Printable View
Gene Tunney
"I'd rather be smart, than try to make every boxing pundit happy.
They do not have to get in the Ring with guys that want to rip
your head off. Boxing is a rough business."
"I'm content with myself, and have not one single regret about
not fighting this one or that one."
"Look at Muhammad Ali. Sure he was tough, but look at him now. Yes,
I'm sure he made everyone happy."
Even a dynamite left hook can't keep that shit off you :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Yes that Aids will get you. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerBecause blacks tend to rule the sport and if you ain't fighting black fighters, you're missing out on a ton of great competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
If Tommy Morrisson didn't have to fight black fighters he would have retired undefeated except for the AIDs.
When I was a boxing n00b and was ranting a raving about Tyson, all the old timer so called boxing experts would say "Pshhh, if you think Tyson could punch, you need to watch Dempsey vs Willard. Then watch Earnie Shavers. Those guys hit ten times harder than Tyson".Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
It didn't take long to realize that most of these so called experts just have a hard on for old dudes and these guys were overrated.
Dempsey looked like a fucking amateur throwing those wild haymakers at a Willard, who I am convinced had Down Syndrome or some shit. Dempsey sucked and Earnie Shavers sucked even harder (I know Shavers wasn't mentioned in this thread but fuck him anyway).
Dempsey was a punk, he pimped out his prostitute wife, dodged the war (like he dodged black fighters), and people want to ooh and ahh over his shovel hook. Yeesh. ;D
Haha brilliant, every word, Dempsey, Shaver the lot!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWhen I was a boxing n00b and was ranting a raving about Tyson, all the old timer so called boxing experts would say "Pshhh, if you think Tyson could punch, you need to watch Dempsey vs Willard. Then watch Earnie Shavers. Those guys hit ten times harder than Tyson".Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
It didn't take long to realize that most of these so called experts just have a hard on for old dudes and these guys were overrated.
Dempsey looked like a fucking amateur throwing those wild haymakers at a Willard, who I am convinced had Down Syndrome or some shit. Dempsey sucked and Earnie Shavers sucked even harder (I know Shavers wasn't mentioned in this thread but fuck him anyway).
Dempsey was a punk, he pimped out his prostitute wife, dodged the war (like he dodged black fighters), and people want to ooh and ahh over his shovel hook. Yeesh. ;D
Yes, I also grew up with Tyson and when all the oldies told me about prior boxers being greater, I thought to myself fuck, they must have been absolutely unreal!
It was many years later that I actually got a chance to watch them and to say that I was grossly misinformed is a mild understatement to say the least.
Personally I find most of those old fights unwatchable for any but educational purposes.
Will you two girls get a room and stop making this stuff up.
Dempsey and Tunney champions in their time.
Golden era of boxing in terms of mainstream appeal in the Us.
Gene Tunney
"I'm smart first, and a boxer second."
What am I making up, ya'll need to read "A Flame of Pure Fire", which is a pro-Dempsey book but outlines a lot of the stupid shit he was up to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
It's fine to like those old times, everyone was wearing a suit and a top hat, cool whatever, but you have to acknowledge the fact that these punks belonged to the "Boy's Club" at the time which feasted on bums and conveniently excluded black fighters.
I was on about Max saying Kov would knock Dempsey and Tunney out and Ward beating them as well.
4 pages to cover a statement nobody has claimed.
Interesting.
He's 100% right. Ward is twice the fighter either of those guys were. Tunney got whipped and given hell a few times by a middleweight, I don't see why Ward couldn't do the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
And Kov is a better puncher than Dempsey was.
Who whipped Tunney twice?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerHe's 100% right. Ward is twice the fighter either of those guys were. Tunney got whipped and given hell a few times by a middleweight, I don't see why Ward couldn't do the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
And Kov is a better puncher than Dempsey was.
Kov is a good puncher but Dempsey was vicious.
On what grounds do you think an in form Ward could not outbox those guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
On what grounds do you think those guys could survive a fight with Kovalev?
