Top 90's heavyweight boxers vs top 70's heavyweight boxers?

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

You keep pointing out how there is no way to measure in Boxing-our eyes is 1 way but not scientific proof in fairness, the whole point is that every sport that can be measured has come on, so just because Boxing can't be measured it does not mean it can't progress

It has in my eyes and the fact all the measurable ones has just confirms this for me, since the 70's the main progression would be strength and conditioning, there was a massive increase in skill from the 50's to the 70's-much slower since then but i'm sure it has happened-Every generation has to learn from the 1 before and Boxing is no different to this.

I know well it can progress, I just don't see what you see in 40 years. And, men like Haye and Macklin and Sturm and several others top rated fighters today don't convince me.

Floyd is an exception, as is SRR. But, Floyd would never compete with SRR at WW or just above. He could survive, but doubt he wins very much

At 140 and below Floyd competes with anyone ever. Manny at 140 and below competes with anyone ever.

But, conversely, there also have been great men in the 60s and 70s at 130-140 who could compete with any men ever.

Boxing sure has progressed since the turn of the 20th century. I think it peaked in the 60s and 70s as regards skills and technique.

You will get great men in any era that can compete in any era. But, today's top men in general are to me no better than the general top men from the 60s and 70s

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Bowe, Foreman, Lewis mainly as they are relatively big and have skills to back it up and I'd give Ali and Holyfield a chance too as they where durable and can make fights suit them and find a way.

Terrell, Holmes,Frazier, no hope, Tyson a punchers chance but most likely he would just get bet all over the place.

Let's be real here though-any big punching heavy has A chance but then you could say that against anyone, if Vitali fought Tyson no way would i put money on Mike even though he had ko power and could stop anyone-it's just so unlikely.

I put Terrell in mainly because hes about the same size as The Klitschkos so would be interesting to see them against a decent fighter their own size. The big one I disagree with is Holmes. I'd give him a great chance of beating the brothers. Have done an article on him so don't want to repeat myself too much here...

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Terrell, Holmes,Frazier, no hope, Tyson a punchers chance but most likely he would just get bet all over the place.
.

You really give Larry Holmes no chance against the Klits?

Tyson blasts Wlad. Bad match for him.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I put Terrell in mainly because hes about the same size as The Klitschkos so would be interesting to see them against a decent fighter their own size. The big one I disagree with is Holmes. I'd give him a great chance of beating the brothers. Have done an article on him so don't want to repeat myself too much here...

I really like Holmes-rate him highly but think they're all wrong for him.

sxt

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I put Terrell in mainly because hes about the same size as The Klitschkos so would be interesting to see them against a decent fighter their own size.

Just need to repsond to that .Terell is no where near the size of the Klitschkos , and no where near the same league.

He fought the vast majority of his career at cruiserweight . For his four world title contests (peak) , he weighed in at his heaviest at of 212 ilbs againt Ali . A year later he would lose to a bum. Two of those world title fights , were even steven fights , against tiny cruiserweights


Tyson Fury and David Price are a similar size to the Klitskos ( but no where near their league) and would beat someone like Terrell with comfort

gene_tunney

walshb wrote: »

But, conversely, there also have been great men in the 60s and 70s at 130-140 who could compete with any men ever.

Name the men from each division in the 60s/70s who you think could compete with any men ever

cowzerp

gene_tunney wrote: »

Name the men from each division in the 60s/70s who you think could compete with any men ever

Few and far between, 70's will have a few-Ali, Foreman, Hagler, hearns, SRL, Duran-the last 4 done there main fighting in the 80's though. Technicsy qualify I suppose.

After this the list is v debateable

Maravilla33

sxt wrote: »

Just need to repsond to that .Terell is no where near the size of the Klitschkos , and no where near the same league.

He fought the vast majority of his career at cruiserweight . For his four world title contests (peak) , he weighed in at his heaviest at of 212 ilbs againt Ali . A year later he would lose to a bum. Two of those world title fights , were even steven fights , against tiny cruiserweights


Tyson Fury and David Price are a similar size to the Klitskos ( but no where near their league) and would beat someone like Terrell with comfort

I was talking about height. He's 6"6 and would be an interesting dynamic to a fight with a Klitschko having someone not having to punch up as much. Didn't say he'd win. There was no cruiserweight division in Terrell's day he was a heavyweight. Fine if you are saying his weight resembled a cruiserweights today but he campaigned in the heavyweight division against heavyweights so he was a heavyweight.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I was talking about height. He's 6"6 and would be an interesting dynamic to a fight with a Klitschko having someone not having to punch up as much. Didn't say he'd win. There was no cruiserweight division in Terrell's day he was a heavyweight. Fine if you are saying his weight resembled a cruiserweights today but he campaigned in the heavyweight division against heavyweights so he was a heavyweight.

