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

megadodge

To those who keep mentioning the NFL and NBA taking all the big men in the US
1. There are more weights than just heavyweight.
2. The world doesn't revolve around the US, despite what they think.
3. There are more countries with more boxers worldwide now than ever before, mainly due to the numerous former eastern bloc countries who are producing so many quality boxers.

I remember Barney Eastwood sometime in the late 80's-ish claiming the way boxing was going there would be no professional boxing by 2000. He was very, very wrong, but we're still listening to the same rubbish about how boxing is on the way out. Don't hold your breath.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Walshb, just to clear up any misunderstanding, I was speaking in general, not necessarily you in my earlier post. I just mentioned you and Hawkins as a kind of tongue-in-cheek remark, as I know I've mentioned the arrogant pr!ck before to you.

That's grand.

I am sorta on the fence on this. I understand both sides. I see progression, most definitely, but I think by the 50s and 60s boxers reached a very very brilliant level, and after this, we had ups and downs. I do not see it as clear as others.

One of your favorite men is Louis. He was in the 30s and 40s. For skills and technique he was superb. Yes, style wise later men could sure have beaten him, but he had as much technique and skills as anyone. I know he is one name, but in the 50s and 60s if one looks at some of the best, I feel that they sure could compete, and beat many from today and recent years.

marienbad

walshb wrote: »

Do you think Ali wouldn't be top dog today unless he had "today's knowledge?"

If you are to compare like with like you must assume that all competitors have access to the same knowledge. If it was on just on raw talent Ali is nonpareil

gene_tunney

megadodge wrote: »

To those who keep mentioning the NFL and NBA taking all the big men in the US
1. There are more weights than just heavyweight.
2. The world doesn't revolve around the US, despite what they think.
3. There are more countries with more boxers worldwide now than ever before, mainly due to the numerous former eastern bloc countries who are producing so many quality boxers.

I remember Barney Eastwood sometime in the late 80's-ish claiming the way boxing was going there would be no professional boxing by 2000. He was very, very wrong, but we're still listening to the same rubbish about how boxing is on the way out. Don't hold your breath.

The whole boxing is dying thing is a huge myth that has been going around for ages, and I can disprove it pretty easily, which I may do tomorrow if I have the energy.

cowzerp

gene_tunney wrote: »

The whole boxing is dying thing is a huge myth that has been going around for ages, and I can disprove it pretty easily, which I may do tomorrow if I have the energy.

It's absolutely ridiculous alright-In Ireland clubs are full to the brim, i would not be suprised if their is more people boxing now than in the 50's worldwide, America's lack of a heavyweight champ is to blame for most the bs press

Last I heard boxing was strongly growing in Asia, it's huge in eastern Europe and I think this is a big reason for the Americans not been top dog-especially at heavyweight.

People will say Mma is taking boxers but I see traditional martial arts suffering more as people who box are not looking for self defense as the main reason for doing it, so it goes without saying when looking for a martial art you'll look for the best 1, Lots of people in my club for example found boxing through doing Mma so Mma can actually benefit Boxing

Maravilla33

walshb wrote: »

Ok, Eder Jofre? Who today post 2000 is the obvious winner against him?

Missed the whole debate but reading through it nobody's ventured to give an answer? I think in a lot of cases people simply write of the fighters of yesteryear as its easy. Much harder to spend some time to watch the reels of tape or read the countless articles and reports of fights gone by.

I agree that fighters are getting bigger and have access to better nutrition and training facilities but to my eyes it hasn't improved skill levels to any obvious degree.

walshb

As to this nutrition etc. What exactly is so much better today than the 60s? I mean, it's not like heart disease or cancer are issues. Boxers are young and fit men. So, what nutrition and medicines are today's men getting that is creating this evolution and improvement? What are todays men eating that is so much better and advantageous?

I know training methods evolve and change. But, again, can someone give some good examples of the advantages, because I am still laying my bets on many 60s champs over todays champs.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I agree that fighters are getting bigger and have access to better nutrition and training facilities but to my eyes it hasn't improved skill levels to any obvious degree.

