Beanflicker your bias for new fighters makes sense in the heavyweight division but not for the lighter weight fighters. They were tough, skilled and seasoned campaigners who could easily have wiped the floor with many fighters today.
Printable View
Beanflicker your bias for new fighters makes sense in the heavyweight division but not for the lighter weight fighters. They were tough, skilled and seasoned campaigners who could easily have wiped the floor with many fighters today.
Whitaker almost dropped by Pendleton ? don't remember that at all. I remember him beating Pendleton quite comfortably 9-3 or 8-4, and he schooled McGirt in the rematch. No shame in being floored with Mayweather he had dynamite in the right hand, and i think Whitaker was more hurt by being hit while he was down.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Duran also got floored twice by De Jesus, this is all moot because there would be no stoppage. Whitaker is tougher than you think he took flush punches off one of the hardest hitting Welterweights of all time, and survived 12 rounds while being past his prime.
I think Whitaker beats Duran by decision, Duran was great as a Lightweight but i do feel he struggled with boxers somewhat. Although he did beat some solid boxers like Fernandez and ETC, he did get schooled by a defensive master like Benitez.
I don't think there would be any schooling here, but i think Whitaker would win a close decision if he doesn't get robbed.
I'm not saying they weren't tough, seasoned or skilled. I'm just saying that skills have evolved since then, and they are, in general, athletically inferior to athletes of 50 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
They are great because they were pioneers... I guess to use another analogy, take Jimi Hendrix. Widely lauded as the greatest guitarist of all time.... but since he died 40 years ago or so, guitarists have largely eclipsed the level of technical proficiency he had. Jimi was an awesome guitarist back in the day, no doubt the best at the time, but if you put him in a time machine and brought him to the present, his guitar skills wouldn't be anything special because there are literally 15 year old kids messing around in their rooms that have the guitar skill he has. Now without Jimi, they probably wouldn't even be playing guitar. And of course he deserves to be known as one of the greats because he was a true pioneer. But if you're talking head to head, no, because things improve with time.
Also, I always found it weird that guys could say, with the same confidence that they would recite their birth date, that a guy like Leonard who they never actually saw fight, have no idea who 99% of his opponents were or if they were worth a shit, would whip a guy like Pernell who's brilliance we have all seen with our eyes. I saw one of Leonard's fights on youtube, and I gotta say I wasn't wowed by the guy. It probably was past his prime, but I didn't see anything that would give Pernell problems.
Think about it, if we could predict the outcome of a fight based on numbers and accomplishments, we'd all be multi-millionaires. You don't get to take a nice looking record or accolades with you into the ring. It's man vs man, ability vs ability.
I get where your coming from to a degree. Living it and seeing it is believing and like every aspect of day to day, we evolve, times change, we learn the value of thumbs etc. I def don't think he or anyone one would go killing today's fighters but likewise Leonard wouldn't be like some Neanderthal seeing a burning bush for the first time. He always struck me as ahead of his time and certainly wasn't a clubbing oof. The guy could box and very well. Unlike a Greb where we can only speculate, we're fortunate to have footage however "old". Looking past the grain and black & white its as clear as day. Its one lifetime ago not a complete relic found in ice. Its touchable. Science, nutrition, rules, boxing politricks etc have certainly changed. More so when talking Whitaker, Holyfield camp. under water weight resistance training ffs?! Training habits as well but where guys work in a gym or swat training pads much more today, fighters simply fought fights then. Something to be said for the constant activity level then. They'd look at those giant pillows and a 10-12 round cap among other things and scoff. As advanced as we fancy ourselves and as far as they've come it's still the hurt business and even the slickest have a ill caveman at the core. It's what pulled Whitaker out of the fire once or twice himself. Today's fighters and the ever growing number of spoon fed divas could learn ALOT from fighters of old. In the ring as well as outside of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerOh for sure, I give big respect to the pioneers like Leonard who paved boxing's long highway and made it possible for guys like Whitaker, PBF, Roy Jones, ect to exist!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
But we're talking WAY back in the day when boxing was still evolving, people were figuring out what worked and what didn't. Back when sport science was basically non existent and nutrition and training wasn't nearly as advanced as it is in modern times. Guys are bigger, stronger, faster and technique grew a great deal since.
So when people say stuff like Benny Leonard would kill Whitaker or Mosley... it's just unrealistic. If you had a time machine to go bring him (at his prime) to Pernell's time and have them fight, he wouldn't know what to make of Pernell (or Mosley).
Great for their time, but if you want to talk modern day, you can't compare a guy like
that.
