Judging Boxers Historically: Are We Looking at It Wrong?

[BigStereotype]

BTW, if anything basketball players are LESS skilled overall then they were just a few years ago. Why? Because most don't learn the skills and just try to skate by on their athleticism. And Kobe Bryant is NOT more skilled than Michael Jordan.....at ANYTHING. Cripes, yhou remind me of those idiots that were saying just a few short years ago that Allen ****ing Iverson was better than Jordan :rolleyes9:

Poet

Kobe's a better 3-point shooter (32.7% vs 34%) but MJ is clearly better. I never watched Oscar Robertson play, but I did watch MJ and I have trouble seeing anybody ever play better than he could, especially in the clutch.

[StarshipTrooper]

Kobe's a better 3-point shooter (32.7% vs 34%) but MJ is clearly better. I never watched Oscar Robertson play, but I did watch MJ and I have trouble seeing anybody ever play better than he could, especially in the clutch.

Yeah, but a difference of 1.3% is practically a statistical anomoly.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

your a true jack of all trades idiot.darwins theory of evolution is that all life evolved from a common ancestor you dunce

that theory has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that humans are growing taller every decade and species continue to evolve.darwin didnt invent the word evolution lmao

and who the hell is using the words different and better?your making less sense than usual

And you just failed Biology 101 for a second time.....please repeat the course. Darwinian evolution or as it's also known biological evolution is much more than evolving from a common ancestor. It covers both species evolving into different species (macro evolution) as well as species developing variation within the species (micro evolution). It covers the means of arriving at the above (mutations, natural selection, ect). In ALL cases, barring a sudden major mutation (extremely rare), the process takes hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of years.....NOT a few short decades.

Here in lays the problem: Your knowledge of just about everything you speak on is so superficial as to be laughable. I'm sorry, but catching the last ten minutes of a show on the Discovery Channel is NOT going to make you knowledgable about a subject. You try (and fail I might add) to make your inane claims sound more solid by trying to make them appear to have scientific backing.....but the truth is you're lack of any real understanding of the science you're misusing just makes you look like an idiot. That kind of scheisse may work on the typical sports fan but NOT with someone who actually has an education.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

1st off like i said,your bball knowledge is actually worse than your boxing knowledge incredibly.
jordan has 5 league mvps,and 6 finals mvps.how many does oscar have?
and has the highest career playoff scoring average,and is 3rd all time for points scored.he led the league in scoring 10 times and 7 consecutively.so how is oscar a better scorer?or even in the discussion to be a better player

as far as kobe,kobe shoots better than mike from 3 and he creates of the dribble better.and as usual you have zero knowledge so you resort to your usual idiotic off topic rant

I see you bring the same "BoxRec Warrior" approach to basketball that you do to boxing :loser9: Jordan played on teams where the vast majority of the shots were funneled to him and Pippen. Robertson played on teams where the shots were much more evenly distributed. As usual, you take raw stats out of context without looking at the overall picture.....which in TEAM sports is a fatal error.

BTW, Kobe barely knows how to dribble properly.

Poet

[Tiozzo]

Am begining to wonder if todays HW contenders can hit you back

very valid and relevant question...

[Tiozzo]

the article covers good questions and all, but as Obama pointed out, it is not a demonstration as rigorous as it should be

I would add plugging Pacquiao throughout the article and taking him as no. 1 example of a modern great makes the writer look somewhat like a fanboy with an agenda

here is how I sum up the problem of rating past/modern fighters

- the past is like an ideal, nostalgy come into play a lot

- the lack of distance with modern fighters achievements blurs our perception and judgment

- the sport is not the same that it used to be in many (if not all) ways

I believe the level of activity/number of fights is not as important as the writer makes it out to be though

Take Jim Jeffries for example, Boxingscene rates him 11th (or 12 th ?) AT at HW and he has only had 22 fights, but against top competition most of the time (but maybe we could make a case that he is idolized and ranked high for being a past white champion next to Marciano and Dempsey, whose reigns look pale compared to the ones of black champions such as Johnson, Louis and Ali ?)

Also, I think that beating HOFers and AT greats will always be a superior feat to dominating ordinary contemporaries (but that's me)

I do believe many modern fighters, some of which are still active like Pacquiao and Hopkins, will go up the AT rankings as time goes by and as we get more distance to evaluate and appreciate their achievements

there are so many things that come into play, it really is no piece of cake to compare modern and past fighters in a fair manner...

[winky's right]

fantastic article. A+

[JAB5239]

Am begining to wonder if todays HW contenders can hit you back

Lmao!!This really made me laugh out loud! Good one my friend.