O'k the Ring Magazine of 1962 v 2012

Heavyweight
Sonny Liston v Wladimir Klitschko, Wlad wins easily.

Light Heavy
Harold Johnson v Bernard Hopkins, Again easy win for Bhop

Middleweight
Paul Pender v Sergio Gabriel Martínez, Pattern developing here!!

Welterweight
Emile Griffith v Floyd Mayweather, Mayweather again by large margin

Junior Welterweight
Duilio Loi v Manny Pacquiao, last ring champ-gave it up in 2010
KO win for Manny-not too competitive

Light weight
Carlos Ortiz v Juan Manuel Márquez, I had to go back over Ortiz clips to give a fair opinion and again an easy win for Marquez-and Ortiz is a hall of famer.

Featherweight
Davey Moore v Manny Pacquio, again he was last champ so is in the modern categorary, massive win here for Manny.

Bantam weight
Eder Jofre v Bernardo Pinango, last ring champ 1987 so not close to 50 yrs, even this match is quite close, i think i'd give the edge to Jofre.


Not even joking i assessed this honestly and on who i really felt would win, was expecting it a bit more even but this just is defintive back up for myself and my beliefs that Boxing overall has come on lots.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

O'k the Ring Magazine of 1962 v 2012

Heavyweight
Sonny Liston v Wladimir Klitschko, Wlad wins easily.

Light Heavy
Harold Johnson v Bernard Hopkins, Again easy win for Bhop

Middleweight
Paul Pender v Sergio Gabriel Martínez, Pattern developing here!!

Welterweight
Emile Griffith v Floyd Mayweather, Mayweather again by large margin

Junior Welterweight
Duilio Loi v Manny Pacquiao, last ring champ-gave it up in 2010
KO win for Manny-not too competitive

Light weight
Carlos Ortiz v Juan Manuel Márquez, I had to go back over Ortiz clips to give a fair opinion and again an easy win for Marquez-and Ortiz is a hall of famer.

Featherweight
Davey Moore v Manny Pacquio, again he was last champ so is in the modern categorary, massive win here for Manny.

Bantam weight
Eder Jofre v Bernardo Pinango, last ring champ 1987 so not close to 50 yrs, even this match is quite close, i think i'd give the edge to Jofre.


Not even joking i assessed this honestly and on who i really felt would win, was expecting it a bit more even but this just is defintive back up for myself and my beliefs that Boxing overall has come on lots.

The picks on who wins are your picks?

Why in 2012 is Manny at 126 lbs?

Mayweather wins easily over Griffith? I can't see this.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

O'k the Ring Magazine of 1962 v 2012

Heavyweight
Sonny Liston v Wladimir Klitschko, Wlad wins easily.

Light Heavy
Harold Johnson v Bernard Hopkins, Again easy win for Bhop

Middleweight
Paul Pender v Sergio Gabriel Martínez, Pattern developing here!!

Welterweight
Emile Griffith v Floyd Mayweather, Mayweather again by large margin

Junior Welterweight
Duilio Loi v Manny Pacquiao, last ring champ-gave it up in 2010
KO win for Manny-not too competitive

Light weight
Carlos Ortiz v Juan Manuel Márquez, I had to go back over Ortiz clips to give a fair opinion and again an easy win for Marquez-and Ortiz is a hall of famer.

Featherweight
Davey Moore v Manny Pacquio, again he was last champ so is in the modern categorary, massive win here for Manny.

Bantam weight
Eder Jofre v Bernardo Pinango, last ring champ 1987 so not close to 50 yrs, even this match is quite close, i think i'd give the edge to Jofre.


Not even joking i assessed this honestly and on who i really felt would win, was expecting it a bit more even but this just is defintive back up for myself and my beliefs that Boxing overall has come on lots.

No offence but I could easily write something similar and pick the other guys. All you've done is say x would beat y easily. Wheres the reasoning? Why does x beat y etc? You simply saying it isn't definitive backup as you say?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

The picks on who wins are your picks?

