Boxing history

First topic message reminder :

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

Quite clearly you don't know the full career of Hearns, he didn't start out as a professional did he?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Quite clearly you don't know the full career of Hearns, he didn't start out as a professional did he?

Comparing Amatuer to pro ranks. Come on.

I was right in my assertion that you don't have a clue then?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I was right in my assertion that you don't have a clue then?

Youve listed one boxer as your pathetic attempt at a come back. Poor showing.

Thought you were better than that.

Trying to copy Truss are you?

All you need is one boxer to prove that power can in fact be trained, as an amateur he was a scrawny kid who lacked power but after years of training with Steward in the Kronk gym he became one of the most devastating punchers the sport has seen.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Trying to copy Truss are you?

I dont think anyone could stoop to that level no matter how hard they tried...

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Trying to copy Truss are you?

All you need is one boxer to prove that power can in fact be trained, as an amateur he was a scrawny kid who lacked power but after years of training with Steward in the Kronk gym he became one of the most devastating punchers the sport has seen.

Ask any respected coach, trainer or anyone with anything to do with the sport and they will tell you power and speed are natural. With every rule in the history of the human race you have exceptions, doesnt make what I have said wrong.

Weak and, frankly, pathetic argument.

It does make it wrong because with one example I have disproved it quite simply, without adequate training you aren't going to be a big puncher simple as that.

Neither power nor speed are purely natural or purely taught. The fundamentals of both can be distilled and trained.

I'll bite to your "biggers better" point then johnson.

Audley Harrison/Floyd Mayweather.

Who is better.

I think his point Oxy is not that Harrison clearly isn't 'better', but that in a fighting sport if these two fought Audley would most likely win as PBF couldn't hurt him and Audley would be able to smother him and land the few shots needed for a 6'5" 250lb heavyweight to beat a 5'8" 147lb WW.

I think Johnson's point is that the 'best' fighters are actually only the 'best' at/in their weight class, not when considered against the whole universe of fighters.

oxring wrote:Neither power nor speed are purely natural or purely taught. The fundamentals of both can be distilled and trained.

I'll bite to your "biggers better" point then johnson.

Audley Harrison/Floyd Mayweather.

Who is better.

In a head to head Harrison would win. Harrisons size is the big equalizer and he pummells Floyd if they fight.

I somehow doubt that. He doesnt throw punches, hard enough to beat floyd without that particular handicap.

Also i'd imagine Hopkins would beat the Poopie out of Audley. Maybe Martinez Cloud, Dawson and Donaire and Leonard, Eubank, Carl thompson, Calzaghe, roy jones jr, Toney, Dempsey, Marciano, and a hundred others much smaller and lighter than him. Even that nut herbie hide.

johnson2 wrote:

oxring wrote:Neither power nor speed are purely natural or purely taught. The fundamentals of both can be distilled and trained.

I'll bite to your "biggers better" point then johnson.

Audley Harrison/Floyd Mayweather.

Who is better.

In a head to head Harrison would win. Harrisons size is the big equalizer and he pummells Floyd if they fight.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I think his point Oxy is not that Harrison clearly isn't 'better', but that in a fighting sport if these two fought Audley would most likely win as PBF couldn't hurt him and Audley would be able to smother him and land the few shots needed for a 6'5" 250lb heavyweight to beat a 5'8" 147lb WW.

I think Johnson's point is that the 'best' fighters are actually only the 'best' at/in their weight class, not when considered against the whole universe of fighters.

It is his point - but its a rather tedious and obvious one. For sure, Jimmy Wilde wouldn't beat John Ruiz. But he was a much better fighter in terms of skillset and weight to power ratio.

Is a fighter inferior just because they're smaller? If that's the line we're taking - Vit and Wlad are the ATGs - because in spite of any declarations to the contrary with regards to Ali/Louis - size must kill all.

oxring wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

oxring wrote:Neither power nor speed are purely natural or purely taught. The fundamentals of both can be distilled and trained.