Yeah, 8th round, or later, Pendleton hit him with a right hand and Whitaker did a very deep knee bend. I watched it at a bar in Chino and subsequently did some very serious elbow bending, but I think I remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICBWhitaker almost dropped by Pendleton ? don't remember that at all. I remember him beating Pendleton quite comfortably 9-3 or 8-4, and he schooled McGirt in the rematch. No shame in being floored with Mayweather he had dynamite in the right hand, and i think Whitaker was more hurt by being hit while he was down.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Duran also got floored twice by De Jesus, this is all moot because there would be no stoppage. Whitaker is tougher than you think he took flush punches off one of the hardest hitting Welterweights of all time, and survived 12 rounds while being past his prime.
I think Whitaker beats Duran by decision, Duran was great as a Lightweight but i do feel he struggled with boxers somewhat. Although he did beat some solid boxers like Fernandez and ETC, he did get schooled by a defensive master like Benitez.
I don't think there would be any schooling here, but i think Whitaker would win a close decision if he doesn't get robbed.
In all this debate keep in mind that Whitaker became a better fighter as he moved up. At lightweight he tended to punch more and that wouldn't do him well with Duran, and in no world is he smart enough to 'frustrate' Duran. Quite the opposite. Duran would be on him, not buying into his feints and shiftiness and just punching over the top of it.
Benny Leonard was considered the best LW of all time by Ray Arcel, and he started training fighters way back, before 1920, and he trained Duran. Actually, worked as an advisor in his corner, but was very familiar with him. Benny leonard was known for incredible hand-speed, real good punching power, and, above all, his intelligence in the ring. Many boxing guys, of the older than me variety, considered him the best ever because he was so good without any physical advantage.
He'd beat Duran or Armstrong. Ike Williams is life or death with any of them. Mosley beats Whitaker at LW because he was just as fast, hit harder, and, when not intimidated by fighting a physical equal, thinks real sharp in the ring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Yeah, it'll always be hard to compare because they are just completely different worlds.
I do think that the fact that old timer's fought more often gets overblown in terms of importance. While I do agree that it gave guys more experience to perfect their craft... in terms of quality of opponents, these HUGE resumes are padded with stiffs, complete throwaway fights. Ray Robinson won 173 fights, which is a crazy number for sure, but how many of those 173 fights were top-quality opponents? I'd go out on a limb and say it's a very small fraction. Guys had to fight 200 times because they had to, not because they were brave he-men who wanted to. If SRR or Benny Leonard could have made a couple million for one fight, they'd only fight once or twice a year too.
Modern guys fight 35 times in a career and they fight hardly any quality opponents. You figure that the first 18-20 are set-ups to pad the record, then you fight 'quality opponents' that try for 2 rounds, then you fights contenders that are half your size, then fight 'champions' that have been brought along the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Yeah, it'll always be hard to compare because they are just completely different worlds.
I do think that the fact that old timer's fought more often gets overblown in terms of importance. While I do agree that it gave guys more experience to perfect their craft... in terms of quality of opponents, these HUGE resumes are padded with stiffs, complete throwaway fights. Ray Robinson won 173 fights, which is a crazy number for sure, but how many of those 173 fights were top-quality opponents? I'd go out on a limb and say it's a very small fraction. Guys had to fight 200 times because they had to, not because they were brave he-men who wanted to. If SRR or Benny Leonard could have made a couple million for one fight, they'd only fight once or twice a year too.
So even when you fight another "champion" you're fighting another guy that has never been in a fight in his life.
And you would be WAY out on a limb re: Robinson's record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitNice.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavilaJones
Throw Benny Leonard in there along with the Old Master and Ike Williams and that's one hell of a tourney.
I don't think Whitaker or Shane make it out alive.
I never warmed up to Benny. I don't know why. Wish I had a better reason for you than "just cause."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavilaJonesQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitNice.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavilaJones
Throw Benny Leonard in there along with the Old Master and Ike Williams and that's one hell of a tourney.
I don't think Whitaker or Shane make it out alive.
I never warmed up to Benny. I don't know why. Wish I had a better reason for you than "just cause."
That is cool. The top 5 lightweights in history is perhaps the toughest list to make in boxing.
This is what Durans trainer Ray Arcel had to say about Leonard and its paraphrased by a boxing writer.
Quote:
The great trainer Ray Arcel once said that the two best fighters he ever saw were Benny Leonard and Ray Robinson and hesitated on picking between them. Of Leonard he said, “His mental energy surpassed that of anyone else.” Indeed “The Ghetto Wizard” was a clever tactician and ring strategist with a brilliant mind who believed and taught that boxing was the art of out thinking one’s opponent. At this few were Benny Leonard’s equal. Leonard was a master boxer who possessed superb defensive footwork, speed, and elusiveness. He was superb at feinting and counter-punching as well as being a great combination puncher. In many ways Benny was the Muhammad Ali of the lightweight division as he defeated the greatest array of challengers in lightweight division history including Freddie Welsh, Willie Ritchie, Johnny Dundee, Ritchie Mitchell, Charley White, Lew Tendler, and Rocky Kansas.
you know who we forgot? JMM. I can't believe I left out Marquez.