Why in 2012 is Manny at 126 lbs?

Mayweather wins easily over Griffith? I can't see this.

he was the last ring champ, all are based on ring champs-they're are not my picks-its a fair comparison-close to 50 years so what's the problem?

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

No offence but I could easily write something similar and pick the other guys. All you've done is say x would beat y easily. Wheres the reasoning? Why does x beat y etc? You simply saying it isn't definitive backup as you say?

genuinely, do it so-but do it honestly-i did.

i watched clips of all aswell and came to my conclusions that way.

i did not make it in a way that suited me-i simply went back 50 years and picked the ruing champs at the time, same with today.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

he was the last ring champ, all are based on ring champs-they're are not my picks-its a fair comparison-close to 50 years so what's the problem?

The results I mean, are your verdicts?

"i assessed this honestly and on who i really felt would win."

I had maybe thought the verdicts were from Ring people.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

No offence but I could easily write something similar and pick the other guys. All you've done is say x would beat y easily. Wheres the reasoning? Why does x beat y etc? You simply saying it isn't definitive backup as you say?

I based it on watching both, why don't you try it and give who you genuinely think would win?

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

The results I mean, are your verdicts?

"i assessed this honestly and on who i really felt would win."

I hasd maybe thought the verduicts were from Ring people.

yes my verdicts, but based on watching them-not bias.

i put a lot of time into it

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

yes my verdicts, but based on watching them-not bias.

i put a lot of time into it

That is fair, but can you not see that others may pick the other man, and in realation to the thread, you picking the modern men is in no way proof that today's men are better. Many I am sure would pick peak Griffith over Floyd at 147 lbs.

Harold Johnson over Hopkins is also one that I would think most would pick Johnson.

Bottom line: This progression and evolution you and others speak of in 40-50 years to me is not clear at all.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

yes my verdicts, but based on watching them-not bias.

i put a lot of time into it

But all you've done is said who will win. No reasoning? Loi had over 100 fights watching a few clips will hardly do him justice?

Likewise Mayweather Vs Griffith I would also fancy Mayweather but with a couple of caveats. Firstly Mayweather is a one off and not typical of boxers today. I've often heard you say that about SRR so I think the same of Floyd. Secondly Griffith was no mug he won titles up as far as middleweight beating some great fighters and even going 15 rounds with one of the greatest middleweights ever Carloz Monzon. For a welter to do that is exceptional. Griffith was a very good fighter and don't think many would deal with the pressure he'd bring easily as you say.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

But all you've done is said who will win. No reasoning? Loi had over 100 fights watching a few clips will hardly do him justice?

Likewise Mayweather Vs Griffith I would also fancy Mayweather but with a couple of caveats. Firstly Mayweather is a one off and not typical of boxers today. I've often heard you say that about SRR so I think the same of Floyd. Secondly Griffith was no mug he won titles up as far as middleweight beating some great fighters and even going 15 rounds with one of the greatest middleweights ever Carloz Monzon. For a welter to do that is exceptional. Griffith was a very good fighter and don't think many would deal with the pressure he'd bring easily as you say.

Griffith was the best in a long time then aswell in fairness, and the clips where mainly highlights, showing their best-so I'm basing it off their best performances.

If the highlights don't hack it then the non highlights certainly won't.

Maravilla33

I appreciate that you've actually taken time to watch the fighters in question and then make your verdicts but its a flawed system. With regards Floyd vs Griffith i agree with you so its a bad example for me to argue my point.

So lets take Liston vs Wlad (again...) I wasn't around when Liston was fighting. I've been alive for all of Wlad's career. I can watch his fights live and have seen a lot more of him than I have Liston. So if I was to base my opinion on this match up using all of the Wlad fights I've seen versus a few clips of Liston on Youtube (most of which include him getting beat up by Ali) then I wouldn't have a balanced view. I'd be using a big sample of Wlad's career against a very small sample of Listons. Now luckily enough I've aways been curious about and interested in Sonny's career so have watched as much footage as I can and read whatever I can get my hands on relating to his career.

