The free-for-all "Cleverly at HW/Calzaghe would beat Wlad/Rocky Marciano was Rubbish/Mimsy" Thread

[Boxtthis]

First topic message reminder :

Just read this on boxing scene:

http://www.boxingscene.com/team-cleverly-nathan-wants-fight-heavyweight--55352

Clev's dad saying that he's filling out and wants to fight as a HW one day. Could be the lightest punching HW in history! I wonder if there's any nurses in the HW division?

C'mon Nathan, how about you fight someone decent at LHW first? His record as a title holder is becoming embarrassing.

In light of Gordy's chat I've changed the title of the thread so that it gives a more accurate representation of it's content!

[TheMackemMawler]

Now, this is an interesting point to make because boxing, to me, seems to be a bit of an anomaly when it comes to this rule. Sports like swimming, cycling, sprinting, etc, etc have undeniably moved on with every era that passes. But, boxing seems to be one of the few sports where there seems to have been a peak which is now declining in the modern era. I absolutely agree that most pre-war old timers would stand little chance with the athletes of today. And I agree, to an extent, with the application of that stance to Rocky Marciano. But, who amongst us doesn't have Ali as top 1 or 2 HW? The 60's, 70's, and 80's are regarded to all have far better eras than now. That holds in both an 'achievement in your own era' and 'a head-to-head across era' sense.

Precisely. Put Jesse Owens in a straight race with Usain Bolt and he gets beaten every single time. Have that same race run again and at every 5m interval station someone to throw an uppercut, jab, hook to the body or grapple and hold on to the runners, and all of the sudden, the times become less relevant and it becomes a much more even contest. To the point where skill, intelligence and technique become just as important as conditioning, strength and speed. There is little evidence that skill, intelligence and technique has all of a sudden become vastly superior, even if a clearer argument can be made for conditioning and strength. In fact, with the infrequency that modern boxers actually fight, there is an argument that their 'learning' curve is much less intense.

Boxing can't just be dumped in the same box as running or swimming in a straight line.

Boxing is a game of skill. I agree that boxing can't be directly compared to timed events such as running or swimming. However, do you think if you gave Fred Perry a modern slazenger racket he would beat Nadal, Sampras or Borg. Or, in snooker do you think John Spencer would beat Sean Murphy. No they wouldn't

Skills are developed and refined in the same way as advancements in sports science have allowed for greater physical prowess.

[Lumbering_Jack]

Why should I be the one to turn the other cheek? Not in my nature. Those who instigate the abuse hurling sport should be the ones to get reprimanded. Are you sure you're not a Tory?

You going to 'necklace' him?

[TheMackemMawler]

The unbiased humble opinion of an inexperienced poster (me) is that things have got a little personal toward Az on this thread.

[fearlessBamber]

It will have taken Isaac ages to refine his Laws of Motion..... It takes a school kid an hour. Knowing stuff means nothing.

Many Post-Grads studying the relevant fields know everything Newton knew, or at least documented…. plus more! They may not be visionaries, but are they cleverer? Hahaha! What a stupid question!!

Intelligence is intangible it transcends definition thus it is beyond quantification.

Laws of motion, school kids, magical postgrads

Have you actually tried reading Newton's Principia (this question is rhetorical) ? I struggled (more like failed) to follow it and did joint honours maths and physics at university (and have a PhD).

Postgrads these days need to know their way around a computer and Google. Pen and paper proofs are way down the list.

[Adam D]

Just to add to what Mr Rowley has stated (not that it needs any support) - He is 100% correct.

Stop with the personal abuse and deliberately provocative posts. It has gone on for far too long. People may not think they are insulting towards others but by completely ignoring facts and passing off opinion as fact ad infinitum, is borderline WUM behaviour.

I am personally tired of it. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Jeff.

And for the record, I am a Tory.

[Adam D]

The unbiased humble opinion of an inexperienced poster (me) is that things have got a little personal toward Az on this thread.

TMM - inexperience shouldnt be a barrier to offering up your opinion (however wrong it may be ). Just because you are newer to the board shouldnt effect the way you are treated. Post with pride.

