BoxRec

This is a blast from the past. Some great posters on here we don't see any more when BOTP was the best forum on site

Good grief, this is some kind of resurrection.

I wonder if any of us from 14 years ago have changed their minds?

I certainly haven't, despite the fact that Harrison won rematches against Williams and Sprott in spectacular fashion, truth be told that he should never have really lost the original bouts.

If any doubts lingered after this, his performance against Haye just summed him up and cemented my thoughts about him, although, to be fair to him, he was never better than Haye.

dr_devious wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 11:50 This is a blast from the past. Some great posters on here we don't see any more when BOTP was the best forum on site

It used to be a lot better, wasn't it? Silkov, Ezzard, Crease among others used to post here a lot. People that knew the sport and respected it's history.

The history experts frequent the mythical fights section more these days

davidsweet wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 06:39 Some interesting comments. but the five worst listed is surely wrong. Those of an age, and who have studied their boxing history, would be able to identify the likes of Reggie Meen, Joe Becket, Phil Scott and Jack London as being far and away less worthy than Frank Bruno and Joe Erskine. Erskine is an interesting case. Could have been a near-great if (big word) he had been managed better and as Angelo Dundee actually said , he could have developed something like a telling punch. Beat some good boys all the same: Cooper, Johnny Williams, Richardson, Pastrano and Chuvalo.

London(jack) and Meen are good calls but Moir, Hague, Palmer and others were poorer than Scott and maybe Beckett.

Of course in reality all those Brits listed were rather good fighters, probably among the top few percent of brit heavys, even audley

Imagine if walking into your first day at a boxing gym you were fortune told that you'd win olympic gold and a european title , would be badass

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 16:25

dr_devious wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 11:50 This is a blast from the past. Some great posters on here we don't see any more when BOTP was the best forum on site

It used to be a lot better, wasn't it? Silkov, Ezzard, Crease among others used to post here a lot. People that knew the sport and respected it's history.

Yes Alp, those guys really knew their stuff. Do you still keep up with any of them?

Syntax Error wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 14:50 Good grief, this is some kind of resurrection.

I wonder if any of us from 14 years ago have changed their minds?

Yes its a real blast from the past. I've changed my mind, Fury is the UKs number two all time heavyweight now not Bruno although I wasn't to know that 14 years ago lol.

dr_devious wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 17:39

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Jul 2020, 16:25

It used to be a lot better, wasn't it? Silkov, Ezzard, Crease among others used to post here a lot. People that knew the sport and respected it's history.

Yes Alp, those guys really knew their stuff. Do you still keep up with any of them?

I know Ezzard posts once in a while on different Forums. There were several other guys dempseyfire, the Great John L, boxscribe, expug etc.
I think people gradually left because the Granbery or Kalan types started to dominate with their crap. Those people would post 20x a day and didn't know the sport and acted like jerks. One would go away and then after a wile another like him would come a long. after a while, people get tired of that.

Many of the people that come on this Forum now just mock fighters from before their time.
The Mods also used to watch for a topic on another Forum that should be in this Forum and move it here. I don't even think we have Mods anymore.

It's now tough getting a good post going. someone come up with a interesting topic, and it only gets a few responses. You start a post like "Tyson Sucked" Or "Prime Tyson" was the best and it get a ton of response.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 12:31 Many of the people that come on this Forum now just mock fighters from before their time.

Sometimes there's such sort of ignorance, but still it's funny to read these crybaby complaints particularly from you, after you openly mocked the current boxers, as if it somehow differed from mocking the oldies.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 12:31
I know Ezzard posts once in a while on different Forums. There were several other guys dempseyfire, the Great John L, boxscribe, expug etc.
I think people gradually left because the Granbery or Kalan types started to dominate with their crap. Those people would post 20x a day and didn't know the sport and acted like jerks. One would go away and then after a wile another like him would come a long. after a while, people get tired of that.

Many of the people that come on this Forum now just mock fighters from before their time.
The Mods also used to watch for a topic on another Forum that should be in this Forum and move it here. I don't even think we have Mods anymore.

It's now tough getting a good post going. someone come up with a interesting topic, and it only gets a few responses. You start a post like "Tyson Sucked" Or "Prime Tyson" was the best and it get a ton of response.

Totally agree Alp........good to see at least some of the old guard left on here but BOTP is a pale shadow of what it was

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 12:43

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 12:31 Many of the people that come on this Forum now just mock fighters from before their time.

Sometimes there's such sort of ignorance, but still it's funny to read these crybaby complaints particularly from you, after you openly mocked the current boxers, as if it somehow differed from mocking the oldies.

