BoxRec

Mr Dalek - not sure if anyone has posted this yet but.....exterminate exterminate"

bollox wrote:Mr Dalek - not sure if anyone has posted this yet but.....exterminate exterminate"

hehehe.i'll tell you what though m8,i really wish i could when talking to some of these buffoons.
hey suzie or is it brockton on here?don't say revolver wouldn't last on this forum when you see what i am having to argue against.lol.

>>>He got the newspaper decision against Langford<<<

Ketchel did not get the ND decision against Langford...around 15 different newwspapers all had it mixed, some said Ketchel, some said Langford and other, those that were more truthful had the bout even, but one thing they all almost agreed on was that Langford was certainly holding back! Ketchel was great, but Greb would have toyed with him and Lloyd Marshall, in his prime, would be a very, very tough fight for any light heavyweight in history, much less middleweight. I don't think he would have beaten Ketchel, but he had as good a chance as anyone! Ketchel was an all-time great, but just like all fighters he had his flaws as well. Jack O'Brien boxed his ears off until Ketchel landed a desperation bomb with seconds left, which happens to be one of my favorite ancedotes in history in that O'Brien was out cold, head in the resin box, but he still got the decision!

Some of these youngster whippersnappers here probably think we're nuts. Perhaps they're right teeheehee

barry the fight report i have of the fight m8 suggests that o'brien was leading 6-2 in rounds when floored in the ninth.ketchel then hammers him around flooring him 3 times in the last,the final kd jack is out cold.by modern scoring ketchel would have been the winner.anyhow i'm not arguing the merits of ketchel against light heavy marshall.i'm arguing ketchel as being a great fighter and not a talentless brawler.
p4p lists i doubt many have marshall over ketchel.

i'll just have to disagree with greb playing with stanley as well.no middle would have an easy time against the michigan assassin,ABSOLUTELY NONE.enough fighters gave harry a hard enough fight to suggest that ketchel at his best has a great shot at winning especially at the 158 pounds middle limit.

When ranking sportsmen the stats side is very misleading. Somebody made the point about a sprinter from 50 years ago having no chance in today’s athletic world. I have to disagree with this. In fact I think that it misses the point completely.

A boxer (or sprinter) of today has better training facilities, better nutritional advice, a more comfortable life, more money, and many more opportunities. When we compare fighters from different eras do we really want to compare who had the best diet, gymnasium, gum-shield, etc??? If not then all of these factors should be taken out of the equation otherwise we’re not discussing boxing at all.

All sports are a mix of physical ability, skill and psychology. A sprinter who won a gold medal 50 years ago, with the benefits of today’s advancements, would, due to their determination to reach the top, easily surpass their best times of the past. Or, put another way, do we really think Jack Johnson would continue with the style of fighting he employed to win the title against Burns for a 12 round fight against Klitschko? Johnson was a winner and he’d fight differently in today’s era, and he possessed the skill, the physical ability and the determination to win in any era.

It’s always interesting to turn this debate around. How would the pampered stars of today manage in the past? How would Chris Byrd feel about fighting John L Sullivan without the gloves in a fight to the finish?

It’s also very important to remember that nobody is making any money out of Jack Johnson, Harry Greb or Ezzard Charles but they are making money out of Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather (okay, these fighters are very skilful guys so maybe not the best examples) but when some commentator (i.e. someone making a living from today’s fighters) tells you how great they are then you have to remember that they have a vested interest in you believing this.

Another point to consider is that there were a lot more active fighters in years gone by, and by the laws of probability a sample of say 5,000 boxers should yield more greats than a sample of 2,000. This leads me to point out that there is the law of competition. Put two greats from any discipline (sport, science, the arts) together and their natural competitiveness will push one another to the brink of what is possible. Human beings have always strived to achieve targets and will generally achieve whatever target they are set (within certain bounds of course). The number of participants therefore has a two-fold effect on the greatness of fighters.

