BoxRec

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 14:02

Chippo wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 12:17

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 11:20

Tyson just like ali or robinson was in exceptional rare talent no matter 80 or today.
Tyson himself said that today he would be better based in nutrition and training.

You couldnt give me 1 single answer. Poor.

Supercompensation. Ocygen factor.
When to train, when to rest, recuperate. What minerals, vitamines nutritionswise to take. Even so far the temperatur of water to drink. Cold chambers. Physiotherapie, massage, chiropractic, everything envolving reducing stress, reduce muscle pain to benefit the boxer to train harder without getting hurt, having less % chances to get hurt, muscle pain can always occour, at the end boxing is a brutal sport. Electrotherapie, nerv therapie. Stretch. Etc.

Those are FITNESS techniques dumbass, I asked you for technique training 'improvements'. You and Kalan are in this dream world where you think fitness and boxing skill are the same thing. The fitter the guy, the better the boxer; it simply isn't true. Perhaps you should join a boxing gym and find out for yourself that there is skill involved in this sport. Bizarrely, you claim to be an expert at spotting talent but today you think talent and fitness are the same thing.

While we talking about fitness, David Haye does all of those things and is one of the healthiest athletes in any sport and he can't go beyond 6 rounds without gassing. Can you explain why?

What doyou mean by technique training?

Do u think fitness is and recuperation physiotherapie and all the other stuff i wrote is unimportant?


Marquez had an equaly good technique than floyd. The reason he lost 12-0 rds was because floyd was faster, way more athletic, sharper. But in your nonsense logic being athletic and fast doesnt play no role. Tiney was in technique equal if not better than roy. The reason he lost is bevause roy was twice as fast and athletic than james.

Nobody said it wasn't important. We are saying it isn't the bottom line in what makes a fighter great. Zab Judah was considered athletic but he'd never beat unathletic JCC.

And to your point about Marquez, Floyd beat Judah because he was more skilled, better conditioned, smarter, worked his gameplan, and had more heart.

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:12

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 14:02

Chippo wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 12:17

Those are FITNESS techniques dumbass, I asked you for technique training 'improvements'. You and Kalan are in this dream world where you think fitness and boxing skill are the same thing. The fitter the guy, the better the boxer; it simply isn't true. Perhaps you should join a boxing gym and find out for yourself that there is skill involved in this sport. Bizarrely, you claim to be an expert at spotting talent but today you think talent and fitness are the same thing.

While we talking about fitness, David Haye does all of those things and is one of the healthiest athletes in any sport and he can't go beyond 6 rounds without gassing. Can you explain why?

What doyou mean by technique training?

Do u think fitness is and recuperation physiotherapie and all the other stuff i wrote is unimportant?


Marquez had an equaly good technique than floyd. The reason he lost 12-0 rds was because floyd was faster, way more athletic, sharper. But in your nonsense logic being athletic and fast doesnt play no role. Tiney was in technique equal if not better than roy. The reason he lost is bevause roy was twice as fast and athletic than james.

Nobody said it wasn't important. We are saying it isn't the bottom line in what makes a fighter great. Zab Judah was considered athletic but he'd never beat unathletic JCC.

And to your point about Marquez, Floyd beat Judah because he was more skilled, better conditioned, smarter, worked his gameplan, and had more heart.

It may not be the bottum line, nothing is the bottum line. All aspects are important. But speed & athletiscm is very important and you are trying to downplay it. A techniquly sound fast & athletic boxer will 99% have the upper hand against an techniquly equal but slow & non athletic boxer.

Prime judah beats prime jcc, just like prime taylor and prime whitacker beat prime jcc. Not saying judah is on whitackers level but jcc wouldnt handle judahs speed and agility.

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:41

It may not be the bottum line, nothing is the bottum line. All aspects are important. But speed & athletiscm is very important and you are trying to downplay it. A techniquly sound fast & athletic boxer will 99% have the upper hand against an techniquly equal but slow & non athletic boxer.

Prime judah beats prime jcc, just like prime taylor and prime whitacker beat prime jcc. Not saying judah is on whitackers level but jcc wouldnt handle judahs speed and agility.

Carlos Baldomir beat Zab Judah for f*cks sake.

Baldomir isn't half what Chavez was.

Rafael Pineda deserved the decision over Judah in 2004. You ever heard of Pineda?

Chavez would beat Judah, very clearly. I could see Judah having the upper hand early, but he faded down the stretch every time, and a nonstop come forward power puncher like Chavez would beat him 10 times out of 10.

