Middleweight rankings Top 10 Head to Head with a time machine and Peak for Peak.

First topic message reminder :

Heavyweights
https://www.606v2.com/t33978-solvedheavyweight-rankings-top-10-head-to-head-with-a-time-machine-and-peak-for-peak-edited

Ali predictably and almost unanimously stayed at the number 1 position but there was a lot of jostling about with the rest with the possible exception of Foreman who gathered a few votes in second.

Light Heavyweights

https://www.606v2.com/t34073-light-heavyweight-rankings-top-10-head-to-head-with-a-time-machine-and-peak-for-peak

Charles was unanimous number 1 from the few who did post their 10 but again no consensus on the rest


For those who missed the others - this is just a simple task of ranking your top 10/15 fighters of the MW division on a head to head basis - and he who wins the most heads to heads gets ranked highest - which is then ranked a top 10 after which if you are so inclined you compare them to your genuine top 10 and see how they compare.

Then again I don't look at the likes of Rios or Chavez and see anything approaching good technique unless a chin and power constitutes that.

Neither do I. But its better than what I saw on the video.

Of course it is, imagine a fighter using a jab and upper body movement, after it doesn't occur often any more.

Of course. From what I saw in those videos, Gans would have been schooled fighting like that today. But you think otherwise, so its all gravy.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You mean a fighter using a strong jab and showing upper body movement that many modern fighters don't possess, his opponent leaves a lot to be desired but Gans himself shows excellent technique. Rios for example would be on the receiving end of a one sided beating were he to have faced Gans.

Each to their own I suppose. I didn't see what you say. I saw the tpe of boxing they call "stand up" in the UFC.

Youre watching footage which constitutes of a camera that doesn't possess the frames of today's modern cameras, put Gans in Hd and then you'd see artistry.

As I thought. The first one blaming the camera. I'm not concerned about the camera but his technique. It's poor compared to today.

In what way, for once elaborate?

azania wrote:As I thought. The first one blaming the camera. I'm not concerned about the camera but his technique. It's poor compared to today.

I suppose you think walking has improved since the early 1900s too, because those people sure look juddery and weird the way they strut about.

Speed walkers have become faster.

Im not sure as to what your actual opinion is azania.

Mackems was, (I think!), that a modern great woud be technically better than a older era great. This I can understand, although Im often curious at what point old becomes modern in peoples opinion.

But Im less clear of your position. First off what do you consider old and what do you consider modern? Why do you consider this to be the case? Is Demspey old or modern? Is Joe Louis old or modern? Floyd Patterson? Sonny Liston? Where does the change occur?

The second point I would ask is that do you think boxing has been steadily getting better? Or do you think that it hit a plateau at a certain point? Ali seems to be quite often the watermark used. Because if one takes the view that boxing is continually evolving (for the better) then it basically insinuates that every champion now is better than the one before. If advances hit a plateau at some point and the evolution stops then at what point does this occur? Why does it occur? How is this measured?

I've made no secret that I am a huge Dempsey fan. Purely because I like his attitude in fighting......go straight for the kill. But technically he was poor. Its not a question of old or modern, but when techniques became refined enough. For me its late 30s early 40s. Right through to the late 60s there were still those who preferred the bar room brawl style to what we see regularly today.

Patterson, Liston et al would more than hold their own in their respective divisions in any era (Patterson being a cruiser).

From what I've seen of Gans I think he'd be quite successful and possibly top dog today. Rolls with punches well has a good range finding jab and throws combos like nobodies business. The technique he shows is simple yet brilliant, how many times has he rolled with a punch and let of one in return in a single movement? Duran did, Ward does, Mayweather does it but not quite with the same fluidity. In several cases you can see him shrugging off then countering counter punches and a few bodyshot knockdowns. If you keep your hands up your body is easier to hit, if you keep your hands down your head is easier to hit. Either way the combination puncher can adapt his combinations to force the guard down or up to get his hits in.

How many of the current LW can you see handling him?

azania wrote:I've made no secret that I am a huge Dempsey fan. Purely because I like his attitude in fighting......go straight for the kill. But technically he was poor. Its not a question of old or modern, but when techniques became refined enough. For me its late 30s early 40s. Right through to the late 60s there were still those who preferred the bar room brawl style to what we see regularly today.

