Question, Boxing Historians

[cooper5]

I have to agree, when I got into boxing there were a couple great fighters on the way out. Seeing them get beat made me thing they were no as good as they were. You have to look back to get the full picture.

[mickey malone]

I don't know if I consider myself an historian but I have followed the sport with a passion for 20 years and studied constantly. When I look at fighters like Pacquiao now it is hard to imagine how anyone in the past can beat him. When I look back at guys like Duran and Leonard and all their losses they look beatable.

Please don't let that fool you!

Looking back at a fighters whole career is the only way to assess how good he really is. I mean years after he's retired. Fighters now all can look unbeatable.

After watching guys like these old time fighters come and go and new ones come along I have realized I can't really judge accomplishments without it being in hindsight.

It is also why I am a doubter of the latest fighters(at least til all is said and done)

I have to agree, when I got into boxing there were a couple great fighters on the way out. Seeing them get beat made me thing they were no as good as they were. You have to look back to get the full picture.

Loved reading these posts, very refreshing.. Decent boxing fans who want to know why?
I'm by no means the biggest bank of knowledge on this site, let alone anywhere else, but it's pretty darn obvious, that the likes of Gans, Pep, Wilde, Robinson, Armstrong, Langford, Greb, Fitzsimmons, Jackson, Jamaica Joe, etc etc, did it did it did it, time and time again at the drop of a hat for peanuts every couple of weeks, not to mention, irrespective of weight differential.. In other words, this was often against guys far too big for Pac or Mayweather to even consider signing the sheet for..

Just thought i'd mention it, as getting beat is all part of the job, especially when you dare take the liberty of fighting the best, regularly without having to spend months on end trying to negotiate enough money to buy small islands for each of the celebrity pugulists, as well as extra country mansions for their smug promoters..

Please don't crack me up & tell me, 'nothing has changed'
Because it has.. Very much so!

[GJC]

That fighters past article is ridiculous. Joe Gans beating Pernell Whitaker? Gans hitting like Felix Trinidad? What a load of ****. Feinting and countering is a lost art? WTF? The people who write these articles probably haven't stepped into a gym in years, if ever. If they did they'd know that many young kids are being taught to counterpunch every day, amateurs and pros.

I love boxing, but there's so many out of touch morons in the game.

By the way, I don't think all modern fighters are better. There's great fighters from several eras. But it can't be denied that basic boxing technique improved greatly from the 20's/30's onwards.

No I'd fancy whitaker to be honest. Think there are some good points in the article and Gans was a great great fighter. Problem is that everyone can fall into the trap of going too much one way in an argument. It's either newer fans thinking that their 23-0 guy can knock out every fighter in history or an old fart like me thinking my 170-15 guy can blitz out a current strong division. He did lose 15 so why couldn't a current guy beat him? Great fighters are great fighters and would adjust and thrive in any era. I'm not a huge Mayweather fan as I guess I'm too old for all the trash talking and I think he could test himself more but I'm not blind he is a fantastic talent and would be in any era.

[GJC]

And if PBF beats PAC?

That's the question lol. I always favour fighters like Mayweather in these match ups but I have a feeling that Pac will beat him. Both of them are ATG's just a matter of where you place them really, think Pac has done more so PBF needs this fight more than him for his resume

[mickey malone]

That's the question lol. I always favour fighters like Mayweather in these match ups but I have a feeling that Pac will beat him. Both of them are ATG's just a matter of where you place them really, think Pac has done more so PBF needs this fight more than him for his resume

Not a chance in merry hell..
History suggests that boxing just does'nt work out that way..
The lazy irritating *** will piss all over him, and yes, I am fully aware that this IS a fact of life.
I'll bet money that Mayweather will beat him by a wide points margin..
Should the million to one shot occur, ie: Someone slips Pac a copper mallet & PBF gets a mickey finn in his water at the end of the 1st, then there may well be the slight possibility of an upset..

I'll stick my neck out & suggest that you ignore this feeling, & stick with your proven & tested gut instincts, ie.. Go with who you would 'always' favour.
As a youngster, i'd always go with the hero of the day (& I think many of us still do) Not trying to teach an old dog new tricks but I was always more often wrong than not..
70 years of normal & rational judgement must not be treated lightly lol You know it makes sense!

All said and done, they are both potentialy better than Ali, Robinson and Armstrong..
I see Mayweather getting a pasting for the first few rounds, but then his boxing brain kicks in, & Pac will get to learn all about the brand new experience of throwing lightning quick power combos, that do everything but connect, for at least 7 of the last 8 rounds..
Floyd lands 1 or 2 neck jerking counters towards the end of every round and wins it by a country mile.. Well, that's how I picture it..

No one will get knocked out, as both are way too good over a measly 12.. I liken it to Hagler Leonard, with Pac being Hagler..

[GJC]

Not a chance in merry hell..
The lazy irritating *** will piss all over him, and i'm fully aware that it's just a fact of life.

Hopefully we will know for sure Mickey, we'll have a friendly little points interest bet when the time comes. Wouldn't bet the farm on it that for sure.

[RightCross94]

No I'd fancy whitaker to be honest. Think there are some good points in the article and Gans was a great great fighter. Problem is that everyone can fall into the trap of going too much one way in an argument. It's either newer fans thinking that their 23-0 guy can knock out every fighter in history or an old fart like me thinking my 170-15 guy can blitz out a current strong division. He did lose 15 so why couldn't a current guy beat him? Great fighters are great fighters and would adjust and thrive in any era. I'm not a huge Mayweather fan as I guess I'm too old for all the trash talking and I think he could test himself more but I'm not blind he is a fantastic talent and would be in any era.

Hmm the article does make some other points, but the ones I mentioned are ludicrous. Gans hitting harder than Trinidad

Gans was a very good fighter and he was much better technically than nearly all his contemporaries.

I agree with the rest of what you said. Greats are great in any era, some adjustment would be needed obviously if Gans were to fight today, but with that necessary adjustment to the shorter fights etc I think he'd go well.

[GJC]

Hmm the article does make some other points, but the ones I mentioned are ludicrous. Gans hitting harder than Trinidad

Gans could **** but Trinidad KO'd guys a lot bigger than Gans did so I'd go with Trinidad too.
Think there is a tendency with these articles to try and compare the old guys with the big fighters at the time they write the article, think he might have overshot with Whitaker and Trinidad though

[GJC]

All said and done, they are both potentialy better than Ali, Robinson and Armstrong..

Whoah Mickey that is a BIG statement!!!!

I liken it to Hagler Leonard, with Pac being Hagler..

That suits as I didn't think Leonard won that fight but thats another story
You are relying on Pac fighting as dumb a fight as Hagler too?
Well when the time comes well have a wager, be happy to be wrong as long as the fight happens and it lives up to expectations.

[mickey malone]

Quote
Whoah Mickey that is a BIG statement!!!!

"Potentialy"

Quote
That suits as I didn't think Leonard won that fight but thats another story
You are relying on Pac fighting as dumb a fight as Hagler too?
Well when the time comes well have a wager, be happy to be wrong as long as the fight happens and it lives up to expectations.

Does'nt that kind of suggest that the judges made a dumb decision?
I'm one of those who actually agreed with them, but as you've already pointed out, that's another story..