The version that fought floyd would beat a lot of atg

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:52 The version that fought floyd would beat a lot of atg

The version that fought Floyd had JUST lost to Baldomir 3 months before that

I don't think there's any ATG that Judah could beat. He had the talent, he had the physical gifts, but he didn't have the mental fortitude to beat great fighters.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:56

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:52 The version that fought floyd would beat a lot of atg

The version that fought Floyd had JUST lost to Baldomir 3 months before that

I don't think there's any ATG that Judah could beat. He had the talent, he had the physical gifts, but he didn't have the mental fortitude to beat great fighters.

Spot on, very solid and consistent fighter but he can't win at that level.

Turpin beat robinson, ao turpin must be the best boxer ever.

It aint always just because he lost against this guy he cant beat that guy.

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:13 Turpin beat robinson, ao turpin must be the best boxer ever.

It aint always just because he lost against this guy he cant beat that guy.

Robinson beat Turpin in the rematch.

A guy like Turpin would beat a guy like Judah every single time.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:13

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:13 Turpin beat robinson, ao turpin must be the best boxer ever.

It aint always just because he lost against this guy he cant beat that guy.

Robinson beat Turpin in the rematch.

A guy like Turpin would beat a guy like Judah every single time.

Do u consider yourself intelligent?

Smarter than the Average bear sure.

If you're about to try to challenge my intelligence you might wanna learn how to spell first

gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:16 Smarter than the Average bear sure.

If you're about to try to challenge my intelligence you might wanna learn how to spell first

Good. You surely quick at understanding.

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:41

IKSRTFO wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:12

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 14:02

What doyou mean by technique training?

Do u think fitness is and recuperation physiotherapie and all the other stuff i wrote is unimportant?


Marquez had an equaly good technique than floyd. The reason he lost 12-0 rds was because floyd was faster, way more athletic, sharper. But in your nonsense logic being athletic and fast doesnt play no role. Tiney was in technique equal if not better than roy. The reason he lost is bevause roy was twice as fast and athletic than james.

Nobody said it wasn't important. We are saying it isn't the bottom line in what makes a fighter great. Zab Judah was considered athletic but he'd never beat unathletic JCC.

And to your point about Marquez, Floyd beat Judah because he was more skilled, better conditioned, smarter, worked his gameplan, and had more heart.

It may not be the bottum line, nothing is the bottum line. All aspects are important. But speed & athletiscm is very important and you are trying to downplay it. A techniquly sound fast & athletic boxer will 99% have the upper hand against an techniquly equal but slow & non athletic boxer.

Prime judah beats prime jcc, just like prime taylor and prime whitacker beat prime jcc. Not saying judah is on whitackers level but jcc wouldnt handle judahs speed and agility.

Prime Judah was faster and stronger than the Floyd that he fought. Just so happened, Floyd had the other 8 things that makes him better. He didn't win that fight because he was more athletic than Judah, he won because he's smarter. He broke Judah down with jabs.

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 16:52 The version that fought floyd would beat a lot of atg

Jip wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:24

gilgamesh wrote: ↑01 Dec 2017, 17:16 Smarter than the Average bear sure.

If you're about to try to challenge my intelligence you might wanna learn how to spell first

Good. You surely quick at understanding.

Yes I is

Doubt boxers of today are as good as boxers of the past. One of the main reason is that the best athletes are no longer boxers. They are football players, basketball players, or whatever. Boxing which is nowhere near as popular or as lucrative as it used to be. You can argue about how much Mayweather made but he's an exception. There's a handful of boxers who make the kind of money a baseball player or football player makes. The best boxers were world famous celebrities. Among the most famous people in the world.
You see athletic guys become boxers after injuries or failing at other sports. They haven't spent their entire lives perfecting their craft. Society was much more violent a hundred years ago. Poor kids had to fight their whole lives, they were used to blood and pain. I've seen good boxers quit as soon as they get hurt, start bleeding. It's another reason guys don't want careers as boxers.
This trend is countered by the growing world population, sheer number of people. There's more Eastern Europeans and Asians then there used to be in the sport. I don't think it makes up for the growing tendency of societies to become less violent and shy away from combat sports. I'm guessing Harry Grebs was fighting when he was ten years old. Now if you so much as touch another kid you get kicked out of school. Violence and child abuse is bad but it makes for good fighters.
How many parents want their kids to grow up to be boxers? They want middle class jobs that require a brain. It's a part of why boxing has declined so much in America. My brother's wife hates boxing because it's violent. They have football season tickets, go to every game. Like a lot of people she doesn't see football as a brutal sport, the NFL has done a good job brainwashing people.

It's difficult to believe anyone could be stupid enough to leave Sam Langford and Harry Greb off his top 50 of all-time list.