Now I'm not accusing you of not watching Liston. You've already told me you used to have videos of him. Just trying to argue that your system of using even highlights of older fighters to rate them against fighters you can watch week in week out isnt a completely fair one due to the samples involved.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Now I'm not accusing you of not watching Liston. You've already told me you used to have videos of him. Just trying to argue that your system of using even highlights of older fighters to rate them against fighters you can watch week in week out isnt a completely fair one due to the samples involved.

All you have to do is look at both their highlights right now and make a decision-forget preconceived opinions-if that is done by everyone here then Wlad will be most peoples choice.

I'd also be quite sure that most Boxing fans have seen more of Liston than they have of Wlad, before Haye i believe most casual fans would never have heard of Wlad.

That is the sad reality of boxing coverage these days.

You tube proves all

Maravilla33

Ha you're talking about preconceived notions and then assuming most people would pick Wlad? I dunno who most people will pick but won't assume either way. In this case on here Wlad won the poll so I accept that. I still believe in my own opinion though.

Youtubes a great resource for watching fights but won't ever base my opinion on a few clips. What if the clip doesn't contain the best bits? I'm relying on someone else's opinion of highlights then. Just like I wont only use Boxrec I wont rely on Youtube either. But i will use both as well as other ways of making my mind up before making a decision.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Ha you're talking about preconceived notions and then assuming most people would pick Wlad? I dunno who most people will pick but won't assume either way. In this case on here Wlad won the poll so I accept that. I still believe in my own opinion though.

I believe they will come to that conclusion as it's clear who is better-simples.

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Youtubes a great resource for watching fights but won't ever base my opinion on a few clips. What if the clip doesn't contain the best bits? I'm relying on someone else's opinion of highlights then. Just like I wont only use Boxrec I wont rely on Youtube either. But i will use both as well as other ways of making my mind up before making a decision.

Using records and video evidence is great-i watched the fight and you can tell if Highlights are biased or not-the highlights of vitali v lewis for instance was as the fight was, showed both landing good.

Maravilla33

Anyway back on topic I favour the 70s heavys vs the 90s ones. Taking all fighters at their primes this is how I see it panning out.

1. Ali Vs Holyfield - Holyfield I think is capable of giving any heavy ever a hard night's work. I just think Ali's hand and foot speed, unorthodox style and durability makes him favorite against anyone. If he chooses to box I see him winning this quite comfortably. Both had great chins and hearts and can see this being a bit of a war with the greatest winning a thriller.

2. Foreman vs Lewis - Foreman at his best was a monster and an expert at cutting of the ring. Lewis was at his best when faced with a challenge and they don't come much bigger than this. I think he'd have some joy with his jab early but cant see him keeping Foreman off him all night and can see Big George chopping him down.

3. Frazier Vs Bowe - This is intriguing. Bowe had all the tools to beat Frazier but would never write of Smokin Joe. I think at his best Bowe uses his size to keep Frazier at bay and win on points. Frazier would be durable and testing enough to keep Bowe honest for the full 12/15 rounds.

4. Norton Vs Tyson - Tyson and early..

Semis

Ali Vs Bowe - Again Ali at his best too quick and clever for Bowe who would be frustrated to have to go looking for Ali all night only for him not to be there. He wasn't the strongest mentally and can see him getting more and more frustrated.

Foreman Vs Tyson - Think this is a nightmare match up for Tyson. Tyson is going to be dangerous early against anyone. But his bob and weave style sees him walk on to some massive hooks and uppercuts. Foreman by KO. Mike seemed spooked by old man Foreman so cant see him wanting to fight the wrecking ball from the 70s.

Final

Ali Vs Foreman - Any version of Ali beats Foreman for me. He showed how the older version would do it in the Rumble. I think the 60s version is again too quick and would win on points.