Thats the great thing today, we have the records to scrutinize much easier because we lived it, live action. I can look at a record from another era and relate only to whats been observed by others and the few we are fortunate to see but we're still seeing it after the fact and in a broken random order. Rambling here man. Long day.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Yeah, it'll always be hard to compare because they are just completely different worlds.
I do think that the fact that old timer's fought more often gets overblown in terms of importance. While I do agree that it gave guys more experience to perfect their craft... in terms of quality of opponents, these HUGE resumes are padded with stiffs, complete throwaway fights. Ray Robinson won 173 fights, which is a crazy number for sure, but how many of those 173 fights were top-quality opponents? I'd go out on a limb and say it's a very small fraction. Guys had to fight 200 times because they had to, not because they were brave he-men who wanted to. If SRR or Benny Leonard could have made a couple million for one fight, they'd only fight once or twice a year too.
I think the records and numbers can all be very similiar for the most part, kept in perspective with amount fought. All fighters, ALL, have had there fill of cannon fodder and some have more padding than a High School Prom. I mean Leonard though massivly active like many then had the same pace as alot of big names today in regards to a major title. Mosley, Jones jr, Mayweather etc. Almost four, four and a half yrs and they faced some clay pigeons too. Mosley had more cans than a recycling center before his trinket. Today watching a young groomed superstars knock over some guys with the skill of a crash test dummy can be hard to stomach. Guys had to fight very true but it evened out with those considered 'great' over time. Its in large part a generational thing.
Ok well let's make a list of his toughest opponents. I'll just put the guys I know, you can add some if you feel I missed somebody or if I wrongly included someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Jake Lamotta
Henry Armstong
Kid Galivan
Bobo Olsen
Randy Turpin
Rocky Graziano
Joey Maxim
Carmen Basilio
Gene Fulmer
There's 9 guys I know are considered great, or at least solid fighters. It's possible I skipped over a name, but his other opponents I know nothing about.
I'll give him credit for 3 Lamotta fights (that's 12), two Gene Fulmer fights (that's 13), two Turpin's fights (14) and two Basilio fights (15). So by my calculations (which could change), I have Robinson fighting 15 legit fights out of 200 total. That's 7.5% of his fights.
That's based on how people judge records now. For instance, I only credited 3 Lamotta fights because nobody would get credit for beating the same guy 5 full times. If Floyd fought and beat Cotto another 4 times, would people care?
That's going on name recognition alone though. I'm not even questioning the quality of the opponents or the timeframe that he fought them in (for example, I think Armstrong was 35 years old and a year or two away from retirement when they fought. He was also a blown up LW fighting a legit big WW in SRR).
Langford fought Wills about 20 times not because he wanted to but because he had to. Burley and the rest of Murderers row fought each other about 10 times each. Not because they wanted to but because they had to. They fought to survive. It does not take away how good they were. Nobody was making 40 million a fight and taking 2 years off in between. Robinson fought these guys more then once because they remained at the top of the food chain and kept getting in line.There was no other belt to be had. I do think tbh that Robinson overlooked the Murderers Row and only fought Wade after he had been retired for two years. I'm sure that money which runs the show today once Robinson was at the top had something to do with it. Of course there are exceptions like two guys not being able to get their ducks in a row for 50 million a piece while the world blames just about everybody else. Fighting people multiple times today wont wash because we live in an instant gratification society. Boxing in many ways resembles a drive through fast food joint. And people change those because somebody forgot to put ketchup in the bag. You lose once today and a certain segment of the boxing viewershipQuote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerOk well let's make a list of his toughest opponents. I'll just put the guys I know, you can add some if you feel I missed somebody or if I wrongly included someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
Jake Lamotta
Henry Armstong
Kid Galivan
Bobo Olsen
Randy Turpin
Rocky Graziano
Joey Maxim
Carmen Basilio
Gene Fulmer
There's 9 guys I know are considered great, or at least solid fighters. It's possible I skipped over a name, but his other opponents I know nothing about.
I'll give him credit for 3 Lamotta fights (that's 12), two Gene Fulmer fights (that's 13), two Turpin's fights (14) and two Basilio fights (15). So by my calculations (which could change), I have Robinson fighting 15 legit fights out of 200 total. That's 7.5% of his fights.
That's based on how people judge records now. For instance, I only credited 3 Lamotta fights because nobody would get credit for beating the same guy 5 full times. If Floyd fought and beat Cotto another 4 times, would people care?
throws you to the wolves. Considering the sport, that in and of itself is disturbing. People lost more in past eras because they fought once every two weeks with many receiving the call the night before. That shit was common place. Its why guys that go 128-1-2 with 84 knockouts got noticed. Of course the 85 and 0 as an amateur with over 40 first round knockouts didn't hurt.
Robinson fought 18 world champions and beat 12 hall of famers in an era of 1 champion per division not 10.