I'll bite to your "biggers better" point then johnson.

Audley Harrison/Floyd Mayweather.

Who is better.

In a head to head Harrison would win. Harrisons size is the big equalizer and he pummells Floyd if they fight.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I think his point Oxy is not that Harrison clearly isn't 'better', but that in a fighting sport if these two fought Audley would most likely win as PBF couldn't hurt him and Audley would be able to smother him and land the few shots needed for a 6'5" 250lb heavyweight to beat a 5'8" 147lb WW.

I think Johnson's point is that the 'best' fighters are actually only the 'best' at/in their weight class, not when considered against the whole universe of fighters.

It is his point - but its a rather tedious and obvious one. For sure, Jimmy Wilde wouldn't beat John Ruiz. But he was a much better fighter in terms of skillset and weight to power ratio.

Is a fighter inferior just because they're smaller? If that's the line we're taking - Vit and Wlad are the ATGs - because in spite of any declarations to the contrary with regards to Ali/Louis - size must kill all.

Stop twisting my words to suit your argument.

I've said Ali is the greatest of all time.

He's not though, Sugar Ray Robinson is.

Been some fabulous fighters throughout the eras - Dempsey, Marciano, Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Frazier but I cant look past Ali as the greatest of all time.

I agree with the OP. The heavyweight title has traditionally been the richest prize in sport. He is the number one. The premier weight class. The real deal. King of the Castle. The other weight classes have produced fine fighters but those divisions play second, third and fourth fiddle to marquee heavyweight division. Step forward Mr Ali, the hint is is in the nickname, you are the Greatest!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He's not though, Sugar Ray Robinson is.

If Ali and Robinson boxed, who would win?

Boxing has numerous divisions...

Heavyweight is the premier league, with each division below being a step down.

The fact is that boxing (and certain other sports) will allow inferior fighters to fight in a particular weight catergory because they cannot compete with bigger fighters.

I actually think this is a good thing because you get to see some cracking scraps, but ultimately these are fighters who cannot compete with the best fighters in the world (i.e. the big men).

Take a rugby player for example, he could have all the skills needed to be a world class player, but if he isnt quite physical enough he wont make it. He can't drop to a lower weight division, he will just be deemed not good enough.

johnson2 wrote:Boxing has numerous divisions...

Heavyweight is the premier league, with each division below being a step down.

The fact is that boxing (and certain other sports) will allow inferior fighters to fight in a particular weight catergory because they cannot compete with bigger fighters.

I actually think this is a good thing because you get to see some cracking scraps, but ultimately these are fighters who cannot compete with the best fighters in the world (i.e. the big men).

Take a rugby player for example, he could have all the skills needed to be a world class player, but if he isnt quite physical enough he wont make it. He can't drop to a lower weight division, he will just be deemed not good enough.

So who is the better player then? A prop or a winger? After all they are different sizes.

Ludicrous discussion

Adam D wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Boxing has numerous divisions...

Heavyweight is the premier league, with each division below being a step down.

The fact is that boxing (and certain other sports) will allow inferior fighters to fight in a particular weight catergory because they cannot compete with bigger fighters.

I actually think this is a good thing because you get to see some cracking scraps, but ultimately these are fighters who cannot compete with the best fighters in the world (i.e. the big men).

Take a rugby player for example, he could have all the skills needed to be a world class player, but if he isnt quite physical enough he wont make it. He can't drop to a lower weight division, he will just be deemed not good enough.

So who is the better player then? A prop or a winger? After all they are different sizes.

Ludicrous discussion

Rugby is a team game, I merely used it as an example regarding strength. Lets look at individual sports, such as cycling. Tour de France riders are around 10st, if a 15st man wants to compete, but cant because he is to heavy, he doesnt get to enter the 'heavy weight' race and then call himself a world champ. He would be told he is not good enough to compete at the top level.