There is some argument to say that it’s different with Heavyweights. I mean how could a 185 lb Marciano compete with a 230 lb Lewis? In today’s terms these are fighters from different weight classes. Size isn’t everything but this weight discrepancy is too much for anyone to ignore. Once again, though, do we really want to talk about who is the biggest or do we want to talk about who was the best fighter? If Rocky was 185 lbs in a time when the average heavy was say 195 lbs then he was a small heavy for his era. If we are to put him in today’s era then shouldn’t we give him a relative weight to the mean? If today’s average is 220lbs then can’t we have a 205 lb Marciano, a 215lb Louis, a 210 lb Dempsey? Like I say, it is more complex with the heavyweights, but size isn’t everything, and at some point we have to make a decision on what we are debating, boxing or body building?

There is no doubt that there are guys of today who could compete with the best from any era. I will say that with the lack of bouts, the move to 12 rounds instead of 15, the aversion to any defeat, the multiple weight classes and belts that it is much more unlikely for a contemporary fighter to be considered the greatest in his weight category than it ever was before.

Controversial wrote:Not that I'm saying the older fighters were bad, far from it, but a lot of people seem to have a very high opinion of older fighters when compared to the current crop.

Fighters like Dempsey, Jack Johnson etc are held in almost god-like status as if they would walk through any of todays fighters.

The facts are that todays fights are viewed by millions of people all across the world. Todays fights are analysed in minute details by newspapers, TV reporters and forums like these. The slighest mistake is highlighted and discussed. Fights are sold on video and DVD to be viewed and discussed again and again.

Older fighters didn't have this done to them. Dempsey would fight in front of huge crowds but that was it, no satellite footage beamed across the globe. Of course eye-witness accounts are always blown out of proportion and bits added on over the years to make these guys sound so much better than they really were. Marciano had bad fights but because there isn't much footage of his early fights we only have the views of fans from that era, who like most people would exaggerate.

The fact is ALL fighters have bad fights, the older ones are no different and it makes me laugh when people think fighters like Marciano could beat fighters like Lennx Lewis. Boxing like every other sport has progressed on all matter of fronts, todays fighters are stronger, faster and fitter than the earlier counterparts. Can you imagine a 1940's sprinter competting against one of todays top sprinters? Or a weightlifter? Or a swimmer?

Yes I have my favorites from long ago but I don't look at them through rose-tinted glasses and in many cases I am not deluded enough to let my heart rule my head.

What you aren't thinking about is skill. Yes athelete get faster and stronger. (Much of it due to superior training methods). However that doesn't mean they are better at their sport than atheletes of previous eras.
For example, todays NBA players are more more athletically gifted than ever. However, are they better basketball players? If you aren't old enough to have seen games from the 70's and 80's, then watch old games from ESPN Classic. I'ts obvious that todays players are much worse. Why? Because their skills aren't nearly as good. They don't know how to run a fastbreak, play team ball, and obviously can't shoot the ball from outside as well as players from previous eras. You can't just look at size, speed etc to determine how good some one is in a sport that demands a lot of skill and technique.
Boxing, of course is much older than basketball. The sport evolved in the late 1800's and early 1900's as new strategies and techniques were developed. However, after a while, there wasn't much new. There hasn't been a new punch in probably a 100 years. Just about any "new strategy" has been around for many decades.
Boxing is a sport of skill and technique. Some of the best at it fought many years ago, and some more recently.
I agree that some people go overboard and favor fighters from before there was film and exaggerate their greatness because we don't have the film to pick apart their weaknesses.
However, probably more people discount boxers who fought before film (or atleast high quality film) as if their accomplisments didn't happen because it's not on film.
It is just silly to think that boxers got better just when film began to get popular and got better when the film got better.
The bottom line is that there are great,good, mediocre and poor fighters in every era.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Controversial wrote:Not that I'm saying the older fighters were bad, far from it, but a lot of people seem to have a very high opinion of older fighters when compared to the current crop.

Fighters like Dempsey, Jack Johnson etc are held in almost god-like status as if they would walk through any of todays fighters.

The facts are that todays fights are viewed by millions of people all across the world. Todays fights are analysed in minute details by newspapers, TV reporters and forums like these. The slighest mistake is highlighted and discussed. Fights are sold on video and DVD to be viewed and discussed again and again.

Older fighters didn't have this done to them. Dempsey would fight in front of huge crowds but that was it, no satellite footage beamed across the globe. Of course eye-witness accounts are always blown out of proportion and bits added on over the years to make these guys sound so much better than they really were. Marciano had bad fights but because there isn't much footage of his early fights we only have the views of fans from that era, who like most people would exaggerate.

