Old timers like Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Joe Walcott, Jack Johnson, Ron Lyle, Max Baer..............
they woudl beat the kidneys out of the Klitschkos.
(read: troll! :biteit:)
Printable View
Old timers like Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Joe Walcott, Jack Johnson, Ron Lyle, Max Baer..............
they woudl beat the kidneys out of the Klitschkos.
(read: troll! :biteit:)
Any good MW from the golden era (SRR, Jake Lamotta, ect) would beat any HW today because the HW's today have no stamina, so if the MW could survive the first few rounds of explosiveness they would probably box circles around the HW when he gassed.
Imagine what a LHW like Billy Conn would do to a Klitschko.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
He would be buried to rest the next day.
Like always , you overstate your case.
Some, of those you mentioned, would give as good as they got, some would be big let downs.
If you take those guys towards the end of their careers, like the Klits are, you are going to be surprised by the results, in my opinion.
agreed.
@Dark Lord Al
Al you crazy old boy, answer me this mate: Would Tyson Fury be able to beat a prime sonny Liston?
You are joking right, beans? Haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Wlad could do triathlon in the morning, have a 3some with hayden pierre and her hoe friends In the dressing room and proceed to beat on Billy Conn with one arm.
Wlad knocks him out early.
Let me ask you this Brockton...
Have you ever SEEN a PRIME Sonny Liston?
Please link the fights in which prime Liston shows clear superiority over Fury?
Liston at 210lbs is even SLOWER than Fury at 260! Wide telegraphed punches as well.
I wonder how Fury would perform against the current cruiser division, that is, opponents like Liston faced.
I wonder how Fury would perform against guys with such poor records and losing streaks as Liston fought.
I think it would have been a good fight but one in which Fury would definitely win.
Fury has bigger heart that's for sure. He aint no quitter like liston.
Fury is a true fighting man through and through.
I agree. Wacko was a god ;D
Wait,what ???
Yes Billy Conn, former 1920's featherweight division, bum record. 6 losses at welter!
Move over Wladimir :)
George Groves would beat him the fuck up. Billy Conn couldn't deal with the modernized style of St George.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Atleast stick to old timers who actually were HW's at some stage. Liston, Ali, Frazier, they were in the grey zone.
But Conn, he was NEVER a HW, not ever!
Eddie chambers at 209lbs was the smallest opponent Wladimir ever faced, and he was a master escapologist in order to hang in the division.
Conn brings nothing to anybody in the division, NOTHING. Fury would bat him around like he was a little girl! lol And this was a QUALITY Louis opponent.
lol... fuckin LOL!!!
Even the old timers had to be half joking when they mentioned Conn. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
You say the fugin Klits. You din say nutin bout no fugin Tyson Fury fugin pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
I know Brock is joking because there is no possible way that anybody could tell me with a straight face that billy Conn is going to beat Wlad, let alone compete with him. He couldn't be a sparring partner for wlad cuz that's assault. Its crimninal.
Tyson Fury can barely beat a drum.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
Fury is the Cream de la Cream. he sucks it down good. hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by beenKOedYou say the fugin Klits. You din say nutin bout no fugin Tyson Fury fugin pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust
@maxpower
dude seriously, LIston would destroy with his jab alone EITHER Klit. Sonny in his prime, a magnificient victory over a very large, high-ranked man: ONLY a Cassius Clay 22 year old can stop a force like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIIx9h7yhaw
I've seen that one before. And it serves to show that even in this tribute which is supposed to showcase Liston, he is...
(a) slow as a wet wig
(b) uncoordinated
(c) lacking in fundamental skills
(d) utterly ridiculous.
The correct disposition for Liston is..
He dominated over a division filled with cruiserweights OR bums OR a combination thereof OR caught decent opponents on heavy loss streaks.
AND
What a pathetic champion that he could not even defeat a 22 year old cruiserweight named Cassius Clay with no power and fundamentally poor skills! But then again we can barely blame Liston because both fights were shady (Liston retired with a fucked shoulder and then took a dive because his family were threatened) and Liston was likely very old by then.
