Head 2 head, prime for prime, I feel Larry would have beaten Ali/Clay.
As for their resumes, Ali's pisses on Holmes.
Then again, I feel Holmes would have beaten everyone Ali fought.
To have them both fighting in their primes at the same time would have been awesome.
no ali had mutiple flaws they fixed in 80s and its no such thing as a perfect hw
I should have highlighted ''imho'' :(
Sometimes a boxer will be bored at owning his opponent and clown around....just to make the fight fair.
Your right Larry would beat him cause he technically was better and could cause ali alot of problems which he never seen we never got to see the real ali be it the 70s ver or 60s ver fight Larry
Larry is ali without the showboating/dancing/less flawed
Imho, Holmes was the perfect HW.
A flaw is only a flaw when it works against you.
Getting old was the one ''flaw'' Ali could not correct.
No offence to Shavers but he needs to shut the eff up, Mike would have whipped his ass blindfolded.
Tyson was a freak of nature and still the youngest undisputed champ ever at 21. You'll never see that again.
One punch swingers like Shavers come along all the time, talents like Tyson once in a lifetime.
Team Tyson would avoid prime Shavers like the plague.
If Mike had to go through the guys Shavers did, he would be a journeyman as well.
Well they don't watch full matches is the problem,they have said louis/rock would beat deontay,yet deon was way more advanced than that whole novice like era,deon actually was very technical good in amateurs,yet they never bring that ver up
So many fights from that decrepit era don't even exist YET they use them as proof :lol1:
''Well, writers would not glorify them if it weren't true :).''
Laughable
The biggest gripe I have with those old timers, they each have a careers worth of bums padding their stats.
JFC, if our present fighters don't fight the best every other fight, all hell breaks loose.
There is a lack of competition at the top level in nearly all the divisions, so many divisions are like ghost towns. Most of todays divisions have no real depth tbh and you have what are probably in truth domestic level fighters posing as world champions.
Todays fighters could fight a lot more regularly if they wanted they just waste their careers on the sidelines hoping to hit the lotto.
Fighting once or twice a year if lucky and usually against just that, bartenders and bouncers.
Back then a lot was more dedicated to their craft as its all they did, fighting regular from paycheque to paycheque. These days its full of pretenders and part time boxers who spend all weekend out partying.
Back then there wasn't all these silly weight limits in place and weight bullying. They didn't have access to footage and couldn't pick & choose like they do today.
There wasn't a massive emphasis on staying undefeated they just fought whoever, whenever regardless of their style and there also wasn't a ridiculous amount of belts allowing them to pick weak links.
If todays fighters fought under the same conditions they would have a lot more losses as they wouldn't be able to carefully avoid certain fighters, certain styles etc
Sry
Can't disagree more
90% of those guys would not be licensed.
Maybe MMA :dunno:
Everyone had 100+ fights back then
Still fighting debut guys after having 50+ Ws
''Top'' guys were fed bum after bum
Padding the stats.
One of the more notable stat-padders is Archie Moore.
Where did they find enough guys for him to rack up 100+ KOs
Has any of the pro Langford's even seen a complete fight of his ?
Can one of them post his best effort ?
I can pretty much guarantee a bunch of wrestling and all out wildness.
Anyone who passes a medical can get licensed.
You literally have Youtubers getting licensed with zero amateur experience.
And I am sure if todays fighters was fighting every other week against opponents with no notice there would be a hell of a lot of upsets.
Today fighters have teams literally dedicated to preserving their '0' having them breakdown every stylistic threat. Back then they didn't have such luxuries.
Prospects in Mexico are often very more active and often will have losses early in their careers because they just fight more like they did back in the day. The thing is they aren't **** on as much for taking a loss as we get the circumstances over there are a little different to U.K, U.S and the rest of the world where fighters have whole teams dedicated to carefully guide them. These old-timers though are **** on for it and people tend to not realise or just ignore that between them staying active and fighting regularly they also often finished their careers fighting countless numbers of world champions, ATGs and HOFers
Times was different then they didn't have all these training camps and 6-12 week preparation times just to fight bums followed by a minimum of a 6 month lay off, they just dedicated their life to it and fought whoever, whenever with no silly diva like demands.
