Boxing history

When talking of the greatest boxers ever to have lived you will often hear the names of Robbo, Greb, Armstrong, Pep etc..., but should they really be labelled as the best.

If you are too short to play basketball, you dont get to enter a league with people under 6ft, if you are not strong enough to play rugby you dont get to enter a <75kg league.

Why is it that we mention Robbo as the best fighter that ever lived, when in fact he could not live with a lumbering oaf like Valuev. Why is boxing a sport that celebrates little people, who can beat other little people and then mentions them as the best ever, when in reality I could list off 100 fighters who would pummell them?

Has boxing always had weight classes, and if not did any one specific event prove a trigger point? Which other sports are examples of sportmen/women procliaming to be the best in the world, when they are nothing of the sort.

I love boxing, so this isnt an article intended to insult you sensitive folk on here...

Thoughts welcome

To be faire boxing is not the only sport that has weight classes, even outside of combat sports they exist in weight lifting I believe. May be wrong on this but think weight classes came around at the time of the transition to a gloved era, I know Mendoza fought guys throughout his career who outweighed him heavily and tended to beat them on skill and technique which wasn't exactly prevalent at the time.

rowley wrote:To be faire boxing is not the only sport that has weight classes, even outside of combat sports they exist in weight lifting I believe. May be wrong on this but think weight classes came around at the time of the transition to a gloved era, I know Mendoza fought guys throughout his career who outweighed him heavily and tended to beat them on skill and technique which wasn't exactly prevalent at the time.

Yeah, other sports do it as well but I suppose what i'm saying is that boxing (and certain other sports) celebrate people as the best who aren't really.

People ask who is the best boxer on the planet now is? Mayweather will be most answers. Would he beat a K-bot. Not a chance. So he's not really the best...

Bigger is better (or so my girlfriend keeps telling me) in boxing.

The original UFC competition started out as no weight classes but the state commisions came down on them so they had to introduce them and I still dont understand why we have to have all these different weights in boxing when the original categories were fine as they were

Which other sports are examples of sportmen/women procliaming to be the best in the world, when they are nothing of the sort.

If you mean what other sports categorize competitors according to weight then there are lots - all contact sports, weight lifting, sailing etc. We're able to do it in boxing because regardless of your weight, the fundamentals remain the same. We can therefore imagine everyone at a hypothetical identical weight and theorise on who is the best. If we make everyone the same weight then it's pretty obvious that Robinson is head, shoulders, knees and toes above Valuev.

You can dispute the greatest in any sport if you take it to a pedantic level. How could Messi possibly be considered the greatest ever footballer when he can't marshall a defence like Franco Baresi or is not as good as Peter Shilton at shot stopping.

Utlimately I am guessing that business made the decision.

Should Robbo rightfully be recognised as the best boxer to have ever lived. forget all this p4p nonsense, if he were to fight a K-bot would he even have a prayer. Not a chance.

Do we celebrate inferior fighters?

superflyweight wrote:

Which other sports are examples of sportmen/women procliaming to be the best in the world, when they are nothing of the sort.

If you mean what other sports categorize competitors according to weight then there are lots - all contact sports, weight lifting, sailing etc. We're able to do it in boxing because regardless of your weight, the fundamentals remain the same. We can therefore imagine everyone at a hypothetical identical weight and theorise on who is the best. If we make everyone the same weight then it's pretty obvious that Robinson is head, shoulders, knees and toes above Valuev.

You can dispute the greatest in any sport if you take it to a pedantic level. How could Messi possibly be considered the greatest ever footballer when he can't marshall a defence like Franco Baresi or is not as good as Peter Shilton at shot stopping.

Not really, because football is a team game. Each person has a specific job. Many (not me) judge Messi to do what he does for Barca better than other players have done in the past.

johnson2 wrote:Do we celebrate inferior fighters?

Well according to Truss...European countries do it all the time...

We have to be realistic though, you may well be right and say Robinson would lose to Valuev but we can all watch them both and see quite clearly that in terms of skills Robinson is operating on a level Nikolay can only dream of reaching in pretty much any and every department you would care to mention, if we have a system at the minute that allows me to say he is, based on that, a better fighter I am more than happy with that.

rowley wrote:We have to be realistic though, you may well be right and say Robinson would lose to Valuev but we can all watch them both and see quite clearly that in terms of skills Robinson is operating on a level Nikolay can only dream of reaching in pretty much any and every department you would care to mention, if we have a system at the minute that allows me to say he is, based on that, a better fighter I am more than happy with that.