If you don't swallow the dive thing then you are admitting that Liston has a jaw so glassy that it makes Morrison and Klitschko's chin look like steel!
So we can SEE that 210lb Liston is far slower and imo of otherwise comparable technique (I think Fury even looks better personally, Liston doesn't move and can't even keep his hands up). That's pretty sad that a HW champ from the golden era is slower than a fighter 50lbs heavier!! But somehow this guy is going to outdo the Klitschko's, 2 of the best jabbers in history by slow motion left hand paws from Liston??
You didn't REALLY swallow that story about Liston did you? His jab had some moments to be sure but "Best jab of all time" or near to it is romantic hogwash from an era long gone.
Same with his power... Completely overrated. He could outpunch Chris Byrd I've no doubt or Eddie Chambers but he could not match a REAL modern HW puncher.
One of Liston's best win opponents is Patterson... P.A.T.T.E.R.S.O.N! A man who would struggle in amateur boxing today, look at him!
Back in Liston's day boxing was only a rudimentary sport, not fully complete and worked out yet. Today it is a globalised and professional sport.
Any of the old guys would have killed the new guys because the old guys fought a lot more which meant they had more time to get better at boxing.
A guy who fought 10 times is gonna be better than a guy who fought 1 time and a guy who fought a 100 times (greb) is gonna be better than a guy who fought >50 times (Mayweather) and that's a scientific fact, I don't know how anyone would argue that.
People always argue who was the best boxer of all time and names like SRR, Greb, Leonard, Duran, Whitaker, ect get brought up. All of those answers are just a product of ignorance.
Len Wickwar was the greatest fighter of all time because he fought nearly 500 times. Can you imagine how much boxing knowledge he had after his last fight? At that point he could kill a man with one punch, which is why I think he had to stop.
Good post and you should also mention that Sonny Liston only fought 54 times and thats really not enough times to get good at anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
You can't get good at anything worthwhile doing it only 54 times. If Jimi Hendrix only played a guitar 54 times nobody would have went to see him or listened to his records because he would have stunk.
Archie Moore fought over 200 times and would have killed Liston
Well no beans I'm not sure of that either.
Actually it's a complicated response this time because, experience definitely IS the major ingredient in getting better at boxing (as well as other things too) but the number of fights period does not always tell the whole story. You see for a start, how many fights at a certain weight range tells a different story to how many fights at another. One of the main reasons I am so stubbord regarding the modern HW's (and I'd extend that to other weight ranges somewhat too considering their size compared to their olden counterparts) is that what was historically called a "HW" would now be called a CW or even a light HW.
When we look at David Hayes HW record today for instance we view it as only a handful of fights and look at it compared to Muhammad's record and think well he's not even a HW. But in reality, Muhammad's record in ACTUAL HW fights is only 28-4, the rest being sub 200, and because of modern day dehydration to weigh in, a lot of Haye's CW fights were not only HW fights in Ali's day.. By fight time they in fact WERE 200+ fights even in our times!!!
Obviously when you look at these guys records, including Listons, they just don't cut the mustard compared with today. It's also a neat explaination whenever anybody mentions "workrate" or "speed" in disrespect to modern fighters because OF COURSE they should perform better here because the modern guy is a couple of weight ranges above them!! Except we don't really see that, in the case of Liston, we can barely find ANY boxer who is slower!!! :rolleyes:
But the plot thickens, and it's to do with modern methods...
Modern boxers, in general, you will find special examples otherwise, but the norm, is that modern boxers have much more amateur experience, PLUS have enormous amounts more sparring and pad work, so in fact they DO have more ring time, training and experience than the old timers, not just in weight range, but in total!
But most importantly.. It is utterly BS that the old timers way of fighting so frequently produced better boxers! They were not trained properly in that time for each fight and they did not recover between each fight properly. It was detrimental to their performance completely!
Evander Holyfield was once asked to givwe a speech on how past champions were the better and so on.. But as he gave the interview he swayed from the script. He told that how modern boxers were trained far better than they were in the past, how they did not have to fight as often anymore but because of their management and preparation they were doubly effective, and anybody who says otherwise is someone who did not have to fight against that kind of opposition.
