound neophyte with 12 wins before he upset Ali and shattered Ali's jaw. That loss convinced Ali to fight him.... Sonny Liston spent years in prison getting old. Floyd Patterson avoided him for many years.... When Patterson won the title he weighed 182. In his previous fight to that he weighed 178. Patterson was crushed by 215-pound Liston... Machen was avoided by Patterson in his prime, but was easily outboxed by Light Heavyweight Harold Johnson.... Jerry Quarry lost to an aging Eddie Machen and claimed he hated Boxing and hated to train.... Frazier was a walk-in left hooker who was 5'11" X 205 when he beat Ali. Frazier looked like a punching bag with ears when he fought the much bigger 6'3" X 217 hard punching George Foreman.... LaStarza was a cherry-picking, record padding light hitter with no talent. LaStarza refused to fight black contenders. He lost to cherry-picked neophyte Rocky Jones a couple fights before he got a title shot at Marciano.
You come up with all this yet somehow believe Chamberlain could have beaten Ali?
You're not interested in a debate based on facts... You're only interested in acting silly... Today's Top-30 Heavyweights would destroy those of any other era... The Wilt-Ali debate in on another thread if you care to lend your silliness there.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 30 May 2016, 14:41
by Tony1244
Kalan wrote:Tony1244 wrote: Kalan wrote:
I didn't skip over them. I was pointing out some of the terrible Heavyweights who got World Title fights in those weak eras... Lets look at your list: Ron Lyle was very slow, hittable, and unskilled. Lyle didn't become a pro boxer until he was 30.... Jimmy Young was 20-5-2 when he outboxed the hittable Foreman, who outweighed him by 16 pounds. Young was a feather hitter with no body attack. After he beat Foreman Young lost 3 of his next 4 fights, 2 of them to a cruiserweight who had 11 fights.... Bonavena was 5'11" X 203 when he fought Ali. He was the slowest and most ungainly Heavyweight ever.... Ken Norton was a poor defender and blooper puncher who was knocked out 4 times - including by a 188-pound neophyte with 12 wins before he upset Ali and shattered Ali's jaw. That loss convinced Ali to fight him.... Sonny Liston spent years in prison getting old. Floyd Patterson avoided him for many years.... When Patterson won the title he weighed 182. In his previous fight to that he weighed 178. Patterson was crushed by 215-pound Liston... Machen was avoided by Patterson in his prime, but was easily outboxed by Light Heavyweight Harold Johnson.... Jerry Quarry lost to an aging Eddie Machen and claimed he hated Boxing and hated to train.... Frazier was a walk-in left hooker who was 5'11" X 205 when he beat Ali. Frazier looked like a punching bag with ears when he fought the much bigger 6'3" X 217 hard punching George Foreman.... LaStarza was a cherry-picking, record padding light hitter with no talent. LaStarza refused to fight black contenders. He lost to cherry-picked neophyte Rocky Jones a couple fights before he got a title shot at Marciano.
You come up with all this yet somehow believe Chamberlain could have beaten Ali?
You're not interested in a debate based on facts... You're only interested in acting silly... Today's Top-30 Heavyweights would destroy those of any other era... The Wilt-Ali debate in on another thread if you care to lend your silliness there.
People who are "not so bright," as another poster pointed out about you, fail to see that things are interconnected. So you not only believe Chamberlain could have beaten Ali, but Sam Peter and David Tua could too. Of course, because they were born later and weigh more.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 31 May 2016, 10:41
by G.McClellan
Kalan wrote:TOP-30 HEAVYWEIGHTS TODAY...It's UNMATCHED for International Competition for ANY period in HISTORY.. Americans can CRY about it
1. Tyson Fury... 2. Anthony Joshua... 3. Luis Ortiz... 4. Deontay Wilder... 5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Charles Martin... 11. Bryant Jennings... 12. Erkan Teper... 13. Hughie Fury... 14. Kubrat Pulev... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Ruslan Chagaev... 17. Bermane Stiverne... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Malik Scott... 20. Carlos Takam... 21. Mike Perez... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Christian Hammer... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Artur Szpilka... 28. Arnold Gjergjaj... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Amir Mansour
A look at some of the PPPBBBLLLLLITT Heavyweight Title Challengers from the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s...