Patterson, Liston et al would more than hold their own in their respective divisions in any era (Patterson being a cruiser).

What specifically about the 1930s or 1940s make you think this though. And if the techniques were being refined why do we still get boxers in the mould of Margarito for instance, or John Ruiz. Do really believe for example that Ricky Burns was technically better than Benny Leonard. Or that Cleverly was technically better than Tunney? We still see crude sluggers today. Mainly for the reason that they dont have talent/attributes to be sccessful at another way of fighting. Which is an issue of actual talent and ability rather than technical advancement.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:I've made no secret that I am a huge Dempsey fan. Purely because I like his attitude in fighting......go straight for the kill. But technically he was poor. Its not a question of old or modern, but when techniques became refined enough. For me its late 30s early 40s. Right through to the late 60s there were still those who preferred the bar room brawl style to what we see regularly today.

Patterson, Liston et al would more than hold their own in their respective divisions in any era (Patterson being a cruiser).

What specifically about the 1930s or 1940s make you think this though. And if the techniques were being refined why do we still get boxers in the mould of Margarito for instance, or John Ruiz. Do really believe for example that Ricky Burns was technically better than Benny Leonard. Or that Cleverly was technically better than Tunney? We still see crude sluggers today. Mainly for the reason that they dont have talent/attributes to be sccessful at another way of fighting. Which is an issue of actual talent and ability rather than technical advancement.

Why not pick the best of the modern era and compare them to the best of yesteryear? Its easy to bring names like Marg and ask if he would beat so and so. Personally I think he would hammer Gans (weights being equal) quickly. Ruiz would beat Johnson. Simple reason is because JJ was flawed in comparison to Ruiz. Ruiz simply knows more.

I read an article years ago where Benny was described as the other Leonard who would beat Duran. Not a chance in whatever hell you choose.

Ooops, in answer to your question, all you have to do is to look at Louis's style and technique. Other than his poor footwork, he had a terrific jab, excellent straight right and good hooks.

I'm interupting my night to post a very good quality video of Gans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD2A26wts1s

I will leave you to discuss the wanting lack of technique......(or not as the case may be!)

ba bye

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:I've made no secret that I am a huge Dempsey fan. Purely because I like his attitude in fighting......go straight for the kill. But technically he was poor. Its not a question of old or modern, but when techniques became refined enough. For me its late 30s early 40s. Right through to the late 60s there were still those who preferred the bar room brawl style to what we see regularly today.

Patterson, Liston et al would more than hold their own in their respective divisions in any era (Patterson being a cruiser).

What specifically about the 1930s or 1940s make you think this though. And if the techniques were being refined why do we still get boxers in the mould of Margarito for instance, or John Ruiz. Do really believe for example that Ricky Burns was technically better than Benny Leonard. Or that Cleverly was technically better than Tunney? We still see crude sluggers today. Mainly for the reason that they dont have talent/attributes to be sccessful at another way of fighting. Which is an issue of actual talent and ability rather than technical advancement.

Why not pick the best of the modern era and compare them to the best of yesteryear? Its easy to bring names like Marg and ask if he would beat so and so. Personally I think he would hammer Gans (weights being equal) quickly. Ruiz would beat Johnson. Simple reason is because JJ was flawed in comparison to Ruiz. Ruiz simply knows more.

I read an article years ago where Benny was described as the other Leonard who would beat Duran. Not a chance in whatever hell you choose.

The reason I am using mediocre fighters of today is because I am trying to establish exactly how gigantic you believe the differances in eras to be. Its one think saying Greb would lose to Jones, which might acount for an actual differance in ability. But to say Greb would lose to Cleverly gives me a better indication of where you actually rate his abilitys as a yardstick.

With regards Benny Leonard, he was trained for a while by Arcel who was the same guy who trained Duran almost 50 years later. If anything, Arcel was generally more insistant that Benny was the greater of the two. Even if you want to put that down to an old mans nostaligia, it doesnt explain that there would be a gigantic gulf between the two. He worked and witnessed them both firsthand. He was actually the guy training them and teaching them!

I think half the reason fighters have changed over the years and become better technicians is that fan criteria has changed.....