All true but he is way way behind in terms of skill and power and he did not have great control of range like the bro's to try stay away from Wlad or Vitali's big shot.

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

Name the men from each division in the 60s/70s who you think could compete with any men ever

That isn't all that difficult, you know? There were some fine fighters in the 60s and 70s like:

Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Shavers, Bugner, Quarry, Dick Tiger, Jose Torres, Bob Foster, Spinks, Qawi, Saad Muhammad, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad, Yaqui Lopez, Emile Griffith, Nino Benvenuti, SRR, Benny Paret, Luis Rodriguez, Jose Napoles, Carlos Ortiz, Roberto Duran, Buchannan, Sugar Ramos, Vincente Salvidar, Alexis Arguello, Danny Lopez, Eder Jofre, Fighting Harada, Ruben Olivares, Alfonso Zamora, Pone Kingpetch.....

These names are from the 60s and 70s and IMO would be very competitive acrosss several eras, and most definitely across this current era we live in. And I bet I have missed some too, so if anyone can add to this please do so.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Few and far between, 70's will have a few-Ali, Foreman, Hagler, hearns, SRL, Duran-the last 4 done there main fighting in the 80's though. Technicsy qualify I suppose.

After this the list is v debateable

There's a lot more. For starters Olivares, Jofre, Arguello, Frazier, Monzon, Benitez, Holmes, Zarate, Foster, Gomez, Buchanan, Napoles, Loi, Liston, Locche.

Thats a few off the top of my head. Some outstanding fighters there and some real standouts. Remember Gene's question was name some men that would compete. I've no doubt the above would compete in any era.

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

Name the men from each division in the 60s/70s who you think could compete with any men ever

Now maybe you can answer my query, gene. Where is your proof that today's men are so superior to generations past, including the 60s and 70s?

Apart from your eyes, which I agree, one can use (but different eyes may see different things), what tells you that the men today are superior?

Sturm and Paulie are two recognised world champions today. Just saying!

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Olivares, Jofre, Arguello, Frazier, Monzon, Benitez, Holmes, Zarate, Foster, Gomez, Buchanan, Napoles, Loi, Liston, Locche..

I think you have proved his point with that list.
Liston or Frazier would be well down the list in the 80's right up to now at heavyweight-Holmes to me would be a nearly man.

Benitez while he fought in the 70's was 21 in 1980 and most his 70's fights where just build up fights-not on 60's and 70's list-anyone who boxed in the 80's should not be on the list for that matter as they're 80's boxers, exceptions been Ali for example

I'm not going to waste energy writing the rest off as there leagues behind 80's men on.

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I've no doubt the above would compete in any era.

They wouldn't be the top men like they where, list where good at the time but when viewing all they are not in the same league as todays men

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

I think you have proved his point with that list.
Liston or Frazier would be well down the list in the 80's right up to now at heavyweight-Holmes to me would be a nearly man.

Benitez while he fought in the 70's was 21 in 1980 and most his 70's fights where just build up fights-not on 60's and 70's list-anyone who boxed in the 80's should not be on the list for that matter as they're 80's boxers, exceptions been Ali for example

I'm not going to waste energy writing the rest off as there leagues behind 80's men on.

What you mean is I don't know much about these guys so will conveniently sweep them under the carpet... I'm not being condescending here but its becoming more clear the more we debate this. Its ridiculous to write off some of the talent I've mentioned the way you are. Holmes a nearly man? Give me a break.

I'll pick one example. Who beats Bob Foster at Light heavy today? Ignore his stint at heavy. At Light Heavy he was a beast and one of the greatest men to fight there. Hopkins at his best maybe but thats about it and I wouldn't be too confident.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

What you mean is I don't know much about these guys so will conveniently sweep them under the carpet... I'm not being condescending here but its becoming more clear the more we debate this. Its ridiculous to write off some of the talent I've mentioned the way you are. Holmes a nearly man? Give me a break..

No what i mean is, You are been condescending-I know these guys, you should look them up, they are not all that by todays standards-i put lots of time into posting videos etc which is a waste of time because your mind is made up-even though when i post a video of 2 fighters where the poor modern 1 is better than the legendary old 1 it is just overlooked.

