Do You Think Old School Fighters Get Overrated?

[JAB5239]

imo i dont think that oldschool athleticism would translate over in beating a lennox lewis, larry holmes, or a george foreman. i also dont trust those old school articles of his purported athletic capabilities.

Like I said, I don't think he beats everyone, but I do trhink he'd be a competitive top fighter.

You know me & my video footage requirement jab.

Yeah, I know I know. Lol, fair enough.

[F l i c k e r]

Well, RJJ is the naturally bigger man so I wouldn't argue about you picking him to win. Skill wise SRR is there with any fighter in history and better than most in my opinion.

You mentioned RJJ being thick. Ripped he is. But according to John Scully, if my memory is correct, Roy has a very narrow frame that is deceiving on television. I don't know that as fact as I've never seen Roy live. Just thought I'd mention it.

I agree with you skill wise. SRR's skill set survives any era. Look at the guys who also carry "Sugar" they fight just like him and they are of this era and the fab4 era... Ali emulated his style as well.

But RJJ is a big dude. He is real thick, when I look at video of RJJ and then SRR. SRR looks thiner than Mosley, maybe even Mayweather.

I saw your mentioning of video of back then and now. That was in the back of my mind whenever I watch the video of SRR. I believe I am missing the tidbits because the crappy video technology.

SRR is good though, I see him beating a ton of guys but RJJ, I think the size difference will play alot into a match between them. Alot of size moving equally fast, is alot more devestating than smaller size moving equal speed. Wouldn't you say?

[Jim Jeffries]

imo i dont think that oldschool athleticism would translate over in beating a lennox lewis, larry holmes, or a george foreman. i also dont trust those old school articles of his purported athletic capabilities.

You know me & my video footage requirement jab.

Go to the one minute mark, keep in mind he has dumbbells in his hands.

[F l i c k e r]

Go to the one minute mark, keep in mind he has dumbbells in his hands.

Nah man. That guy ain't beating no one of this era. Not even Haye. Sorry man.

[-GDS-]

Its your privilege to voice your opinion here. But try doing it with facts and logic to back it up. So far you have provided none. Records are made to be broken. That doesn't mean athletes as a whole are better now than than. Pick a sport and I'll be happy to back this statement up.

Well, I respect your opinion. Guess I'll just have to disagree. Just think that we can let guys be great in their time, without extending that dominance until the end of time. Because I don't have a time machine, I guess I can’t prove the whole Johnson, Dempsey, Langford theory. But there is logic there. I'm not saying that athletes are twice as good as they were in the 20's or something similarly dramatic to that effect. But I think that it’s self evident that athletes are physically superior to a small extent. And in the world of elite athletics, that fractional difference makes all the difference from last to first. Do I think that someone like SRR could win welter and middleweight titles today? Absolutely. But if you think that Johnson, Dempsey, and Langford could be transported into the future and beat guys like Tyson, Holyfield, Lennox, and the Klits., no amount of anything could convince you otherwise. Such statements can really only be made in boxing. If I said that a 1925 Notre Dame team could beat the 2006 Texans or USC, I'd be a fool. I’m not saying past fighters weren’t great. Just saying we should let them be great in their time.

[JAB5239]

Nah man. That guy ain't beating no one of this era. Not even Haye. Sorry man.

Lol, Im telling you Vitally didn't look any better at that film speed, but believe what you want my friend.

[-GDS-]

Nah man. That guy ain't beating no one of this era. Not even Haye. Sorry man.

Quite frankly, that's the truth. But no one wants to hear it. Langford vs Tyson? Really?

[Jim Jeffries]

Nah man. That guy ain't beating no one of this era. Not even Haye. Sorry man.

Fair enough, you're most certainly entitled to your opinion.

But isn't this supposed to be the weakest HW era ever? Here's a guy that was 7-1-1 against HOFers, the only loss coming against a top 5 ATG after Jim hadn't fought in 6 years.

[jrosales13]

Quite frankly, that's the truth. But no one wants to hear it. Langford vs Tyson? Really?

You talking about Langford who started as a LW(I think even as low as featherweight) to a fighter who started as a HW...

How would Mayweather do against Mike Tyson?

[F l i c k e r]

Lol, Im telling you Vitally didn't look any better at that film speed, but believe what you want my friend.

You put me in a hard spot Jab. Because I honestly believe the film is horrible on those guys but not him man. Look at the technique man, even if the film is horrible you can see that the stances of back then will not work against anyone of this era.

Fair enough, you're most certainly entitled to your opinion.

But isn't this supposed to be the weakest HW era ever?

I don't even like Haye but the technique is just less than desireable. His hands are so far down, how could he possibly protect himself? Haye would hayemaker his way to a win against him.