[Lumbering_Jack]

Just to add to what Mr Rowley has stated (not that it needs any support) - He is 100% correct.

Stop with the personal abuse and deliberately provocative posts. It has gone on for far too long. People may not think they are insulting towards others but by completely ignoring facts and passing off opinion as fact ad infinitum, is borderline WUM behaviour.

I am personally tired of it. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Jeff.

And for the record, I am a Tory.

BOOOOOO, A Tory!!

[Lumbering_Jack]

Now, this is an interesting point to make because boxing, to me, seems to be a bit of an anomaly when it comes to this rule. Sports like swimming, cycling, sprinting, etc, etc have undeniably moved on with every era that passes. But, boxing seems to be one of the few sports where there seems to have been a peak which is now declining in the modern era. I absolutely agree that most pre-war old timers would stand little chance with the athletes of today. And I agree, to an extent, with the application of that stance to Rocky Marciano. But, who amongst us doesn't have Ali as top 1 or 2 HW? The 60's, 70's, and 80's are regarded to all have far better eras than now. That holds in both an 'achievement in your own era' and 'a head-to-head across era' sense.

Precisely. Put Jesse Owens in a straight race with Usain Bolt and he gets beaten every single time. Have that same race run again and at every 5m interval station someone to throw an uppercut, jab, hook to the body or grapple and hold on to the runners, and all of the sudden, the times become less relevant and it becomes a much more even contest. To the point where skill, intelligence and technique become just as important as conditioning, strength and speed. There is little evidence that skill, intelligence and technique has all of a sudden become vastly superior, even if a clearer argument can be made for conditioning and strength. In fact, with the infrequency that modern boxers actually fight, there is an argument that their 'learning' curve is much less intense.

Boxing can't just be dumped in the same box as running or swimming in a straight line.

Boxing is a game of skill. I agree that boxing can't be directly compared to timed events such as running or swimming. However, do you think if you gave Fred Perry a modern slazenger racket he would beat Nadal, Sampras or Borg. Or, in snooker do you think John Spencer would beat Sean Murphy. No they wouldn't

Skills are developed and refined in the same way as advancements in sports science have allowed for greater physical prowess.

Does that mean that Dwain Chambers should be higher on the list the Jesse Owens?

A number of facts need to be considered, and when comparing people from across era's it needs to be considered how they would perform if they had access to the same things as modern day athletes. To not have Rocky top 30 is absurd...

[TheMackemMawler]

It will have taken Isaac ages to refine his Laws of Motion..... It takes a school kid an hour. Knowing stuff means nothing.

Many Post-Grads studying the relevant fields know everything Newton knew, or at least documented…. plus more! They may not be visionaries, but are they cleverer? Hahaha! What a stupid question!!

Intelligence is intangible it transcends definition thus it is beyond quantification.

Laws of motion, school kids, magical postgrads

Have you actually tried reading Newton's Principia (this question is rhetorical) ? I struggled (more like failed) to follow it and did joint honours maths and physics at university (and have a PhD).

Postgrads these days need to know their way around a computer and Google. Pen and paper proofs are way down the list.

I guess you didn't pick up on my tongue in cheek attempt to put a small portion of the meaning of my last sentence into laymens terms.

...And from a guy with PhD experience, I disagree with your last point.

[Imperial Ghosty]

Discovery requires far more intelligence than just understanding the discovery, it's why Newton will never be surpassed.

[azania]

Now, this is an interesting point to make because boxing, to me, seems to be a bit of an anomaly when it comes to this rule. Sports like swimming, cycling, sprinting, etc, etc have undeniably moved on with every era that passes. But, boxing seems to be one of the few sports where there seems to have been a peak which is now declining in the modern era. I absolutely agree that most pre-war old timers would stand little chance with the athletes of today. And I agree, to an extent, with the application of that stance to Rocky Marciano. But, who amongst us doesn't have Ali as top 1 or 2 HW? The 60's, 70's, and 80's are regarded to all have far better eras than now. That holds in both an 'achievement in your own era' and 'a head-to-head across era' sense.