In the old days people wanted to see fighting and expected more fierce exchanges........they were more macho times.....

The civil war, ww1, ww2 ...Captain Scott, Robert Peary, Mallory.....people had different life values..they were the days of sacrifice etc.....to a certain extent people were expected to put it on the line!!

styles were different.......fighters had to exchange......I imagine a Leonard in the twenties would have to brawl more or he would get chucked out!!!!

You reacted to your environment and your style was in a way made to fit it!!!

Yes Jones is a better technician than Greb but he wouldn't have been then!!!Jones would have to have been a different fighter to get fights!!

So it's redundant to compare really!!

Both would have been very different fighters in other times!!!

I imagine Tunney outpoints Dempsey easier years later when fans were more patient..

Jones beats all the oldtimers as they were....

But would he beat the 1990 version of them????? who knows!!!!

The problem with head to heads is we see the style, speed and power but we leave out the human element.....

azania wrote:Ooops, in answer to your question, all you have to do is to look at Louis's style and technique. Other than his poor footwork, he had a terrific jab, excellent straight right and good hooks.

Well you must have changed your opinion of Louis recently enough. I can remember when you used to say he couldnt hit a speed bag and that David Haye would beat him! This is whats confusing me and why Im not sure about what your position on these older fighters are.

Certainly pick the Klits to beat Louis....50 pounds, 6 inch height and a dig would certainly have me believing....

Louis was too easy to hit..

Mackem - he threw that fight I think I remember reading it when we were doing the research for the on this day feature of the site. The betting patterns and some statements from the ref and Mcgovern pointed towards a fake.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Ooops, in answer to your question, all you have to do is to look at Louis's style and technique. Other than his poor footwork, he had a terrific jab, excellent straight right and good hooks.

Well you must have changed your opinion of Louis recently enough. I can remember when you used to say he couldnt hit a speed bag and that David Haye would beat him! This is whats confusing me and why Im not sure about what your position on these older fighters are.

I dont think I have ever been so critical of Louis. It was Johnson and Fitz I made that comment about. I've always rated Louis (not as highly as many here - cant see him beating Ali, Tyson, Holmes, Frazier, Foreman, Liston) but never hyper critical of him.

It was in a debate about what was the best period in boxing that you said Louis was poor on a speed bag.

If (big if) I said that, then I was wrong.

azania wrote:If (big if) I said that, then I was wrong.

azania wrote:I have seen footage of Louis hitting a speedball. He almost had to think before hitting it. I've seen old time heavies hitting the heavy bag. Please spare me. Wide looping hooks which reminded me of Ali taking the P out of the Mummy Forman. There simply is no comparison between the boxers of the 1930s, 40s and 50s to those of today. Yes there have been supreme boxers who given their time and training had skills which transcended everything. SRR and Ali are two such fighters.

(sorry).

fearlessBamber wrote:

azania wrote:If (big if) I said that, then I was wrong.

azania wrote:I have seen footage of Louis hitting a speedball. He almost had to think before hitting it. I've seen old time heavies hitting the heavy bag. Please spare me. Wide looping hooks which reminded me of Ali taking the P out of the Mummy Forman. There simply is no comparison between the boxers of the 1930s, 40s and 50s to those of today. Yes there have been supreme boxers who given their time and training had skills which transcended everything. SRR and Ali are two such fighters.

(sorry).

Its not a question of old or modern, but when techniques became refined enough. For me its late 30s early 40s.

Flip flop!

It's a good job old Jimmy is not around he'd have hired a thousand men to hunt you down Az, saying that about Louis.

Probably the most precise correct punching heavyweight of all time IMO in ability and technique, still a whisker behind Ali overall ratings for me though.

Cheers

rodders

Maybe it was fixed Shah, it certainly looks that way, after all, he hardly threw a punch!

OK,

In the first video it was self-evident that the punching technique illustrated by Gans was unlike the method exhibited by Rigondeaux or Lomenchenko. I would like to think, to a boxing fan, the improvement requires no further verification.

I posted the second Gans video because I thought it demonstrated the variance in defensive technique between a former master and what is considered “correct” technique in the 21st Century. Arm guard position is inherently variable (even today) but the foot movement and particularly the head movement is very different now as to what it was then.