Speed and power are not something you can train, and neither are your physical attributes.

None can really be trained, you either have them or you dont so why is it that when judging fighters we readily discount your height/weight.

johnson2 wrote:
Speed and power are not something you can train, and neither are your physical attributes.

Of course you can. I probably punch like a small child, but with some professional training and application, are you really suggesting that my power wouldn't increase?

None can really be trained, you either have them or you dont so why is it that when judging fighters we readily discount your height/weight..

Because height and weight have regularly been shown to be surmountable factors. If it simply came down to height and weight then Valuev would be unbeatable. He holds no other advantages over Robinson (or any number of fighters).

johnson2 wrote:Why is it that we mention Robbo as the best fighter that ever lived, when in fact he could not live with a lumbering oaf like Valuev.

You mean in the same way that David Haye could not live with Valuev?

Very poor article, ill-conceived, and verging on wummery.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

johnson2 wrote:
Speed and power are not something you can train, and neither are your physical attributes.

Of course you can. I probably punch like a small child, but with some professional training and application, are you really suggesting that my power wouldn't increase?

To an extent, in the same way you can weight train to put on muscle.

Fact is that you either punch hard or you dont. Ian Napa (and many, many others) couldnt crack an egg with a punch. It aint through lack of effort.

Union Cane wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Why is it that we mention Robbo as the best fighter that ever lived, when in fact he could not live with a lumbering oaf like Valuev.

You mean in the same way that David Haye could not live with Valuev?

Very poor article, ill-conceived, and verging on wummery.

You should consider changing your role from "moderator" to "motivator", Union!

Union Cane wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Why is it that we mention Robbo as the best fighter that ever lived, when in fact he could not live with a lumbering oaf like Valuev.

You mean in the same way that David Haye could not live with Valuev?

Very poor article, ill-conceived, and verging on wummery.

Union, I am trying to provoke some sensible debate. If you do not wish to partake please dont troll my article.

David Haye beat Valuev.

superflyweight wrote:

None can really be trained, you either have them or you dont so why is it that when judging fighters we readily discount your height/weight..

Because height and weight have regularly been shown to be surmountable factors. If it simply came down to height and weight then Valuev would be unbeatable. He holds no other advantages over Robinson (or any number of fighters).

But the advantage he hold would be enough for the win. Why are we so quick to discount this.

Sure Robbo is faster, slicker, punches harder (possibly), better reflexes and so on, but what is really come down to is that he would lose so it therefore not as good.

I think you have a point. "pound for pound" by its nature is something of a one way street in favour of smaller guys. The big guys have their size, strength, weight and power advantages more or less routinely ignored while smaller guys seem entitles to keep superior skill and speed adavantages while benefitting from additional assumed increases in power and size. In reality, if Robinson was 7 foot tall and 330lbs he couldnt hope to have a fraction of the same speed, footwork, reflexes etc so its a moot point.

I suppose what it has evolved into, is more a measurment of acheivement. Pound for pound itself is a ridiculous concept that doesnt really make sense. But nowadays fighters tend to be ranked on their acheivements as well as their ability. Its obvious that Robinsons acheivements in his own weight classes and the skils he displayed were superior to Valuev so he is held as a better fighter. Not too many would say he would beat Valuev though. But its become largely besides the point. Whats being measuered is mainly the fighters talent and aheivement, as opposed to who would win between the two.

johnson2 wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Why is it that we mention Robbo as the best fighter that ever lived, when in fact he could not live with a lumbering oaf like Valuev.

You mean in the same way that David Haye could not live with Valuev?

Very poor article, ill-conceived, and verging on wummery.

Union, I am trying to provoke some sensible debate. If you do not wish to partake please dont troll my article.

David Haye beat Valuev.

Plus Haye was a heavyweight which isnt relevant to the point you were trying to make

Other than the 'On this day' article...Canes main purpose on here is to troll what other people have to say

Surely Robinson would beat Valuev in the same way that Haye did : in, pop, out.

The HW division has generally been considered the blue ribbon division for exactly the reason you mention. The HW title is also considered the greatest prize in sport because more casual fans are drawn towards the bigger men since they know that the HW champ would beat all the others.
The 3 most popular and recognisable boxers in history were all HW's (Ali, Tyson and Dempsey).

This mentality exists in all sport that contain weight classes.