Precisely. Put Jesse Owens in a straight race with Usain Bolt and he gets beaten every single time. Have that same race run again and at every 5m interval station someone to throw an uppercut, jab, hook to the body or grapple and hold on to the runners, and all of the sudden, the times become less relevant and it becomes a much more even contest. To the point where skill, intelligence and technique become just as important as conditioning, strength and speed. There is little evidence that skill, intelligence and technique has all of a sudden become vastly superior, even if a clearer argument can be made for conditioning and strength. In fact, with the infrequency that modern boxers actually fight, there is an argument that their 'learning' curve is much less intense.

Boxing can't just be dumped in the same box as running or swimming in a straight line.

Boxing is a game of skill. I agree that boxing can't be directly compared to timed events such as running or swimming. However, do you think if you gave Fred Perry a modern slazenger racket he would beat Nadal, Sampras or Borg. Or, in snooker do you think John Spencer would beat Sean Murphy. No they wouldn't

Skills are developed and refined in the same way as advancements in sports science have allowed for greater physical prowess.

Does that mean that Dwain Chambers should be higher on the list the Jesse Owens?

A number of facts need to be considered, and when comparing people from across era's it needs to be considered how they would perform if they had access to the same things as modern day athletes. To not have Rocky top 30 is absurd...

Owens and Chambers may have ran he same distance, but the did it on different surfaces. Owens ran on cinder and Chambers on Supreme.

[azania]

Why should I be the one to turn the other cheek? Not in my nature. Those who instigate the abuse hurling sport should be the ones to get reprimanded. Are you sure you're not a Tory?

You going to 'necklace' him?

Do you know what necklacing is? Why did you ask that question?

[azania]

I have not left anyone free to insult people, if you read my initial thread I told both people who I had seen insulting people to calm it, I am not on here all the time and as such have neither the time or inclination to go through 11 pages to see who started it, users on here have a responsibility to help the moderation. I have asked you on more than one occasion to use the foe button, you have refused with no decent reason being given for your refusal, thus leaving me to assume you either do not want to help us or enjoy trading insults.

Similarly I have made it quite clear on more than one occasion I find the suggestion I am a tory offensive but you have chosen to repeat it at least three times, it has sod all to do with boxing, is inaccurate and you know it offends me, what is that other than a blatant attempt to wind someone up?

Do what you need to do.

[TheMackemMawler]

Now, this is an interesting point to make because boxing, to me, seems to be a bit of an anomaly when it comes to this rule. Sports like swimming, cycling, sprinting, etc, etc have undeniably moved on with every era that passes. But, boxing seems to be one of the few sports where there seems to have been a peak which is now declining in the modern era. I absolutely agree that most pre-war old timers would stand little chance with the athletes of today. And I agree, to an extent, with the application of that stance to Rocky Marciano. But, who amongst us doesn't have Ali as top 1 or 2 HW? The 60's, 70's, and 80's are regarded to all have far better eras than now. That holds in both an 'achievement in your own era' and 'a head-to-head across era' sense.

Precisely. Put Jesse Owens in a straight race with Usain Bolt and he gets beaten every single time. Have that same race run again and at every 5m interval station someone to throw an uppercut, jab, hook to the body or grapple and hold on to the runners, and all of the sudden, the times become less relevant and it becomes a much more even contest. To the point where skill, intelligence and technique become just as important as conditioning, strength and speed. There is little evidence that skill, intelligence and technique has all of a sudden become vastly superior, even if a clearer argument can be made for conditioning and strength. In fact, with the infrequency that modern boxers actually fight, there is an argument that their 'learning' curve is much less intense.

Boxing can't just be dumped in the same box as running or swimming in a straight line.

Boxing is a game of skill. I agree that boxing can't be directly compared to timed events such as running or swimming. However, do you think if you gave Fred Perry a modern slazenger racket he would beat Nadal, Sampras or Borg. Or, in snooker do you think John Spencer would beat Sean Murphy. No they wouldn't

Skills are developed and refined in the same way as advancements in sports science have allowed for greater physical prowess.

Does that mean that Dwain Chambers should be higher on the list the Jesse Owens?

