Judging Boxers Historically: Are We Looking at It Wrong?

[StarshipTrooper]

boxing is the only sport i know of where there is actual debate and its because of guys like bert sugar that the debate is non-sensical.taking bball,jordan is recognized as the greatest ever.you wont hear a 70 year old talking about bob cousy was greater than jordan.and in team sports their are a hell of alot more athletes than in boxing.more does not = better

Except that Jordan isn't the best I've seen play. One of the best yes. But THE best? No, that would be Oscar Robertson. Jordan isn't even the best SCORER that I've seen: That would be Bernard King before his 1985 knee injury. I rank Jordan higher as a player than King because King was a pure scorer while Jordan was an all-around better player.

only difference is the other sports have the common sense to recognize the evolution and give their guys the respect.

Obsessed with evolution much? You're VERY confused obviously and weren't paying much attention during Biology 101. DIFFERENT does NOT equal EVOLVED. Different does NOT equal better either. NEW does not equal BETTER either anymore than OLD equals better.

Poet

[Spartacus Sully]

boxing is the only sport i know of where there is actual debate and its because of guys like bert sugar that the debate is non-sensical.taking bball,jordan is recognized as the greatest ever.you wont hear a 70 year old talking about bob cousy was greater than jordan.and in team sports their are a hell of alot more athletes than in boxing.more does not = better

boxing is older but nfl teams carry 53 and nba carry 15 so those #'s alone give those leagues much deeper athlete polls than boxing.those #'s couldnt possibly be close if you tally up pro athletes from each sport

only difference is the other sports have the common sense to recognize the evolution and give their guys the respect.fights from the gans era up until the late 50's are like some mma hybrid or lowbrid.damn near unwatchable,foul plagued hugfests.the rules of boxing have changed more dramatically than any sport

i can say without a doubt roy jones was the best mw i have ever seen.he won titles at mw,lhw,and heavy and yet somehow greb,whom nobodys ever seen is ranked higher.its just mind boggling

How would you rate babe ruth?

[r.burgundy]

How would you rate babe ruth?

im not much of a baseball fan,but from the little i do know,he's on 1 of the best hitters ever

[r.burgundy]

Except that Jordan isn't the best I've seen play. One of the best yes. But THE best? No, that would be Oscar Robertson. Jordan isn't even the best SCORER that I've seen: That would be Bernard King before his 1985 knee injury. I rank Jordan higher as a player than King because King was a pure scorer while Jordan was an all-around better player.




Obsessed with evolution much? You're VERY confused obviously and weren't paying much attention during Biology 101. DIFFERENT does NOT equal EVOLVED. Different does NOT equal better either. NEW does not equal BETTER either anymore than OLD equals better.

Poet

your opinion would be in the minority.jordan is generally recognized as the greatest ever.oscar robinson is not in that discussion.he put a triple double on the season but it didnt translate to a ton of success.oscar is bottom of top 10 though
i agree bernard was a better scorer,but again all his points didnt translate to much success and his career got killed by that injury

you obviously werent paying much to attention in english.only time i mention the word different in my post is in regard to boxing rules.evolution is in that boxers and athletes in general are bigger and more athletic

[Spartacus Sully]

im not much of a baseball fan,but from the little i do know,he's on 1 of the best hitters ever

base ball started 1744 boxing started under Broughton's Kules in like 1750 something.

if some one like babe ruth can be one of the greatest hitters ever why cant some one like bob fitzsimmons, john sullivan, jim jeffries, tom sharkey, or sam langford be compared to current day? just because the film is grainy and the technique something most people dont understand?

its not protien drinks and weights that make a fighter its hard work and something to prove and thats what these guys lived on.

[StarshipTrooper]

your opinion would be in the minority.jordan is generally recognized as the greatest ever.oscar robinson is not in that discussion.he put a triple double on the season but it didnt translate to a ton of success.oscar is bottom of top 10 though
i agree bernard was a better scorer,but again all his points didnt translate to much success and his career got killed by that injury

That's because the typical fan has the long-term memory (and attention span) of a gerbil. These same fans are already saying Kobe Bryant and Lebron James are better than Jordan which is bull****. As far as "success", last time I checked basketball is a TEAM sport and success has everything to do with how good a TEAM is and NOT how good the star player is. Jordan didn't win jack until they put players around him that were good enough to win. End of.

you obviously werent paying much to attention in english.only time i mention the word different in my post is in regard to boxing rules.evolution is in that boxers and athletes in general are bigger and more athletic

Which is NOT evolution at work you Nimrod. You just failed Biology 101 please repeat the course.

