BoxRec

handsofstone wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:09 Emile Griffith
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio
Jack Johnson
Junior Witter

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:12

handsofstone wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:09 Emile Griffith
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio
Jack Johnson
Junior Witter

You gotta be joking. Carmen Basilio was in the Ring Magazine Fight of the Year, 5 consecutive years in a row

handsofstone wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:14

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:12

handsofstone wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:09 Emile Griffith
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio
Jack Johnson
Junior Witter

You gotta be joking. Carmen Basilio was in the Ring Magazine Fight of the Year, 5 consecutive years in a row

Granted Basilio and Fullmer aren't your conventional boring fighters but I find their old fights a tough watch, I hate a lot of the old classics, that marauding style does nothing for me

handsofstone wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:14

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:12

handsofstone wrote: ↑26 Nov 2018, 18:09 Emile Griffith
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio
Jack Johnson
Junior Witter

You gotta be joking. Carmen Basilio was in the Ring Magazine Fight of the Year, 5 consecutive years in a row

Granted Basilio and Fullmer aren't your conventional boring fighters but I find their old fights a tough watch, I hate a lot of the old classics, that marauding style does nothing for me

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 00:15 CONSISTENTLY BORING, should be the key operative words here. Everyone has a bad night, or a couple of bad nights, so I don't hold it against them. Even the men I'll list below had some fun fights, though they were consistently boring.

John Ruiz, Nicolai Valuev, Chris Byrd, Floyd Mayweather, Joshua Clottey, Wladimir Klitschko... I'm sure I'll think of more later, but, just because someone is boring in or out of the ring doesn't equate to them not being great.

Gilgamesh earlier said it's hard to watch older fights because the footage isn't all that great--- that's why when I look at film of Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, etc I always think that whenever the technology catches up that computers could calculate just how fast these men really were moving based on 16 frames per second.

Today it's 150+ frames a second. Once that happens people will see just how special these people actually were. 40s, 50s film footage for me is reasonable enough to fully enjoy. That's going at nearly 70 frames a second, and should satisfy a viewer.

I don't berate the stylists, or counter punchers either. People almost always call it boring, but to me that's what boxing is all about. Pernell Whitaker may not be on anyone's top twenty favorite's list but I absolutely love watching that man make guys like Chavez look ordinary.

APerno wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 00:53

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 00:15 CONSISTENTLY BORING, should be the key operative words here. Everyone has a bad night, or a couple of bad nights, so I don't hold it against them. Even the men I'll list below had some fun fights, though they were consistently boring.

John Ruiz, Nicolai Valuev, Chris Byrd, Floyd Mayweather, Joshua Clottey, Wladimir Klitschko... I'm sure I'll think of more later, but, just because someone is boring in or out of the ring doesn't equate to them not being great.

Gilgamesh earlier said it's hard to watch older fights because the footage isn't all that great--- that's why when I look at film of Corbett, Fitzsimmons, Jeffries, etc I always think that whenever the technology catches up that computers could calculate just how fast these men really were moving based on 16 frames per second.

Today it's 150+ frames a second. Once that happens people will see just how special these people actually were. 40s, 50s film footage for me is reasonable enough to fully enjoy. That's going at nearly 70 frames a second, and should satisfy a viewer.

I don't berate the stylists, or counter punchers either. People almost always call it boring, but to me that's what boxing is all about. Pernell Whitaker may not be on anyone's top twenty favorite's list but I absolutely love watching that man make guys like Chavez look ordinary.

For me here is the rub when it comes to Whitaker. You said he 'makes guys like Chavez look ordinary.' There is a legitimacy to that statement, another way to look at it is to say: Whitaker was more effective than Chavez and even this is another true statement, but what Whitaker actually did, that was so effective, was to stop Chavez from fighting him (he made Chavez look ordinary) but then Whitaker never tried to follow up that effectiveness by bringing the fight to Chavez. He was content with just neutralizing Chavez and expected that to be enough to get him the win.

People wanted Whitaker to get the decision because he beat their expectations not because he beat Chavez. I thought the fight boring and I blamed Whitaker who never tried to rise above being merely 'effective.'