The head movement executed by Gans appears to be little more than a natural reflex or survival measure. However, it is does seem extremely effective......though one would expect as much against the telegraphed arcing shots of the day!!

The torso defences utilised by the old timers do not seem to be as strictly defined as they are now (slip, roll, lean back, and dip) but instead appear to be rolled into one large energy inefficient movement (today they say a slip need not be more than a glove width to the side). Even when the masters of ancient past use what is considered the simplest of the four bracketed movements, the dip, they invariably take their eyes off their opponent and look at the floor. They almost beg to be hit by the uppercut. These days some greats still look at the floor when using trunk defences but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Manos,

I consider modern mainstream boxing to be sometime in the 60's, a time when you could watch almost any fight and see the semblance of modernity. I think I could walk into some gyms in Greenland, the Seychelles, Peru or Africa and think “wow this style of fighting is from the dark ages, and anything but modern”.

However, that said, I think the beginning of modern boxing has to be the first ever boxing match. From that point on the evolution of technique began. I’d imagine spectators, and reporters, had opinions on what was the most effective fighting style and spread this information by word of mouth, or media. Boxers and coaches too, will have observed their peers and protégés and noted the effective techniques. This pugilistic knowledge will have disseminated through the gyms of the land, and then, with the introduction of television, to the gyms in other countries.

I think technical knowledge probably plateaus in a different decade for each boxing microcosm, and it is dependent on the coaching infrastructure of the particular region and the efficiency of the information highway, in the said area, at distributing boxing knowledge. Some countries are way behind and will be for some time. They may never produce a Sweetpea or Mayweather.

It is the folly and arrogance of man to proclaim today is the pinnacle of existence only for tomorrow to bring about invention. We probably still have lots to learn about boxing.......even if we don’t realise it today.

I do love it when Az gets shown up.

No...all you guys have been shown up......

This is Az we are talking about!!

[quote="azania"]If (big if) I said that, then I was wrong.[/quote]

Whats so difficult to grasp?

[quote="azania"]

azania wrote:If (big if) I said that, then I was wrong.[/quote]

Whats so difficult to grasp?

The quote facility?

Not used to quoting myself

"A man has to know his limitations" .....Dirty Harry.

I'm proud of you Az.......

"You're a real Man after all!!"......The boy who had sand kicked in his face...

Anecdotal observation; As fighter have bulked, become more powerful and stronger, there stamina seems to have decreased- The likes of Eubank, Benn etc often gassed and were knackered at the end of 15 round, like wise with certain HW's
The lack of quality of old fight films does make things hard to judge- the no.of frames per second is so low it's like watching with a strobe light on.
Today's fighters may be able to run, faster, jump higher etc, but there's no evidence that they can think better, or have better reflects, or abilty to silip and counter, or ability to read a fight. I recall a similar discussion about football. Darren Anderton commented that whilst players such as Drogba may be fine athletes, they aren't neccessarily better footballers, and in fact their athletic prowess masks their short comings in terms of ball skills and footballing inteligence.
Same with boxing, old time trainers such as Dundee, Futch and Arcel trained fighters for decades, yet I never once heard any of them claim that the modern day guys had better techniques.

Personally I consider an improvement in technique to have occurred since 1907. However, I’d hope we’d all agree that the techniques are at least different!

In my opinion, I regard there to be a richer repertoire of skills available to the modern boxer. Also, the way that these skills are woven together in a coherent dance seems to be more sophisticated now (see the Lomenchenko and Rigo links from earlier)

Skills are now clearly defined. This is important as it’s paramount to have a consistent definition of each skill to facilitate its teaching to new coaches so that the information can be distributed to boxers (A uniform definition also allows the refinement of the coaching methodology).

It’s the coach’s job to teach what is considered "correct form". Then, it’s the boxer’s job to cultivate this skill and introduce individual flare to find what works best for him, and this depends on his character and physiology.

Horizontal mentioned football......

I’m no footballer but I know before a certain famous Dutchman arrived on the scene there was no such thing as the Cruyff Turn. And there are probably many other examples too. For instance, I dare say the skill moves available on Fifa 12 would bamboozle early 20th century footballers. However I reckon, if these complex skills were broken down into their constituent parts and presented to the old era footballers there wouldn’t be too much new content….the thing is…..they just hadn’t thought about putting the bits together in that manner. I think it’s the same with boxing.