Dempsey was scary for the day, but he was scared of black fighters himself, and heavy+decent guys too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterWho whipped Tunney twice?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerHe's 100% right. Ward is twice the fighter either of those guys were. Tunney got whipped and given hell a few times by a middleweight, I don't see why Ward couldn't do the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
And Kov is a better puncher than Dempsey was.
Kov is a good puncher but Dempsey was vicious.
Kovalev is scary now!
Greb beat him once and was robbed at least once, the consensus was he got robbed in at least one of Tunney's wins. Harry Greb was 5'8'' and weighed 168 without cutting weight. Andre is 6'0'' and probably walks around 180-190, so he was about the same size as Tunney. Of course this is as hypothetical as a match gets, because they fought almost 100 years apart and as we know Tunney refused to fight blacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Kovalev has much better technique and more one-punch power than Dempsey ever had. Dempsey was not a smart guy - he chewed pine tar to strengthen his jaw for fucks sake. He was borderline retarded.
Second all of that..Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerGreb beat him once and was robbed at least once, the consensus was he got robbed in at least one of Tunney's wins. Harry Greb was 5'8'' and weighed 168 without cutting weight. Andre is 6'0'' and probably walks around 180-190, so he was about the same size as Tunney. Of course this is as hypothetical as a match gets, because they fought almost 100 years apart and as we know Tunney refused to fight blacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Kovalev has much better technique and more one-punch power than Dempsey ever had. Dempsey was not a smart guy - he chewed pine tar to strengthen his jaw for fucks sake. He was borderline retarded.
Especially "Dempsey was not a smart guy - he chewed pine tar to strengthen his jaw for fucks sake. He was borderline retarded"
LOL You can't buy quotes that good! ;D
Have you heard some of your quotes? ;D
Has anybody noticed that James Toney- a 5'10" guy that started his career at 154- held his own at HW? And he didn't even bother to be in shape? For most of his fights at that weight he weighed over 220, couldn't see his own feet. Yet Emmanuel Steward said that he wouldn't let WK fight him.
Toney was taught old school- you know, 'primitive'- skills by Bill Miller, a very old school guy. And he got by on that. And he was mid to late 30s when he started fighting at that weight.
Yeah occasionally I can dish out the odd bashing of a boxer that would no doubt kick my own ass LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
But we're all guilty of that sometimes aren't we @Master ;)
What do you mean Toney was taught "Old School"? Toney is a modern boxer. By that measure he was trained BY a modern trainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
When you look at Freddie Roach and Emanuel Steward, you see Old School right? WRONG! These guys WERE/ARE modern coaches dummy! They're the trainers of the current fighters!
Was Freddie Roach one of the great coaches of the 70's, 60's or 50's? Of course not!
Anyway, nobody is denying Toney is a great boxer. In fact, the better ones SKILLS are, the less they NEED to be in shape! If you have great skills AND are in shape, bonus! At HW there is nothing wrong with being fat and never has been.
What Toney stacked on is a tonne of weight, in the form of muscle AND fat (and a little steroid). Affording him the extra power, strength, chin and resistance to compete at HW.
Toney carried his chin up to HW well (helped no doubt by the chub). He was not a real big hitter, as many sub HW's turn featherfisted when they move up to HW.
Basically Toney's best claim to fame at HW was surviving Peter & Rahman and outboxing Holyfield (another former sub HW).
His chances vs Klitschko are about 1 billion to 1!
Do not call greynotsoold a dummy you daft cunt.
Emanuel Steward had links to Eddie Futch and so did Freddie Roach that is old school.
I know he's not REALLY dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
But this is exactly what I'm talking about. OF course they had links to an older teacher.
My point is that every generation of coaches learns from the previous generation of coaches and builds upon what came before.
How could it be otherwise!
This current generation of coaches, ARE modern coaches, by exact definition!
Whether they got schooled by an even older coach or learned their methods from a text book is completely irrelevant.
A coach's worth is proven by his success with his fighters. If he coaches talented fighters to success, he is a good coach!
James Toney was trained by Bill Miller, from his first days in the gym. Bill Miller- he also trained Emmanuel Steward, and just about all the Kronk fighters in the early days- was a devotee of Ezzard Charles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerWhat do you mean Toney was taught "Old School"? Toney is a modern boxer. By that measure he was trained BY a modern trainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
When you look at Freddie Roach and Emanuel Steward, you see Old School right? WRONG! These guys WERE/ARE modern coaches dummy! They're the trainers of the current fighters!