Youtubers2K > Old timers
The Pauls would be a real threat
No matter how much you mention ''angles'' and ''technique'', it all boils down to the VISUALS.
Call me a casual all day long
Falling over each other is sloppy regardless of the year or how historians wrote it up.
In 9/10 fights, slop will appear.
No excuse will prevail when you match ''them'' vs ''now''
Our sloppiest guy, Wilder, would pretty much go 200 Ws 0 Ls198 KOs if he fought back then.
They think they can alter footage to make those guys more advanced,I can't and im ascended they aren't so I know they can't,they think quotes and lies said can alter footage
And those same purists have the gall to complain about Wilder ?!?!?
Don't know why they still bother watching the sport
There is no denying they fought a lot of bums but the same could be said for all of todays fighters really if we're being objective.
Harry Greb is arguably by resume at least the greatest boxer ever, he fought 16 HOFers spanning I believe four weights, arguably even greater than Sugar Ray only for whatever reasons there is no fight footage of him which is strange. The limited training footage of him also does him no favours. Back then fights was recorded to reels which degraded over time and with the war a lot of stuff was lost but its still odd that not a grain of fight footage of such a high level fighter who dominated for so long exists still.
About 50 of his total fights was against HOFer/ATGs and I can not remember the exact figures but he fought an unrivalled amount of opponents who was #1 and sort of top 3-5 beating vast majority of them. He possibly has the best resume in history.
Tunney went 3-1-1 with Greb (his only loss) and was a two weight world champion & also beat Loughran, Carpentier, Gibbons, Dempsey etc
There is also footage of him vs Carpentier, Gibbons, Heeney among others as well as the Dempsey fights
He is very underrated and tbf he probably doesn't make for great highlights compared to a more flashy fighter like Pep & Leonard
No modern fighter (70's on) can claim the number of bums they had back then.
So many guys had 100+ W's.
Training vids don't mean much to me.
HOFers from back then are inferior to present day HOFers.
If you can find full fights on the guys you're talking about, I'd love to see them.
Then you also have the likes of Willie Pep, Eder Jofre, Benny Leonard etc etc
Another problem with the olden days were lack of competition.
It made fighting 5x a month possible.
One guy would clearly be the professional, the other a part time bartender/bouncer.
That is correct, but even with the semi-full footage we have, they refuse to watch them. Instead, they watch the highlights of the best moments, which, as I said for a fact, don't show every obsolete tech and flaw of an era. No highlights of a person in an era show all of every tech, fluidity, timing/angles used,which is why highlights aren't worth watching,especially when a h2h match is the topic
''These present day guys can't go 12 much less 20+ rds :boxing: !!!''
Those ignorant purists !!!!
As if it was pure action from rd 1 to rd 20+
Those old timey pricks took holding and leaning on each other to ungodly levels !!!!
The ref stayed out of the way and let those bums do what they wanted.
The darkest days of the sport.
I don't think you're a casual just trolling and exaggerating for comedic purposes.
The Pauls lol
If you watch Tunney he is anything but sloppy or falling over, he has excellent footwork and balance.
Same with Pep, Leonard and many other pioneers.
If anything its modern day fighters who are often sloppy as anything and constantly falling in or over their own feet and they for most part don't even use angles to punch off of and only circle one way with a few exceptions like Lomachenko, Bam and the likes
TBF, I'm not going to go too hard finding every fight.
1st one I see, will be the one.
Feel free to post others -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsawMb5DWu8
229 W's :lol1: vs Fabela Chavez (?. Fought 12x in 1952 (6-6) )
I'm sure Pep has a bunch of ?'s on the ledger
His last 30 fights were vs bums
His 1st 30 pretty much the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrC2TemHi8I
vs Jimmy McLarnin (I have heard of this guy)
SMH.......
Couldn't find anything on Harry Greb and his 262s W's (boxrec only shows 108) :lol1:
How many no hopers would I find ?
Youtube uploaders don't love Tunney
All I see is him vs Dempsey
Not exactly a who's who on the ledger.
