The likes of Ward and Bivol or Usyk with Briedis gotta love that footwork and power.HomicideHenry wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 10:00He would probably have been a light heavyweight or a cruiserweight in modern times. There was a lot of men in those weight groups in the 1980s and 1990s who won alphabet titles who weren't really all that great like Marvin Camel, so I find it quite probable that a man like Tommy Burns could have picked up alphabet titles or even become the undisputed or unified champion at least for a brief time.DrDuke wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 09:48So, the tough motherf8cker Tommy Burns would have an easy walk in the 90s? Probably his incredible title defence streak would be even longer.HomicideHenry wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 09:44
I've already said it that it would be far easier for the older fighters to transition in today then it would be for the newer fighters to transition into older times. The hurdle for them to climb is a hell of a lot less then it would be for modern fighters to try to compete in their time period.
Mind you Burns competed against the top middle weights of his time and he beat the top light heavyweight in the world as well as him defending the heavyweight title again various champions from different countries to pretend he was some nothingburger is ridiculous.
This was a man who had great footwork darting in and out of range and threw punches in bunches. He knew how to get inside and fight effectively against physically superior opponents. For a man of his size he had tremendous hitting power. Of the available fight films I would say of the early heavyweight champions he impresses me quite a bit.
Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
There's one highlight film of Joe Jeannette in his prime or near the end of his prime and that was against one of his great rivals Sam Langford in one of the series when they both fought in Paris, France.
Re: Joe Jeannette vs. Mike Weaver
Did you read that before you posted it Homi?HomicideHenry wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 08:26People often say seeing is believing but if our 21st century world has shown us anything it's that regardless of seeing people don't accept the truth. Knowing something is the truth from logic and seeing the truth are two different things, and all the fight films in the world are not going to convince somebody that somebody is good or bad if people don't want to accept it.oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 08:10That's idiotic. I look at records just like every other hard core fan. I look at names that also have none or limited film. Reading is great, but seeing it with one's own eyes is truth.HomicideHenry wrote: ↑31 Jan 2023, 22:38
If you can't adequately rate somebody on the basis of their record and reports on the fights then you have no business being a boxing fan. You may as well say 99.99% of all boxers from all times must be completely disregarded because the names mean nothing to you because you're too lazy to do the homework.