The fact is ALL fighters have bad fights, the older ones are no different and it makes me laugh when people think fighters like Marciano could beat fighters like Lennx Lewis. Boxing like every other sport has progressed on all matter of fronts, todays fighters are stronger, faster and fitter than the earlier counterparts. Can you imagine a 1940's sprinter competting against one of todays top sprinters? Or a weightlifter? Or a swimmer?

Yes I have my favorites from long ago but I don't look at them through rose-tinted glasses and in many cases I am not deluded enough to let my heart rule my head.

What you aren't thinking about is skill. Yes athelete get faster and stronger. (Much of it due to superior training methods). However that doesn't mean they are better at their sport than atheletes of previous eras.
.

In boxing, with a declined pool of talent how are boxers faster and stronger? Faster? Louis and Ali are much faster then any HW today . . Ike Williams was as fast as Maywheather . . .and he was certainly much quicker then Castillo or Corrales. Billy Conn could put combos together (with REAL punches not arm flurries) better then Antonio Tarver . . .doing manual labor and things like chopping wood builds better muscle structure then doing heavy lifting.

Basketball players are stronger now then 40 years ago but B-ball players in the 60s pretty much did NOTHING in terms of strength training. They did some basic exercises but basically practiced basketball as their main form of 'training.' Off-season workouts didn't exist. Ditto to a large extent with football. In the 70s during the offseason, most players went and worked part-time jobs . . .

The rest of your post A Alp I agree with.

This was more aimed at controversial.

One poster put it well in saying that there were alot more boxers available for alot more fights back then. In essence, more competition out there, made one fight more and harder for what they had. I'll give them that point in that they are right.
But to say that ANY top fighter today could not hold a candle to ANY top fighter of yester-year is clearly a biased statement.
Styles make fights. I've sen alot of post about, dare I say, Larry Holmes beating some of the old greats.
OK, if Holmes could measure up to some of the old-time greats, why couldn't some of the cream-of-the-crop fighters in lower weight classes?
Mosley against Duran; DLH against Chavez. Paez against Pep. Molina against Pep.
I could go on & on, but styles make fights, and every other fighter has a style that will beat someone else.
Maybe the case should be made that, back then, no one really avoided anybody else like they do today. But they did that also. It's just that today, the champs fight 1 time per year.
I agree out champs need to defend their respective titles more than once per year.

It’s always interesting to turn this debate around.

its silly to judge fighter that have fought that far apart based on how they would look or fight in the others era. Way to many invariables to even make an educated guess. The point is, is that Sullivan did fight in his era, and in his era the fighters were just not as good as fighters of later years. if you said Dempsey if he packed on a few more pounds, which he had the frame and measurements to do so comfortably, would be competitive in an era even as good as the 70's, I will agree with you. Sullivan on the other hand wouldnt rank in any alphabet standings had he fought today as he was and did a century ago.

As for Ketchel, he fought in an era when all you needed was stamina and power to suceed. He would be hard pressed to land those wild haymakers on fighters of later years. Marshell, who beat all around great fighters like Ezzard Charles ,charley Burley and the near great Holman williams, would have beat ketchel with probably very little trouble.

How would Chris Byrd feel about fighting John L Sullivan without the gloves in a fight to the finish?

Amused. He would have no problem dodging all of Sullivans punches, avoiding his lunges and making him look foolish in front of all his adoring fans. Byrd would hav been a big, fast heavyweight in Sullivans time,with much better skills than all the other heavyweights of that era.

what a load of crap.byrd would not put himself in for a fight to the finish.what would amuse him about it?he's gonna get tired eventually.i'm certain it wouldn't be byrds hand raised in victory.
as for ketchel you can only be the best of your era.imo a great fighter is a great fighter.so if he had come along 30 years later with the different training methods etc he'd be succesful.
even this era people like carlos maussa can pick up baubles.lol.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Controversial wrote:Not that I'm saying the older fighters were bad, far from it, but a lot of people seem to have a very high opinion of older fighters when compared to the current crop.