A number of facts need to be considered, and when comparing people from across era's it needs to be considered how they would perform if they had access to the same things as modern day athletes. To not have Rocky top 30 is absurd...

I don't think I have made a case for modern athletes being ranked higher than an old era athletes just because they would win in a head to head (see quotes below). Also, please scour this thread. You will find I have not once ranked Rocky above or below the top 30. I just haven't ranked him.

"should I be judged on whether I could beat Thomas Hearns in a fight if the same training methods and technical knowledge were available to us both?"....Me, this thread

"if you gave Fred Perry a modern slazenger racket"....Me, this thread

"I agree that ranking is more than pitting one fighter against another. I like to imagine sports science was available to all generations, together with the same technical and tactical knowledge which has evolved over the years. I also accept that achievements and opposition should be factored in"...Me, this thread

"Every guy in that final would have anhilated Spitz. No one would argue Stefan Nystrand (who?) is a greater swimmer than the Spitz. Remember, Spitz is the man who, in '72, won seven olympic gold medals by breaking 7 world records. He was a Phenom"...Me, this thread

[bhb001]

Gordy is here! The sheer scale of his and Az's wummery is too much I fear and this thread is about to explode and will soon resemble a prolapsed bum!

Just because I believe Rocky is grossly over rated means I'm wumming. Bob Mee had Archie Moore as 2nd ATG. Was he wumming?

212 fights across three weights and over loads of years. Often moving between weights with as little as three weeks between them. Always dangerous and took all comers. There is a lot to be said in favour of Archie

[TheMackemMawler]

Discovery requires far more intelligence than just understanding the discovery, it's why Newton will never be surpassed.

Agreed

[horizontalhero]

Well I think we've gone from the ridiculous to the reasonable. I watched the welterweight Leonard with awe as a child in the 1980's. When he schooled Hagler in 1987 none of my class mates could believe it. Here was a fighter capable of anything who had it all.

Could he beat the greatest of them all ? I would not bet against it, but SRR rightfully ranks above him in terms of legacy.

Schooled is putting it a bit strongly mate- Opinion on that fight is pretty much 50:50 as to who should have got the decision, and even then most of us only have it for one or the other by a couple of rounds at most.

[azania]

Gordy is here! The sheer scale of his and Az's wummery is too much I fear and this thread is about to explode and will soon resemble a prolapsed bum!

Just because I believe Rocky is grossly over rated means I'm wumming. Bob Mee had Archie Moore as 2nd ATG. Was he wumming?

212 fights across three weights and over loads of years. Often moving between weights with as little as three weeks between them. Always dangerous and took all comers. There is a lot to be said in favour of Archie

Not taking anything away from him, but not #2 when guys like Ali, Armstrong etc are there.

[Boxtthis]

Not exactly wumming when you throw some bones into the shark tank. But look at how I phrased the Audley issue.

"throwing some bones into the shark tank" - is that not the definition of winding up? Saying something that you don't necessarily believe in order to try and illicit a reaction from others. Seems like you've contradicted yourself here, as you repeatedly do throughout this thread. It seems to me more like you said something a bit silly, and now you are trying to affect a superior air as some sort of puppet master who didn't really mean it. Then you go and deny trying to wind anyone up. Really, you're all over the place. You've made some valid points on this thread, and some not so valid ones - but your style of debate is an infuriating joke. For anyone that's ever read George Orwell, Az' approach to debate is like doublethink! There's no point in debating - it will never go anywhere - facts, information, and knowledge will simply be molded in order to fit the initial belief system.

Either that or he's on a massive (and incredibly time consuming) wind-up.

B******S! I said I'd retire from this thread! Right, that's it. I'm definitely out!

[fearlessBamber]

Well I think we've gone from the ridiculous to the reasonable. I watched the welterweight Leonard with awe as a child in the 1980's. When he schooled Hagler in 1987 none of my class mates could believe it. Here was a fighter capable of anything who had it all.

Could he beat the greatest of them all ? I would not bet against it, but SRR rightfully ranks above him in terms of legacy.