DrDuke wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 12:17 That's actually pretty subjective and depends on different factors. When boxers dominate with beautiful display of skills (Tunney, Whitaker, Mayweather, Usyk, etc) that can't be boring for me. I'd rather find ugly inside mauling (like in Benn and Hatton bouts) more boring, than Mayweather-like sweet science dominance. Although when some fighter is a knowingly much worse one, that becomes boring in any case, those are mismatches. Anti-boxing is boring too. Like with Hopkins. Those are actually the situations of fauling, I called that anti-boxing not without reason. The "ideal" of boring fighter for me is John Ruiz. There's no boxing in his matches, no fighting even, just hugging, openly fauling for god's sake. Ruiz could have been DQed against Holyfield, Rahman, Golota, f#$%ing everyone he fought. Not fought really, but wrestled, hugged, whatever. That was as boring as it could have ever been.

chrisjs1985 wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 12:45

DrDuke wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 12:17 That's actually pretty subjective and depends on different factors. When boxers dominate with beautiful display of skills (Tunney, Whitaker, Mayweather, Usyk, etc) that can't be boring for me. I'd rather find ugly inside mauling (like in Benn and Hatton bouts) more boring, than Mayweather-like sweet science dominance. Although when some fighter is a knowingly much worse one, that becomes boring in any case, those are mismatches. Anti-boxing is boring too. Like with Hopkins. Those are actually the situations of fauling, I called that anti-boxing not without reason. The "ideal" of boring fighter for me is John Ruiz. There's no boxing in his matches, no fighting even, just hugging, openly fauling for god's sake. Ruiz could have been DQed against Holyfield, Rahman, Golota, f#$%ing everyone he fought. Not fought really, but wrestled, hugged, whatever. That was as boring as it could have ever been.

I'd put Andre Ward in that anti-boxing crowd too but his is even more disappointing because at 25-30 he was fighting like 45-50 year old Hopkins already and clearly had more athletic and technical ability than John Ruiz. I am unsure as to why he was trying to be forced on us as this beautiful boxer with wonderful technique. Max Kellerman particularly should be ashamed of such blind fanboying.

DrDuke wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 12:17 That's actually pretty subjective and depends on different factors. When boxers dominate with beautiful display of skills (Tunney, Whitaker, Mayweather, Usyk, etc) that can't be boring for me. I'd rather find ugly inside mauling (like in Benn and Hatton bouts) more boring, than Mayweather-like sweet science dominance. Although when some fighter is a knowingly much worse one, that becomes boring in any case, those are mismatches. Anti-boxing is boring too. Like with Hopkins. Those are actually the situations of fauling, I called that anti-boxing not without reason. The "ideal" of boring fighter for me is John Ruiz. There's no boxing in his matches, no fighting even, just hugging, openly fauling for god's sake. Ruiz could have been DQed against Holyfield, Rahman, Golota, f#$%ing everyone he fought. Not fought really, but wrestled, hugged, whatever. That was as boring as it could have ever been.

APerno wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 15:08

DrDuke wrote: ↑27 Nov 2018, 12:17 That's actually pretty subjective and depends on different factors. When boxers dominate with beautiful display of skills (Tunney, Whitaker, Mayweather, Usyk, etc) that can't be boring for me. I'd rather find ugly inside mauling (like in Benn and Hatton bouts) more boring, than Mayweather-like sweet science dominance. Although when some fighter is a knowingly much worse one, that becomes boring in any case, those are mismatches. Anti-boxing is boring too. Like with Hopkins. Those are actually the situations of fauling, I called that anti-boxing not without reason. The "ideal" of boring fighter for me is John Ruiz. There's no boxing in his matches, no fighting even, just hugging, openly fauling for god's sake. Ruiz could have been DQed against Holyfield, Rahman, Golota, f#$%ing everyone he fought. Not fought really, but wrestled, hugged, whatever. That was as boring as it could have ever been.

I forgot to add Gianfranco Rosi to my list, this guy drove me crazy; is he an example of anti-boxing?