Page 3 of 3
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 12:37
by loaded_gloves
Trojans44 wrote:These threads are always immense. In summary, they usually suggest that all current boxers are rubbish and would have been destroyed by their counterparts in the 1400s, completely ignoring the direction of travel in all other sports.
Anyone who can watch Jersey Joe Walcott/Ezzard Charles followed by Wlad/Haye and Vitali/Charr and think that somehow the skill level in boxing has improved can only have drawn that conclusion having closed their eyes though the Walcott/Charles bout.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 15:45
by Trojans44
loaded_gloves wrote:Trojans44 wrote:These threads are always immense. In summary, they usually suggest that all current boxers are rubbish and would have been destroyed by their counterparts in the 1400s, completely ignoring the direction of travel in all other sports.
Anyone who can watch Jersey Joe Walcott/Ezzard Charles followed by Wlad/Haye and Vitali/Charr and think that somehow the skill level in boxing has improved can only have drawn that conclusion having closed their eyes though the Walcott/Charles bout.
Oh absolutely I don't deny that for a second. I'm just making the more general point that boxing fans often presuppose that today's best fighters are considerably worse than yesteryear's. Which I'm not sure is fair. In terms of athleticism today's crowd would have a massive advantage.
The mayweather example is a good one - its almost universally assumed he'd lose to Duran or Leonard and lose badly. I'm not so sure he would lose to either and I'm absolutely positive he'd a top fighter in era.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 15:49
by palooka
Trojans44 wrote:loaded_gloves wrote:Trojans44 wrote:These threads are always immense. In summary, they usually suggest that all current boxers are rubbish and would have been destroyed by their counterparts in the 1400s, completely ignoring the direction of travel in all other sports.
Anyone who can watch Jersey Joe Walcott/Ezzard Charles followed by Wlad/Haye and Vitali/Charr and think that somehow the skill level in boxing has improved can only have drawn that conclusion having closed their eyes though the Walcott/Charles bout.
Oh absolutely I don't deny that for a second. I'm just making the more general point that boxing fans often presuppose that today's best fighters are considerably worse than yesteryear's. Which I'm not sure is fair. In terms of athleticism today's crowd would have a massive advantage.
The mayweather example is a good one - its almost universally assumed he'd lose to Duran or Leonard and lose badly. I'm not so sure he would lose to either and I'm absolutely positive he'd a top fighter in era.
Mayweatheris agood example. Are their any other current names that stand out who'd hold their own in any era?
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 13 Mar 2013, 16:14
by Trojans44
Well I think in general terms I think that e.g. the top p4p at any given time are likely to be able to hold their own in most eras. Clearly there are exceptions and clearly certain divisions have remarkable purple patches. It's unfair to counter my argument by comparing e.g. Shane Mosley to the best possible 3 years at welterweight or by saying these 10 welterweights would end him. My point is that taking the division as a historic totality Shane Mosley would likely be amongst the best and would have been a top fighter at any time.
So its not that today's fighters are the best ever, its that its daft to suggest as a generality that the best today would have no chance against the best yesterday.
Era is a misleading concept as well. It suggests lengthy periods of awesomeness when in fact most 'eras' can be boiled down to a few fights.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 14 Mar 2013, 15:35
by loaded_gloves
Watching Floyd Mayweather nick a close SD over a 35 year old, semi-retired Oscar de la Hoya, or nearly getting his head taken off by a worn out, body slow, 40 year old Shane Mosley, or having his hands full with a ageing Miguel Cotto, really makes it hard for me to picture him winning rounds against fighters who featured in Leonard/Benitez, Leonard/Hearns, Duran/Leonard I & II, Hearns/Cuevas, Hearns/Benitez, Hearns/Duran...
It seems utterly astonishing to me that anyone can take the Floyd Mayweather of his big fights and see a scenario where his defensive, reluctant, selective style is successful or even competitive in the face of such brutal opposition.
You couldn't handpick one opponent per year, of 40 years of age or from one or two weight classes beneath you and shout about how great you are in that era. Mayweather's opponent selection & big mouth would make him seem mad and ridiculous in 1980.
