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

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Yeah against lads who would make adamek look like the best boxer ever!

How many fights of theirs have you watched?

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

How many fights of theirs have you watched?

7!

Or maybe just the ones I watched where when they where awful, the good fights are hidden in a vault somewhere

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

7!

Or maybe just the ones I watched where when they where awful, the good fights are hidden in a vault somewhere

Ha it just seems to me that a lot of people who don't rate old timers haven't taken the time to do their research so that they can make a fair assessment (I don't neccessarily mean you) That is why i asked. Its easy to simply write them off.

Did you read that article? Did you watch the Cleveland Williams fight I told you to watch? There are many more articles saying similar and videos of Sonny. Are you not impressed with Sonny at all? Even in today's terms he was physically impressive. How come even boxing experts today have him in their top 10s and rate him highly? Its not all nostalgia and rose tinted glasses. He must have had something to be consistently rated in the top 15 heavyweights ever even by people today?

walshb

What I find odd is that apart from the Klits, and Fury, Liston today would be a fairly decent sized heavy, and if he wasn't as solid, he'd be a big fat heavy. Who are these naturally bigger dudes? I mean, an inc here and there, or a few lbs here and there, with many lbs being from fat and not muscle.

cowzerp

Marvilla I'm off to bed so will try answer better tomorrow, bren their is very few fat heavyweights around, this we discussed before and it's a myth!

Their was far more short fat heavies around in the 50's and 60's

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Ha it just seems to me that a lot of people who don't rate old timers haven't taken the time to do their research so that they can make a fair assessment (I don't neccessarily mean you) That is why i asked. Its easy to simply write them off.

Did you read that article? Did you watch the Cleveland Williams fight I told you to watch? There are many more articles saying similar and videos of Sonny. Are you not impressed with Sonny at all? Even in today's terms he was physically impressive. How come even boxing experts today have him in their top 10s and rate him highly? Its not all nostalgia and rose tinted glasses. He must have had something to be consistently rated in the top 15 heavyweights ever even by people today?

I haven't read the article, I prefer to watch 1 boxer then his modern equivalent and then make up my mind, The clip of Williams you put up made him look like he could actually box but taking into consideration he never beat anybody, he was a bum beater and most Boxers these days are as technical even at the low level's

That is my whole point-A fairly average lad skillwise for today's standards is been used as part of the debate for past boxers been good, Overall even the legends of back then are average in today's world, Sugar Ray Robinson been the exception and in fairness he was way way better than everyone else back then, Today he would be a challenger and not necessarily the best.

Liston for his day was good, that is why he is been rated high, if that Liston was around today he would not be top 15 in the division, he might be but that sounds good!

The funny thing about this is it is 90's v 70's and on most the match ups put up people had it fairly even if not shading it to the 90's yet most have voted for the 70's-Interesting huh!

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

I haven't read the article, I prefer to watch 1 boxer then his modern equivalent and then make up my mind, The clip of Williams you put up made him look like he could actually box but taking into consideration he never beat anybody, he was a bum beater and most Boxers these days are as technical even at the low level's

That is my whole point-A fairly average lad skillwise for today's standards is been used as part of the debate for past boxers been good, Overall even the legends of back then are average in today's world, Sugar Ray Robinson been the exception and in fairness he was way way better than everyone else back then, Today he would be a challenger and not necessarily the best.

Liston for his day was good, that is why he is been rated high, if that Liston was around today he would not be top 15 in the division, he might be but that sounds good!

The funny thing about this is it is 90's v 70's and on most the match ups put up people had it fairly even if not shading it to the 90's yet most have voted for the 70's-Interesting huh!

Read the article it gives you a bit more of a back round of and appreciation for the opponents he faced. Naturally having not been around back then I previously knew nothing of his opponents.

He would easily be top 15, lets not get carried away like your man who says he can name 100 that would beat him. I'd struggle to name 100 heavyweights full stop to be honest..

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Read the article it gives you a bit more of a back round of and appreciation for the opponents he faced. Naturally having not been around back then I previously knew nothing of his opponents.

He would easily be top 15, lets not get carried away like your man who says he can name 100 that would beat him. I'd struggle to name 100 heavyweights full stop to be honest..

Just read it and nothing has changed in my thinking at all, go on here to see his opponents records and most had awful records.

And even with that said-Youtube as always is your friend, watch his fights then watch Tyson's, Ali's, insert name here's and they all are far better than Sonny.

Maravilla33

I've no problem with people thinking Ali or Tyson or other great heavy's are better than him. Its the people claiming that he was average or he'd lose to all of Klitschko's opponents etc that gets me. Ah well makes work go quicker I suppose.. I'm well of aware of his record thanks.

cowzerp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jHgAa7J_tc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MSSu7puWIA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ9PVZWjUQ8

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

I've no problem with people thinking Ali or Tyson or other great heavy's are better than him. Its the people claiming that he was average or he'd lose to all of Klitschko's opponents etc that gets me

Of course like all champs the Brothers have fought some dummies on the way up, but they have beaten everybody around and anyone willing to face them-The opposition these days is well underrated and this is massively down to how good the Brothers are and also due to the non American/British Heavy's been any use.

