Deleted

Deleted

Would have to say 1911-1930 by a long way, all the divisions were ridiculously stacked with talent, must be the era with the most hall of famers

Mayweather instead of Chavez for 91-10 seems obvious to me, JCC was at his best in the 80's and would replace Hearns there for me

Deleted

I'd find places for Stan Ketchel and Joe Walcot in the early 1900s section, ( at the expense of O'Brien and Attel ) ; Barney Ross instead of Marciano in the next section ; Saddler instead of Griffith in the next, and I'd also find a place for Mayweather in the current crop.

I wouldn't be drawn on which is the strongest, since each is a very strong era, and further proof that every generation spawns great fighters.

I've actually made a glaring error, meant 1931-1950

Where you have Canzoneri, Ross, Berg, Ambers amongst others

No surprise I'd go for the 71-90. I'd remove Hearns and replace him with larry Holmes who for me is the second best Heavy of all time. Also a place for Floyd and remove Lewis who although very good, did not have a defining fight and his two soft defeats costs him dearly. I'd definately keep JC Superstar there. The greatest mexican boxer of all times should be there. Also a Place for Ali in the 1970s at the expense of Monzon.

Nice thread.

On the basis of your selections, the Ring would have 51 - 70 as the strongest I would imagine.

SRR (1)
Ali (3)
Pep (6)
Jofre (19)
Griffith (33)

However the Ring ratings seem to favour that period and dont really accont for the 1991-2010 period as much yet as the many of the fighters are still active.

I think you have to include Hopkins and Mayweather in the most recent bracket and put JCC into the 80s and perhaps cut Lewis out.

Hearns was never a top 5 for me in any era. Arguello/JCC should replace him.

Cant make my mind up really. Id say its very marginal.

Not quite sure I agree with all your picks, D4. Regardless of that, though, it's 1931-1950 all the way for me. Robinson, Armstrong, Charles, Pep, Moore, Ross, Louis and Saddler all did their best work - or at least, something very close to it - in those years, and then on top of that you have the 'Black Murderers Row' fighters, Wes Ramey, Lou Ambers, Baby Arizmendi, Jimmy McLarnin and so on.

It should be a no contest, for me.

Chris also went for the30's to 50s, just think it is hard to think of too many divisions where the strength in depth was anything less than staggering. Light heavy is remarkable, couple that with Burley in his pomp and it should be no contest.

Deleted

D4thincarnation wrote:
HumanWindmill

Ross would have been in the 1931-1950s if anywhere.

Joe Walcot and Ketchel are good shouts though, will probably make a few adjustments.

That's where I suggested he should go, D4, at the expense of Marciano.

I've just twigged the root of the confusion, D4.

I wrote NEXT section, at the expense of Marciano, and it should have read NEXT BUT ONE, etc.

Apologies.

Deleted

Never thought i'd say this but 1971-1990 looks dare I say it quite weak

imperialghosty wrote:Never thought i'd say this but 1971-1990 looks dare I say it quite weak

Hagler, SRL, Duran, Monzon, Hearns? Weak era? SRL is definately top 5 ATG. Ditto Duran. Hagler probably best mid of all time. Monzon top 3 mid ATG. Hearns is the weak link there and as I said I'd replace him with Holmes who is also top 3 ATG heavy.

I'd plump for 1951-70. For start 1 & 2 p4p in Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson. A classic era in the Welterweight, Middleweight and Heavyweight divisions. At heavyweight alone you have Liston, Ali, Patterson, Frazier, Marciano, etc. Along with Pep, Saldivar, Ortiz, Jofre, Saddler, etc.

Dear me, 2 votes for 1990-2010 already. Thats 2 votes too many!

Im not even sure its fair to compare an era where fighters fight once a year, for a choice of multiple belts in multiple divisions to the great fighters of yesteryear.

Its a surefire toss up between 1911-30 and 1930-50.

Deleted

I don't mean those 5 at all, I was thinking about the depth below them and didn't match up to some of the earlier eras in any way. Monzon is my number one Middleweight

imperialghosty wrote:I don't mean those 5 at all, I was thinking about the depth below them and didn't match up to some of the earlier eras in any way. Monzon is my number one Middleweight

Look at the heavies of the 1970s. Many of them would wipe the floor of the current crop and most if not all the pre Ali heavies.

Light heavies you had Saad Mohammed, Braxton/Qawi, Gregory, Galindez, Ivy Jones, Conteh and many more.