Fighters like Dempsey, Jack Johnson etc are held in almost god-like status as if they would walk through any of todays fighters.

The facts are that todays fights are viewed by millions of people all across the world. Todays fights are analysed in minute details by newspapers, TV reporters and forums like these. The slighest mistake is highlighted and discussed. Fights are sold on video and DVD to be viewed and discussed again and again.

Older fighters didn't have this done to them. Dempsey would fight in front of huge crowds but that was it, no satellite footage beamed across the globe. Of course eye-witness accounts are always blown out of proportion and bits added on over the years to make these guys sound so much better than they really were. Marciano had bad fights but because there isn't much footage of his early fights we only have the views of fans from that era, who like most people would exaggerate.

The fact is ALL fighters have bad fights, the older ones are no different and it makes me laugh when people think fighters like Marciano could beat fighters like Lennx Lewis. Boxing like every other sport has progressed on all matter of fronts, todays fighters are stronger, faster and fitter than the earlier counterparts. Can you imagine a 1940's sprinter competting against one of todays top sprinters? Or a weightlifter? Or a swimmer?

Yes I have my favorites from long ago but I don't look at them through rose-tinted glasses and in many cases I am not deluded enough to let my heart rule my head.

What you aren't thinking about is skill. Yes athelete get faster and stronger. (Much of it due to superior training methods). However that doesn't mean they are better at their sport than atheletes of previous eras.
For example, todays NBA players are more more athletically gifted than ever. However, are they better basketball players? If you aren't old enough to have seen games from the 70's and 80's, then watch old games from ESPN Classic. I'ts obvious that todays players are much worse. Why? Because their skills aren't nearly as good. They don't know how to run a fastbreak, play team ball, and obviously can't shoot the ball from outside as well as players from previous eras. You can't just look at size, speed etc to determine how good some one is in a sport that demands a lot of skill and technique.
Boxing, of course is much older than basketball. The sport evolved in the late 1800's and early 1900's as new strategies and techniques were developed. However, after a while, there wasn't much new. There hasn't been a new punch in probably a 100 years. Just about any "new strategy" has been around for many decades.
Boxing is a sport of skill and technique. Some of the best at it fought many years ago, and some more recently.
I agree that some people go overboard and favor fighters from before there was film and exaggerate their greatness because we don't have the film to pick apart their weaknesses.
However, probably more people discount boxers who fought before film (or atleast high quality film) as if their accomplisments didn't happen because it's not on film.
It is just silly to think that boxers got better just when film began to get popular and got better when the film got better.
The bottom line is that there are great,good, mediocre and poor fighters in every era.

I'm not saying they are any worse but today we have the luxory of seeing a fighters complete career, sometimes from amateur to retirement. We can view the fights from every conceivable angle and their fights are analysed, discussed and written about by millions across the globe. We never had this luxory for the older fighters and my opinion is they are often held in much higher asteem than they maybe deserved.

congratulation to all who have replied to this thread.

what a load of crap.byrd would not put himself in for a fight to the finish.what would amuse him about it?he's gonna get tired eventually.i'm certain it wouldn't be byrds hand raised in victory.

It wouldnt really be all that hard for Byrd actually. Sullivan would be one of the smallest heavyweights Byrd ever fought. Byrd has fought bigger much stronger men who had a hell of alot more skill than Sullivan had.
When did you ever see Sullivan fight someone as big as fast as talented and with a good a defense as Byrd. Oh, you never actually saw Sullivan fight.
Lets use common sense then. You really believe Sullivan could withstand byrds offense for as long as it took until Bryd ran out of gas?

s for ketchel you can only be the best of your era.imo a great fighter is a great fighter.so if he had come along 30 years later with the different training methods etc he'd be succesful.

Yeah, that was exactly my point. We could only speculate how good Ketchel would have been if he came around years later. As he actually fought would not cut it in later years.

theone wrote: Who had a hell of alot more skill than Sullivan had.
Oh, you never actually saw Sullivan fight.

Hell of a contradiction if I ever saw one. How of the hell do you know Sullivan was not skilled if you never saw him either?

Hell of a contradiction if I ever saw one. How of the hell do you know Sullivan was not skilled if you never saw him either?

