Reasons Why Mythical Matches Are Valid In History Section

[Willie Pep 229]

An old desire to do so. An old malady say I.

49Apr.jpg

[Slugfester]

- - Dempsey vs Louis the best all time match ever, the reason being the overlap in careers almost became a reality when Dempsey was making a comeback while Joe was early years.

There has to be a joining of the eras for a myth fight to be worth scoring.

John L vs Ali is ridiculous as is Ali vs Lewis, ect.

When I was a kid that mythical match was discussed or mentioned quite a bit, the all time classic that never was and never could have been. Later, it was Rocky vs Dempsey or any combination of the three..Ah, Mythical matchups, the lost art of boxing.

[Willie Pep 229]

Rocky and Dempsey

52Dec.jpg

[max baer]

1. Sure they have another section for these, but just look at it--it's a brain graveyard.

2. Mythical matches are between historical figures.

3. Era comparison is a daily thing on boxing forums, so what is wrong with including an era's representatives as examples in hypothetical matches?

4. Mythical bout comparisons are done in fans' minds anyway, and we all know it.

5. The discussions these threads generate are as good as any other. Followed threads branch and morph anyway if the thread lives. If it is followed, it lives.

6. Sides will be taken. They are like a survey or extended poll, delineating unambiguously where the section population stands, and which segment of it stands where and why.

7. You have to defend your position, or be exposed as an emotion slave.

8. Just about everyone already has a strong opinion, unlike discussions about ring size or referees of the past--which means more engagement.

9. Discussions about why old fighters had better chins, how great was Monzon, who had the best pure boxing skills, who should be in the Hall of Fame, etc., etc, generate a cornucopia of speculation as well. There is no less tomfoolery in these threads than there is in mythical bouts threads.

10. We like 'em, and we like 'em good.

love it!!
I joined the forum to debate mythical match with fury vs ali!

[max baer]

Fantasy fights between fighters from the sane era can make for an interesting discussion, e.g. Dempsey-Wills.

But when you start trying to match Jack Johnson against Sonny Liston the whole thing becomes fantasy. I.e. A waste of time.

My complaint against these cross epoch match-ups is that the conversation never gets anywhere near being interesting. Just loud aggressive opinions which are not, and CAN NOT be based on any facts, or even logic. All they do is open the door to the same old, beaten to death, remarks. "The game has evolved; past fighters were too small; the gloves were different."

How many times are we suspose to read the same remarks, over and over.

These match-ups can only be pure opinion.

At least with fantasy match-ups from the same era, we can examine common opponents and don't need to make outlandish, unfounded speculations about how this would be different, or that would be different. Etc.

Willie AI will soon put all these fantasy debates to bed because the brains of the computer can analyse every conceivable metric and then we will all know once and for all whose the greatest heavyweight.
Fury of course, followed by ali and tyson and lewis. Or perhaps iron mike as in his prime no one could survive the onslaught.
Or if it's a chinese AI then it will be the greatest zhang.
oh s**te i will then be even more confused.....perhaps a better way would be to ....... oh yeah maybe not....what about if we.....oh damn cant do that either ,.........what about.....


did you know that more photo's are taken in one day now then were taken in the whole of the twentieth century !

[max baer]

I observe that mythical discussions are generally about AS interesting as the bulk of other threads, since ALL threads branch and morph. Name the thread where you do not hear the same things over and over. Tell me where they are. I might enjoy reading them. They don't exist, right? Interest or knowledge comes from individual posts, not thread titles. We hope to find an interesting post wherever it is. They are usually not concentrated.

Also, are the discussions of mythical matchups better and potentially more educational over here or over in Fantasy Fights? We both know the answer...I hope.

all discussions start well and end by two blokes telling queeny he makes up evidence and he is a simpleton and that they have blocked him!!

[QueensburyRules]

How far back does this classic argument go?


Did big men belly up to the bar and claim loudly:

"This new kid Jack Jeffries wouldn't have lasted five rounds with Sullivan"

"That's Jim, not Jack. -- James J. Jeffries!

"Jack, Jim, -- eh, what's it matter, just like the last two, he won't last. -- James J. Corbett, James J. Jeffries, who cares? -- There's only one, the Great John L. "

"You have no clue what's going on. Your Great John L. couldn't compete against the new evolved, scientific boxers today."

- - I'm not talking about barflies arguing. Corbett at least beat Sully and then Fitz beat Corbett and then Jeff beat Fitz all in a small span of 7 years.

The only one out is Sully who only faced Corbett in Sully's last bout. Jeff could've also beat that version of Sully as Fitz could too. Not so sure either could beat the Kilrain version of Sully in bare knucks that was 10 yrs prior to Jeff's title for example.

[Marchegiano]

I had to get the old post out of here. A few more posts in I realized I'm just in a hell of a mood today and ought to stfu.

If you missed it, my message was nice, good, wholesome, but goddamn did I hide that in some vitriol.


My only real point was so far what I'm reading is true for the whole forum let alone history section.

[Rockin']

Long Live The Ghost and Pep!!! ...................Rockin'

[Willie Pep 229]

- - I'm not talking about barflies arguing. Corbett at least beat Sully and then Fitz beat Corbett and then Jeff beat Fitz all in a small span of 7 years.

The only one out is Sully who only faced Corbett in Sully's last bout. Jeff could've also beat that version of Sully as Fitz could too. Not so sure either could beat the Kilrain version of Sully in bare knucks that was 10 yrs prior to Jeff's title for example.

Agreed! You pretty much nailed it.

BUT SEE - you needed to say it. Why? --> it wasn't germaine to my post -- this need seems to be in the DNA of all forum posters. LOL

Even The Ring Magazine couldn't help themselves. (See mag covers posted above).

Except me! Why don't I care who could have taken whom? But I just don't (unless they were contempories who missed eachother, e.g. Wills-Dempsey.)

Truth be told, the only time I like the ATG arguments, is when it is barfly banter. A few pints, a little too loud, and much laughter, then it's fun.

On here, it is too contentious too often.