Was Freddie Roach one of the great coaches of the 70's, 60's or 50's? Of course not!
Anyway, nobody is denying Toney is a great boxer. In fact, the better ones SKILLS are, the less they NEED to be in shape! If you have great skills AND are in shape, bonus! At HW there is nothing wrong with being fat and never has been.
What Toney stacked on is a tonne of weight, in the form of muscle AND fat (and a little steroid). Affording him the extra power, strength, chin and resistance to compete at HW.
Toney carried his chin up to HW well (helped no doubt by the chub). He was not a real big hitter, as many sub HW's turn featherfisted when they move up to HW.
Basically Toney's best claim to fame at HW was surviving Peter & Rahman and outboxing Holyfield (another former sub HW).
His chances vs Klitschko are about 1 billion to 1!
For what it is worth, if you ever go to Freddie Roach's gym and meet him, you'll heart a bunch of guys lamenting the loss of 'old school' boxing skill.
Well you know what grey, as much as respect Freddie & Pepper Roach (and I think highly of Wild Card gym too), I do have to draw a line between fact and fiction here.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsooldJames Toney was trained by Bill Miller, from his first days in the gym. Bill Miller- he also trained Emmanuel Steward, and just about all the Kronk fighters in the early days- was a devotee of Ezzard Charles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerWhat do you mean Toney was taught "Old School"? Toney is a modern boxer. By that measure he was trained BY a modern trainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
When you look at Freddie Roach and Emanuel Steward, you see Old School right? WRONG! These guys WERE/ARE modern coaches dummy! They're the trainers of the current fighters!
Was Freddie Roach one of the great coaches of the 70's, 60's or 50's? Of course not!
Anyway, nobody is denying Toney is a great boxer. In fact, the better ones SKILLS are, the less they NEED to be in shape! If you have great skills AND are in shape, bonus! At HW there is nothing wrong with being fat and never has been.
What Toney stacked on is a tonne of weight, in the form of muscle AND fat (and a little steroid). Affording him the extra power, strength, chin and resistance to compete at HW.
Toney carried his chin up to HW well (helped no doubt by the chub). He was not a real big hitter, as many sub HW's turn featherfisted when they move up to HW.
Basically Toney's best claim to fame at HW was surviving Peter & Rahman and outboxing Holyfield (another former sub HW).
His chances vs Klitschko are about 1 billion to 1!
For what it is worth, if you ever go to Freddie Roach's gym and meet him, you'll heart a bunch of guys lamenting the loss of 'old school' boxing skill.
A conundrum pops up when considering Roach's opinion on that matter (if indeed that's what it is, Roach is known to be nostalgically oriented)...
He is the coach of Manny Pacquaio is he not?
So if these old school boxing skills are "LOST", then WHAT THE HELL IS ROACH TEACHING MANNY?
And what the hell did Miller teach Roach?
Obviously Roach and Steward take what they learned from Miller, develop in further and pass it onto Toney and Pacquaio.
Does this not make sense? I see absolutely NO break in the continuity line, unless at some point recently ALL of the trainers died suddenly without passing anything on!
If you know your history, you will also know that what you and these guys are saying, has been said in practically every era by the old timers of previous ones throughout the dawn of boxing.
Therefore by that logic, boxing has been getting progressively worse since the 1860's until the present? BS!
There is a lot of stuff that Roach teaches that is not 'old', for example, turning over punches. he tends to the pick them up, turn them over then throw them school of thought.
And a great many skills are lost (Miller did not teach Roach, by the way. You must be thinking of Eddie Futch). A lot of this is because great trainers did not pass on their skills. A lot of it is because guys take the easy way out- I think that is just human nature. You can see this in the the footwork modern fighters use, the way they throw their punches, their defensive liabilities. For example- the essence of boxing is counterpunching. Today the emphasis is on keeping one's hands high is a position that makes it hard to punch back, but that is easier because of the larger gloves.
