Roy Jones didn't make history! Bob Fitsimmonz record remains unbroken!

joe lewis, in the prime of his career was fighting at 200-205 pounds. lennox lewis was fighting at 345-350. how would the more talented hopkins or talylor or wright do against a big guy like macormack or braithewright...that what were comparing here Lewis weighed 345-350, did he? I'm assuming that's merely a typo on your part or at least I hope it was. I don't know how Hopkins would do against Braithwaite or Mormeck. But I do know how guys like a former welterweight by the name of Mickey Walker did against heavyweights, and he defeated a few of the ranked contenders of his time (Johnny Risko, Paulino Uzcudan, King Levinsky and Bearcat Wright). I also know that in the very first round Mickey Walker knocked out a former heavyweight contender of the late 20's by the name of Arthur De Kuh, who outweighed Walker by about 50 lbs, and who had also gone the distance with the murderous punching Max Baer just the year previous. I also know that Walker fought Jack Sharkey to a 15 round draw in a fight that many thought Walker won, which was in Sharkey's prime of his career and just before he defeated Schmeling for the heavyweight championship (after facing Walker, Sharkey beat the shit out of the much larger, Primo Carnera, over 15 rounds). And I know how another former welterweight by the name of Sam Langford also beat more than his share of heavyweight contenders during his career, including a few that are members of the prestigious IBHOF. I could go on with plenty of examples where the more talented smaller man defeated the much bigger man, including some examples of recent times where we see guys jumping up and winning alphabet titles in multiple weight classes. But all I really wanted to say in this post, is that this modern fan's thinking that bigger is automatically better is exceptionally flawed...History proves otherwise and if "bigger is better" was automatically the case, then Louis certainly wouldn't have beaten the shit out of guys like Abe Simon, Primo Carnera, and Buddy Baer (all very comparable in size to Lennox Lewis). You can say Lennox Lewis could've/would've beaten Joe Louis all you want and if you can make a decent case for that happening, odds are you're not going to get too many heated arguments to the contrary (although some would beg to differ with that opinion, I'm sure). But it's got to be something more substantiated than simply stating Lennox would win because he was much bigger, because Joe Louis himself proved that theory 100% false against few of his much larger opponents.

Jim Corbett whom Fitzsimmons defeated was a mear 184 pounds compared with Fitzsimmons's 167. Today corbett would be a small cruiserweight. In short, for jones to challenge Lewis or Klitschko or any of the other Super Heavyweights would have been completely unrealistic. For that matter, no responsible state athletic commision would have sanctioned such a bout. There is a reason weight classes exist, to see a fight with a huge weight disparity such as Jones-Lewis is simply not a sporting contest unless the bigger man is incompetent, ala Ruiz. There were plenty of legitimate fights to be made around the 175 weight when Jones fought Ruiz. He should have just stuck to building his legacy as a great light heavy. Beating Ruiz proved only that too many sanctioning bodies exist, not that roy jones was any greater than we had believed

Didn't you say earlier that you thought an older fighter by the name of Joe Louis was "much more talented" than the modern fighter by the name Lennox Lewis? joe lewis, in the prime of his career was fighting at 200-205 pounds. lennox lewis was fighting at 345-350. how would the more talented hopkins or talylor or wright do against a big guy like macormack or braithewright...that what were comparing here

