-
Last edited by Bundana; 01-03-2017, 06:43 PM. -
He states not everyone is going to be labled HISTORIAN ,which is false . Theres actually more information out now through media /internet and social networking than ever before ,one has and is bettet educated today . He admits he has to keep the old time fighters alive basically through bias views and that shows in this interview (though hes right about LaMotta ) . You dont need to put past champions over newer ones that doesnt mean your less knowledgeable and its probably the typical pass down thinking from father to son along with the old time nostalgic drilling mentored into him ..
One simply has any info they need without getting off the chair ,we dont rely on word of mouth or digging for info from newspapers ,the old historian is not actually needed anymore to get reliable and accurate information !
He is right about the UFC model of marketing . He seems knowledgeable like most HISTORIANS but im certainly not going to put Fitzsimmons over Robinson ,he can also keep that .
I actually remember a video on youtube was taken down ,he claimed Ali was a bum (i think hes overatted not a bum ) and thought Fitzimmons would kill him....so there you go ,theres usually a glitch with these guys . Lucky for most of them they are persuasive through the writing skills .Last edited by juggernaut666; 01-04-2017, 01:49 PM. -
yeah we don't always see eye to eye on these historical debates Juggy but I got to tell you, pulling Fitz and putting him at the top of the line?... I can't see it. Fitz was built very similar to Max Bauer, and he certainly had a good punch But geez! even guys like Corbett seem a lot better to me...and Max Bauer was imo the better of the two wide shouldered sluggers! it is amazing that Fitz managed to catch Corbett. Hats off to the bald fellow!
I think Choynski was better, more technically accomplished. Fitz did beat Joe, but against a common opponent named jack johnson Choynski won and Fitz lost... Triangle theory! arg the horror!Comment
-
I use my own common sense as you see clearly why (you even have individuals on here who claim Galento and Conn would beat Klitchko i think you can figure them out) I see no benefit following the blind as i also added this ..
One simply has any info they need without getting off the chair through internet/media ,we dont rely on word of mouth or digging for info from newspapers ,the old historian is not actually needed anymore to get reliable and accurate information !
I dont see much in Fitzimmons and really dont expect to from such person in that time period . Anyone claiming he beats Ali is no different than the guy on here claiming Lewis was average as you can guess who that was again !
Comment
-
Average? Oh yeah, don't remind us.Comment
-
Obviously he has great knowledge of the history of our sport.
His rankings seems a bit skewed towards the old-timers/pioneers and he has few puzzling additions from our time most of all Aaron Pryor.Comment
-
Boxing today at an all-time low, Floyd and Pac not ATGs, etc. Yeah, that's to be expected.
Where it gets real funny, is his claim that historians today don't know nearly as much about the sport as the "real" historians from 60 years ago. Very hard to take seriously!
As for his all-time rankings, including his p4p list... well, those are not even his own! Stolen from Tracy Callis, who published those exact same lists on CyberBoxingZone several years before this interview.
Comment
-
True. I can even follow his logic. Fitz fought some good comp at the time. Just don't agree with that conclusion. Its an interesting thing that film has become more accesible and...more easy to doctor! To a point where film evidence is no longer incontravertable proof of an assertion!Comment
-
Why doesn't someone fix old film clips too, so that the speed is normal and not sped up anymore?Comment
Tweet
Comment