Middleweights - Hagler, Monson, Briscoe, Watts

Welter, The list was endless

Lighterweights - Duran, Jofre, Sanches, Zarate, Gomez, Nelson....many many more. All ATGs here.

Many of them are great but don't quite match up with the previous eras, many of the Heavyweights did there best work in the 60's to be honest

Light heavies you had Saad Mohammed, Braxton/Qawi, Gregory, Galindez, Ivy Jones, Conteh and many more.
_______________________________________________________

To be honest would back the guys from the era I chose to more than hold their own against those guys, with Conn, Charles, Moore and Marshall amongst others.

Am surprised to see you picking the 70s Azania, would have thought with the quantum leaps in nutrition and sports science in the last couple of years Pascal would be smacking the likes of Conteh and Galindez out in double quick time

imperialghosty wrote:Many of them are great but don't quite match up with the previous eras, many of the Heavyweights did there best work in the 60's to be honest

Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Norton et al did their best work in the 1960s? I'd even go as far as to say that Shavers, Lyle and eve Jimmy Young would have held their own against any heavy of pre 1960s era. Frazier and Foreman would have taken out Louis without breaking much swaet imo. Plodders like Louis were tailor made for Foreman and Frazier. If Schmelling could KO Louis, God help him if he ran across fighters from the 1970s.

No point going over old ground again is there now

I must say its disheartning to see the current farsical state of boxing compared to the golden days of the sport where the man on the street would actually know who the world champions were.

With this in, and other things in mind, I would suggest there are perhaps more valid ways to categorize an "era" rather than purely on timeline. The changes of the sport over time should be reflected. For a crude example:

The Early and"No Decision" Era - given the significance of its effect and perhaps incorporating the colour line. 1890 - 1935.

Post Colour Line/Early era - circa 1935 - 1970

The "TV" era - for want of a better word, but to highlight the drop off in frequency in fighters and the growing impact of television. circa 1970 - 1990.

The "Current" era - to reflect the numerous worthless titles, ppv power, and decline of boxing as a mainstream sport.

Colonial Lion wrote:I must say its disheartning to see the current farsical state of boxing compared to the golden days of the sport where the man on the street would actually know who the world champions were.

With this in, and other things in mind, I would suggest there are perhaps more valid ways to categorize an "era" rather than purely on timeline. The changes of the sport over time should be reflected. For a crude example:

The Early and"No Decision" Era - given the significance of its effect and perhaps incorporating the colour line. 1890 - 1935.

Post Colour Line/Early era - circa 1935 - 1970

The "TV" era - for want of a better word, but to highlight the drop off in frequency in fighters and the growing impact of television. circa 1970 - 1990.

The "Current" era - to reflect the numerous worthless titles, ppv power, and decline of boxing as a mainstream sport.

Bang on in my opinion, Colonial Lion.

Welcome aboard, by the way.

rowley wrote:Light heavies you had Saad Mohammed, Braxton/Qawi, Gregory, Galindez, Ivy Jones, Conteh and many more.
_______________________________________________________

To be honest would back the guys from the era I chose to more than hold their own against those guys, with Conn, Charles, Moore and Marshall amongst others.

Am surprised to see you picking the 70s Azania, would have thought with the quantum leaps in nutrition and sports science in the last couple of years Pascal would be smacking the likes of Conteh and Galindez out in double quick time

lol

Diet and training has come on leaps and bounds from the era you chose, certainly. But I would bet on my guys to beat your guys in any era. Simply put, the science of boxing has also improved. Boxers are no longer rolled out of bars and into the ring to fight and thinking that in order to prove your toughness you have to have a nose bent in 3 places.

Ah well, as Imperial said, its going over old ground. My views are now well known and I'm correct

Your more wrong than anyone on this site but that's neither here nor there

Your more wrong than anyone on this site but that's neither here nor there
_____________________________________________________

Tend to agree but on the grounds that Az argues his case and does it in a polite and adult fashion will give him a pass. However if my six numbers come in this weekend will buy him a copy of the Arc of Boxing. I'll crack him one way or another

Many thanks HumanWindmill. Its refreshing to see others who appreciate boxing did not begin with the Colour TV.

Deleted

One of the most forgotten effect of modern training techniques that is forgotten and is substantial, is that of regular fighting. If you look at someone like Harry Greb who had hundreds of fights, and used to fight every couple of days, half the time, with modern training, he simply would not fight this often. Modern techniques consider the need for rest, peaking etc. How would this effect a fighter like Greb. would he need the experience garned from hundreds of fights, or would taking a lesser fighting schedule mean he would be a better fighter?

