BoxRec

palooka wrote:That's really impressive and a fantastic list I've seen only 4 of those men box - Ezzard Charles (only seen at heavyweight), Archie Moore, Michael Spinks, Matthew Saad Muhammed. I've read about Greb, Loughran, Tunney and Rosenbloom (slapsy Maxie?).

I'd imagine that it'd be better to seperate modern boxers from the antiquated ones, many of the write ups are very romantic and overblown whereas with the modern boxers we can evaluate with our own eyes and minds.

I'd not put Foster at the bottom of the list though.

I might not have him at the bottom of it either, though I forgot Conn who I would definitely have ahead of him. Even Jones is arguable.

palooka wrote:I don't think Salvador Sanchez ducked Pedroza and I think Gomez and Nelson would have boxed him.

As great as Wilfredo Gomez or Azumah Nelson were, I could not phantom those two outboxing a master like Eusebio Pedroza. I cannot imagine those guys beating Pedroza either.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
-In regard to fights changing from 15 to 12 rounds: There is a big difference between a fighter being behind after 12 rounds and being behind after 5 rounds. The losing fighter wins a much higher % of the time after trailing after only 5 rounds than he did after trailing after 12 rounds in 15 round fight.
I think 12 rounds is a reasonable amount to see who the better fighter is.
I agree that the move did change the sport in a fundamental way; however I think it was a fundamental way for the good. Imagine if they were still 15 rounds. Fighters would pace themselves even more and you would have more boring fights.

My problem with this is 12 rounds is just arbitrary. I think it was harder to just hold on to the win. DLH-Trinidad was a big moment... DLH thought he had 7 rounds in the bank and decided he didn't want to play anymore. Whilst I thought he won the fight I don't have much sympathy for him.

I also consider 15 round distance when taking fighters into consideration. It became a recognised standard

Any amount whether it is 10, 12, 15, 20 is arbitrary.
Are there now fights that it would be better if they were 15? Maybe, very rarely. The vast majority of the time, no.
Were there fights that were scheduled for 15 that we as fans are glad that they were? Yes. The majority of the time, no.

I guess you could also argue that it was a good thing that the fights went 15 back in the old days, but not now.

As for De La hoya-Trinidad: De la Hoya (taking the horrible advice of his trainer, Gil Clancy) basically did nothing for the last 3 rounds, thinking he had had clearly already won 7 of the first 9 rounds.
So basically we got a mediocre fight for 9 rounds and a bad fight for the last three rounds.
Let's say it was scheduled for 15 rounds. De la hoya would then have done nothing after he had assumed that he had won 8 rounds. That would have happened after round 10, because De la hoya would have tried to win the 10th. Then he would have done nothing for the last 5 rounds. So there would have been 10 mediocre rounds of boxing and 5 bad rounds.
It probably would have been even worse to watch if it had been scheduled for 15 rounds.

Or the other guy actually has more time to catch up with him.

It's a weird logic.

I say 10 rounds is better than 12.

I'm usually full enough that I don't need pudding. But I still eat it.

The super big fights, only the big ones, should be 15 rounds. Today, not all Floyd Mayweather's or Manny Pacquiao's fights should be 15 rounds, but, the big, big fights should.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Some of these are legit points which goes against the grain. Some are silly. Some are actually reasonable statements, but there doesn't seem to be an something that contradicts general opinion.

Anyway, here are few of my own:

-Styles makes fights. It's a gross exaggeration.
-It's a good thing that fights were change from 15 to 12 rounds. Everybody remembers some classics where something dramatic happened in the 13th-15th rounds. However, the vast majority of the time, the guy ahead after 12 coasted to victory.
-Lennox Lewis had as good of a chin as Mike Tyson.
-Jimmy Young didn't deserve the decison vs Ali. His offense was almost non-existent in the fight.
Ezzard Charles is not clearly the best light heavy. You can argue for him, but there are a few others right with him.

Not discrediting your opinion but just curious . Have you boxed before ?

No, well not officially anyway. I had 2 sets of boxing gloves when I was a kid and had a speed bag. Lets be honest, most of us have not. If they have, it doesn't mean their opinions are automatically better.