Yes it is different. I barely went on Boxing History Current scene until fairly recently. Even now, I rarely go on. When I do, I do it when there is Topic about boxers from the past. I don't post 20x a day on it.
I have never started a Topic on the Current Scene.

In the 1970s, I liked talking about the current fighters as well boxers from before my time. Same in the 1980s. same in the 1990s. same in the 2000s. I realized that were bad, ordinary, good, great fighters from every era.
Boxing, especially the heavyweight division is not the same as once was. I kept thinking for a while, that we were just in a slump, that soon things would turn around. Then the years went by and for whatever reasons it hasn't.
There are a lot of people like me. Boxing was one of the sports that we loved for a long time.
So yes I occasionally mock current heavyweights. I only bother when people are saying how great they are or saying one was better than one from one earlier timer when they clearly were not.

On this forum, we used to talk a lot about fighters, speed, power, stamina, defense, etc. Or their left hooks, jab, etc. It was n't constantly about the weight. Most people seemed to realize that you don't win fights at the scale.

Some younger fans now mock old timers who they know almost nothing about.
If the heavyweight division of recent times was decent , I wouldn't criticize them. I mock them because simply by watching the fights, you can tell how limited they are. Guys simply don't throw many punches, they don't have the ability to round after round. they are slow and don't have a lot of technical ability. There hasn't been a great heavyweight fight in what seems like an eternity.

dr_devious wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 18:17

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 12:31
I know Ezzard posts once in a while on different Forums. There were several other guys dempseyfire, the Great John L, boxscribe, expug etc.
I think people gradually left because the Granbery or Kalan types started to dominate with their crap. Those people would post 20x a day and didn't know the sport and acted like jerks. One would go away and then after a wile another like him would come a long. after a while, people get tired of that.

Many of the people that come on this Forum now just mock fighters from before their time.
The Mods also used to watch for a topic on another Forum that should be in this Forum and move it here. I don't even think we have Mods anymore.

It's now tough getting a good post going. someone come up with a interesting topic, and it only gets a few responses. You start a post like "Tyson Sucked" Or "Prime Tyson" was the best and it get a ton of response.

Totally agree Alp........good to see at least some of the old guard left on here but BOTP is a pale shadow of what it was

Maybe we can bring get some good topics going again!

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑04 Jul 2020, 08:31

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Jul 2020, 12:43

Sometimes there's such sort of ignorance, but still it's funny to read these crybaby complaints particularly from you, after you openly mocked the current boxers, as if it somehow differed from mocking the oldies.

Yes it is different. I barely went on Boxing History Current scene until fairly recently. Even now, I rarely go on. When I do, I do it when there is Topic about boxers from the past. I don't post 20x a day on it.
I have never started a Topic on the Current Scene.

In the 1970s, I liked talking about the current fighters as well boxers from before my time. Same in the 1980s. same in the 1990s. same in the 2000s. I realized that were bad, ordinary, good, great fighters from every era.
Boxing, especially the heavyweight division is not the same as once was. I kept thinking for a while, that we were just in a slump, that soon things would turn around. Then the years went by and for whatever reasons it hasn't.
There are a lot of people like me. Boxing was one of the sports that we loved for a long time.
So yes I occasionally mock current heavyweights. I only bother when people are saying how great they are or saying one was better than one from one earlier timer when they clearly were not.

On this forum, we used to talk a lot about fighters, speed, power, stamina, defense, etc. Or their left hooks, jab, etc. It was n't constantly about the weight. Most people seemed to realize that you don't win fights at the scale.

Some younger fans now mock old timers who they know almost nothing about.
If the heavyweight division of recent times was decent , I wouldn't criticize them. I mock them because simply by watching the fights, you can tell how limited they are. Guys simply don't throw many punches, they don't have the ability to round after round. they are slow and don't have a lot of technical ability. There hasn't been a great heavyweight fight in what seems like an eternity.

Well, at least you're sincere about your own bias.

it's not bias. I (like many people) don't think the heavyweight division has been good a while simply because when we watch the fights, the fighters don't seem as good. The fighters seem slow, the work rate is low. There has not been a great heavyweight fight in what seems like forever.

That is different than disregarding a previous era because they were before your time. That is bias.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 15:16 it's not bias. I (like many people) don't think the heavyweight division has been good a while simply because when we watch the fights, the fighters don't seem as good. The fighters seem slow, the work rate is low. There has not been a great heavyweight fight in what seems like forever.

Bullshit. In the second half of the 2010 there were a lot of excellent fights.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 15:16 That is different than disregarding a previous era because they were before your time. That is bias.