Don Cockell... Roland LaStarza... Tommy Jackson... Tom McNeely... Pete Rademacher... Brian London... Henry Cooper... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Jean Pierre Coopman... Leon Stinks... Terry Daniels... Dave Zyglewitz... Manuel Ramos... Ron Stander... Richard Dunn
Malik Scott (#19) would box all of those pathetic 50’s and 60’s challengers to death without even trying -- and probably not lose a round. Gee whiz, Scott is not even a puncher and he would stop a lot of those insidiously poor title challengers from earlier non-competitive eras.
Some serious research and knowledge here. I agree with you, todays heavies would walk through those of eras past. I made this argument to a colleague, who was having none of it.
Thanks for this post. I actually felt my IQ rising as I was reading it.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 31 May 2016, 14:32
by Kalan
Tony1244 wrote:People who are "not so bright," as another poster pointed out about you, fail to see that things are interconnected. So you not only believe Chamberlain could have beaten Ali, but Sam Peter and David Tua could too. Of course, because they were born later and weigh more
You like to put stupid conclusions in people's mouths because you're an idiot. How tall, athletic or skilled were David Tua or Sam Peter? Obviously they would make better opponents than Alfredo Evangelista, Jean Pierre Coopman, Brian London, or Leon Stinks. Ali was a guy who got nailed with left hooks, floored, jaw shattered, beaten, upset by nobodies. Peter was undefeated and the most hyped Heavyweight in the world when Klitschko deflated his rep. After Tua dispatched Ruiz and Moorer in 20 seconds each he was flying high. Lewis brought him down to Earth like supreme underdog Norton brought Ali down to Earth. Lame brained idiots like you can't get your brain around results like that.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 31 May 2016, 14:54
by Tony1244
Kalan wrote:Tony1244 wrote:People who are "not so bright," as another poster pointed out about you, fail to see that things are interconnected. So you not only believe Chamberlain could have beaten Ali, but Sam Peter and David Tua could too. Of course, because they were born later and weigh more
You like to put stupid conclusions in people's mouths because you're an idiot. How tall, athletic or skilled were David Tua or Sam Peter? Obviously they would make better opponents than Alfredo Evangelista, Jean Pierre Coopman, Brian London, or Leon Stinks. Ali was a guy who got nailed with left hooks, floored, jaw shattered, beaten, upset by nobodies. Peter was undefeated and the most hyped Heavyweight in the world when Klitschko deflated his rep. After Tua dispatched Ruiz and Moorer in 20 seconds each he was flying high. Lewis brought him down to Earth like supreme underdog Norton brought Ali down to Earth. Lame brained idiots like you can't get your brain around results like that.
You were nasty first. You flew off the handle when I wrote:
You come up with all this yet somehow believe Chamberlain could have beaten Ali?
Yes I find it interesting that someone who is ignorant enough to believe Wilt could have beaten Ali in the 1960s or 1970s would even have heard of a George Chuvalo. I said "Ignorant" NOT stupid, they have very different meanings as does"Idiot" or mendacious. If I put words in your mouth that would making me mendacious or conniving, not an idiot. Not all negative words are synonyms. Back to boxing:
When was Ali upset by a nobody besides Spinks when Ali was finished? Ken Norton was an excellent fighter. Some excellent fighters get stopped on occasion. It happened to Wlad, Vit (injury in Byrd fight), Archie Moore, and many others. Even Berbick wasn't a nobody and Ali shouldn't have been boxing at that point. Regarding your analogy, Ali and Norton had 3 close fights; Tua, who I liked a lot, did absolutely nothing against LL. I don't think Tua won a round. Ali won close to half the 39 rounds he fought against Norton so that wasn't a very good analogy.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 31 May 2016, 17:23
by Kalan
Tony1244 wrote:When was Ali upset by a nobody besides Spinks when Ali was finished? Ken Norton was an excellent fighter. Some excellent fighters get stopped on occasion. It happened to Wlad, Vit (injury in Byrd fight), Archie Moore, and many others. Even Berbick wasn't a nobody and Ali shouldn't have been boxing at that point. Regarding your analogy, Ali and Norton had 3 close fights; Tua, who I liked a lot, did absolutely nothing against LL. I don't think Tua won a round. Ali won close to half the 39 rounds he fought against Norton so that wasn't a very good analogy.