Not naive there are advantages of both methods. I tend to think that for the average fighter, the modern method is far better, but for the actual greats, the older method is much better. I think this may be proved by looking at heavy greats where they always rip through the comp when fighting regularly (pre title) and then once they get the money and reduce their number of fights regualrly they soon lose their edge and are not the same fighter.

Rodders

imperialghosty wrote:Your more wrong than anyone on this site but that's neither here nor there

Thank you for your kind words impy.

rowley wrote:Your more wrong than anyone on this site but that's neither here nor there
_____________________________________________________

Tend to agree but on the grounds that Az argues his case and does it in a polite and adult fashion will give him a pass. However if my six numbers come in this weekend will buy him a copy of the Arc of Boxing. I'll crack him one way or another

I'm one of those who doesn't view my preferred boxers with rose coloured glasses (Watson being the exception - even then I acknowledge who imo would have beaten him). I've seen youtube footages of old time fighters and frankly I'm not impressed. Just my honest opinion.

D4thincarnation wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Light heavies you had Saad Mohammed, Braxton/Qawi, Gregory, Galindez, Ivy Jones, Conteh and many more.
_______________________________________________________

To be honest would back the guys from the era I chose to more than hold their own against those guys, with Conn, Charles, Moore and Marshall amongst others.

Am surprised to see you picking the 70s Azania, would have thought with the quantum leaps in nutrition and sports science in the last couple of years Pascal would be smacking the likes of Conteh and Galindez out in double quick time

lol

Diet and training has come on leaps and bounds from the era you chose, certainly. But I would bet on my guys to beat your guys in any era. Simply put, the science of boxing has also improved. Boxers are no longer rolled out of bars and into the ring to fight and thinking that in order to prove your toughness you have to have a nose bent in 3 places.

Ah well, as Imperial said, its going over old ground. My views are now well known and I'm correct

Diet, and training are one thing but it is skills that matter, and boxers are individuals. e.g if Cooper would have modern training and nutrition and training methods, would he be able to beat Ali.

Sports science has come on leaps and bounds but does that make Rooney a better footballer than Rooney?

From doing theses list, it is clear that pre 1970s there were many more great fighters about.

Cooper would never have beaten Ali in any era. Haye would murder Cooper and probably Cleverly would do the same to him. Poor comparison or example to be honest.

I am on record here in saying that the 1970 Brazil football team is probably recognised as the greatest team ever assembled (Pele is a God to me) but they would struggle to get out of their qualifying round in the last 32 of any world cup held since 1998. Sports have moved on and so have athletes, especially since the mid 1970 when eastern bloc and US scientists became involved and the advent of huge money.

I tend to think fighting and beating the best competition on a regular basis is better preparation than a fitness coach and protein shake.

What modern techniques have done, is only make it easier to cut corners, get away with fighting less etc

Sure, nowadays there are readily available conditioning coachs who will be able to get a fighter to lose a stone in 1 week instead of two. The likes of Greb never needed this because they fought constantly and never needed to lose weight or build stamina.

Just a quick question

Does anybody think that the England team that got knocked out by Germany would have beaten all of its predecesors?

Jimmy welcome aboard mate, as this thread shows all the signs of falling headlong into that perenial favourite modern vs old timers your timing would struggle to be better.

Rodney wrote:One of the most forgotten effect of modern training techniques that is forgotten and is substantial, is that of regular fighting. If you look at someone like Harry Greb who had hundreds of fights, and used to fight every couple of days, half the time, with modern training, he simply would not fight this often. Modern techniques consider the need for rest, peaking etc. How would this effect a fighter like Greb. would he need the experience garned from hundreds of fights, or would taking a lesser fighting schedule mean he would be a better fighter?

Not naive there are advantages of both methods. I tend to think that for the average fighter, the modern method is far better, but for the actual greats, the older method is much better. I think this may be proved by looking at heavy greats where they always rip through the comp when fighting regularly (pre title) and then once they get the money and reduce their number of fights regualrly they soon lose their edge and are not the same fighter.

Rodders

Horses for courses mate. Tyson fought every 2 weeks in his early days for the experience and to keep his rear end out of trouble. Greb et al fought not only to get better but for the money. Top class fighters fight 3-4 times a year. Have on average 8 week training camps to enter in peak physical condition. Boxing twice a week means you will not enter the ring in peak physical condition.

@D4 - apologies I didn't answer your post fully.