I think Evander was right!
Also, as a pretty important side note, it can be shown that the heavier the weight of a fighter and their opposition in general, the fewer fights they can withstand. A featherweight can obviously fight more than a heavyweight because the punches are lighter and more bearable.
At HW the damage is maximal. In the old days a HW had more fights in general because their competition was not what we today consider HW. Today the punches are so hard that it's inconceivable that any fighter could withstand 100 fights at HW!
That kind of puts into perspective, all of it, just how special dominant HW champs are today to have had so many fights as they have.
How could a guy with 50 fights compete with a guy with 200 fights it's damn near impossible!
Well what is the quality of the opponents that that 200 fight guy fought. No modern fighter has 200 fights but for example I would stack up 45 fight Floyd against 200 fight Robinson no worries.
And I don't put it like it would be competitive, I would seriously be surprised if Robinson would land even a single meaningful punch the entire fight!
Robinson and Leonard.. who is better? Id like your professional take..Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Leonard definitely.
Faster, fitter, stronger, more technical (defensive and cleaner punching).
Leonard probably all round one of the best. Deserves his rep of "all time".
I don't think so man, one thing that you have to consider is that times were much tougher back then, boxers didn't have luxuries and distractions like fighters had after 1980. Times were tough which made for a much tougher man both mentally and physically. All there was to do back then was fight or read a newspaper or book, so if you weren't keen on reading you were more likely throwing hands whenever you had the chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
That's one of the reasons a modern great would get eaten alive if brought back in a time machine to the good old days. They are too pampered and would probably cry without their Twitter LOL
I'll grant you people might have been tougher back in those days, you cannot measure some things. But I don't think that made them better at sports, even combat sports.
No man I saw a statistic that says the average American spends 3 hours on social media alone (thats not counting youtube, pornography, ect). So when you factor that in and also allot for TV and Netflix, on average I'd say the old timers spent about 10 hours a day honing their boxing more than the current boxers do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
I disagree, I do not think professional fighters are "NORMAL" people today. When I fought amateur I was not a normal person. I trained every single day for a few hours and even lost a couple of jobs because of it. Today's pros you must know, don't work and then train, they live it from the moment they wake up until the moment they go to bed because they have to... That IS their job!
How dare you poke holes in my logic. I oughta slap your face!Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
I actually think a lot of spoon fed 'kids' today would cry without the Twitter ;D That or go bat shit crazy. Kinda like I might if we lost Saddos ;D
as with anything its quality over quantity. A guy can have 200 fights with some padding but still manage 40+ respectable fights. Likewise a fighter can have 40 bouts and face near half all killers. Or even in some situations a fighter can face 31 opponents for 31 kos and near all were utter shit. It happens :-X We have living proof that you can fight 31 times and not 'prove' much of anything. But still in todays media we're to believe a record like that makes someone a killer. Loving the KO but not exactly looking at what is being ko'd. I don't see a problem with an active fighter, weekly or monthly just as long as they are not ALL cans. Look hard enough today and you'll see a bad trend of guys coming up on stacked decks and literal mis-matches. Have you seen some of these monthly GBP cards lately. Numbers don't mean squat its the substance. Greb fought some cans, and activity does not make you great, but he also faced Gibbons, Flowers, Tunney, Rossenbloom and Walker some multiple times. We have the immediate convenience today of reliving a modern fighters career in its entirety with a click, and if we're fortunate enough we have had the opportunity to watch guys like Floyd from his amateur days and straight through the ranks to today. We've seen his opponents 'opponents' coming up even. There are a slew of fighters from days gone by who faced good comp as well but I didn't live em and we watch everything from hindsight. Doesn't make them all bums or grocery clerks, just means I'm ignorant and have only a record and numbers to read. Rambling, I need coffee.
Brockton is an old guy, he would destroy anyone you know why?
THERMITE PAINT!
@Spicoli your right about all of that.
