-
-
I think you might have misinterpreted the part of my post in which you made bold. I'm not doubting the statistic about the number of fighters around back then, I was referring to the fact that you have never seen the vast majority of those who fought in the 1920s, so you can never truly judge how good most of the fighters were back then.
AFAIK, there isn't much else to go by! Very limited footage and lack of facts and statistics available make it hard - in fact, probably impossible - to judge how good or bad a fighter of that time was.Comment
-
Just to let you know, all the players I listed were head and shoulders better then any modern player, so there are sports out their where the old-timers are still better then any modern player.
When I was younger then you, I use to hang around a lot of boxing people. Some were ex-fighters, even World Champions, others were trainers, boxing writers and boxing historians. Over time I learned to listen to what they had to say and I learned a lot.
I already told my side and others, including you have told theirs, and no one is going to change anyones mind.
I see your from Ireland, we send an Amateur Team over their every other year, and they come over to New Jersey in the years we don't go over to them. Do you know how many active Professional boxers there in your country. Answer 38. If you count all the fighters that ever came out of your country since the start of glove boxing, it's 741. The reason I am stating this is why do you show so much interest in boxing when your country isn't really involved.
Finally, no one really knows for sure who would beat who, But we all have our opinions and we should respect them. Even though I think your wrong, I do respect your opinion.Comment
-
Sorry I did misunderstand you! But that is not a 1st with me!
I also agree with you. If you don't see them fight, all you can go by is the record, and sometimes that's not enough. I use to like to talk to all the old-timers in boxing, and others sports as well, and I did learn from them But again I never saw most of them actually fight.
When I vote for someone for the International Boxing Hall of Fame, for the modern fighters we all saw them one way or another. I go by what I saw, plus there record, who they fought, when they fought them, how they did against others on the ballot, plus how they did against World Champions and IBHOF'ers.
For the Old-Timers, a lot of them don't have much or any film on them, so I have to go by there record, who they fought, when they fought them, and how they did against others on the ballot, plus how they did against World Champions and IBHOF'ers.
The Pioneer is mostly the same as the old-timers. I have to go by there record, who they fought, when they fought them, and how they did against others on the ballot, plus how they did against World Champions and IBHOF'ers.
It's not as easy as you think!Last edited by hhascup; 02-25-2013, 10:56 PM.Comment
-
my top 10 all time list goes like this
1.mike tyson
2.JJC
3.muhamad ali
4.SSR
5.joe luis
6.lennox lewis
7.mike tyson
8.roy jones jr.
9.hagler
10.SSLComment
-
Yes there are some athletes from today that surpass the skills and achievements of those of the past, I acknowledge and have acknowledged that. But you fail to admit that there are also some athletes and boxers from the past whose skills and achievements have yet to be surpassed. So tell me, if every athlete from today is better, then why is it that no baseball player has broken Hack Wilson's season record of 190 RBIs? Why has no boxer since Muhammad Ali won the lineal heavyweight title 3 times and why has no boxer since Joe Louis defended a lineal, Ring or some kind of legit title belt 25 times. Those records have yet to be broken, so why is it if these fighters are so much better, that none of them have broken those records? If you're maybe talking track and swimming, where records are broken on a regular basis every Olympics, then you have a point, but that doesn't always apply in every sport, as shown by examples given here. Why do you have so much trouble admitting that SOME athletes and boxers from the past were better than those of today when there is clearly evidence to prove it?Comment
-
Since I'm not from the US, I don't know enough about baseball to comment on Hack Wilson.
I happen to believe that, H2H, Ali is the best heavyweight ever... but not because he won the lineal title 3 times, and no one has been able to break that record since. These are just numbers, that don't mean anything.
SRR won the middleweight crown 5 times; a record that isn't likely to ever be broken - but is this even a record worth striving for? I mean, couldn't you argue, that he would have been even greater, if he had won it only once - and not lost it 4 times!
Sven Ottke had the most defences at 168... plus retired without ever losing a fight. But does this prove, that he was better than Andre Ward? I don't think so.
I'm not at all disagreeing with you, about there being certain boxers from the past, who are better than most of the modern fighters. As I have said in a previous post, I don't really see any appreciable improvement, skill-wise, in our sport over the last 60-70 years or so. And yes, there are certainly boxers from way back, who would more than hold their own against even the best champions from today... I just don't think you can "prove" that, by putting up those numbers.
And just for the record: I believe that, P4P, SRR is the greatest boxer ever to step into a ring.Comment
-
Michael Schumacher learnt from drivers before him and bettered them is that not a form of evolving?Comment
Tweet
Comment