Ali wasn't finished when he lost to Spinks... He was 36 and fought until he was 39...then he was finished with his career. Gennady Golovkin is 34. Is he going to get a pass when he's 36??? Tua looked horrible against Lewis but it doesn't mean he couldn't hook Ali out.. Peter looked horrible against the Klitschko's it doesn't mean he wouldn't have beaten up Ali like Norton beat him up.. I had Norton winning all 3 Ali fights and he looked horrible versus punchers like Garcia, Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney.. But he was more effective and aggressive in all 3 Ali fights.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 31 May 2016, 17:36
by Kalan
BTW... You ARE an idiot because you have no idea how much I know about Chuvalo and every Heavyweight from that era.. You also think someone would have to be ignorant to think a 7'1" X 290 athlete with great speed, giant hands, a 101" reach, and NBA beating shooting and rebounding ability wouldn't be a massive threat to a guy like Ali, who relied on his height, reach, size, and speed, lacked a body attack, pulled straight back from punches, and certainly wasn't the most skilled defender.. According to the negotiated contract that Ali refused to sign, Wilt would have 6 months to train and substantial training expenses.. Wilt was already getting offers from Heavyweights and trainers who wanted to help him. It was massive money and public interest, but Ali apparently hated his chances and refused to sign.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 31 May 2016, 19:44
by Tony1244
Kalan wrote:Tony1244 wrote:When was Ali upset by a nobody besides Spinks when Ali was finished? Ken Norton was an excellent fighter. Some excellent fighters get stopped on occasion. It happened to Wlad, Vit (injury in Byrd fight), Archie Moore, and many others. Even Berbick wasn't a nobody and Ali shouldn't have been boxing at that point. Regarding your analogy, Ali and Norton had 3 close fights; Tua, who I liked a lot, did absolutely nothing against LL. I don't think Tua won a round. Ali won close to half the 39 rounds he fought against Norton so that wasn't a very good analogy.
Ali wasn't finished when he lost to Spinks... He was 36 and fought until he was 39...then he was finished with his career. Gennady Golovkin is 34. Is he going to get a pass when he's 36??? Tua looked horrible against Lewis but it doesn't mean he couldn't hook Ali out..
Peter looked horrible against the Klitschko's it doesn't mean he wouldn't have beaten up Ali like Norton beat him up.. I had Norton winning all 3 Ali fights and he looked horrible versus punchers like Garcia, Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney.. But he was more effective and aggressive in all 3 Ali fights.
Comparing Norton and Peters speed would be like comparing Jimmy Young and Shavers' power. You have no understanding of what you watch.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 31 May 2016, 22:35
by Kalan
Tony1244 wrote:Kalan wrote:Tony1244 wrote:When was Ali upset by a nobody besides Spinks when Ali was finished? Ken Norton was an excellent fighter. Some excellent fighters get stopped on occasion. It happened to Wlad, Vit (injury in Byrd fight), Archie Moore, and many others. Even Berbick wasn't a nobody and Ali shouldn't have been boxing at that point. Regarding your analogy, Ali and Norton had 3 close fights; Tua, who I liked a lot, did absolutely nothing against LL. I don't think Tua won a round. Ali won close to half the 39 rounds he fought against Norton so that wasn't a very good analogy.