Nothing 'ludicrous' about it.

johnson2 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He's not though, Sugar Ray Robinson is.

If Ali and Robinson boxed, who would win?

Head to heads mean next to nothing.

Skill is what matters not size.

johnson2 wrote:

Adam D wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Boxing has numerous divisions...

Heavyweight is the premier league, with each division below being a step down.

The fact is that boxing (and certain other sports) will allow inferior fighters to fight in a particular weight catergory because they cannot compete with bigger fighters.

I actually think this is a good thing because you get to see some cracking scraps, but ultimately these are fighters who cannot compete with the best fighters in the world (i.e. the big men).

Take a rugby player for example, he could have all the skills needed to be a world class player, but if he isnt quite physical enough he wont make it. He can't drop to a lower weight division, he will just be deemed not good enough.

So who is the better player then? A prop or a winger? After all they are different sizes.

Ludicrous discussion

Rugby is a team game, I merely used it as an example regarding strength. Lets look at individual sports, such as cycling. Tour de France riders are around 10st, if a 15st man wants to compete, but cant because he is to heavy, he doesnt get to enter the 'heavy weight' race and then call himself a world champ. He would be told he is not good enough to compete at the top level.

Nothing 'ludicrous' about it.

You have various different disciplines in cycling which cater for different attributes and body make up.

Chris Hoy is a big man and was a world champion just like Alberto Contador is a small man and won numerous grand tours.
In Rugby, Matt Dawson was a small man playing at scrum half much like Phil Vickery was a big man playing a prop, both were world champions.

johnson2 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He's not though, Sugar Ray Robinson is.

If Ali and Robinson boxed, who would win?

Really? It has come to this?

Ali loses to Norton more times than he wins. Ergo Norton is better because he wins in a H2H?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Adam D wrote:

johnson2 wrote:Boxing has numerous divisions...

Heavyweight is the premier league, with each division below being a step down.

The fact is that boxing (and certain other sports) will allow inferior fighters to fight in a particular weight catergory because they cannot compete with bigger fighters.

I actually think this is a good thing because you get to see some cracking scraps, but ultimately these are fighters who cannot compete with the best fighters in the world (i.e. the big men).

Take a rugby player for example, he could have all the skills needed to be a world class player, but if he isnt quite physical enough he wont make it. He can't drop to a lower weight division, he will just be deemed not good enough.

So who is the better player then? A prop or a winger? After all they are different sizes.

Ludicrous discussion

Rugby is a team game, I merely used it as an example regarding strength. Lets look at individual sports, such as cycling. Tour de France riders are around 10st, if a 15st man wants to compete, but cant because he is to heavy, he doesnt get to enter the 'heavy weight' race and then call himself a world champ. He would be told he is not good enough to compete at the top level.

Nothing 'ludicrous' about it.

You have various different disciplines in cycling which cater for different attributes and body make up.

Chris Hoy is a big man and was a world champion just like Alberto Contador is a small man and won numerous grand tours.
In Rugby, Matt Dawson was a small man playing at scrum half much like Phil Vickery was a big man playing a prop, both were world champions.

And they compete under the same conditions do they? Silly comparison.

oxring wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He's not though, Sugar Ray Robinson is.

If Ali and Robinson boxed, who would win?

Really? It has come to this?

Ali loses to Norton more times than he wins. Ergo Norton is better because he wins in a H2H?

No, dont be silly Oxy.

Who said Ali loses to Norton more times than he wins? History would argue otherwise...

Johnson

I get what you're trying to say here but boxing is much much more then size advantage. If that was the case what would be the point of any other division than heavyweight?

SRR is regarded as the greatest fighter ever due to what he managed to do with the ability and attributes that any pro boxer should have and applying them to the discipline better then any other fighter has thus far. In comparison to other fighters you also need to look at his wins against other greats and measure how good were his opponents he beat in contrast to his closest rivals in being the best and how he dispatched of his opponents.