My point about styles making fights is this: How good the fighters are is much more important.
Yes I know, people like to stroke their beard and say that styles makes fights as if they just said something profound. But I don't think they really make fights. They can influence fights, they are a factor. If the fighters are fairly even on talent, it can make a difference.

However, if one fighter is a lot better than the other, he is will almost win even if the other guy has a style that supposedly will beat him. About the only exception is if you have guy who has a weak chin, but otherwise is much better than the other guy who is a hard puncher. Than the harder puncher has a puncher's chance. However, even then the superior fighter will not get hit with anything dangerous and will win more often than not.

I always imagined that 'styles make fights' meant that some styles of boxing are more suited to an attractive spectacle and that some styles of boxing can negate anothers strong points. I didn't think it meant that there was a style of boxing that made someone invincible.

I get what Alp is saying, if you're talking about equal, or near equal, guys the saying is spot on. Just because Roberto Duran could have issues with movers doesn't mean Paulie Malignaggi's style is going to be a problem.

palooka wrote:I don't think Salvador Sanchez ducked Pedroza and I think Gomez and Nelson would have boxed him.

You're a good man, Palooka, because I always felt Salvador avoided Eusebio. He should've fought him. Can't see Gomez, or Nelson beating prime Pedroza, though Nelson would give him a fight.

It means that Norton can get blown away by Foreman but have the better of Ali. Ali is the better fighter but Norton would always fight on a par with him.

And it’s not just styles but other intangibles.

Being a better fighter can overcome the disadvantage of a style being imposed upon you. But a style can also overcome the disadvantage of meeting a better athlete or boxer.

Of course the greatest boxers could fight in more than one style and adapt their game to take the style advantage.

Having spent a lot of time working with guys who model real events in the financial markets I’d say one fight is inconclusive as to who the better man is. It’s indicative for sure. And it’s all we have.

The only way to really, definitely and conclusively know for sure who the best fighter is between two boxers is to come on to forums like this and hammer it with your friends and foes who post here.

Ezzard wrote:It means that Norton can get blown away by Foreman but have the better of Ali. Ali is the better fighter but Norton would always fight on a par with him.

And it’s not just styles but other intangibles.

Being a better fighter can overcome the disadvantage of a style being imposed upon you. But a style can also overcome the disadvantage of meeting a better athlete or boxer.

Of course the greatest boxers could fight in more than one style and adapt their game to take the style advantage.

Having spent a lot of time working with guys who model real events in the financial markets I’d say one fight is inconclusive as to who the better man is. It’s indicative for sure. And it’s all we have.

The only way to really, definitely and conclusively know for sure who the best fighter is between two boxers is to come on to forums like this and hammer it with your friends and foes who post here.

Nile4000 wrote:

palooka wrote:I don't think Salvador Sanchez ducked Pedroza and I think Gomez and Nelson would have boxed him.

You're a good man, Palooka, because I always felt Salvador avoided Eusebio. He should've fought him. Can't see Gomez, or Nelson beating prime Pedroza, though Nelson would give him a fight.

The WBA/WBC feud is more to do with why Sanchez and Pedroza never fought.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Nile4000 wrote:

palooka wrote:I don't think Salvador Sanchez ducked Pedroza and I think Gomez and Nelson would have boxed him.

You're a good man, Palooka, because I always felt Salvador avoided Eusebio. He should've fought him. Can't see Gomez, or Nelson beating prime Pedroza, though Nelson would give him a fight.

The WBA/WBC feud is more to do with why Sanchez and Pedroza never fought.

Both guys at there best, I'm taking Sanchez.

I think Salvador was busy enough and faced enough live challengers in a short spell to say he'd have boxed Eusubio. I am not someone who imagines that Salvador was a destroyer (though there is a oil canvas of him in my loft (unframed)). I think that certain styles Sanchez would have struggled with and Pedroza prospered against.

It would have been a bout for the ages, I reckon Pedroza would have fancied his chances and the Don King purses and if Sanchez boxed so many styles and hard hitters he'd not have run away.

I have no doubt they would have fought if it wasn't for the alphabet org feud. I's hesitantly pick Pedroza because I think he was a bit better on the inside and a bit harder to hit, but I don't see anything but a tight decision.

How about the outcome of a Gomez Pedroza event?

I think Wilfredo would be more comfortable there, Pedroza wasn't a huge puncher but he'd be charging late. Anybody could take that one too.