Ali wasn't finished when he lost to Spinks... He was 36 and fought until he was 39...then he was finished with his career. Gennady Golovkin is 34. Is he going to get a pass when he's 36??? Tua looked horrible against Lewis but it doesn't mean he couldn't hook Ali out..
Peter looked horrible against the Klitschko's it doesn't mean he wouldn't have beaten up Ali like Norton beat him up.. I had Norton winning all 3 Ali fights and he looked horrible versus punchers like Garcia, Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney.. But he was more effective and aggressive in all 3 Ali fights.
Comparing Norton and Peters speed would be like comparing Jimmy Young and Shavers' power. You have no understanding of what you watch.
Norton wasn't fast you ignorant ass.. He couldn't get away from Garcia's, Foreman's, Shavers' or Cooney's shots.. Norton was easy to trap against the ropes and smash into the floorboards, because he wasn't real mobile on his feet and his reactions were so slow.. Peter is slow right now.. He's fought like twice in the last 6 years and was fatter than a whale.. At one time he tried to be a good fighter and was fairly quick for a big guy.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 01 Jun 2016, 00:23
by thomasjkelley
Kalan wrote:TOP-30 HEAVYWEIGHTS TODAY...It's UNMATCHED for International Competition for ANY period in HISTORY.. Americans can CRY about it
1. Tyson Fury... 2. Anthony Joshua... 3. Luis Ortiz... 4. Deontay Wilder... 5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Charles Martin... 11. Bryant Jennings... 12. Erkan Teper... 13. Hughie Fury... 14. Kubrat Pulev... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Ruslan Chagaev... 17. Bermane Stiverne... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Malik Scott... 20. Carlos Takam... 21. Mike Perez... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Christian Hammer... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Artur Szpilka... 28. Arnold Gjergjaj... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Amir Mansour
A look at some of the PPPBBBLLLLLITT Heavyweight Title Challengers from the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s...
Don Cockell... Roland LaStarza... Tommy Jackson... Tom McNeely... Pete Rademacher... Brian London... Henry Cooper... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Jean Pierre Coopman... Leon Stinks... Terry Daniels... Dave Zyglewitz... Manuel Ramos... Ron Stander... Richard Dunn
Malik Scott (#19) would box all of those pathetic 50’s and 60’s challengers to death without even trying -- and probably not lose a round. Gee whiz, Scott is not even a puncher and he would stop a lot of those insidiously poor title challengers from earlier non-competitive eras.
I always appreciate when someone takes the time and effort to share their knowledge. This era is hard for us Americans to endure because we have been way overtaken in the sport by much of the world; in the amateur ranks particularly. As humans evolve, so does the talent. Today it is common to see heavyweights as big as 6'6"/275 lbs. This has become the status quo for that division and I do not see it changing anytime soon. Today's HWs would walk through HW champions of the past, all of them. Ali, Louis, Marciano, Norton, Dempsey, Jackson, etc. are all greater fighters than those of today but they would not fair well in a bout with the likes of Klitshcko, Lewis, Joshua, Fury, etc. I don't care how blasphemous that sounds, it's logical. That said, we cannot compare eras with much objectivity, though we love to do so. The biggest problem of today is not the talent, it is the business of making money and protecting fighters. These guys today do not fight all comers. They safely pick their opponents themselves. This is an unprecedented rule of competition. There is no other sport/competition in the world where you can choose not to play a team you are worried may be better than you. That's why I can never put fighters like RJJ, Floyd, & Canelo next to all time greats like Robinson, Leonard, Hagler, Duran, Chavez, even Hearns. Today's fighters do not deserve the respect past greats do.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 01 Jun 2016, 09:42
by Tony1244
Kalan wrote:Tony1244 wrote:Kalan wrote:
Ali wasn't finished when he lost to Spinks... He was 36 and fought until he was 39...then he was finished with his career. Gennady Golovkin is 34. Is he going to get a pass when he's 36??? Tua looked horrible against Lewis but it doesn't mean he couldn't hook Ali out.. Peter looked horrible against the Klitschko's it doesn't mean he wouldn't have beaten up Ali like Norton beat him up.. I had Norton winning all 3 Ali fights and he looked horrible versus punchers like Garcia, Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney.. But he was more effective and aggressive in all 3 Ali fights.