I see nothing special
Roy would destroy him even in his amateur form this is how much more advanced of a era he fought in,even a amateur 70s would destroy Sam
this is how he really fought https://youtu.be/P-TqTITpAf8?si=a4zy0syI9ffT8Ib4 not those silly highlights which lazy crazy idiots only speak of with a guy who fought in 30-40s,or a dempsey era,highlights don't show every obsolete tech and flaws of a era
Boxing ''purists'' swear by those primitive goofballz.
It makes me sick looking at them
There is plenty of footage of old-timers looking every bit as good.
Gene Tunney - Several fights of his on YT
Sugar Ray Robinson - More than a dozen of his fights
Eder Jofre
Willie Pep
George Benton
Nicholino Loche
Jose Napoles
Kid Gavilan
If it isn't asking too much for you to post your faves :fing02:
why has no footage even been altered to prove me wrong?,if I'm a liar,where is the footage showing any 30-40s guys as advanced as guys in 70s-90s,I have begged these not sane people since last year,no one will expose me as a fact as wrong,I have always exposed them as wrong which isn't a opinion
You and I are not liars :lol1:
Others here also see those old timey mugs for what they were.
If I need a good laugh, I sometimes think about watching those sloppy MFers rassle each other.
Sure, here are a few, enjoy;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-KEtNu1z3g = Carmen Basilio vs Kid Gavilan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeKCqU2YVjc = Sugar Ray Robinson vs Bobo Olsen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n10x4HqImU = George Benton vs Rubin Carter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkpLlqtsnUk = Willie Pestrano highlight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oA7MG9Ttu0 = Ike Williams
Will definitely look these over. In your unbiased opinion, how would you rate the losers skill set and is their resume legit ?
Ali @ 7 :lol1:
Duran @ 8 :lol1:
If the Sun is #1ATG
Ali is the Earth
Duran would be beyond Pluto.
How many fights from the Gans and Langford era even exists ?
I hope people don't take lists seriously.
What is your top 10?
TL/WR (?)
I don't believe in ''All Time'' great lists since I haven't seen a bunch of MFers and I hate the hype historians give those ''before tv was invented'' MFers.
Those fighting bartenders MFers. ATG lists made by historians should be the last lists to look at. Their reference points are limited. In 100 years, our lists will be antiquated as well.
The best I've seen, and who's resume isn't filled with names that USED to mean something. This isn't a head to head/best of or most talented and would have beaten every ass list. Fighting the ''best'' is nice, winning most of those fights is the key. If a guy fights 10 ''great'' fighters and only wins 2....
Holy has a great resume but he's also lost a bunch of fights. And let's be ''real''...chances he was roided to the gills was pretty good.
Guys like RJJ, Pac, to some extent SRL either don't have enough fights (SRL) or too many soft touches (Roy Pac)
My gripe with Pac is his has too many issues going on with his best wins and stretches in his resume where it's very thin.
Same can be said about RJJ. They both had all the talent in the world (more so RJJ) but not enough quality opponents for the amount of fights they had.
I don't rank compilers high.
I give guys with 100+ wins the evil eye
SRL has half the amount of fights most guys on these lists have total. Whereas Salvator Sanchez had a ton of fights, he died so young. Obviously a bunch of those wins were vs bums. He was 23 with 40+ fights . Give him a break :lol1:
Can a guy like Holmes be punished because he didn't have the level of opponents to test him ?
IMHO, he did the tools to beat every prime HW. Even prime Ali.
And how can we tell what a legit quality opponent is ?
Strictly strength of resume
(I'd leaving off SRR because he's too much of a cliche)
All of that said, I never considered appointing numbers to guys. I just feel some guys are successful due to resume issues.
The 50 Greatest Boxers of the ''Modern'' Era
https://definitivedose.com/greatest-...he-modern-era/
(A bunch of guys are way too high or don't belong)
Which opponents step up when fury beat **** of all or Tyson in his prime who same whoops all top contenders reigning champions made them like bums reason you say that because you are biased and hate on somebody Shavers, Norton,Grant,Frazier are all World beaters but Wilder,Holmes,Klitscko,Spinks are bums
Is English your 2nd or 3rd language ?