Schooled is putting it a bit strongly mate- Opinion on that fight is pretty much 50:50 as to who should have got the decision, and even then most of us only have it for one or the other by a couple of rounds at most.

I've watched that fight so many times and Hagler seems to get older every time Hate the way he pushes his punches and just follows Ray around. When Leonard plays with Hagler, with his back to the ropes, it looks like a schooling. Usually have it around 8-4.

I'm no Leonard fan - always liked Hearns and Duran, of the four most, but I really think he had Halgler's number in that fight.

[Gordy]

Since when does running away and only landing a few weak punches at the end of a round win a fight? Hagler was clearly more aggressive and landed the harder punches. The judges were either blind or corrupt in this fight.

[Lumbering_Jack]

Since when does running away and only landing a few weak punches at the end of a round win a fight? Hagler was clearly more aggressive and landed the harder punches. The judges were either blind or corrupt in this fight.

Or maybe it was a close fight.

[88Chris05]

I often find some of the hysteria surrounding the Leonard-Hagler result a little surprising, to be honest. We always hear a lot about how Leonard "ran" all night, and how he "never hurt" Hagler. Well, it may well be true that Hagler was never really hurt, but the simple fact is that throwing hte odd flurry here and there while retreating (but staying in range, I might add, before anyone throws Froch-Dirrell at me) is enough to win rounds if your opponent is lunging after you and landing nothing of note himself.

Ring generalship was certainly with Leonard, as Hagler couldn't really have boxed a worse fight if he'd tried; coming out fighting right handed, not applying any serious pressure until the half way stage etc. Leonard, again, proved himself a master of pre-fight tactical warfare and totally outsmarted Marvin.

Besides, it's a misconception that Leonard landed nothing of great note in the fight. There were numerous flurries (such as in the twelfth round) where Hagler was forced to concede ground, rather than relinquishing it willingly.

Leonard did a fair job of making Marvin look clumsy at times, toothless even. He manipulatd the fight so that it suited him far more than Hagler, and hence, can therefore claim to have controlled the fight.

I've scored this fight a few times and 115-113 to Leonard seems about right to me. No objections to anyone who has Hagler by a similarly close score (and yes, Guerra's 118-110 card was a disgrace), but in no way was Hagler "robbed."

[Boxtthis]

I often find some of the hysteria surrounding the Leonard-Hagler result a little surprising, to be honest. We always hear a lot about how Leonard "ran" all night, and how he "never hurt" Hagler. Well, it may well be true that Hagler was never really hurt, but the simple fact is that throwing hte odd flurry here and there while retreating (but staying in range, I might add, before anyone throws Froch-Dirrell at me) is enough to win rounds if your opponent is lunging after you and landing nothing of note himself.

Ring generalship was certainly with Leonard, as Hagler couldn't really have boxed a worse fight if he'd tried; coming out fighting right handed, not applying any serious pressure until the half way stage etc. Leonard, again, proved himself a master of pre-fight tactical warfare and totally outsmarted Marvin.

Besides, it's a misconception that Leonard landed nothing of great note in the fight. There were numerous flurries (such as in the twelfth round) where Hagler was forced to concede ground, rather than relinquishing it willingly.

Leonard did a fair job of making Marvin look clumsy at times, toothless even. He manipulatd the fight so that it suited him far more than Hagler, and hence, can therefore claim to have controlled the fight.

I've scored this fight a few times and 115-113 to Leonard seems about right to me. No objections to anyone who has Hagler by a similarly close score (and yes, Guerra's 118-110 card was a disgrace), but in no way was Hagler "robbed."

I pretty much agree with this as an assessment. Although I still think Hagler's aggression and meatier punches win it for him. I always seem to land on 115-113 Hagler.

[TopHat24/7]

Thought you were staying out of this??

[ShahenshahG]

I reckon Anthony Joshua is the next Lennox Lewis

[Boxtthis]

Thought you were staying out of this??

Oh yeah. This thread has taken so many twists and turns that I forgot which one it was. What a mimsy!