The list you put up is not impressive by todays standards, you do the work and compare them as i am the 1 doing it all.

walshb

Bob, Dwight and Muhammad's are better than any LHW today

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Bob, Dwight and Muhammad's are better than any LHW today

Dawson is better than all them and has beat some really good opposition like Johnson, Tarver, Hopkins, and the unbeaten Adamek, who did Foster beat!

i assume you mean Dwight Muhammad but am not sure, he beat nobody either and certainly not at light heavy

walshb

Brandon Rios vs. Ken Buchannan?

Felix Sturm vs. Carlos Monzon?

Paulie Malignaggi vs. Emile Griffith?

I can't see how those today win here?

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

No what i mean is, You are been condescending-I know these guys, you should look them up, they are not all that by todays standards-i put lots of time into posting videos etc which is a waste of time because your mind is made up-even though when i post a video of 2 fighters where the poor modern 1 is better than the legendary old 1 it is just overlooked.

The list you put up is not impressive by todays standards, you do the work and compare them as i am the 1 doing it all.

I should look them up? I don't need to look them up. I've a big interest in the sport's history as it is. Who is it today that you are so impressed with? You keep mentioning today's fighters? There's the Klits (Who are very good but I wouldn't have them on the pedestal you have), Mayweather and Pacquaio. Old great men like JMM and Hopkins. There are some other very good fighters that could become great like Donaire, Gamboa, Ward etc but overall the standard aint great.

Jofre - Possibly the greatest bantam ever. In most people's Top 20 of all time.

Foster - Possibly top 5 Light heavy ever. Thats a stacked division.

Holmes - Nailed on top 10 heavy

Monzon - Nailed on top 5 Middleweight

Olivares - One of Mexico's greatest ever fighters and they've had a few.

Napoles - Top 10 welter.

Locche - A defensive genius.

These are my opinions so I don't see why you have to keep telling me to watch clips instead of taking some 90 year olds opinion. I've watched them I wouldn't comment on them if I hadn't seen them fight.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Dawson is better than all them and has beat some really good opposition like Johnson, Tarver, Hopkins, and the unbeaten Adamek, who did Foster beat!

Hopkins is 47, and was uselsss in the fight. Hopkins is crafty, end of. Well past his best.

Dawson does not beat Spinks or Qawi. And, either way, how is it clear, definitive? And, how can anyone say that Dawson is somehow superior in technique?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Paulie Malignaggi vs. Emile Griffith?

I can't see how those today win here?

Now you just been full of shiit.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

These are my opinions so I don't see why you have to keep telling me to watch clips instead of taking some 90 year olds opinion. I've watched them I wouldn't comment on them if I hadn't seen them fight.

Because you keep telling me to look them up and acting like i have no clue-I have and grew up watching Boxing both live and Recorded-VHS etc, these lads are rated due to been good in their time, not now, now most would be also rans.


Your the 1 comparing some god damn awful fighters to the likes of the Kiltsckho's not me.

Get your biased cap off and rewatch them, pretend you don't know them and then see what ya come back with.

Maravilla33

I must say I've had this argument tonnes of times but never with someone who had such derision for the old timers and with very little argument to back it up. These lads I'm talking about aren't really old timers per se. The 60s and 70s aren't that long ago.

On the one hand you'll use Boxrec to criticize someone like Ezzard Charles for losing x amount of fights but will use Glen Johnson as a good opponent? Without looking it up I'd say Glen Johnson has lost a quarter of his fights. Its hypocritical if you ask me.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Now you just been full of shiit.

How? Isn't he a legit WBA WW champion?

Ok, put in Manny or Floyd if it suits you?

As for Rios? Your call on that one?

Sturm? Your call on that one?

Maravilla33

They're rated for being great fighters with great records, achievements and legacies. People today still rate Carlos Monzon as a top 5 middle weight. Not just myself. Even yourself rates Ali and Foreman. Do people rate them today just because they were good in their day? You cant keep saying he was a one off etc. If its possible for them to be great just in general then its possible for others to be even if they're not as well known.

walshb

Simple: Pit any man today at championship level against the equivalent championship level in the 60s and 70s and I cannot see how it's at all clear that today's men are better.

I am not claiming that the 60s and 70s are better, as a fact, to me I think they overall are a little better, with men today as good as 60s and 70s men, and vice versa. It's almost a toss up for several matches.

Of the names I threw out earlier from the 60s and 70s I have watched many of them in action and was impresed too. Impressed enough to be confident that they could well compete and win titles today.

BTW, Monzon never excited me, or impressed me too much, but hell, at MW I feel he beats anyone today.

I think Hagler and Jones could beat Monzon, but Sturm and Martinez and Lee and Mackiln? No!

