Discussion in 'Boxing' started by qazaqwe, Jan 18, 2015.
Where are you going with this comparison?
Like I said. Its been years. The a mature circuit is different. They still have something to prove to themselves . Pro stuff is more.abour the hype and less abour the quality.of the boxer. There is no show sroping fighters anymore. Gonzalez is as easy to say as Saman. But h umberto is way eaiser to say than Sorjaturong is. I will give you that.
I don't really think that distinction is right, i mean, if you look at the earlu 70's you had Frazier, blind in one eye and unable to straighten his left arm, Ali, a fairly chubby fighter who seemed to rely on a bizarre combination of reflexes and chin with little to no fundamental boxing skill, Foreman, a freak of nature who got easily tired and had one only one real tactic, Norton, a very unorthodox brawler who used a rather strange defense to hide his tendency to wilt in the face of power, Lyle, a 30 year old who had spent a decade in prison and had been stabbed so badly at one point he'd died twice on an operating table, Bonavena, a fairly difficult and stubborn fighter who'd rarely train, was believe to have had a drinking problem, and spent the last years of his life getting involved with the mafia before he was murdered, Quarry, a fairly average fighter who tended to use his face to set up counters, which was a shame because his entire brow was mostly scar tissue, and i suppose Bugner, who was considered a rather boring ugly fighter, who was pretty much going through the motions, yet it is remembered as the best era in the division, but never with any explanation to why.
Simon beat me to the question
No where beyond saying that judging a fighter by something he did in an obscure fight very early in his career that he dominated despite it seems to be a flimsy way to judge him and his talents.
Perhaps you missed your own point? Just asking
It goes beyond the early fights and into his entire career.
Early fights make a legend. The rest prove it
I'm just saying, i try to keep my eye on boxing as much as possible, and is still regularly get surprised by amazing fights i should have heard about, but there are so many little corners of the sport that aren't particularly public, and without a story to sell it, people rarely talk about such fights.
I am not a boxing historian. But I don't need to be to recognize true talent. The world is massivly lacking it currently. Perhaps the opposite. Maybe there is so much good talent now that we need to see great talent to recognize it.
I don't see how, i am taking apart an era in the division that is lauded as being better than this current despite being filled with people with physical and technical defects, who are much smaller with worse records, i am providing reasons why i think this era is unworthy of being considered one of the best, as the level of competition was mostly due to problems with the fighters that would have made them much less competitive in later eras.
To my mind the belief that these bigger people with better access to training, nurtition and technology are in an era with someone who is unprecedented in their abilities is much easier to believe that every one is a terrible fighter and none of them would last a second back in the good old days.
But this one example people are using to deride him happened once early in his career and hasn't happened again, he learnt from his mistake, and is continuing to improve his skills, he didn't get an undefeated record and a mandatory challenge by punching himself in the face.
Today's boxers are like all pro athletes so many advantages in training that you have to expect better performance. I see it technicly, but its.just not good. I am a technicly perfect photographer, but my work is trite. Plus they get more fights than ever so of course their records.will show them better
No, he got them by facing a lack of top notch opponents.
It's a shane the Haye fight never happened.
Or the level of competition is much vaster considering the growth in population and the ability for people living in former communist countries to compete, so it takes a better record to get anywhere.
That isn't exactly his fault though, Further more, most of those below par opponents had better records than quite a few people that fought for world titles in previous eras.
My point is they would not imo . Without the modern advantages.
Then we have no disagreement.
Perhaps you are right on this. Take away the modern training, the lessons learned from the greats. Then we will See.
Well the initial statement was hinting we were on the precipice of a golden era, so my idea is one that requires time and reflection before it is able to become a reality, albeit a retroactive one.
Separate names with a comma.