Comparing Norton and Peters speed would be like comparing Jimmy Young and Shavers' power. You have no understanding of what you watch.
Norton wasn't fast you ignorant ass.. He couldn't get away from Garcia's, Foreman's, Shavers' or Cooney's shots.. Norton was easy to trap against the ropes and smash into the floorboards, because he wasn't real mobile on his feet and his reactions were so slow.. Peter is slow right now.. He's fought like twice in the last 6 years and was fatter than a whale.. At one time he tried to be a good fighter and was fairly quick for a big guy.
Yeah, Peter would have done great against Ali. You know who would have done even better? The Ultimate Warrior and Koko B Ware. They were real big. For those as ignorant as Kalan, this was a sarcastic post.
Norton had very fast hands in the 1970s. Sam Peter was a tough fighter no doubt but he was basically George Chuvalo with an afro. Neither was in Ali or Norton's league. This part is real.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 03 Jun 2016, 04:10
by Bricks
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Yes, by a country mile.
Agreed.
The shift to europe or the uk is irrelevent....world boxing is at an all time low for the viewer.even in the uk its hugely overhyped...every second rater who would have been european level 25 years ago is a eddie hearn world champ.this goes way beyond every era thinking they have it bad...this is the worst.
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 03 Jun 2016, 04:13
by Bricks
Kalan wrote:TOP-30 HEAVYWEIGHTS TODAY...It's UNMATCHED for International Competition for ANY period in HISTORY.. Americans can CRY about it
1. Tyson Fury... 2. Anthony Joshua... 3. Luis Ortiz... 4. Deontay Wilder... 5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Charles Martin... 11. Bryant Jennings... 12. Erkan Teper... 13. Hughie Fury... 14. Kubrat Pulev... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Ruslan Chagaev... 17. Bermane Stiverne... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Malik Scott... 20. Carlos Takam... 21. Mike Perez... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Christian Hammer... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Artur Szpilka... 28. Arnold Gjergjaj... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Amir Mansour
A look at some of the PPPBBBLLLLLITT Heavyweight Title Challengers from the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s...
Don Cockell... Roland LaStarza... Tommy Jackson... Tom McNeely... Pete Rademacher... Brian London... Henry Cooper... Alfredo Evangelista... Chuck Wepner... Jean Pierre Coopman... Leon Stinks... Terry Daniels... Dave Zyglewitz... Manuel Ramos... Ron Stander... Richard Dunn
Malik Scott (#19) would box all of those pathetic 50’s and 60’s challengers to death without even trying -- and probably not lose a round. Gee whiz, Scott is not even a puncher and he would stop a lot of those insidiously poor title challengers from earlier non-competitive eras.
henry cooper alone would send malik scott into a coma .henry alone would also knockout charles martin and many other of your greats of today
Re: Is this boxing's worst era ever
Posted: 03 Jun 2016, 04:18
by Bricks
RandomUsername wrote:I am a somewhat negative person so here is the bad:
1. Boxings #1 potential fight involves a retired fighter vs someone who has never boxed.
2. The heavyweight championship is up for grabs soon and nobody is excited about that fight taking place.
3. The last big fight that took place had one severely over rated fighter pitted against a fighter who only managed to maintain some name recognition by calling out fighters time and time again that did not want to stoop so low as to fight him.
4. A recent fight that people were excited about at heavyweight got cancelled when one fighter failed a bs drugtest and the otherone used it as an excuse to duck him.
5. Boxingfans actually waited for a decade for a fight and then took part in hyping it up so the general public would watch it, the fight was simply unwatchable.
Boxing is over, it reached its climax and anything from now on will only be downhill.
Great post apart from last point