Sure a 7ft 300lb fighter would more then likely overcome him but that is not what boxing is about. Fortunately there is enough diversity in the world to allow other weight classes (too many for my liking) to let boxers share their skills to the rest of the world. Many of the lower weights have such a great boxing brain due to needing it to outwit fighters that are coming at them 10x faster then most heavyweights can, and I for one appreciate in my lifetime to have witnessed the JMM's / Barrerra's / Naz's / Mayweathers - Pacquioa's etc in my time even though they aint the biggest and would gladly stand by saying the skillset and fighting ability is a lot better then 90% of men of higher weights....

Fists of Fury wrote:Who said Ali loses to Norton more times than he wins? History would argue otherwise...

Not if you watched the fights Fists. There's a decent argument to say that he lost all 3. At least 2/3.

Better example - who was better - Willie Pep or Sandy Saddler? Saddler had Pep's number but we remember Pep, rightfully, as the better boxer.

H2Hs only go so far.

Possibly lost 2-1, Oxy, but certainly had him winning the one.

To be fair history is littered with guys who just have a guys number but does not mean they are a better fighter, Junior Jones had Barrera's number, Forrest had Mosley's and Charles had Burley's, such is life occaionally

I know I'm in for a slap here, but Charles achievements suggest he was also a superior boxer to Burley (although I acknowledge he was also bigger.) The others are guys who's careers suggest they shouldn't be able to beat the guy they did.

Tarver had RJJs number and.... oh sod it i'm not going there

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I know I'm in for a slap here, but Charles achievements suggest he was also a superior boxer to Burley (although I acknowledge he was also bigger.) The others are guys who's careers suggest they shouldn't be able to beat the guy they did.

Was a joke JBW, was hoping I would be able to just throw it out there and get in into people's subconscious, is kind of like subliminal advertising.

aahh, my heavy handedness has ruined the intended effect. Same thing happens when I try to stroke a cat.

oxring wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Who said Ali loses to Norton more times than he wins? History would argue otherwise...

Not if you watched the fights Fists. There's a decent argument to say that he lost all 3. At least 2/3.

Better example - who was better - Willie Pep or Sandy Saddler? Saddler had Pep's number but we remember Pep, rightfully, as the better boxer.

H2Hs only go so far.

It is not only based on h2h, you have to take into account other victories, of which Ali has the best record.

Steady on chaps, there may be some truth in this heavier is better argument.

I'm guessing that Truss is heavier than Johnson (Az) and he's undoubtedly much better at these kind of articles. Yet another one in the eye for the little guys!

QED.

superflyweight wrote:Steady on chaps, there may be some truth in this heavier is better argument.

I'm guessing that Truss is heavier than Johnson (Az) and he's undoubtedly much better at these kind of articles. Yet another one in the eye for the little guys!

QED.

Do people think I'm Az?

Deary me...

Judging by your logic who would you say the better driver would be though, Colin McRae or Lewis Hamilton?

Obviously Lewis Hamilton has the fastest car yet you make him race through a forest and McRae would win, on a track Hamilton would therefore making outside conditions valid.

Or if you had an Olympic archer having a shooting contest to the death against someone in a tank the better more accurate shooter wouldn't win.

In a combat sport size is hugely important.

Most people who are really into boxing would prefer to watch lighter weight fighters as they tend to have to rely on skills rather than power. Which is why in P4P lists the smaller more skilled fighters tend to be rated higher.

huw wrote:Judging by your logic who would you say the better driver would be though, Colin McRae or Lewis Hamilton?

Obviously Lewis Hamilton has the fastest car yet you make him race through a forest and McRae would win, on a track Hamilton would therefore making outside conditions valid.

Or if you had an Olympic archer having a shooting contest to the death against someone in a tank the better more accurate shooter wouldn't win.