It's a good accomplishment, but it's a discgrace to compare that to Bob Fitsimmonz.. Bob Fitsimmonz defeated the #1 heavyweight champion in the world... Jones could've fought the best in Lennox Lewis...but he chose John Ruiz... It was obvious that Lennox Lewis was the #1 heavyweight in the world.. I mean come on... If people had this kind of chances, this record would have been broken SO long ago... HERE WE GO AGAIN TRYING TO DISCREDIT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT. AS I REMEMBER WHEN ROY WAS MOVING UP TO FIGHT RUIZ MOSTLY EVERYONE SAID ROY WOULD LOSE THAT FIGHT. MANY PICKED HIM TO GET KNOCKED OUT. THE REASON ROY MOVED UP TO FIGHT RUIZ IS BECAUSE SOME FIGHTS HE WAS TRYING TO GET FELL THROUGH LIKE HOPKINS. SO TO TRY TO DISCREDIT HIS ACCOMPLISHMENT IS FUNNY TO ME. ALL OF THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING THAT RUIZ WASNT THE REAL CHAMPION ARE THE SAME ONES THAT PROBABLY SAID ROY WOULD LOSE TO HIM. ROY WAS OUTWEIGHED BY 30 LBS. NOT ONLY DID HE BEAT RUIZ IT WASNT EVEN A CONTEST. SO IF ROY WOULD HAVE FOUGHT LL THEN SOMEONE WOULD OF FOUND AN EXCUSE THEN TOO. WHAT ROY DID SHOULD GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS A GREAT ALL TIME MOMENT IN BOXING. MORE IS EXPECTED FROM ROY THAN ANY OTHER BOXING IN THE HISTORY OF THE SPORT. THAT TELLS ME ONE THING AND THAT IS THAT HE IS AN ALL TIME GREAT.

You take into account the types of fights decades ago. There wasn't nearly the set up we have today with people trying to have top contenders always fighting. It was a sport so everybody fought non-stop, regardless of how good the opponents were. People aren't fighting less because there are less opponents, they're fighting less because they don't have to fight as often. Ah, but we don't have top contenders fighting each other all that often nowadays, especially when compared to the fighters of 50+ years ago (when a fighter basically had to defeat all of the other top contenders to become a world title challenger). And if you're trying to say that the top fighters of yesteryear had easier competition, I'd liked to see a modern fighter do what Sam Langford did (Langford's only one example, but there's plenty of others), and fight four fights against HOF'ers in a span of only one short month...Actually nevermind four tough fights against fellow greats during a single month, I'd like to see a modern day great have two fights in a year against a fighter of near equal caliber to him (besides a couple of willing fighters like Morales and such, that is a definate rarity nowadays). Anyways, I gotta run, dude. My wife's giving me the boot off of the computer, so I have to end my side of this abbreviated conversation with this post. But I do thank you for the discussion, my friend.

You take into account the types of fights decades ago. There wasn't nearly the set up we have today with people trying to have top contenders always fighting. It was a sport so everybody fought non-stop, regardless of how good the opponents were. People aren't fighting less because there are less opponents, they're fighting less because they don't have to fight as often.

Also, while the participants in boxing hasn't decreased a large amount. Your logic escapes me though. By your logic the fact that at the turn of the century there was more interest in boxing then we would have better boxers in the past simply because there were more to choose from. Yes, boxing partcicipation has decreased in large amounts and the number of participants has gradually gone downhill since about the 1940's or so. Just look at the numbers, man. In the 20's, 30's and 40's, the vast majority of the most famous/better fighters had well over 100 hundred fights and many of them had over 200+ fights (compare that to today's fighters). Also, look at the amount of shows that were put on during those days...According to the studies of Steve Reiss, who was a professor at Illinois University; "By the start of 1913 there were 89 boxing clubs in the state of New York, including 49 in New York City. There were over 20 shows a week in New York City during this period. In 1994 there were only 19 during the whole year." What does your math tell you, my friend?

that is a terrible example. anyways, perhaps boxing has been along for a very long time, but it was never an organized sport. there were not sanctioned rules or official champions or anything of that nature. just because people fought with cloth on their gloves in 4000 B.C. doesnt mean its boxing The info on what was painted on the walls in Ethiopia in 4000 B.C. or what was found in Egypt in 3000 B.C. are all subject to guesswork. But because of the numerous written words on the subject, what we don't have to guess on is the organized sport of boxing which was a part of the ancient Greek Olympics in and around 700 B.C. Yes, at that time it was an organized and official sport, and yes it did have it's rules (it was officiated by a referee and like today the fighters weren't allowed to hold, punch below the belt, and their respective straps were closely checked the referee before the match...they had other rules, as well, but they were more primitive like the "klimax", which involved settling a long fight by having each boxer take free shots at their wide open opponent until a winner was decided. The defeated fighters also were given a way out by holding their fingers up to the sky, which was the only way they could concede victory) and boxing champions (Apollo was pretty famous as a boxing champion from them days, as was Polydukes). And by that time it was practiced and trained for by it's participants, as Plato had writings stating a form of shadowboxing was practiced by the boxers of the day. There's also documents claiming that the fighters of them days also used punching bags to train with, as well.