You see many fighters doing everything off the front foot- by that I mean, powering their left hand punches by pushing off and never getting the weight onto the rear foot- or with thier feet too far apart. These things affect your ability to move, to defend, to throw good combinations, to move after you punch. In the ring, with me wearing punch mitts and catching your punches, if your feet are like that, I can move you off your balance, keep you from moving. Yet it is taught that way.
Yeah I appreciate some of the points your saying here but a lot of those things are present today and it's your pure speculation that it's because these skills are lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Vitali Klitschko has a back foot style, he was taught by a German trainer!
There are countless counterpunchers.
And don't tell me about defence because it is only in the last 30 years that boxers REALLY learned HOW to defend properly.
A far more likely scenario, is that the sport has evolved and that some of the previous skills have been emphasised which are more important and some of those skills have been de-emphasised because they were not!
Can we agree that Mayweather has been the top defensive boxer of the last decade? the staple of his defense is rolling the right hand off his shoulder, is it not? In this day and age that is treated like it is some elusive art form that only the most gifted can pursue. Take some time and find some old boxing training manuals, back from when colleges in the US had boxing teams. Teaching the shoulder roll was standard- back in the day that was how it was taught. My dad boxed in the 1930s in Pittsburgh and that is how he taught me in the early 1970s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYeah I appreciate some of the points your saying here but a lot of those things are present today and it's your pure speculation that it's because these skills are lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Vitali Klitschko has a back foot style, he was taught by a German trainer!
There are countless counterpunchers.
And don't tell me about defence because it is only in the last 30 years that boxers REALLY learned HOW to defend properly.
A far more likely scenario, is that the sport has evolved and that some of the previous skills have been emphasised which are more important and some of those skills have been de-emphasised because they were not!
What changed 30 years ago...Gloves got bigger, they attached the thumbs. Before that, you didn't use the ear-muffs defense because you still got hit. You had smaller gloves which covered less of you and he had smaller gloves to slip through the openings. So you slipped, you parried, you deflected; all of these things lead to counter punch opportunities. or, you stayed out of range unless you had a reason to get within punching distance. Also, with smaller gloves, you threw better punches. You paid attention to where they were going because hitting a guy on the elbow hurt your hands, so did hitting on top of his head, and you could break your thumb in a number of ways.
@greynotsooldQuote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Good post, and of course I would have to agree to a lot of what you wrote. The implications of it all aren't quite agreeable but let's see...
Yes, I definitely agree Mayweather, despite hating the guy with a passion, is the best defensive boxer of the last decade. I would probably go so far as to sayof all time.
In this day and age, his shoulder roll defence is treated for what it is. It can be made to work very effectively, but not reliably for everyone.
If the shoulder roll defence was fit for every boxer and was some kind of silver bullet, then every boxer would be taught it and employing it. Mayweather's family/trainers did not enjoy the same success with it, neither does Broner. This is not an example of a skill that is lost and rather, an example of economy of training.
Yes gloves got bigger. And I agree that afforded some added protection due to being able to more fully cover the face, easily parry and hit with less regard for injury to the hand. I give you that. To claim that the larger gloves were like a wall of leather or "ear-muffs" is a mild exaggeration to suit your following agenda.
I don't see any credible reason for larger gloves affecting parrying at all, only theoretically maybe leading to less slipping possibly, because they can wear it on their pillow gloves. However in practice, the best counterpunch opportunities come from making your opponent miss and then making them pay, that has not changed. I was an amateur boxer and slipping was the paramount skill we were drilled on defence wise all the time even at this level.
So what do concrete examples reveal? In all the fight footage I've ever seen I see punch baggery mainly from the past and more defensive fighters prevalent the closer to the present. That is because counter-punching relies on timing and reflexes which I'm sorry to say are greatly in excess of past times today. I see most of those old timers failing to KEEP a high guard, they often punched with their back hand down by their waist/hip, fully open (see Robinson for example).
This is maybe somewhat a reflection of what you've said too, the fact that a good guard can still be breached in earlier times and taking shots on less protected hands could lead to worse injury thus making it less worthwhile than it is today.
