Who could have beaten Mosley at LW?

[!! Shawn]

Mosley beat no top opposition at that weight but we've come to know how great he was at higher weights.

Here are some lightweights that haven't been mentioned yet in this thread:


Barney Ross




Henry Armstrong


Ike Williams vs Beau Jack




Jimmy Carter


Carlos Ortiz


Laguna vs Ortiz

All good fighters, but I do not see what any of them can do that would lead me to believe they would beat Shane.

Ive always been a fan of Barney Ross though.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE]

Bad post. Its easy to analyze film of that era. Its not as bad as people like to make it seem. The fighters do not look worse than they really are, they were just that sloppy.

So the film speed, quality and missing frames have nothing to do with it, right? I suppose you believe Charlie Chaplin really walked that way too.

Film has always recorded the same damn thing, exactly what it sees through the lens; no less, no more.

Actually and factually, much less.

In fact, I would say that some of these old films are even more watchable than some of the overly compressed modern fights available for download.

This is just plain ignorance.

I would honestly like you to point out one deficiency in the footage I provided that would lead you to inaccurately judge either fighter.

You got it. Its filmed from a distance. Its missing frames. Its all at one angle. Thye speed isn't true, and its grainy.

[!! Shawn]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;4651248]

So the film speed, quality and missing frames have nothing to do with it, right? I suppose you believe Charlie Chaplin really walked that way too.



Actually and factually, much less.



This is just plain ignorance.



You got it. Its filmed from a distance. Its missing frames. Its all at one angle. Thye speed isn't true, and its grainy.

Its not missing frames. The speed difference is due to it being shot at 24fps and being uploaded at 30fps, which is a human error and has nothing to do with the film. The fact that its not filmed from all sorts of angles actually makes it easier to determine what a fighter is doing wrong and what he is doing right.

Please dont try to get into a debate about what a camera captures with me. Photography is one of my hobbies. The 16 mm silver iodide film they used captures more information than the 480 and below resolutions fights were broadcast in during the early 90's. The compression artifacts on every video on youtube are MUCH worse than the grain structure present in 16mm film.

[JAB5239]

Yes he did... You didn't know Ray Arcel worked with Benny Leonard? Wow, and you are telling me to do more research?

http://www.ibhof.com/arcel.htm

"Arcel also worked with Barney Ross, and managed and trained his early idol, Benny Leonard..."

The man is clearly unbiased talking about his boxing idol and a guy he trained...

Lmao!! He trained him after a 7 year retirement where he was a shell of his former self. What about Nat Fleishers opinion, Harry Wills, or dozens of other EXPERTS who claim Leonard as one of the best ever? Are you saying that you, an armchair fan, know better than them?

[!! Shawn]

Lmao!! He trained him after a 7 year retirement where he was a shell of his former self. What about Nat Fleishers opinion, Harry Wills, or dozens of other EXPERTS who claim Leonard as one of the best ever? Are you saying that you, an armchair fan, know better than them?

You said he never trained Benny Leonard. He did train Benny Leonard. You were wrong, stop being a ***** about it.

I am not an armchair fan. I am an active participant in the sport. Nat Fleisher is a biased bum. If you ask any old timer who the best fighter ever is, they will name the best fighter of when they were young.

Nostalgia is human nature. It doesn't make it right. People get the same way about cars, talking about the times when they were built right and didn't break. They always broke. People just forget about that and remember the good times.

[JAB5239]

[QUOTE=!! Shawn;4651276]

Its not missing frames.

Compared to todays film it has less frames which is why the fighters look herky jerky.

The speed difference is due to it being shot at 24fps and being uploaded at 30fps, which is a human error and has nothing to do with the film.

Either way, you cannot get the same quality, can you?

The fact that its not filmed from all sorts of angles actually makes it easier to determine what a fighter is doing wrong and what he is doing right.

This is a total crock of ****. And the distance?

Please dont try to get into a debate about what a camera captures with me. Photography is one of my hobbies. The 16 mm silver iodide film they used captures more information than the 480 and below resolutions fights were broadcast in during the early 90's. The compression artifacts on every video on youtube are MUCH worse than the grain structure present in 16mm film.

Im not trying to get into a debate about what a camera does. But I will bet you anything 99% of the poeple at this site will side with me if asked what film is easier to catch the nuances of a fighter on, todays or that film from the 20's? Care to make a wager?

[JAB5239]

You said he never trained Benny Leonard. He did train Benny Leonard. You were wrong, stop being a ***** about it.

I was wrong. So how am I being a *****?

I am not an armchair fan. I am an active participant in the sport. Nat Fleisher is a biased bum. If you ask any old timer who the best fighter ever is, they will name the best fighter of when they were young.