Harry Greb went 45-0 (totalling 452 rounds)...in 1919 alone!

gilgamesh wrote: ↑30 Nov 2017, 13:43 Just for the hell of it. Here's my Top 50 ever. I didn't put a lot of thought into it so things could be changed around, but I'm sure I put a lot more thought into than Jip. He'd apparently just name the first 50 boxers that come to mind.

Top 50 Boxers ever (with old...because if you're talking Best ever, you're talking old school fighters)

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Harry Greb
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Willie Pep
7. Roberto Duran
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Archie Moore
10. Sugar Ray Leonard
11. Joe Louis
12. Benny Leonard
13. Gene Tunney
14. Mickey Walker
15. Barney Ross
16. Joe Gans
17. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
18. Charley Burley
19. Marvin Hagler
20. Sandy Saddler
21. Ike Williams
22. Thomas Hearns
23. Tony Canzoneri
24. Manny Pacquiao
25. Bob Fitzsimmons
26. Evander Holyfield
27. Pernell Whitaker
28. Bernard Hopkins
29. Larry Holmes
30. Michael Spinks
31. George Foreman
32. Bob Foster
33. Stanley Ketchel
34. Harold Johnson
35. Alexis Arguello
36. Roy Jones Jr.
37. Wilfredo "Bazooka" Gomez
38. Jimmy Wilde
39. Julio Cesar Chavez
40. Emile Griffith
41. Lennox Lewis
42. Erik Morales
43. Marco Antonio Barrera
44. Billy Conn
45. Eder Jofre
46. Mike McCallum
47. Aaron Pryor
48. Carlos Ortiz
49. Nicoline Locche
50. Jack Dempsey

A much better list than Jip's.

Guys, look up some videos about joe gans, ike williams, benny leonard, henry armstrong, sam langford & joe louis and than compare what you saw with what we will see in 1 week. The footwork, the speed, the agility, the reflexes and than tell me what you saw, if you saw a difference or not.

Look up something about the difference in film quality between now and a century ago.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑03 Dec 2017, 17:00 Look up something about the difference in film quality between now and a century ago.

Saad. You all missunderstand. There seems to be a misunderstanding. I dont hate on boxer from 1920-1960. I just think that boxers from 1980-2018 are better. I just find it ludacris to put 90 % of top 10 atg boxers from 1920-1960, when boxer from 1980-2018 were better. I think boxer from the past had more courage. Thats for sure. Also the same technique. But the athketiscm bevame so much better. Imagine benny leonard with prime zab judah kind of athletiscm. You understand. I dont hate on boxer from the past, robinson is my 2 atg and ali around 7, one from 40s other 60s. But it is simply absurd in only having boxer from 1920-1960 in the top 10, just because they had more fights. Julio cesar chavez had over 100 fights, was he superior to guys with only 40+ fight like whitacker or taylor? Quality > quantity

Boxer like jones, whitacker, leonard, pac and mayweather have to be in a top 10, they just box better than langford, greb, armstrong, charles or louis. Agility, footwork, speed, reflexes, in barely every departmant in boxing they are superior.

You misunderstand current boxing, much worse historically. You just have no idea what you're talking about.

Charles was an athletic marvel.

Charles was very athletic. Floyd even more.

I know what i am talking about. You are very stubborn. Not willing to Change your mind the slightest even when proven wrong.

Saad. I know what we will do.

In 1 week the 2 best boxer on earth will fight and after the fight we will watch videos or pepp armstrong and gans and you will explain to me what they actualy did better to deserve being rated higher than for example loma or rigo.

You should watch Galaxy fight. I wouldn't call him fast or athletic.

Pep and Armstrong are better then Lomachenko and Rigondeaux because they fought and beat the best fighters in their era. That is what makes an all time great fighter. It has nothing to do with how good a fighter looks beating B grade fighters. Loma and Rig haven't beaten anyone on a top ten p4p list. This is why Mayweather is worthy of being on a Top 50 list, not old man Mayweather beating Berto, but the Mayweather that beat the p4p best fighters of his era.

Comparing fighters of different eras is a waste of time. We can debate forever and we'll still believe what we want to believe. So we go with something we can all agree on. Who did the best against the other great fighters of their era. That is what makes an all time great. You compare fighters from different eras depending on how they did against other elites. That's what a Top 50 list is. It's not watching You Tube for 40 hours and then deciding who looks coolest.

After the Loma Riga fight people will say he's the winner is the p4p best. It's a nice win but my p4p best is the man who beat the man. That's how boxing rankings are suppose to work. So Loma beats Riga? Who's the great fighter Riga beat? What makes him great?