I have acknowledged that many boxers back in the day probably had equal or better talent that today's boxers. But due to nutrition. training etc, an average boxer of today would probably beat a top tier fighter of yesteryear.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Your more wrong than anyone on this site but that's neither here nor there
_____________________________________________________

Tend to agree but on the grounds that Az argues his case and does it in a polite and adult fashion will give him a pass. However if my six numbers come in this weekend will buy him a copy of the Arc of Boxing. I'll crack him one way or another

I'm one of those who doesn't view my preferred boxers with rose coloured glasses (Watson being the exception - even then I acknowledge who imo would have beaten him). I've seen youtube footages of old time fighters and frankly I'm not impressed. Just my honest opinion.

With respect, azania, I'm not sure that youtube is the best media by which to judge the old timers. Youtube, for the most part, tends to focus on ' highlight reels ' and the quality is often poor. I'm very lucky to have a fairly substantial collection of fights going all the way back to Jeffries and, while they sometimes require a little ' tweaking ' in video editors they are eminently watchable. Repeated watching, at normal speed, half speed and sometimes frame - by - frame, reveals just how skillful many of these guys were. Feinting, glove and elbow blocking, slipping and parrying, inside fighting, and Heaven knows what else, many of the oldtimers had in abundance, and many of today's fighters no longer practise these arts to the same extent.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:Just a quick question

Does anybody think that the England team that got knocked out by Germany would have beaten all of its predecesors?

Welcome aboard, Jimmy.

Great to see that you finally made it here.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:Just a quick question

Does anybody think that the England team that got knocked out by Germany would have beaten all of its predecesors?

Nope, being completely useless is a timeless quality

Nope, being completely useless is a timeless quality
__________________________________________________________

If I was being uncharitable Zeb I would comment that as a Wednesday fan you speak from a position of some expertise but perish the thought.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:Your more wrong than anyone on this site but that's neither here nor there
_____________________________________________________

Tend to agree but on the grounds that Az argues his case and does it in a polite and adult fashion will give him a pass. However if my six numbers come in this weekend will buy him a copy of the Arc of Boxing. I'll crack him one way or another

I'm one of those who doesn't view my preferred boxers with rose coloured glasses (Watson being the exception - even then I acknowledge who imo would have beaten him). I've seen youtube footages of old time fighters and frankly I'm not impressed. Just my honest opinion.

With respect, azania, I'm not sure that youtube is the best media by which to judge the old timers. Youtube, for the most part, tends to focus on ' highlight reels ' and the quality is often poor. I'm very lucky to have a fairly substantial collection of fights going all the way back to Jeffries and, while they sometimes require a little ' tweaking ' in video editors they are eminently watchable. Repeated watching, at normal speed, half speed and sometimes frame - by - frame, reveals just how skillful many of these guys were. Feinting, glove and elbow blocking, slipping and parrying, inside fighting, and Heaven knows what else, many of the oldtimers had in abundance, and many of today's fighters no longer practise these arts to the same extent.

Cheers windy. If you can recommend a few titles, I'd get them. Its my son's birthday soon and he's a boxing fan so it will give me an excuse to kick my missus and daughter out of the living room whilst we indulge ourselves.

I await to be convinced in any manner.

rowley wrote:If I was being uncharitable Zeb I would comment that as a Wednesday fan you speak from a position of some expertise but perish the thought.

Those in glass houses...

Still reveling in the result Saturday. Man City in the cup tomorrow so back down to earth with a bump I fear.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:Just a quick question

Does anybody think that the England team that got knocked out by Germany would have beaten all of its predecesors?

They certainly would have slaughtered the 1966 and 70 team with ease. They would have been given a good game but lost to the 1990 team. The rest were cr@p.

rowley wrote:Nope, being completely useless is a timeless quality
__________________________________________________________

If I was being uncharitable Zeb I would comment that as a Wednesday fan you speak from a position of some expertise but perish the thought.

Given i watch a team that could be comfortable beaten by a three legged donkey at the moment then i speak from a position of much expertise, not just some mate

Windy,Jeff Thanks very much, I'm like a puppy in new surroundings, don't take to anything new with technology too well these days.

Fighting is fighting to me, couldn't imagine any other athlete now throwing leather like Frazier and Ali did in Manilla. As Windy will probably remember Frazier took part in one of those Superstar events in the USA when he was champ competing against other players from different sports and embarrassed himself in most events. Its a ridiculous notion to compare sports, other sports you play, you dont play in boxing.

Did you watch the Sugar Ray Robinson documentary on ESPN classic recently Azania? Watch him go 15 hard rounds with LaMotta and tell me he needs better nutrition.