Its nice to hear you're an active participant, but that still doesn't mean you know **** about boxings history or can disect a fighter from 10 minutes of crappy footage. and of course Fliesher is biased to you, you disaqgree with him. But the fact remains.....he saw those fighters up close and live, you didn't. His opinion on that alone makes him more qualified than you. as far as ask any oldtimer.....what you said isn't true, and the same can be said of todays youth. Most automaticly think todays fighters and athlestes are better without even knowing about past greats. You're a fine example of that.

Nostalgia is human nature. It doesn't make it right. People get the same way about cars, talking about the times when they were built right and didn't break. They always broke. People just forget about that and remember the good times.

Than answer me this....why did Harry Wills, a man who never got his shot because of prejudice call Benny Leonard, a white ***ish man, the greatest little fighter he ever saw? Was he remembering the good times?

[TCAV Promotions]

wow this entire boxing site has the most ******ed "fans" of boxing. NO WAY IN HELL shane ever loses at lightweight.

if he decided to stay and never leave he would have retired 4 years ago. undefeated. beating mayweather,corrales,castillo,johnston,casamayor,ca mbell,and whoever you "fans" think would stand a chance..

and also mayweather is not that good...stop nuthugging like most of you were on margarito and cotto. mayweather beat DLH but DLH has had problems with smaller quicker fighters. not to mention mayweather was younger. do not throw hatton or gatti into the mix.

you are so quick to hate on shane but when he lost to forrest he was headbutted 30 seconds before. the rematch was a fluke forrest grabbed all night. shane beat winky the second time. and he beat cotto...

i have met shane several times and asked him prior to his fight with estrada why he never met with mayweather....he said mayweather didnt want to fight him...and i asked him 2 months ago why a deal wasnt in place and he told me floyd ducked him again...the whole toothache thing was a joke...
if shane was afraid of mayweather he would have never fought winky twice..

and let me say this now...clottey has no chance...mayweather has no chance...berto has no chance...paul williams would have a chance but would probally get rocked...cotto should never take a rematch...pacman has no shot nor does hatton...

oh yeah back in 01...i was 12..i asked shane how come he didnt fight trinidad...he said they had a fight in place and trinidad backed out to fight vargas...a fight was supposed to have happened in dec.2000

oh yea....im from pomona,ca and im great friends with his son...so thats how i was able to ask him questions all the time..

[JAB5239]

wow this entire boxing site has the most ******ed "fans" of boxing. NO WAY IN HELL shane ever loses at lightweight.

if he decided to stay and never leave he would have retired 4 years ago. undefeated. beating mayweather,corrales,castillo,johnston,casamayor,ca mbell,and whoever you "fans" think would stand a chance..

and also mayweather is not that good...stop nuthugging like most of you were on margarito and cotto. mayweather beat DLH but DLH has had problems with smaller quicker fighters. not to mention mayweather was younger. do not throw hatton or gatti into the mix.

you are so quick to hate on shane but when he lost to forrest he was headbutted 30 seconds before. the rematch was a fluke forrest grabbed all night. shane beat winky the second time. and he beat cotto...

i have met shane several times and asked him prior to his fight with estrada why he never met with mayweather....he said mayweather didnt want to fight him...and i asked him 2 months ago why a deal wasnt in place and he told me floyd ducked him again...the whole toothache thing was a joke...
if shane was afraid of mayweather he would have never fought winky twice..

and let me say this now...clottey has no chance...mayweather has no chance...berto has no chance...paul williams would have a chance but would probally get rocked...cotto should never take a rematch...pacman has no shot nor does hatton...

oh yeah back in 01...i was 12..i asked shane how come he didnt fight trinidad...he said they had a fight in place and trinidad backed out to fight vargas...a fight was supposed to have happened in dec.2000

oh yea....im from pomona,ca and im great friends with his son...so thats how i was able to ask him questions all the time..

Well, let me be the first to say...its great to hear an unbiased opinion!

[!! Shawn]

[QUOTE=JAB5239;4651305]

Im not trying to get into a debate about what a camera does. But I will bet you anything 99% of the poeple at this site will side with me if asked what film is easier to catch the nuances of a fighter on, todays or that film from the 20's? Care to make a wager?

I'd wager that 99% of the people on this site picked Margarito to beat Shane Mosley.

Id love to hear your argument for how different film angles change a fighters ability.

Anyways, I am done arguing with you because you have started to abandon facts argue semantics and present bad examples.

Your Charlie Chaplin example was just awful. You completely ignored the fact that Charlie Chaplins movies were EDITED for comic effect. Chaplin continued to produce movies will into the age of color film.

The 1920's were not the age of hand cranked cameras. Consistent shutter speed had long since been established, and hand cranks were only used for maintaining spring tension.
Just an FYI Circle Inside a Box uploads all of his fights encoded at 24fps. So if you are DLing any fights, you might want to stay away from his. They probably don't live up to his standards.