I wouldn't put my house on any of them results though other than Tyson Vs Norton.

cowzerp

good post but I feel Foreman beats Ali everytime-The rope a dope was a freak thing and if they fought 10 times this would only work once-if Foreman had of took a round off here and their he would have been a clear winner in that fight.

walshb

Muhammad Ali in 1974 was simply too tough, smart and brilliant for any Foreman. He is Foreman's kryptonite. Ali beats him no matter what strategy George uses. George stays off, Ali outboxes him; George presses, Ali outlasts him. Ali is simply too durable and smart and fast and tough for Foreman.

I don't see how George can be a clear winner had he taken a rd or two off. He was getting speared in that fight fairly consistently, and really, Ali was capable if need be of increasing the tempo and shot output.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

good post but I feel Foreman beats Ali everytime-The rope a dope was a freak thing and if they fought 10 times this would only work once-if Foreman had of took a round off here and their he would have been a clear winner in that fight.

Was just debating on another site what would happen if they'd a had a rematch. I can never make up my mind. As you say Foreman would have learned from the first fight and surely not have punched himself out. Even though he was an Olympic gold medalist he never really relied on boxing skills and not sure how he'd approach a rematch other than come straight at Ali and try to overwhelm him again. Ali would have to open up a bit more or else lose on points. Its a tough one to call.

I just see him being a little bit too clever and having too much tactical nous for Foreman.

RiseToTheTop

IMO if a Holyfield that is 30lbs lighter than Bowe can give him a fight, then Frazier can give Bowe a fight. IMO Frazier could hit harder than Holyfield with the left hook, plus I don't see any of Bowe's punches hitting as hard as Frazier's left.

Holyfield and Frazier are equal in heart and will IMO, but i'd say Frazier is slightly better defensively.

walshb

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

IMO if a Holyfield that is 30lbs lighter than Bowe can give him a fight, then Frazier can give Bowe a fight. IMO Frazier could hit harder than Holyfield with the left hook, plus I don't see any of Bowe's punches hitting as hard as Frazier's left.

Holyfield and Frazier are equal in heart and will IMO, but i'd say Frazier is slightly better defensively.

Holyfield was a few inches taller than Joe and had a lot more punch variation. Joe was a left hooker, get in close, and hook away. Problem: Bowe was very good inside, heavy handed and busy.

Holyfield and Frazier to me are worlds apart style wise if we pit them with Bowe. Bowe is just too big for both, and with Frazier, the left hook won't be as easy to land on Bowe. Bowe is almost 7 inches taller.

I can see Bowe having the strength to tie up, push off and work Joe over on the inside. Bowe has two stones on Frazier, and 6-7 inches.

I wouldn't be at all confident that Bowe's power shots don't match Joe's left hook. Bowe had a very heavy punch.

What allowed Holyfield to do well, and be quite competitive in fight 1 was his punch variation. And, Holyfield's tremendous jab, and the timing of his jab were very influential. Punches in bunches, from range and in close was Holyfield's key. Joe has NO jab. Joe NEEDS to be close all the time. When he does get close, he is facing a much bigger man, with strength, and a very good inside arsenal.

gene_tunney

Ali vs Holyfield

Ali vs Lewis

Ali vs Tyson

Ali vs Bowe

Foreman vs Holyfield

Foreman vs Bowe

Foreman vs Lewis

Foreman vs Tyson

Frazier vs Holyfield

Frazier vs Bowe

Frazier vs Lewis

Frazier vs Tyson

Norton vs Holyfield

Norton vs Lewis

Norton vs Bowe

Norton vs Tyson


Made my mind up quickly there.
12/16 for the 90's heavies

walshb

gene_tunney wrote: »

Ali vs Holyfield

Ali vs Lewis

Ali vs Tyson

Ali vs Bowe

Foreman vs Holyfield

Foreman vs Bowe

Foreman vs Lewis

Foreman vs Tyson

Frazier vs Holyfield

Frazier vs Bowe

Frazier vs Lewis

Frazier vs Tyson

Norton vs Holyfield

Norton vs Lewis

Norton vs Bowe

Norton vs Tyson


Made my mind up quickly there.
12/16 for the 90's heavies

I like the way you did this. No matter what result, both sets of guys are top class. Many razor thin fights here.