[manos de piedra]

I think Guerra's 118-110 card caused alot of the controversy because he scored a close fight so wide. It lead to alot of accusations and discontent. The other thing is I think alot people felt that Hagler lost the fight as much as Leonard won it. He gave up alot of the early rounds rather tamely and left himself with alot to do through questionable tactics and possibly giving Leonard too much respect.

[Adam D]

I often find some of the hysteria surrounding the Leonard-Hagler result a little surprising, to be honest. We always hear a lot about how Leonard "ran" all night, and how he "never hurt" Hagler. Well, it may well be true that Hagler was never really hurt, but the simple fact is that throwing hte odd flurry here and there while retreating (but staying in range, I might add, before anyone throws Froch-Dirrell at me) is enough to win rounds if your opponent is lunging after you and landing nothing of note himself.

And yet no one has any problems with Haye beating Valuev in this way.

[Guest]

No, everyone was happy that Haye put on a masterclass that night and was in no way the recipient of a political decision designed to loosen Don King's stranglehold on the WBA belt.

In fact, everyone who has criticised Haye for his cowardly showing has since offered themself up for sacrifice to demonstrate the depth of their remorse.

[ValleyGraduate12]

Yet Dirrell employed the same type of tactics in his fight against Froch and a few people have said he was robbed the decision (including myself) because they were in Froch's backyard.

[Gordy]

Running away should not win you fights. Haye lost that fight against the giant. He landed one good punch in the entire fight and the rest of the time he was running away. The giant was hopeless but at least he wanted to fight. When Haye tried those tactics again and lost every round. It highlights the inconsistency in judging.

[Il Gialloblu]

Running away should not win you fights. Haye lost that fight against the giant. He landed one good punch in the entire fight and the rest of the time he was running away. The giant was hopeless but at least he wanted to fight. When Haye tried those tactics again and lost every round. It highlights the inconsistency in judging.

The conversation on the BBC/Audley thread remind you to come back and see how you could resurrect/WUM this one again?

[TheMackemMawler]

Boxers before 1930 were cr@p.

[azania]

Trouble maker.

[azania]

Running away should not win you fights. Haye lost that fight against the giant. He landed one good punch in the entire fight and the rest of the time he was running away. The giant was hopeless but at least he wanted to fight. When Haye tried those tactics again and lost every round. It highlights the inconsistency in judging.

Boxing is to hit and not get hit. Hate hit him and didn't get hit. Ergo he won. Lewis should have tried that against Rahman and McCall.

[TheMackemMawler]

Wishing a peaceful rest to the two police women killed today. Disgusting.

[TopHat24/7]

Wrong thread MM??

[TheMackemMawler]

I heard it on the news and was outraged. I took free for all to mean just that.

[EdWoodjr]

The red button on Fraudley's face on the BoxNation web page aptly enough makes him look like a clown.

[TopHat24/7]

He's never come back since teacher Il Giallobu absolutely pwned him and exposed him for the fraud he is. Don't understand why some people choose to be like that, he gained nothing from his time he when he could have learned lots.

[JabMachineMK2]

exposed him for the fraud he is. Don't understand why some people choose to be like that.

[TopHat24/7]

exposed him for the fraud he is. Don't understand why some people choose to be like that.

Lol, you were never a WUM mate, which is what I was referring to....

[JabMachineMK2]

exposed him for the fraud he is. Don't understand why some people choose to be like that.

Lol, you were never a WUM mate, which is what I was referring to....

[Lumbering_Jack]

exposed him for the fraud he is. Don't understand why some people choose to be like that.

Lol, you were never a WUM mate, which is what I was referring to....

Just an attention seeking liar?

[TopHat24/7]

exposed him for the fraud he is. Don't understand why some people choose to be like that.

Lol, you were never a WUM mate, which is what I was referring to....

Just an attention seeking liar?

bit mean.....

[JabMachineMK2]

Impervious now

[TRUSSMAN66]

Come on we've all fought the best in our dreams haven't we?

I remember coming back from a first round knockdown to tame Tyson in three!!!

The crowd were shouting "Beef, beef,beef" ...The chicks were anyway!!

Unfortunately I lost to Chuck Gardner the same night!!

[Sponsored content]