Disregarding the current era because of some imaginary bullshit is pure bias.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 15:16 it's not bias. I (like many people) don't think the heavyweight division has been good a while simply because when we watch the fights, the fighters don't seem as good. The fighters seem slow, the work rate is low. There has not been a great heavyweight fight in what seems like forever.

That is different than disregarding a previous era because they were before your time. That is bias.

Slow, low work rate fights. I guess that explains some of your proclivities

DrDuke wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 16:07

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 15:16 it's not bias. I (like many people) don't think the heavyweight division has been good a while simply because when we watch the fights, the fighters don't seem as good. The fighters seem slow, the work rate is low. There has not been a great heavyweight fight in what seems like forever.

Bullshit. In the second half of the 2010 there were a lot of excellent fights.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 15:16 That is different than disregarding a previous era because they were before your time. That is bias.

Disregarding the current era because of some imaginary bullshit is pure bias.

Yes, so many great heavyweight fights in the last few years. Let's see, there was.... well there was.....

It's not bias. It's my opinion. It's one of the reason why. The heavyweights of recent times are slow. The work rate is low. You routinely have fights where the amount of punches throw is low. That's not bias. That's a fact. That's not imaginary, it's reality.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 17:34

DrDuke wrote: ↑05 Jul 2020, 16:07

Bullshit. In the second half of the 2010 there were a lot of excellent fights.

Disregarding the current era because of some imaginary bullshit is pure bias.

Yes, so many great heavyweight fights in the last few years. Let's see, there was.... well there was.....

It's not bias. It's my opinion. It's one of the reason why. The heavyweights of recent times are slow. The work rate is low. You routinely have fights where the amount of punches throw is low. That's not bias. That's a fact. That's not imaginary, it's reality.

Fix: that's just your biased opinion, bruh. OK, if you see no good fights recently and eveybody is slow and with low workrate, then go, put on your rose-colored glasses and watch the great fights of Cleve "The Sweet Peat" Williams, after what write more true stories with your impression about it. I don't mind, go on, just lemme bring some popcorn.

It's not biased. You don't seem to understand what the word means. Just because someone says that the a certain certain era is weak, (in this case the recent heavyweights)doesn't automatically mean they are biased. Blowing off close to 100 years of the sport, before they got interested in the sport is bias.

I think there have good, bad, average eras in fighters in every era, before and after I became interested in the sport. Sometimes the heavyweight division has been good before I got interested in the mid-1970s, sometimes not. Since then, sometimes it has been good, sometimes not.

Go back and read what I have said about Cleveland Williams. Never called him Sweet Pea or nothing like it. Mentioned him in passing once and you and your buddy freaked out about it and went on how how many times. I did point out that Liston was the only one that stopped him during his prime simply because that's the truth. He was a good fighter. Wasn't a legend or anything, never claimed he was.

As far as the work rates go, well look at the fights between Klitschko-Fury fight and the Wilder-Fury fights(the top guys over the last several years.) They have not exactly been throwing a lot of punches. Look at the numbers; don't just go by my opinion.

Never said that there have not been any good fights recently. I have said that there has not been any great heavyweight fights recently. That's not exactly a far out opinion.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 10:49 It's not biased. You don't seem to understand what the word means. Just because someone says that the a certain certain era is weak, (in this case the recent heavyweights)doesn't automatically mean they are biased. Blowing off close to 100 years of the sport, before they got interested in the sport is bias.

It is pure bias. That's you, who don't understand what the word means, if you don't admit your wittingly 100% pro-oldie stuff as a bias. Old - a priori good. Modern - a priori bad. Am I getting something wrong? Enlighten me.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 10:49 Go back and read what I have said about Cleveland Williams. Never called him Sweet Pea or nothing like it. Mentioned him in passing once and you and your buddy freaked out about it and went on how how many times. I did point out that Liston was the only one that stopped him during his prime simply because that's the truth. He was a good fighter. Wasn't a legend or anything, never claimed he was.

You've said, that he was more elusive than Fury. That was enough to illustrate the nature of your views related to boxing.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 10:49 As far as the work rates go, well look at the fights between Klitschko-Fury fight and the Wilder-Fury fights(the top guys over the last several years.) They have not exactly been throwing a lot of punches. Look at the numbers; don't just go by my opinion.

Never said that there have not been any good fights recently. I have said that there has not been any great heavyweight fights recently. That's not exactly a far out opinion.