Poet

[Obama]

Pretty sure I pointed out that losses aren't ignored. The writer tries to make that claim then goes and ignores Armstrong's wins.

Actually I take that back. He didn't ignore the wins. He just had no idea who the guys were and probably can't count very well.

[r.burgundy]

base ball started 1744 boxing started under Broughton's Kules in like 1750 something.

if some one like babe ruth can be one of the greatest hitters ever why cant some one like bob fitzsimmons, john sullivan, jim jeffries, tom sharkey, or sam langford be compared to current day? just because the film is grainy and the technique something most people dont understand?

its not protien drinks and weights that make a fighter its hard work and something to prove and thats what these guys lived on.

for starters,baseball that was played when ruth was playing is the same as today.but boxing is much different from when fitzsimmons and company were in it.size of glozes,weights,etc.and biggest difference is a ball cant hit you back.i havent seen much of ruth but i would like mattingly's chances swinging at anything.

the grainy video isnt the problem.its the guys on it.those fights would not be watchable by todays standards.the vids of pep/saddler are 5 mins on youtube nad it was grueling

but i wouldnt like fitzsimmons or langfords chances against mike tyson

these guys of today put in hard work also.by most accounts it seems mayweather lives in the gym.hard work isnt unique to old fighters

[r.burgundy]

That's because the typical fan has the long-term memory (and attention span) of a gerbil. These same fans are already saying Kobe Bryant and Lebron James are better than Jordan which is bull****. As far as "success", last time I checked basketball is a TEAM sport and success has everything to do with how good a TEAM is and NOT how good the star player is. Jordan didn't win jack until they put players around him that were good enough to win. End of.




Which is NOT evolution at work you Nimrod. You just failed Biology 101 please repeat the course.

Poet

well,its obvious your bball knowledge is the same as your boxing knowledge.
you can make an argument that kobe is better than mike skill wise.i say kobe is the best 2 guard ive seen offensivley,but he lacks the intangibles that jordan had.jordan has only played with 1 other true all star and that was pippen.as a matter of fact,anrstrong made an asg once,and grant made it once but i believe grant made it the year mj was gone.but either way,jordan didnt play with great players

evoˇluˇtion
noun \ˌev-ə-ˈlü-shən also ˌē-və-\
Definition of EVOLUTION
1
: a process of change in a certain direction

so athletes growing bigger is somehow not a process of change in a certain direction lmao.riiiiggghhhttt

[StarshipTrooper]

well,its obvious your bball knowledge is the same as your boxing knowledge.
you can make an argument that kobe is better than mike skill wise.i say kobe is the best 2 guard ive seen offensivley,but he lacks the intangibles that jordan had.jordan has only played with 1 other true all star and that was pippen.as a matter of fact,anrstrong made an asg once,and grant made it once but i believe grant made it the year mj was gone.but either way,jordan didnt play with great players

evoˇluˇtion
noun \ˌev-ə-ˈlü-shən also ˌē-və-\
Definition of EVOLUTION
1
: a process of change in a certain direction

so athletes growing bigger is somehow not a process of change in a certain direction lmao.riiiiggghhhttt

Better find another term because when a person uses the term "evolution" it's a given they're referring to Darwinian ie biological evolution. You can parse words all you like but you use the term to try and give bogus "scientific" weight to your claims.....ie you're trying to mascarade biological evolution as simply "change". Point in fact, as I mentioned earlier, change does not equate to "better"; different does not equate to better. Only those people wedded to the psuedo-scientific ideology of inexorable "progress" (a bogus Marxist concept btw) think that it does. The human condition is just as likely to regress as it is to progress.....or are you unfamiliar with the term "dark ages"?

Poet