I love the objectivity in this post. Absolutely no current boxer nut huggery going on at all. That's the great thing about your posting Max. The way you fully admit your super heavy weight theory translates so well across time that even Lumbering bear Primo is now an ATG Purely because of his size. You have to admire how you can see through Tyson Furys clumsy oaf act and cut through to the great boxing skills and massive power he shows in each and every fight. You are a borderline genius and all the millions of words written by former world champions, trainers, managers, promoters, journalists and fans in praise of former greats is just all BS. Every time I watch old footage of any fighter from before the 1990's I will dismiss any evident skill I may mistakenly think I am witnessing and remember that Aussie Max the former boxer has now enlightened me and that the guy I am watching is a bum facing a tomatoe can. Frazier,Ali,Shavers,Foreman,Lyle,Louis are all feather fisted and would be destroyed by Cunningham and Fury and when I am reading about fighters like Greb and Wilde I will remember that however experienced and talented the writer never mind if the scribe has boxed before themselves or come from a long line of Boxers we already have Max's esteemed opinion that they are bums, and that should be good enough for us. Thanks Max, I have seen the light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
LOL Yes, very amusing post Beanz, lovely touch giving me a dose of my own sarcasm, thanks for that. But alas, alas, not a very accurate portrayal of my posts I'm afraid. You see I've never used weight as the singular ingredient for my argument like you and so many others always jump to first. Otherwise I would have Valuev and Primera at number 1 wouldn't I and not Mike Tyson or David Haye ranked anywhere right!?Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenbeanzI love the objectivity in this post. Absolutely no current boxer nut huggery going on at all. That's the great thing about your posting Max. The way you fully admit your super heavy weight theory translates so well across time that even Lumbering bear Primo is now an ATG Purely because of his size. You have to admire how you can see through Tyson Furys clumsy oaf act and cut through to the great boxing skills and massive power he shows in each and every fight. You are a borderline genius and all the millions of words written by former world champions, trainers, managers, promoters, journalists and fans in praise of former greats is just all BS. Every time I watch old footage of any fighter from before the 1990's I will dismiss any evident skill I may mistakenly think I am witnessing and remember that Aussie Max the former boxer has now enlightened me and that the guy I am watching is a bum facing a tomatoe can. Frazier,Ali,Shavers,Foreman,Lyle,Louis are all feather fisted and would be destroyed by Cunningham and Fury and when I am reading about fighters like Greb and Wilde I will remember that however experienced and talented the writer never mind if the scribe has boxed before themselves or come from a long line of Boxers we already have Max's esteemed opinion that they are bums, and that should be good enough for us. Thanks Max, I have seen the light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Obviously in that post you seemed to so objectively read into all of that, I mentioned the word QUALITY.
We are talking about Robinson who fought a couple hundred fights worth of absolute shit compared to Floyd who fought top opponents. Even after the artificial jacking up of Robinson's opponents and bummifying of Floyd's, one cannot fail to notice there is something different about Floyd's opponents.
Could Robinson go through all of Floyd's opponents 4 times over? Of course not! Why? Because they were far more proficient fighters that require many weeks, months of preparation for unlike the beggars and junk yard hobos that Robinson fought which required only a few laps of the block to knock out!
Completely objective post right there! LOL
Seriously though, I'm not so stupid as to say that those writers were wrong and that nobody prior to 1980 had any fucking skills, that's obviously not the case, but it's also abundantly clear that those skills have progressively gotten heaps better and that pressing the ancient warriors over the current ranks is wrong.
You think I'm the only one who believes Wlad would put away Louis within a round or 2? Or Floyd do in Sugar Ray Robinson with ease? I think most all free thinking fans know it's true, even if they don't want to admit it!
Past fighters i think Mayweather would lose to most of time or only a few of them. Those being Leonard and Hearns i am not sure of Robinson but he was huge for a welter but all footage of him is gone. As for the the Heavyweights there are only a few i give a chance to do well in the 60's Liston and Ali from the 70's i give Foreman and Holmes a great chance because they did well in there 40's in the best era. I fell this era now is no way better then the 90's because the top guys today lost to Champs and contenders of the 90's and one of them by a land slide. I fell this era would be great with out the brother thing it kills it and hurts there legacies because who the fuck is the champ Wald is now but there was a lot grey area when his brother came back and it kinda fucked it up him being there because who was the top guy.