When do you consider the modern era to be? For example would Willie Pep, a fighter universally recognised as having tremendous skills /techinque count as modern? He's certainly as skilled most of the FWs of the last 30years, in fact probably more so.
I find it funny that we all talk about fighters such as FMJ and James Toney as being throwbacks with great old school skills and technique, and then argue that the skills and techniques now are better. Conditioning is improved as sports science teaches us more about tuning the body, but it hasn't lead to a better understanding of how to draw someone onto punches, or counter.
And with all due respect MM, moves on Fifa 12 are not real- they would bamboozle most modern players. Certainly the clowns that I support from Tottenham

Whatever happened to the philly shell and the cross defence, oh that's right they were too technically difficult for most modern fighters to pick up, a few that can but it's very much the minority. The art of hit and not get hit is dying out in boxing.

TheMackemMawler wrote:

Horizontal mentioned football......

I’m no footballer but I know before a certain famous Dutchman arrived on the scene there was no such thing as the Cruyff Turn.

Could you provide a similar example for boxing MM? I can't think of anything since Fitzsimmons supposedly invented the solar plexus punch! There haven't really ever been any revolutionary moments in boxing since the advent of gloves and the queensbury rules, and I'd be pretty confident that if the likes of Jack Johnson had been filmed with modern day cameras, we would be hugely respectful of their skills and techniques, just as the generations that were old enough to remember them were. When Louis was champ there were plenty around that thought the Johnson could have beaten him, just like many of us would pick Ali to beat Klitchko, but Klitchko's conditioners are probably fair more knowledgable than Ali's were, but I doubt that we would reckon than Stewart is much more knowledgable than Dundee.

Shouldn’t really have to point this out as it should be self evident or obvious but during the era the likes of Ketchel and Gans fought in fights were over a longer distance and scored on different criteria, go back to the era of Jeffries and fights were often scored on the perception of who would have won had the fight been to the finish (see Jeffries vs Sharkey) also different elements that were accepted in the bareknuckle era such as grappling and throws whilst not legal were tolerated or tacitly allowed.

Would be naïve of any of us to assume that such factors as length of fight or rules would not impact on fighters styles etc. For an example one has to only look at the UFC, am by no means an expert on it but from what I understand when White introduced bonuses for knockouts the style of fighting shifted from predominantly ground based to a more stand up style, if a few quid can change a style of fighting pretty much overnight seems pretty obvious that fighters fighting 10 rounds more might make a difference.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Whatever happened to the philly shell and the cross defence, oh that's right they were too technically difficult for most modern fighters to pick up, a few that can but it's very much the minority. The art of hit and not get hit is dying out in boxing.

Ghosty,

I coach boxing and the cross defence is not difficult!!!???

One arm in front of the other in a cross shape!

Listen, I'm not rocky, but it easy...... though it may be difficult for someone like yourself, someone who has probably never stepped foot in a boxing gym??

THE CROSS DEFENCE

The cross defense is effective against the uppercut and straight shots, but is probably not so much used now because over time we have discovered its flaws….

1) Unless you are very strong it is not rigid enough to stop hard hooks…it can cause the outside of your own hands to transfer part of the force of the blow to your face.

2) It can block your peripheral vision thus reduces the sighting of incoming hooks

3) You need iron Abs... because no amount of crouching covers the torso in this position

4) In the cross defence you are limited as to what punch you throw first……. let me explain….if the left arm forms the front part of your cross then you must throw the left arm first to free up your right arm (put your hands in front of your face in cross guard to see what I mean), otherwise, you can bring your arms to the traditional “vertical forearm” position and throw which ever straight shot first, however, this wastes time....(moving from cross to traditional then punching takes a fraction of a second longer and telegraphs the punch)

Those four points come straight from the top of my head, give me enough time and i will think of more reasons why it is not used.

Boxers spend enough time in the gym to learn the cross defense.........ultimately, if it was the most effective guard position then everyone would use it!!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Whatever happened to the philly shell and the cross defence, oh that's right they were too technically difficult for most modern fighters to pick up, a few that can but it's very much the minority. The art of hit and not get hit is dying out in boxing.