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

BTW, Monzon never excited me, or impressed me too much, but hell, at MW I feel he beats anyone today.

I think Hagler and Jones could beat Monzon, but Sturm and Martinez and Lee and Mackiln? No!

That's fair enough but hes the top man at middle for me.

Tall, rangy, power in both hands with a great jab and chin he matches up to anyone for me. Comfortable boxing from range and extremely hard to best on the inside and capable of fighting a hard 15 rounds he's got everything. If I was being critical I could say he could be predictable but what he did worked for him.

He was unbeaten for 10 years and fought some quality opposition. I think some people under rate him because of the comfortable way he dispatched most of his opponents. But you only have to look at the quality of his opponents to tell how good he was. Benvenuti, Valdes, Napoles and Griffith are fine wins and he also beat all of the contenders of his day.

walshb

Maravilla33 wrote: »

That's fair enough but hes the top man at middle for me.

Tall, rangy, power in both hands with a great jab and chin he matches up to anyone for me. Comfortable boxing from range and extremely hard to best on the inside and capable of fighting a hard 15 rounds he's got everything. If I was being critical I could say he could be predictable but what he did worked for him.

He was unbeaten for 10 years and fought some quality opposition. I think some people under rate him because of the comfortable way he dispatched most of his opponents. But you only have to look at the quality of his opponents to tell how good he was. Benvenuti, Valdes, Napoles and Griffith are fine wins and he also beat all of the contenders of his day.

No doubt he was a quality act. I have watced several lengthy clips and always found him difficult to enjoy. Like the Klits, dominant and skilled and impressive, just lacking zip, passion, and excitement.

I think Carlos is a top ten MW ever. Loses to SRR, Hagler, Jones, and some 90s men with skills and talent will trouble him. I mean, Toney, McCallum, Nunn spring to mind. These would be very difficult fights to call.

I also believe SRL and his foot and handspeed would be problematic.

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

No doubt he was a quality act. I have watced several lengthy clips and always found him difficult to enjoy. Like the Klits, dominant and skilled and impressive, just lacking zip, passion, and excitement.

I think Carlos is a top ten MW ever. Loses to SRR, Hagler, Jones, and some 90s men with skills and talent will trouble him. I mean, Toney, McCallum, Nunn spring to mind. These would be very difficult fights to call.

I also believe SRL and his foot and handspeed would be problematic.

Ah yeah there's few frills to him. He'd just systematically break down his opponents. Out of the above I think RJJ may give him the most trouble with his speed and reflexes. SRR was already fading when he moved up to Middleweight. If the likes of Fullmer and Basillo can put enough pressure on Ray to beat him then I'd be confident that Monzon could. His shots were much harder than they looked and he was able to slow down and punish guys who were far more mobile or technically superior to him. Just looked nearly unbeatable during his reign.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I must say I've had this argument tonnes of times but never with someone who had such derision for the old timers and with very little argument to back it up. These lads I'm talking about aren't really old timers per se. The 60s and 70s aren't that long ago.

On the one hand you'll use Boxrec to criticize someone like Ezzard Charles for losing x amount of fights but will use Glen Johnson as a good opponent? Without looking it up I'd say Glen Johnson has lost a quarter of his fights. Its hypocritical if you ask me.

I used Glen Johnson as a good opponent for Dawson not as the man, Glen Johnson is a good boxer-again view the clips, he can box to a very good technical level.

You have nothing to back anything up, i have posted videos of our comparisons many times and you have just disagreed, that is not backing anything up.

walshb wrote: »

How? Isn't he a legit WBA WW champion?

Ok, put in Manny or Floyd if it suits you?

As for Rios? Your call on that one?

Sturm? Your call on that one?

If you pick the top man it is only fair to pick the top man from now or someone established at the weight-Nobody is claiming Paulie is a great at the weight, we simply just said he has skill's, and as seen as we are talking about technical skill's i would rate his higher than Griffiths anyway, his problem is lack of power not skill.

walshb wrote: »

Simple: Pit any man today at championship level against the equivalent championship level in the 60s and 70s and I cannot see how it's at all clear that today's men are better.

I am not claiming that the 60s and 70s are better, as a fact, to me I think they overall are a little better, with men today as good as 60s and 70s men, and vice versa. It's almost a toss up for several matches.

No it is not simple, pit the best of both era's and see who is better, then pit the 2nd best and see who is better etc etc.. not picking Paulie who is new to the division and beat a nobody against Emile Griffith.

Maravilla33 wrote: »

That's fair enough but hes the top man at middle for me.

Of course he is.