Never saw ya even calling some modern fight good. Maybe I'm missing something? And why on earth you stick to these workrate stats in the context of greatness? I'm even curious, what "great" means to ya. Is workrate somehow affects the class? Well, maybe let's compare the stats of Arreola against Klitschko and Kownacki? By the way, Kownacki-Arreola provided workrate record, if you didn't notice. Where was Arreola's workrate against Klitschko? Or maybe let's compare the stats of Tua against Lewis and Ibeabuchi? Maybe you box in a way your opponent allow you to, don't you think so? What have your been watching since your mid 70s?

I have a great little documentary on the history of British heavyweight champions..it was broadcast in 1988. It's only about 12 minutes but very interesting nonetheless. Some of the past British Champions were quite inferior. If I can I will post the video

Some indeed were.

DrDuke wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 11:56

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 10:49 It's not biased. You don't seem to understand what the word means. Just because someone says that the a certain certain era is weak, (in this case the recent heavyweights)doesn't automatically mean they are biased. Blowing off close to 100 years of the sport, before they got interested in the sport is bias.

It is pure bias. That's you, who don't understand what the word means, if you don't admit your wittingly 100% pro-oldie stuff as a bias. Old - a priori good. Modern - a priori bad. Am I getting something wrong? Enlighten me.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 10:49 Go back and read what I have said about Cleveland Williams. Never called him Sweet Pea or nothing like it. Mentioned him in passing once and you and your buddy freaked out about it and went on how how many times. I did point out that Liston was the only one that stopped him during his prime simply because that's the truth. He was a good fighter. Wasn't a legend or anything, never claimed he was.

You've said, that he was more elusive than Fury. That was enough to illustrate the nature of your views related to boxing.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑06 Jul 2020, 10:49 As far as the work rates go, well look at the fights between Klitschko-Fury fight and the Wilder-Fury fights(the top guys over the last several years.) They have not exactly been throwing a lot of punches. Look at the numbers; don't just go by my opinion.

Never said that there have not been any good fights recently. I have said that there has not been any great heavyweight fights recently. That's not exactly a far out opinion.

Never saw ya even calling some modern fight good. Maybe I'm missing something? And why on earth you stick to these workrate stats in the context of greatness? I'm even curious, what "great" means to ya. Is workrate somehow affects the class? Well, maybe let's compare the stats of Arreola against Klitschko and Kownacki? By the way, Kownacki-Arreola provided workrate record, if you didn't notice. Where was Arreola's workrate against Klitschko? Or maybe let's compare the stats of Tua against Lewis and Ibeabuchi? Maybe you box in a way your opponent allow you to, don't you think so? What have your been watching since your mid 70s?

It's not bias. I became a fan in 1976. If I would have claimed that the heavyweights in the more 90 years were not very good without knowing anything about them, then I would have been biased. I watched as much as I could and have read a ton. Some of the old heavyweights were bad, some were good. Some eras had more depth than other. Some divisions were great in period and not in another.
There good heavyweight fights in the late 1970s, not a a lot but some good ones in the 1980s. 1990s have some good ones. Never doubted that Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis were great. Then Lewis got old and retired. I had originally had thought W. Klitschko might be the next great one when Lewis was at the end of his career. . (I knew he had been stopped once but thought it might have been a fluke) Then the Sanders fight happened. That kind of thing doesn't happen often to great fighters. Now I (like many other people)started having doubts. Then the Brewster fight. There was no doubt in my mind now. He barely survived Peter after that.

I (like many people) thought that sooner or later some great heavyweight would come a long. He wouldn't have to be that great to beat Klitschko with his glaring weaknesses. Year after year went by, and it somehow nobody was good enough to beat him. Finally when he was ancient, he finally lost to Fury and Joshua, Even then Fury looked awful. Joshua got decked and had way too much trouble. A great fighter would have won easily.

This isn't bias. That is simply my opinion.

As for the work rate- Of course it isn't the end all be all. A fight can be good without a ton of punches throw. It can be bad, if with a lot Certain match ups will make some fights at a faster rate than another. Obviously, punching acurracy, defense, power, speed, stamina, heart, boxing skills matter a great deal.

However it's an indication. On average, good fighters throw more punchers than bad fighters. On average, the guy throwing more punches will win most of the time. If a guy is not throwing much, maybe his opponent is doing something that is keeping him at bay. More often, he simply doesn't have the stamina to throw a lot of punches round after round.

Yes you can find fights from the 1990s or the 1970s or the 1950s where there was not a lot of action. Yes you can find a heavyweight in more recent times that there was a lot. however, on average, it's a lot easier to find a fight with a lot of action in those periods than the In more recent times.

Kownacki vs Arreola the all time hw work rate record, hooray for fat bois !!