At no other time in the history of boxing has this philosophy been more true...........isn't that ONE of the reason why arm chair fans complain about the lack brutality?

Ah, now I see why you're not a fan of Azumah Nelson, Mackem!

Zoomy used the cross arm defence at times and I agree, it seemed to make him more cumbersome in attack and vulnerable to getting teed off on. Not a great fan of the cross arm defence myself, but it's horses for courses, I suppose.

Or Ken Norton, or Archie Moore, or George Foreman or countless others over the years. It also was pretty condescending.

Not sure who or what you're referring to there, HH, but if it was me then apologies, mate - certainly wasn't meant to come across that way.

Not you Chris. I was referring to MM response to Ghosty, who is pretty knowledgeable IMO.

sport may well evolve but there have been changes that also make it easier for current athletes, its all well and good saying messi and ronaldo are the two greatest technical footballers of all time but are they as good as a maradona/pele who played in a era where oppenents tactics was purely to boot them off the pitch, would ronaldo be as good in such circumstances?

similar with modern day tennis players who have all the advantages of not having to play with the old rubbish wooden rackets.

there are many varibles in sport that you have to consider (i know it wasnt the aim of this thread with the time machine idea) but while boxing doesnt have as much clear cut changes as those above examples there is enough (12 rounds fights for example) that favour modern day fighters still. technique may well be better in modern fighters but imo toughness/mental strength, the old time greats win hands down, and is often the reasion i back alot of the old timers in head to head fights

horizontalhero wrote:When do you consider the modern era to be? For example would Willie Pep, a fighter universally recognised as having tremendous skills /techinque count as modern? He's certainly as skilled most of the FWs of the last 30years, in fact probably more so.
I find it funny that we all talk about fighters such as FMJ and James Toney as being throwbacks with great old school skills and technique, and then argue that the skills and techniques now are better. Conditioning is improved as sports science teaches us more about tuning the body, but it hasn't lead to a better understanding of how to draw someone onto punches, or counter.
And with all due respect MM, moves on Fifa 12 are not real- they would bamboozle most modern players. Certainly the clowns that I support from Tottenham

I told you I wasn't a footballer!!


When do I consider the modern era to be?

It’s a difficult question to answer because we didn’t just wake up one day and the whole world was in the Modern Era. It’s like the industrial revolution, it took time to propagate, and still hasn’t reached the tribesmen of Peru. Read the second part of my long post (the bit addressed to Manos) for a more in depth answer.

You say “it hasn't led to a better understanding of how to draw someone onto punches, or counter?”

I wasn’t around in the early 20th century, but I have boxed competitively over two separate periods. The first was as a school boy from 92-95 , and the second period was living and fighting competitively at what was the International Boxing Academy (between 2001-2003). Since 2004 I have been involved in coaching.

The quantum leap in the coaching infrastructure and the technical information between the two periods, in what was little under a decade, was amazing.

For example, in the first period that i boxed we were taught the defenses and counters to various punches. However, in the second period we followed sequences of perhaps 30 subtle moves including, defences, punches and counters (a bit like Kasparov practicing 30 move sequences for a chess match). We would practice complex sequences with a partner over and over. It is this putting movement together (as in the Fifa example) which has progressed.

Also...... I never said a new punch had been invented, only the technique had been refined.


You only need watch the link for 12 seconds to realise the techniques have changed......for instance, look how they inform us the jab should land!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZiFr14ibMw

horizontalhero wrote:Or Ken Norton, or Archie Moore, or George Foreman or countless others over the years. It also was pretty condescending.

The facts remain, the cross defence is seldom used today for good reason.

I also think Ghosty can stick up for himself!

horizontalhero wrote:Not you Chris. I was referring to MM response to Ghosty, who is pretty knowledgeable IMO.

Rightly or wrongly, I feel I'm better placed to critique technique than Ghosty.

However, I'd be the first to admit that Ghosty has far more knowledge in matters concerning the history of boxing. He could name more boxers than me, tell me about the careers of endless boxers, their general fighting style, and who they fought and how they performed.

His knowledge in this respect is truelly immense, and I admire his dedication as a fan and as a pugilistic scholar.



....there, i think that was fairly diplomatic.