Hah, funny choice of words. You discuss Lewis being overrated because he got outboxed by Bruno, while Louis got outboxed by a light heavyweight in Billy Conn. Lewis isn't a KO machine, that's just it. That's why I feel he could win a UD over many of the greats of the past.

Much more relatively speaking. Joe Louis's skills in his era were dominating. By today's standards he wouldn't be anything obscene who would conquer the heavyweight division with a blink of an eye. I think he had a different set of skills than Lewis, but When you're 6 feet 5 inches (or something like that), 250 lbs, with a huge reach you can compensate with different skills. And no, my comparing running to boxing is merely on a training level. Everybody can run, everybody tried to run the fastest. Running has been around since the birth of man. However, using modern training techniques and having a better knowledge of the human body in general has advanced our ability. Also, while the participants in boxing hasn't decreased a large amount. Your logic escapes me though. By your logic the fact that at the turn of the century there was more interest in boxing then we would have better boxers in the past simply because there were more to choose from. I think Lewis is overrated... people talk about him like he KOs everyone because of his size..but he looked like crap against so many crap fighters.. got outboxed by frank bruno... Joe Louis would make easy work out of him. btw nice sig LOL! I have a big with some of his quotes, I'll go find some other funny ones..

As much as boxing has changed, it is still very similar. I do think the majority of fighters today are better than they were, but I wouldnt doubt that Louis could KO any top heavy today

Much more relatively speaking. Joe Louis's skills in his era were dominating. By today's standards he wouldn't be anything obscene who would conquer the heavyweight division with a blink of an eye. I think he had a different set of skills than Lewis, but When you're 6 feet 5 inches (or something like that), 250 lbs, with a huge reach you can compensate with different skills. And no, my comparing running to boxing is merely on a training level. Everybody can run, everybody tried to run the fastest. Running has been around since the birth of man. However, using modern training techniques and having a better knowledge of the human body in general has advanced our ability. Also, while the participants in boxing hasn't decreased a large amount. Your logic escapes me though. By your logic the fact that at the turn of the century there was more interest in boxing then we would have better boxers in the past simply because there were more to choose from.

That's a load of crap! Boxing has been around as an organized sport since about 650-700 B.C. when it was first introduced as an Olympic sport in Greece. There's also some evidence pertaining to some drawings that were found in Ethiopia that depict the sport, and those drawings were judged to be from around 4000 B.C You do the math! In yours words and being consistent with the ratio, that's like saying that a 60 year-old man was still an "infant" in his 59th year of existence. that is a terrible example. anyways, perhaps boxing has been along for a very long time, but it was never an organized sport. there were not sanctioned rules or official champions or anything of that nature. just because people fought with cloth on their gloves in 4000 B.C. doesnt mean its boxing

I don't recall Joe Louis ever partaking in anything past 15 rounds, so now you're going even further back into the past to pick out the iron men. A good example of what I'm talking about is the Olympics. Virtually ever record which had been around in the 50's has been broken by now, if not all of them. Running... everybody can run. Yet our modern atheletes find a way to run faster and for longer than past athletes. It's common sense dude. Also, discussing fights which happened in 1909 is hard to prove/disprove. Granted the fact that it went 40 rounds is no doubt.... but discussing the way it happened is pretty much hearsay. It's common sense not to compare a sport that's been around for thousands of years to organized sports that have only been around for a small fraction of that and are still in there "infant" (to use Dino's wording) stages when compared to boxing. It's also common sense not to compare a sport that has had a major and drastic decrease in it's number of participants in the last fifty or so years (like boxing has...for example, New York State in itself used to have well over a dozen boxing shows a week during the first half of the last century, and nowadays they're lucky if they get that many in a half a year) to other sports that have been around for a mere fraction of what boxing has been, and have had a major and drastic increase in it's number of participants over the last fifty years. There's simply many more athletes involving themselves in other sports nowadays when compared to the distant past (when the two most popular sports in North America for both viewing and participation, were baseball and boxing). Therefore, when considering the greater talent pool and young age of those other sports, of course you're very likely to see better performances nowadays than you have in the past. Didn't you say earlier that you thought an older fighter by the name of Joe Louis was "much more talented" than the modern fighter by the name Lennox Lewis? There's also plenty of fight footage from back in the early 20th cenury, including the Nelson/Wolgast fight, and even though it's tough to accurately judge the overall talents of those old-timers, you can most often see (and therefore count) when they are throwing punches at each other.