When I competed in a regional powerlifting contest, it was the +120kg class (the class above mine) that drew the most interest.

Likewise, I believe 2012 Olympic tickets for the men's +105kg class in weightlifting sold out quicker than all the others. Again, this is because fans want to see the heaviest possible amount of weight lifted.

Union Cane wrote:Surely Robinson would beat Valuev in the same way that Haye did : in, pop, out.

Robbo is a totally different fighter to Haye and would not have the physical attributes to pull off a win. Valuev TKO 10.

Steffan wrote:Other than the 'On this day' article...Canes main purpose on here is to troll what other people have to say

You admit that I have a purpose then, which puts me 1-0 up on you.

Union Cane wrote:

Steffan wrote:Other than the 'On this day' article...Canes main purpose on here is to troll what other people have to say

You admit that I have a purpose then, which puts me 1-0 up on you.

Debatable.

johnson2 wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Surely Robinson would beat Valuev in the same way that Haye did : in, pop, out.

Robbo is a totally different fighter to Haye and would not have the physical attributes to pull off a win. Valuev TKO 10.

Didn't think of it like that, you are, of course, right.

I forgot that Robinson is dead.

Now..now you guys are both on my Trussman's friends list!!!!

So I say you both serve a purpose...

Just give me time to think of one!!!

Union Cane wrote:

Steffan wrote:Other than the 'On this day' article...Canes main purpose on here is to troll what other people have to say

You admit that I have a purpose then, which puts me 1-0 up on you.

Difference between me and you is...regardless of out outcome...I actually do try and contribute to boxing articles rather than look for a rise out of certain members on here

You can say that again

Difference between me and you is..regardless of out outcome...I actually do try and contribute to boxing articles rather than look for a rise out of certain members on here

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Difference between me and you is..regardless of out outcome...I actually do try and contribute to boxing articles rather than look for a rise out of certain members on here

Im glad you agree Tino

Anyone else want to have a dig?

(Another one with snow on it, Tino...)

Union Cane wrote:Anyone else want to have a dig?

Trust you to bring my Archaeology studies into this...no need to get personal Cane

Mate...I suggest you take a leaf out of windy's and Fist's book...

You're a moderator now...act like one..

Using my (flawless) system for ranking fighters would certainly give a different looking top 10, with Manny and Floyd and relative obscurity.

1. N. Valuev
2. T. Fury
3. D. Price
4. V. Klitschko
5. W. Klitschko
.
.
.

johnson2 wrote:Using my (flawless) system for ranking fighters would certainly give a different looking top 10, with Manny and Floyd and relative obscurity.

So under your system who do you have as the best fighter of all time then?

welcome back Az

Union Cane wrote:1. N. Valuev
2. T. Fury
3. D. Price
4. V. Klitschko
5. W. Klitschko
.
.
.

Dont be silly. No need to try and drag the thread down.

Steffan wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Using my (flawless) system for ranking fighters would certainly give a different looking top 10, with Manny and Floyd and relative obscurity.

So under your system who do you have as the best fighter of all time then?

Ali.

Although a small HW, he has skills which can offset a height and weight advantage.

johnson2 wrote:

Steffan wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Using my (flawless) system for ranking fighters would certainly give a different looking top 10, with Manny and Floyd and relative obscurity.

So under your system who do you have as the best fighter of all time then?

Ali.

Although a small HW, he has skills which can offset a height and weight advantage.

Not Marciano?

superflyweight wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Steffan wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Using my (flawless) system for ranking fighters would certainly give a different looking top 10, with Manny and Floyd and relative obscurity.

So under your system who do you have as the best fighter of all time then?

Ali.

Although a small HW, he has skills which can offset a height and weight advantage.

Not Marciano?

No, because I think Marciano would lose to Ali (and a number of other heavyweights).

All i'll say with regards to this thread is Tommy Hearns.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:All i'll say with regards to this thread is Tommy Hearns.

Care to expand.

Speed and Power can't be trained so how do you explain Tommy Hearns?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Speed and Power can't be trained so how do you explain Tommy Hearns?

I dont get you. He stopped something like his first 20 opponents. Hardly the mark of a weak puncher. He was a fast puncher as well.

You obviously know better than me.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You obviously know better than me.

Well on the 'evidence' of what you have just wrote then yes, I do.

I dont get your point regarding Tommy Hearns. Sure im not the only one.

Youre better than this Ghosty... come on.