Who is the greatest of all time? P4P? Robinson, Leonard, Mayweather or RJJ?

[PAC-BOY]

LMAO. Not only are you the clown of the year, but you're the post ducker of the year. Quack quack quack.


Hope you learned your lesson. Now get back to taking a beating in your Lomachenko is P4P better than SRR thread

WHAT? Did he say Loma is better than SSR ???

[travestyny]

WHAT? Did he say Loma is better than SSR ???

The dude made a thread here claiming that Loma is P4P All Time greater than SRR.


He has Loma at ALL TIME P4P #3....and SRR at #4. But if you're familiar with him, you know exactly why

[PAC-BOY]

And what on earth has that got to do with anything?

You talk about all the excitement and energy the old-timers put into their fights. And how we don't hear about them taking part in boring fights.

Is that just something you throw out there, because you wish it to be true... or is it something you know to be a fact?

It's you, who brought up these claims… so I don't think it's unfair of me to ask, why this is what you believe.

no its not unfair of you to ask. Legitimate questions. No its not something i wish to be true. I live in one era and studied in the other i did not live in. We had our moments of really entertaining fights. Back in the old days fights meant more to the fighters. More pride involved. And also a way to make money. But that money did not motivate them. That's a fact.

Those claims you mentioned i brought up. Are all history of boxing references. Not claims. Actual findings and facts.

Since the birth of Boxing im sure there were boring fights that took place back in the day. They weren't reported as much mostly because they didn't have the media we do today social and news media blasting it. But we do have historians that dug up things but that's about with any history in the past on ony topics.

Today though. And even as of old. The politics surrounding boxing is horrible. Lucertuvie also. Lots of people became wealthy in this game while the fighters seem to be the ones who ended up broke and without a job. So yes in today's world that has changed and is changing more so. Fighters fighting less and not as long in their career. Marketing themselves for their financial future rather than their legacy in the sport.

More fighters today are skipping the olympics and turning pro faster to get a foot in the door rather than wasting years trying to get to the olympics and through the Amatures to maybe turn pro and go somewhere in the game.

Back in the day a tough kid off the street could get a shot at a title after fighting a few who knows kinda fights. You cant deny if you know the history of the sport that men got into the ring with more passion for the title of champion than they do today.

I dont know your age or how long you've followed Boxing. Or to what degree you have. I dont claim to know it all or be as some type of expert either. But i have sat and talked with guys like Forman, SRL , Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Pernel , Boom Boom, Hagler, just tot name a few. Watched countless interviews, Done some myself, new and old. And one thing i've learned from all of them. It just aint like it use to be. That fire that drive that pasion. They have it today YES...But not like then. And their are some that do but most dont.

[PAC-BOY]

The dude made a thread here claiming that Loma is P4P All Time greater than SRR.


He has Loma at ALL TIME P4P #3....and SRR at #4. But if you're familiar with him, you know exactly why

WOW. The same 15 pro fights two time champ SLW LW Loama?

Let me break this down. Maybe its just me.

Loma
15 bouts - 131 rounds - 66.6% KO ratio

VS

Sugar Ray Robinson
201 bouts - 1401 rounds - 54.2% KO ratio

And He...Loma is All time best Better P4P greatest of ALL time?

[Bundana]

So the old-timers didn't primarily think of money NO

brought more excitement and took part in fewer boring fights that today's boxers YES

Why do you think, boxers back in what they call boxing's "Golden Age" (1920s and 30s) often had 100-200, and sometimes even more, fights? Because they really wanted to learn their craft and hone their skills?

No, of course not. With small purses back then, they had to fight often to bring food on the table. Money has always been the incentive - then and now.

And how can you possibly know, that there were fewer boring fights back then?

Incidentally, I'm 67 and have followed boxing since the early 60s

[travestyny]

WOW. The same 15 pro fights two time champ SLW LW Loama?

Let me break this down. Maybe its just me.

Loma
15 bouts - 131 rounds - 66.6% KO ratio

VS

Sugar Ray Robinson
201 bouts - 1401 rounds - 54.2% KO ratio

And He...Loma is All time best Better P4P greatest of ALL time?

It really doesn't even deserve an explanation. lol. The guy just wants SRR to go to the back of the bus, so to speak.

[PAC-BOY]

Why do you think, boxers back in what they call boxing's "Golden Age" (1920s and 30s) often had 100-200, and sometimes even more, fights? Because they really wanted to learn their craft and hone their skills?

No, of course not. With small purses back then, they had to fight often to bring food on the table. Money has always been the incentive - then and now.

And how can you possibly know, if there were fewer boring fights back then?

There is no denying that the money in those days was different than today. We all know that. Doesn't mean they HAD to fight more just because the got paid less. The cost of living was different back then. Hell just in 1970 the average hamburger cost .18 cents vs now a dollar. So No they really didn't have to fight as much to keep up with the cost of living but they knew that the more they did fight the richer THEN they would become.
Floyd and Manny Mike Tyson all made 100s of millions in their career and HAD to fight on due to Tax issues money getting low
Or to keep up with the life style they want to live. Its not that they have to fight more because they are getting paid more to fight less. The economic system is different yes and also the cost of living is way higher WAY higher.