In a combat sport size is hugely important.

Most people who are really into boxing would prefer to watch lighter weight fighters as they tend to have to rely on skills rather than power. Which is why in P4P lists the smaller more skilled fighters tend to be rated higher.

Size is also hugely important in non-combat sports, such as rugby, American football and basketball ball. What happens to the little fella's there? Nothing, they are not good enough because they are too small. Other skills they may or may not have are irrelevant.

I dont wish to address the rest of your post as it is rather silly.

johnson2 wrote:

Size is also hugely important in non-combat sports, such as rugby, American football and basketball ball. What happens to the little fella's there? Nothing, they are not good enough because they are too small. Other skills they may or may not have are irrelevant.

I dont wish to address the rest of your post as it is rather silly.

Shane Williams is regarded as one of the best wingers ever.

Jonah Lomu was regarded a beast as well.

They are hugely different in size but play the same position and are both highly regarded.

Your argument is debunked.

DEBUNKED good sir.

johnson2 wrote:
Do people think I'm Az?

Deary me...

No, Jack. I think your rather 'old-fashioned' views on women and fat people, coupled with the fact you're from Newacstle, give the game away.

I'd back Hamilton over McRae every time.

Adam D wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Size is also hugely important in non-combat sports, such as rugby, American football and basketball ball. What happens to the little fella's there? Nothing, they are not good enough because they are too small. Other skills they may or may not have are irrelevant.

I dont wish to address the rest of your post as it is rather silly.

Shane Williams is regarded as one of the best wingers ever.

Jonah Lomu was regarded a beast as well.

They are hugely different in size but play the same position and are both highly regarded.

Your argument is debunked.

DEBUNKED good sir.

Not at all. Exceptions to everyrule of course. Shane Williams is not an 10st LWW though is he.

Thanks you.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

johnson2 wrote:
Do people think I'm Az?

Deary me...

No, Jack. I think your rather 'old-fashioned' views on women and fat people, coupled with the fact you're from Newacstle, give the game away.

Don't envy me. I realise I have more than most but jelousy is such a horrible trait.

johnson2 wrote:
Size is also hugely important in non-combat sports, such as rugby, American football and basketball ball. What happens to the little fella's there? Nothing, they are not good enough because they are too small. Other skills they may or may not have are irrelevant.

I dont wish to address the rest of your post as it is rather silly.

Sillier than the original post?

johnson2 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

johnson2 wrote:
Do people think I'm Az?

Deary me...

No, Jack. I think your rather 'old-fashioned' views on women and fat people, coupled with the fact you're from Newacstle, give the game away.

Don't envy me. I realise I have more than most but jelousy is such a horrible trait.

I will try and make do with what I have.

Did you write a begging letter pleading to come back?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

johnson2 wrote:
Do people think I'm Az?

Deary me...

No, Jack. I think your rather 'old-fashioned' views on women and fat people, coupled with the fact you're from Newacstle, give the game away.

Don't envy me. I realise I have more than most but jelousy is such a horrible trait.

I will try and make do with what I have.

Did you write a begging letter pleading to come back?

Yes. I didnt mean any of it though.

PS - I really did mean it, Adam.

Adam D wrote:

johnson2 wrote:

Size is also hugely important in non-combat sports, such as rugby, American football and basketball ball. What happens to the little fella's there? Nothing, they are not good enough because they are too small. Other skills they may or may not have are irrelevant.

I dont wish to address the rest of your post as it is rather silly.

Shane Williams is regarded as one of the best wingers ever.

Jonah Lomu was regarded a beast as well.

They are hugely different in size but play the same position and are both highly regarded.

Your argument is debunked.

DEBUNKED good sir.

Also, Williams obviously has the strength to compete.

johnson2 wrote:
Yes. I didnt mean any of it though.

PS - I really did mean it, Adam.

That's not very macho.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:That's not very macho.

You didn't read the letter Tino.