Basically, the sport has evolved! It has gradually metamorphosed over time from bare-knuckle boxing, to what it is today! OF COURSE bare-knuckle boxers fought in a more primal style. But it's also obvious that today, boxing has progressed into a more and more professional endeavour throughout the years.
I also agree with you that the less protection on your hands the more you had to concentrate on proper hand and finger alignment but I'm sorry, that DETRACTED from the speed and power of the punch, so really you can claim that punch quality is assisted today by modern equipment.
There is no question that fighters are more accurate punchers today, they train it explicitly. Punch accuracy, timing and reflexes was assisted by several magnitudes primarily because of the focus mitts and the increased frequency, duration and intensity of training possible with modern nutrition, medicine and management. Sure, it's a given they don't have to worry aout hitting an elbow so much now, but then again that affords them also a far more committed blow than previously also. Again, the sport evolved.
[QUOTE=greynotsoold;1288772]Great class. I think referee Mills Lanes was in the last group of boxers to graduate from collegiate boxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerQUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Can we agree that Mayweather has been the top defensive boxer of the last decade? the staple of his defense is rolling the right hand off his shoulder, is it not? In this day and age that is treated like it is some elusive art form that only the most gifted can pursue. Take some time and find some old boxing training manuals, back from when colleges in the US had boxing teams. Teaching the shoulder roll was standard- back in the day that was how it was taught. My dad boxed in the 1930s in Pittsburgh and that is how he taught me in the early 1970s.
What changed 30 years ago...Gloves got bigger, they attached the thumbs. Before that, you didn't use the ear-muffs defense because you still got hit. You had smaller gloves which covered less of you and he had smaller gloves to slip through the openings. So you slipped, you parried, you deflected; all of these things lead to counter punch opportunities. or, you stayed out of range unless you had a reason to get within punching distance. Also, with smaller gloves, you threw better punches. You paid attention to where they were going because hitting a guy on the elbow hurt your hands, so did hitting on top of his head, and you could break your thumb in a number of ways.
I still don't think Gene Tunney is an ATG. How can you not fight black folk and be great?
what about Puerto Ricans? must they be in there , too? Mulattos? Like Wilfredo Benitez? Or Brazilians? Indians? Dominicans? Or just black Dominicans count---in order to be an ATG? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Don't be stupid. We all know there were racist motivations for not fighting the blacks back in those days, either out of fear or embarrassment to losing to them and because it wouldn't have been a good "look" to have a black champion.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustwhat about Puerto Ricans? must they be in there , too? Mulattos? Like Wilfredo Benitez? Or Brazilians? Indians? Dominicans? Or just black Dominicans count---in order to be an ATG? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Yeah but Puerto Rican's don't make great HW's. Black American fighters are historically the best fighters because they have so much athleticism from African genes and so much rage because of slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustwhat about Puerto Ricans? must they be in there , too? Mulattos? Like Wilfredo Benitez? Or Brazilians? Indians? Dominicans? Or just black Dominicans count---in order to be an ATG? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I don't think there's anything particularly special about black fighters racially when viewed globally. Maybe in America. I think it has been a cultural thing for black people to want to fight and hence box moreso than whites historically (atleast in America).Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerYeah but Puerto Rican's don't make great HW's. Black American fighters are historically the best fighters because they have so much athleticism from African genes and so much rage because of slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustwhat about Puerto Ricans? must they be in there , too? Mulattos? Like Wilfredo Benitez? Or Brazilians? Indians? Dominicans? Or just black Dominicans count---in order to be an ATG? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
You have to look to the fact that the moment boxing went global, all black boxers were basically eliminated from champ status, especially from the heavier division where they were supposedly most dominant.
But you are right for the point of this discussion, historically for whatever reason, the blacks were the best boxers in the world.
And given the times/situation.. One thing is fully obvious, but seems to require being pointed out...
IF COLOURED FIGHTERS WERE MANDATORY FOR ALL THE PRE-30'S BOXERS TO FACE, GUYS LIKE DEMPSEY AND TUNNEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE NEVER BEEN HW CHAMPIONS AT ALL! That is a fact!