Are Fighters of the past Overrated?; Poll

[SplitSecond]

That's arguable but when on the other hand you have Henry Armstrong who fought top 10 ranked contenders over 70 times and 15 or more times against hall of fame type of opposition, and put Mayweather's accomplishments next to him (which are very good but not on that level), it's difficult to go with the latter unless you truly believe the fighters of the 1930's couldn't shine Mayweather's boxing shoes. But in the end one should rate a boxer based on how well he dealt with the opposition in his time.

I do look at all kinds of things such as dominance, longevity, film if possible (and I tend not to rate fighters I haven't seen any film of, unless their quality is unquestionable). Accomplishments are a major part of it though, in my opinion, because you can only be as good as the people you fought. Mediocre fighters can look great against below average opposition. We have seen this over and over in boxing.

nvm looking at how many times a fighter fought a hall of famer or champion back then cuz they did'nt have half of that on tape and i strongly believe alot of sugar ray robinson and armstrongs opponents were nothin special

look at it this way, why did just about everyone back then have 70 odd fighst with about only 4 losses? the bums of back then even had a record of 100 odd fights with about 40 losses, but still held a belt somewhere along the line

look at chavez jr, 41 victories, 21 years old(i think) he could go on forever till 100 odd fighst until he fighst a suppossed bum(or someone debutin) that is'nt really that big of a bum after all and lose even tho at the top level today the guy stands no chance

[Dynamite Kid]

foreman is flat footed and does'nt leap in like tua......completely differrent styles, foreman did'nt even have a defence(just stuck his hands out) and he was unbelievably slow, not sayin lennox was fast or anything, but he was a technician that liked to keep things at the end of his jab

You are not giving Foreman credit for what he is good at. You see how an old Foreman hammered Bert Cooper and how he knocked Moorer out? Holyfield went life and death with both these guys, Foreman was an old man!

Foreman was not a great boxer but what he did have going for him along with his punching power was a consistency, plus he was durable and fighters with these types of credentials are always extremely hard to beat.

[TheGreatA]

nvm looking at how many times a fighter fought a hall of famer or champion back then cuz they did'nt have half of that on tape and i strongly believe alot of sugar ray robinson and armstrongs opponents were nothin special

look at it this way, why did just about everyone back then have 70 odd fighst with about only 4 losses? the bums of back then even had a record of 100 odd fights with about 40 losses, but still held a belt somewhere along the line

look at chavez jr, 41 victories, 21 years old(i think) he could go on forever till 100 odd fighst until he fighst a suppossed bum(or someone debutin) that is'nt really that big of a bum after all and lose even tho at the top level today the guy stands no chance

But a lot of Armstrong's and Robinson's opposition are on tape, you only need to check out the films and see them in action.

Please don't compare the mid 1900's fighters to Julio Cesar Chavez. This is exactly what is wrong with today's boxing, built up records against nobodies. If you didn't fight top contenders "back in the day", you didn't get paid, simple as that.

And there was only 1 belt in each division, all in all 8 world titles in boxing. If you held a title, you had to be pretty damn great. Today you have more than 40 alphabet titles, with numerous disgraceful title holders.

Here's Barney Ross:


Skip to 3:00

Kid Gavilan:

[SplitSecond]

You are not giving Foreman credit for what he is good at. You see how an old Foreman hammered Bert Cooper and how he knocked Moorer out? Holyfield went life and death with both these guys, Foreman was an old man!

Foreman was not a great boxer but what he did have going for him along with his punching power was a consistency, plus he was durable and fighters with these types of credentials are always extremely hard to beat.

so you think foreman could beat lewis?

[TheGreatA]

But a lot of Armstrong's and Robinson's opposition are on tape, you only need to check out the films and see them in action.

Please don't compare the mid 1900's fighters to Julio Cesar Chavez. This is exactly what is wrong with today's boxing, built up records against nobodies. If you didn't fight top contenders "back in the day", you didn't get paid, simple as that.

And there was only 1 belt in each division, all in all 8 world titles in boxing. If you held a title, you had to be pretty damn great. Today you have more than 40 alphabet titles, with numerous disgraceful title holders.

Here's Barney Ross:


Skip to 3:00

Kid Gavilan:

Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. I meant.

[Dynamite Kid]

so you think foreman could beat lewis?

Well lets just say i would not rule it out.

Lewis had a life and death with Ray Mercer, got outboxed by Frank Bruno, knocked out by McCall & Rahman, hurt against Briggs.

[SplitSecond]

Well lets just say i would not rule it out.

Lewis had a life and death with Ray Mercer, got outboxed by Frank Bruno, knocked out by McCall & Rahman, hurt against Briggs.

foreman lost to jimmy young....

[Dirt E Gomez]

Everybody is overrated.

[Dynamite Kid]

foreman lost to jimmy young....

Young=Rahman, McCall, whats the difference?

Jimmy Young also got robbed against Ali & Ken Norton.

McCall almost got his ass beat by an ancient Larry Holmes, he went on to lose his title to Frank Bruno!!

Mercer whom gave Lennox all he could handle and imo was on the verge of knocking him out if it had been a 12 round fight got his ass beat by that old version of Holmes.

[Stoppage]

Foreman vs Lewis could go either way, in my opinion.