Sometimes it seems there is a desperate desire among some boxing fans to believe they are watching greatness. It must seem a lot of hard, time consuming work for our instant gratification, HBO-fed, Kellerman-watching, HD, widescreen, full colour young fans to familiarise themselves with all these stuffy old fighters in their long 15 round fights and often, god spare me, black & white coverage. Better to dismiss them and say the current guys you know and are a fan of are the best ever. It's easier that way.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 15 Mar 2013, 04:44
by JC
Trojans44 wrote:loaded_gloves wrote:Trojans44 wrote:These threads are always immense. In summary, they usually suggest that all current boxers are rubbish and would have been destroyed by their counterparts in the 1400s, completely ignoring the direction of travel in all other sports.
Anyone who can watch Jersey Joe Walcott/Ezzard Charles followed by Wlad/Haye and Vitali/Charr and think that somehow the skill level in boxing has improved can only have drawn that conclusion having closed their eyes though the Walcott/Charles bout.
Oh absolutely I don't deny that for a second. I'm just making the more general point that boxing fans often presuppose that today's best fighters are considerably worse than yesteryear's. Which I'm not sure is fair. In terms of athleticism today's crowd would have a massive advantage.
The mayweather example is a good one -
its almost universally assumed he'd lose to Duran or Leonard and lose badly. I'm not so sure he would lose to either and I'm absolutely positive he'd a top fighter in era.
You'll find just as many out there who assume Mayweather would win easily using the 'but sprinters have got faster' argument IMO (btw I agree Mayweather is a great in any era)
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 15 Mar 2013, 06:43
by banjo
Boxing and sprinting are completely different, Sprinting requires no skill and no endurance, it's running in a straight line for 10 seconds.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 15 Mar 2013, 06:47
by JimJim2009
Personally I reckon Floyd Mayweather would have been nothing but a Peter McDonagh style journeyman had he been around in the 70's and 80's
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 15 Mar 2013, 09:06
by JC
Dead Mouse wrote:J-C wrote:
You'll find just as many out there who assume Mayweather would win easily using the 'but sprinters have got faster' argument IMO (btw I agree Mayweather is a great in any era)
The problems is that there are fiendishly cunning people who will bring out the: "Boxing and sprinting are two different sports", argument. And where would the family be then? Some sports rely more on athleticism, boxing not so much. If it was like sprinting then Jermain Taylor would be a better boxer than James Toney.
Yup that's exactly my point.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 15 Mar 2013, 09:09
by jamesmcdonnell
Dead Mouse wrote:J-C wrote:
You'll find just as many out there who assume Mayweather would win easily using the 'but sprinters have got faster' argument IMO (btw I agree Mayweather is a great in any era)
The problems is that there are fiendishly cunning people who will bring out the: "Boxing and sprinting are two different sports", argument. And where would the family be then? Some sports rely more on athleticism, boxing not so much. If it was like sprinting then Jermain Taylor would be a better boxer than James Toney.
Toney was a pretty outstanding athlete - just because he turned into a slob in his later career - don't forget, he was a pretty good college football player before turning to boxing.
Quite how he ever fought at middleweight is beyond me, he was over 200 lbs as a teenage football player, and when you see pictures of him now at 160, his head looks about 10 sizes to big for his body. At cruiserweight he looked very good, healthy, not overweight, and his stamina was great too considering his advanced age.
Shame that he let himself go so badly following Jirov, aside from the Holyfield fight and 1st Sam Peter fight - he looked in woeful shape in the rest of his fights at heavyweight. Still say his destruction of Holyfield looks better and better as time goes on, he absolutely tore evander to shreds, and nobody else has really ever been able to do that. What a performance.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 15 Mar 2013, 11:03
by loaded_gloves
loaded_gloves wrote:Watching Floyd Mayweather nick a close SD over a 35 year old, semi-retired Oscar de la Hoya, or nearly getting his head taken off by a worn out, body slow, 40 year old Shane Mosley, or having his hands full with a ageing Miguel Cotto, really makes it hard for me to picture him winning rounds against fighters who featured in Leonard/Benitez, Leonard/Hearns, Duran/Leonard I & II, Hearns/Cuevas, Hearns/Benitez, Hearns/Duran...