Like I said common sense. Fighters that came after Sullivan, that we actually have film of, were still not polished or talented as fighters of later years. Starting with Corbett, the fight game advanced in leaps and bounds well into the late twenties.

theone wrote:

Hell of a contradiction if I ever saw one. How of the hell do you know Sullivan was not skilled if you never saw him either?

Like I said common sense. Fighters that came after Sullivan, that we actually have film of, were still not polished or talented as fighters of later years. Starting with Corbett, the fight game advanced in leaps and bounds well into the late twenties.

That's totally ridiculous and is utterally factless. Many of the early fighters; Professor Mike Donovan, Nat Langham, and especially Daniel Mendoza,who fought in the late 1700's, come to mind immediately as all were very scientific box and move fighters. This myth that the early fighters stood two to two and battered each other until someone fell is completely false. Any half-ass study over 1 minute of these fighters would show that and would wise you up. Your "common sense" is not fact proven and completely false. What, you think Corbett was a fighting genius who on his own came up with the modern style of boxing? and everyone else were the village idiots who liked to beat the snot out of each other?

any of the early fighters; Professor Mike Donovan, Nat Langham, and especially Daniel Mendoza,who fought in the late 1700's, come to mind immediately as all were very scientific box and move fighters.

Now your saying that fighters from the 1700's were as good as fighters now? Give me whatever it is that you are smokin'.

What, you think Corbett was a fighting genius who on his own came up with the modern style of boxing?

No, but he is the best example of the sports evolution from the way Sullivan fought, to how he fought. And even Corbett wasnt half as good as say a Joe Louis.

theone wrote:

any of the early fighters; Professor Mike Donovan, Nat Langham, and especially Daniel Mendoza,who fought in the late 1700's, come to mind immediately as all were very scientific box and move fighters.

Now your saying that fighters from the 1700's were as good as fighters now? Give me whatever it is that you are smokin'.

No, did you even read my post? All I said, in layman terms, is that fighters back then weren't utter bloodthristy buffons that liked to beat the shit out of each other for lack of better things to do. They used science and technique like every generation.

Decagon wrote:

Sherlock wrote:All I said, in layman terms, is that fighters back then weren't utter bloodthristy buffons that liked to beat the shit out of each other for lack of better things to do.

Then the 1700s fighters were better than the fighters today! :TU
:

yep if ruiz and maussa etc are world champs,they most definitely are. :P

It's the "golden age" phenomena. For every generation the "old timers" were better. Race and ethnicity play a part. More white fighters back then. Boxing is unique because it works so well on the old films. Noboday sits around watching replays of the 1952 World Series for hours on end. I don't know why but watching the St. Valentine's Day Massacre or the Archie Moore-Ivan Durelle fight seems almost like a spirtual experience. Ray Robinson is more alive to me in a weird way than Oscar De La Hoya and that's not a put down of Oscar, it's just those old black and white Sugar Ray fight films are hypnotic. But if the point is that athletes are better today, of course they are. Look at how fast track stars were in the 30s and how fast they are today and then try to tell me that Joe Louis' hand speed could compete with the great fighters of today. By the way, I quarantee you, in 20 to 30 years people will be looking back at Roy and Oscar and saying "those were the days".

All I said, in layman terms, is that fighters back then weren't utter bloodthristy buffons that liked to beat the shit out of each other for lack of better things to do. They used science and technique like every generation.

I never accused them of being blood thirsty buffoons etc.. I just beleive that the science and technique they used was nowhere near as good as the technique that lets say Louis used.

Look at how fast track stars were in the 30s and how fast they are today

Are the modern track stars running in leather shoes on cinder tracks?

Check out the winning times in the Kentucky Derby. The 1931 winner, "Twenty Grand", was faster than last year's winner, "Giacomo", despite all of the advances equine medicine and training PLUS selective breeding specifically for speed. You go to a modern racing horse training facility and it looks straight out of Ivan Drago's high-tech gym in "Rocky 4".

didn't the likes of owens etc have to dig their own starting marks.
not everything gets better.equipment and drugs obviously come to mind with athletic advancement.however in boxing look at the heavies today and tell me they are better than in the 50's,40's,30's,20's or even fitz and corbett.lol.