You cant take credit away from Jones who dominated a legit top 5 heavyweight for 12 rounds. Fitzsimmons was losing the fight until he landed his blow to the solar plexus of Corbett What I am trying to say is.... If it were like this in the 30's, Billy Conn would have broke Fitsimmonz record AGES ago!

I don't recall Joe Louis ever partaking in anything past 15 rounds, so now you're going even further back into the past to pick out the iron men. A good example of what I'm talking about is the Olympics. Virtually ever record which had been around in the 50's has been broken by now, if not all of them. Running... everybody can run. Yet our modern atheletes find a way to run faster and for longer than past athletes. It's common sense dude. Also, discussing fights which happened in 1909 is hard to prove/disprove. Granted the fact that it went 40 rounds is no doubt.... but discussing the way it happened is pretty much hearsay.

Because there's still a lot of modern fighters who are bums, regardless of training habbits and diet. Bums with the right training and such are still bums. Heart/Desire and training are needed to become great. Have to have both. I'm refering more to diet than training, even though people can now excersize target areas much better and have more equipment to help them along the way. There's different opinions of Oscar De La Hoya's worth as a fighter, but I don't believe I've ever heard him being called a "bum" (atleast not by anyone with a clue). And as one of the more accomplished/financially successful boxers of this generation, I would imagine he has access to whatever modern training techniques/supplemets that he'd want. Nobody can question his "heart/desire" yet as I type this I seem to recall quite a few instances throughout his career when he's sucking wind at about the halfway point of a twelve round fight. Could you imagine De La Hoya (or any modern day fighter, for that matter) partaking in a 40 round fight, when the two fighters combined to average nearly 100 punches per round? Battling Nelson and Ad Wolgast did that in their infamous and great fight from so long ago, so one doesn't need to only imagine some old-timers going through something like that.

And where's the proof that these so-called modern training techniques have helped out the modern fighters so much (and besides steroid use not much has changed today as the fighters of today still run, spar, jump rope, work the bag, etc., etc...just like the old-timers did) ? And if they were "lightyears ahead of what they were in the past" why do we see so many modern fighters sucking wind so early in their fights? Because there's still a lot of modern fighters who are bums, regardless of training habbits and diet. Bums with the right training and such are still bums. Heart/Desire and training are needed to become great. Have to have both. I'm refering more to diet than training, even though people can now excersize target areas much better and have more equipment to help them along the way.

The average boxer now as opposed to 50 years ago is a huge difference. Training/Diet habbits are lightyears ahead of what they were in the past. And where's the proof that these so-called modern training techniques have helped out the modern fighters so much (and besides steroid use not much has changed today as the fighters of today still run, spar, jump rope, work the bag, etc., etc...just like the old-timers did) ? And if they were "lightyears ahead of what they were in the past" why do we see so many modern fighters sucking wind so early in their fights?

Then you must think that Louis would've also been be "too light and too short" for the likes of Primo Carnera, Abe Simon, and Buddy Baer, yes? Afterall, those fighter were very, very comparable in size to what Lennox Lewis was. If Lennox was to defeat the Brown Bomber, it certainly wouldn't be because he was simply too big for Joe. The average boxer now as opposed to 50 years ago is a huge difference. Training/Diet habbits are lightyears ahead of what they were in the past. Granted Joe Louis is one of the best heavyweights considering how good he was for his period, but a lot of modern heavyweights have a good chance of beating him. Also, it's tough to compare Primo and Simon to Lennox. While their size was similar, Lennox had much more muscle mass and was 2x the skilled boxer they were.