Im sorry Old school fighters are not automatically the best

Obviously louis said still most skilled hw but he was missing mutiple advances in movement they had since 70s and he wasnt a hw compared ever since 70s Ali same as joe but without being dropped by trash that never would make it in his era and he was a real hw but still to this day is said to have the best footwork and hardest to hit ever in his class both are a lie Srr a prototype ali which srr had mutiple flaws and is still said to this day to be one of the best skilled of the small class said to be able to beat fighters from 70s-00s neither are true George a man who was slow and easy to read really not skilled but would destroy klits/aj/fury 2 skilled fighters Geoege never beat 1 who was advanced and beats mutiple from 90s but he destroys these guys and others sure.... Why was Larry called a troll for telling the truth people have been weird crazy people here for years

y did you block him. are there posters to watch for? That's for each to decide. If you get tired of someone's take, good as anything.

Seriously. I think he is one of those old school type haters :smashfrea He's on my blocked posters list but sometimes I get curious. That was too silly to go unchecked.

Is there video of this or is that just anecdotal? Is this a serious question? Are you just too lazy to use Google? Turpin-Robinson II is about the easiest fight to see on earth. ESPN Classic shows it all the time. It's on YouTube. Robinson holding him around the neck, holding and hitting, measuring with his jab...and just nailing him pretty regularly in a savage assault. Classic stuff.

Yeah, and Turpin was giving him fits the same way again. The fight was atually about even on points. Ray was cut and in danger of being stopped, and Ruby Goldstein let Ray get away with murder to finish it. Ray was AWESOME that round but he pulled out every foul trick he had in those three minutes. Is there video of this or is that just anecdotal?

Turpin earned a decision in England and a few months later Sugar welcomed him to his hometown NYC and Ko'd him in 11!!!! In 1951 Sugar was touring all over the world and taking on anyone with some money!!!! As the story is told Sugar was comfortablly ahead in the fight and recieved a bad cut in the 9th round that put the fight in jepardy. In the 10th Turpin was KO'd and returned to England empty handed! The bottom line is its all right there on film, speed, power, brains and the will to win. Sugar Ray Robinson remains the greatest boxer/fighter ever! Ray. Yeah, and Turpin was giving him fits the same way again. The fight was atually about even on points. Ray was cut and in danger of being stopped, and Ruby Goldstein let Ray get away with murder to finish it. Ray was AWESOME that round but he pulled out every foul trick he had in those three minutes.

Turpin earned a decision in England and a few months later Sugar welcomed him to his hometown NYC and Ko'd him in 11!!!! In 1951 Sugar was touring all over the world and taking on anyone with some money!!!! As the story is told Sugar was comfortablly ahead in the fight and recieved a bad cut in the 9th round that put the fight in jepardy. In the 10th Turpin was KO'd and returned to England empty handed! The bottom line is its all right there on film, speed, power, brains and the will to win. Sugar Ray Robinson remains the greatest boxer/fighter ever! Ray.

I have Greb tops a lot, Armstrong too, this was just a quick off the top. I don't mind Pep or Fitzimmons in the top 10, I just find other fighters with greater skills and wins to trump them usually. I'd put Walker in over Fitzimmons IMO Fitz wouldn't crack my top ten at all. Important historical figure. Great fighter. It got better. Then again, under HIS rules, who knows.

top 10 no doubt - 1. Ray Robinson 2. Hank Armstrong 3. Harry Greb 4. Sam Langford 5. Ezzard Charles 6. Muhammad Ali 7. Ben Leonard 8. Roberto Duran 9. Archie Moore 10. Ray Leonard I'd rate Greb and Langford over Hank but you pretty much can't miss with that top five. Some would argue for Pep.

There are guys in any era that compare favorably with some of the best of the past and guys in the past who don't. That's always true. Even the best of the best of the best had losses for the most part, sometimes to guys who don't rate super high historically. Ray Robinson had fits with Turpin both times. I don't think Turpin beats Monzon, Hagler, or Hopkins. Doesn't mean Robinson couldn't (I tend to think he would). Rating fighters is often about stacking talent and accomplishment. The most talented of yesteryear just had such deep resumes that they have the evidence to be called better. That's fair. It doesn't mean if they were transported to today they would just walk through everyone in a couple rounds. But it's not just old time affection to watch the best of, for instance, Ezzard Charles that's available, factor in dominant wins over Moore and Burley at Light Heavy and Middle, and say "Better than Roy Jones." It's a pretty sound argument. It's not automatic old is better...it depends on who the question is about.

no it doesn't. that argument is asinine and easily disproven. the guy who made all these wonderful videos is still in school. kid makes more videos about fighters of past eras than he does about modern era guys. now try to tell me young people don't correctly appreciate the past. and again, Larry's in his 30's, the youth excuse doesn't wash for him. you're just one of these tiresome people who seeks to embolden his own sense of worth by trying to talk down to 'the kids'. Wow, would never have guessed Reznick was a youngster. It's true. Just because you're a younger guy doesn't mean you are less knowledgeable. Their is more than enough out there and tools to use to learn about the sport. More than in "The good old days" that's for sure. I won't say any names but there are guys on here who are grown adults who know very little about the history of the sport. Even their lifetime. Nothing wrong with that but just supporting your point. Barnburner who posts in the History Section is like 12 years old. No, but in all seriousness, he is about 15-16. You'd never guess. RubenSonny who IMO is one of the better posters on here is around 17 years old. Crazy, to be honest.

suggesting that Floyd steamrolls Arguello is a touch goofy. i had to reply in kind. He wouldn't steamroll him but he could outbox him and win. Floyd's angles would wreak havoc on Arguello's precision. I could see him winning a decisive decision but Arguello would certainly have moments.