It seems utterly astonishing to me that anyone can take the Floyd Mayweather of his big fights and see a scenario where his defensive, reluctant, selective style is successful or even competitive in the face of such brutal opposition.
You couldn't handpick one opponent per year, of 40 years of age or from one or two weight classes beneath you and shout about how great you are in that era. Mayweather's opponent selection & big mouth would make him seem mad and ridiculous in 1980.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 16 Mar 2013, 11:09
by Trojans44
loaded_gloves wrote:Watching Floyd Mayweather nick a close SD over a 35 year old, semi-retired Oscar de la Hoya, or nearly getting his head taken off by a worn out, body slow, 40 year old Shane Mosley, or having his hands full with a ageing Miguel Cotto, really makes it hard for me to picture him winning rounds against fighters who featured in Leonard/Benitez, Leonard/Hearns, Duran/Leonard I & II, Hearns/Cuevas, Hearns/Benitez, Hearns/Duran...
It seems utterly astonishing to me that anyone can take the Floyd Mayweather of his big fights and see a scenario where his defensive, reluctant, selective style is successful or even competitive in the face of such brutal opposition.
You couldn't handpick one opponent per year, of 40 years of age or from one or two weight classes beneath you and shout about how great you are in that era. Mayweather's opponent selection & big mouth would make him seem mad and ridiculous in 1980.
Sometimes it seems there is a desperate desire among some boxing fans to believe they are watching greatness. It must seem a lot of hard, time consuming work for our instant gratification, HBO-fed, Kellerman-watching, HD, widescreen, full colour young fans to familiarise themselves with all these stuffy old fighters in their long 15 round fights and often, god spare me, black & white coverage. Better to dismiss them and say the current guys you know and are a fan of are the best ever. It's easier that way.
Well if you don't regard mayweather as a great fighter you mustn't regard any fighter in the last 20 years as great. How can you like boxing if you don't see greatness in mayweather? He made Marquez look like a rank amateur and not because of weight but because he's on a different planet.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 16 Mar 2013, 13:28
by loaded_gloves
Trojans44 wrote:
Well if you don't regard mayweather as a great fighter you mustn't regard any fighter in the last 20 years as great. How can you like boxing if you don't see greatness in mayweather? He made Marquez look like a rank amateur and not because of weight but because he's on a different planet.
Absolute babble.
What bearing does Mayweather's ability have on anyone else in any division from the last 20 years? That doesn't even make sense.
How did he make make Marquez look like a 'rank amateur'?
Leonard earns greatness by beating a 22 year old Benitez, a 29 year old Duran and a 23 year old Hearns, and yet Mayweather buys greatness with a win over a weight-handicapped 36 year old Marquez? Or a 40 year old, 15 months inactive Mosley? Or a 35 year old semi-retired de la Hoya? Okay.
These Mayweather obsessives have to be just about the strangest cyber breed out there.
Re: REGARDING HOPKINS RECORD
Posted: 19 Mar 2013, 10:27
by Trojans44
Right but fights aren't actually won by comparing records on boxrec. Leonard having a better resume doesnt actually mean he is a better fighter. Like how Calzaghe would decimate Froch despite their records. Can you not actually make a judgement from watching a the guy box and evaluating what he cant and cant do. Just to be clear what is exactly your position on Mayweather in terms of his ability?
My point on the last 20 years is a simple one. Mayweather is very clearly in my eyes one of if not the best fighter in the last 20 years. So if you think he's rubbish then it logically follows everyone else must be too. If you disagree with this please provide a list of fighters since 1993 who are better than Floyd Mayweather.
p.s. your characterisation of Marquez as past it is extremely spurious. He was p4p number 3, arguably peaking and and make anyone list of fights Mayweather should have been pursuing.