[PAC-BOY]

It really doesn't even deserve an explanation. lol. The guy just wants SRR to go to the back of the bus, so to speak.

TRUE. You just cant argue with that type of ******ity

[Bundana]

There is no denying that the money in those days was different than today. We all know that. Doesn't mean they HAD to fight more just because the got paid less. The cost of living was different back then. Hell just in 1970 the average hamburger cost .18 cents vs now a dollar. So No they really didn't have to fight as much to keep up with the cost of living but they knew that the more they did fight the richer THEN they would become.
Floyd and Manny Mike Tyson all made 100s of millions in their career and HAD to fight on due to Tax issues money getting low
Or to keep up with the life style they want to live. Its not that they have to fight more because they are getting paid more to fight less. The economic system is different yes and also the cost of living is way higher WAY higher.

So back in the good old days, boxers didn't really have to fight 100+ times in order to make a living - they did so to build up their bank account, so they had something to fall back on in their retirement? I'm not sure, if you're serious??

And how is it a FACT, that "money did not motivate them"? How do you know that?

With regards to the old-timers taking part in fewer boring fights - how can we determine that?

In BoxRec's database (as of Jan. 1, 2018) they list a total of little over 663,000 fights, that took place in the 20s and 30s.

How many of those fights are available to us on YouTube? I don't know - but It must be a tiny, tiny fraction of the total number. For each fight we can study from those times, there are maybe 1000 that we can't see.

And those fights that we CAN watch, are likely the best of the best. You don't see a lot of boring down-the-bill fights where two inept boxers are stinking the place out. Or sham fights where the boxers go easy on each other. Where the acting some times was so poor, that both boxers were thrown out for lack of trying. Or where the fighters fouled out (rather than getting ko'd).There were a lot of those types of fights back in boxing's heyday - we just can't watch them.

So if we're only able to study a very tiny fraction of the fights - how can we make any FACTUAL statements about the boxing scene back then as a whole?

[PAC-BOY]

So back in the good old days, boxers didn't really have to fight 100+ times in order to make a living - they did so to build up their bank account, so they had something to fall back on in their retirement? I'm not sure, if you're serious??

And how is it a FACT, that "money did not motivate them"? How do you know that?

With regards to the old-timers taking part in fewer boring fights - how can we determine that?

In BoxRec's database (as of Jan. 1, 2018) they list a total of little over 663,000 fights, that took place in the 20s and 30s.

How many of those fights are available to us on YouTube? I don't know - but It must be a tiny, tiny fraction of the total number. For each fight we can study from those times, there are maybe 1000 that we can't see.

And those fights that we CAN watch, are likely the best of the best. You don't see a lot of boring down-the-bill fights where two inept boxers are stinking the place out. Or sham fights where the boxers go easy on each other. Where the acting some times was so poor, that both boxers were thrown out for lack of trying. Or where the fighters fouled out (rather than getting ko'd).There were a lot of those types of fights back in boxing's heyday - we just can't watch them.

So if we're only able to study a very tiny fraction of the fights - how can we make any FACTUAL statements about the boxing scene back then as a whole?

the fact that you said that means you kinda do understand youre just not seeing my point. I really do understand your though. Im saying money wasnt their motivator.

Youre thinking it was and youre saying they fought more because they had to to get more of it...and all those are true in fact. And i cant disagree with you. But...The MONEY was not what made them fight. They act of survival was their motivation.

And its a whole lot different than just fighting now a days for a check. Today...we cant see the fights we want for political reasons. When then people would fight a grizzly bear to feed their family. It meant something more back then is why they fought with a different intensity and passion.
Especially during the Great Depression. If they didn’t put these unbelievable displays of courage on they wouldn’t of been put on the bill the week after, and sometimes the very next night.

Middleweight Champion Tony Zale claimed that he fought professionally 5 nights a week when he first started out just so his family could eat everyday and if he didn’t put it all on the line, he wouldn’t have been matched the next night (needless to say he didn’t have to train in those times – he was “match fit”).

How could you not give your all in those circumstances? The big money would come when you got your title shot.

Jack Dempsey famously fought with no food in his stomach for days. And the only way to put food in his stomach was…….to fight! Thats intense man. I dont know if you know what its like to be hungry. Or have nothing. Or watch your kids cry because theyre hungry. But you will do what you gotta do to survive. Fighters that did it for that reason back then didnt care if they died or killed someone in that ring. Keep in mind Boxing was also involving to what it is today also...
Nowadays the money comes all too easy by comparison, in fact it’s literally thrown at the amateur starlets coming through to the paid ranks, and that’s the reason I believe why boxing could be in decline (in my opinion).
The stars of today haven’t got to prove how good or tough they are before they make the “big time” money. They’ll never have to go hungry.
Pampered from the first day they turn pro in some cases living a champion’s life of cars and plenty of spare cash, without having to prove anything.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they shouldn’t be rewarded for their efforts but I believe that there should be a system of some sort for making the money.