Floyd's speed would trouble him, but Arguello was a rangy guy with a great jab, a precision eye, strong control of distance, excellent timing, a very good chin and genuine punching power, who selected his shots well and worked the body. i don't think that represents an easy night's work for even the quickest, combination-punching version of Mayweather. Floyd was a demon at SFW, but he never fought a guy like Alexis (and arguably didn't fight guys as good as Alexis fought). that's not to say he can't win, just that he's not battering a master boxer in Arguello and closing the show. i'd envision a largely strategic fight with a quick start for Mayweather but a split verdict that could go in favour of either guy at the end of it. i'm hedging, of course, but i haven't spent much time considering the matchup. As technically brilliant as Arguello was, he definitely struggled with movement. I think Mayweather would give him a lot of problems at 130. Fernandez gave him a lot of problems with his movement who's obviously not in Mayweather's league and even Jose Luis Rameriz, who whilst had very underrated defense and boxing ability, wasn't really a boxer per se but outboxed Arguello for the majority of their fight, in which he was very unlucky to get the decision albeit I had it closer than most. Arguello usually dealt with the boxers with slower feet for example Jim Watt, who was a good boxer and counter puncher but the ones with quick feet and movement always gave him problems. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Mayweather dominates Arguello. His size, range, timing, skills and power would definitely give Mayweather issues but I just can't see anyway he wins a decision against him. I just can't see it. Only two outcomes in that fight IMO are Mayweather decision or Arguello KO. Arguello is my all time favourite fighter and the first fighter I was a true fan of and followed so I give him a shot against anyone. But Mayweather at 130 would be too much for him, IMO.

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=570937 I agree larry.

Old School...............................1980s hahahaha!!!! As to Lamotta, if you knew anything about timing and steps you'd know he was a calculating fighter who moved forward with skill and purpose. Just because he's not boxing in an upright Euro style or a laterial USA boxing style doesn't mean its not stylistic!!! Gaging distance and timing jabs against Sugar Ray Robinson (another no talent according to Larry) hahaha!! is not something you learn in a few bouts! When you consider that Jake was not a power puncher yet people were not "happy" fighting him should tell you something! Look at Joe Louis's right hand when it lands its almost always NOT fully extended!! Meaning its at its most powerfull stage upon impact its called "punching through"!! Todays fighters are so far away from each other everything lands "fully extended"! Once again Youth is Wasted on the Young! Time for a nap!! hahaha Ray. Spitting that knowledge! Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

Old School...............................1980s hahahaha!!!! As to Lamotta, if you knew anything about timing and steps you'd know he was a calculating fighter who moved forward with skill and purpose. Just because he's not boxing in an upright Euro style or a laterial USA boxing style doesn't mean its not stylistic!!! Gaging distance and timing jabs against Sugar Ray Robinson (another no talent according to Larry) hahaha!! is not something you learn in a few bouts! When you consider that Jake was not a power puncher yet people were not "happy" fighting him should tell you something! Look at Joe Louis's right hand when it lands its almost always NOT fully extended!! Meaning its at its most powerfull stage upon impact its called "punching through"!! Todays fighters are so far away from each other everything lands "fully extended"! Once again Youth is Wasted on the Young! Time for a nap!! hahaha :boxing: Ray.

oh, also, i was 'around' (a 1980 baby), but not old enough to be conscious of it back then, yet i still appreciate the difference and bemoan and lament that we don't have such a vibrant scene now. so your assumptions are all wrongheaded. There's a difference between an exception to the rule and a generalization. when you make a thread about how old school fighters are over hyped, then you loose credibility. Maybe you appreciate the older days but like I said, the 80's aren't old school when it comes to boxing. The 40's, 50's are old school. I would still put money on the fact that Jake Lamotta, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, Joe Lewis and other greats would still be champs today. Call me crazy though.....

he's in his 30's. his age has little to do with it, anyway. plenty astute, learned guys in their 20's, heck, some in their teens. Age has plenty to do with it. If you were around at least in the 80's to see the great middle weights for example or see the impact of boxing then and now, there's no comparison. I love some of the fighters of today but the HW talent in the 70's and the MW talent in the 80's, is something we might never see again. Just because it was a long time ago, doesn't mean they can't fight. Boxing hasn't changed in a long time when you really look at it. One thing is to compare Jack Johnson to Ali but to compare Leonard to Cotto for example, isn't that different as far as time is concerned.

Technically they are. Thats a fact. Doesnt matter whether they are or not. At least they had balls to face each other and weren't scared to take an L. Posted from Boxingscene.com App for Android

Technically they are. Thats a fact.