Liston was great for his time and that can't be disputed, the whole debate is that that time was not good, even the good boxers then where quite average in today's terms, If the brothers where around then they would have had no competition at all, if they where slightly worse they would be higher rated as their opposition would be considered better.

Liston was fairly slow in fairness, his jab was good but telegraphed a lot-His footwork was not good and he was a bit of a plodder! back then that was ok, not now as it would be badly exposed.

Maravilla33

Ha I don't get your point because I actually think Liston looks quite impressive in your video. For the record so does Wlad. One thing though even Wlad who has superb technique can look sloppy when he lets his hands really go.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Liston was fairly slow in fairness, his jab was good but telegraphed a lot-His footwork was not good and he was a bit of a plodder! back then that was ok, not now as it would be badly exposed.

Look its not like the heavys today have great footwork. Wlad is an exception. Most of the big men don't rely on footwork if we're honest.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Look its not like the heavys today have great footwork. Wlad is an exception. Most of the big men don't rely on footwork if we're honest.

Yes but they are as big if not bigger and technically better, and their nor been called some of the best ever so thats fine.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Ha I don't get your point because I actually think Liston looks quite impressive in your video. For the record so does Wlad. One thing though even Wlad who has superb technique can look sloppy when he lets his hands really go.

I was not trying to pick a bad video, i looked through loads to pick the best 1 i could find and it's not too impressive in fairness.

I never said he was not good, I'm simply saying Boxing has moved on.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

I was not trying to pick a bad video, i looked through loads to pick the best 1 i could find and it's not too impressive in fairness.

I never said he was not good, I'm simply saying Boxing has moved on.

Have to disagree. Technique hasn't improved all that much. There are some clear stand outs like the Klitschkos. But for every Wlad or Vitali there is a Sam Peter or Chris Arreola. These lads show not one ounce of an improvement technique wise to the guys Liston fought and are far inferior to Sonny himself.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Have to disagree. Technique hasn't improved all that much. There are some clear stand outs like the Klitschkos. But for every Wlad or Vitali there is a Sam Peter or Chris Arreola. These lads show not one ounce of an improvement technique wise to the guys Liston fought and are far inferior to Sonny himself.

Sam Peter was a beast of a man,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao_AvEvjhkI

Arreola aint too shabby either

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iVxx035biI

Both would eat up Liston's opponents

Maravilla33

We're talking technique here right? You're the one who keeps saying techniques improved etc. Peter and Arreola are clearly not evidence of this. Both are limited fat sluggers.

I see whats happening here. If you've fought a Klitschko you automatically become a good fighter?

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

We're talking technique here right? You're the one who keeps saying techniques improved etc. Peter and Arreola are clearly not evidence of this. Both are limited fat sluggers.

I see whats happening here. If you've fought a Klitschko you automatically become a good fighter?

No, their technique is still better than the bums of the 50's, but the point is they would mince the 50's lads

Either way-you pick 2 Boxers who may not have elite technique and that represents this era!-Either way these beat the 50's guys-Liston would struggle with these lads, Bigger and stronger than his time.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

No, their technique is still better than the bums of the 50's, but the point is they would mince the 50's lads

Either way-you pick 2 Boxers who may not have elite technique and that represents this era!-Either way these beat the 50's guys-Liston would struggle with these lads, Bigger and stronger than his time.

Their technique isn't better and there's no way Liston would struggle with either. What you're really saying is you've seen these guys fight and hence they must be better. You cant be bothered to watch the older fighters in any depth or do any research and are happy to simply write them off.

I thought there was hope for you but claiming that Sam Peter is a beast and Arreola is a good fighter while dismissing an all time great boxer like Liston is plain ridiculous. Banging my head off a brick wall here, bigger is obviously just better.

Maravilla33

Also I gave Wlad and Vitali plenty of credit but they're clearly the exception. You've said technique has improved. Peter and Arreola are proof it hasn't. They're just an example. I could have easily picked a rake of other heavyweights to make my point.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Their technique isn't better and there's no way Liston would struggle with either. What you're really saying is you've seen these guys fight and hence they must be better. You cant be bothered to watch the older fighters in any depth or do any research and are happy to simply write them off.

I thought there was hope for you but claiming that Sam Peter is a beast and Arreola is a good fighter while dismissing an all time great boxer like Liston is plain ridiculous. Banging my head off a brick wall here, bigger is obviously just better.

I'm not dismissing Liston, I'm saying he was good-today not so much.

I have studied the old timers over and over-i already told you i used to have many videos of these lads.

Youtube is there-you can't hide there skills or lack of by pretending you think i have niot viewed the people i'm talking about.

walshb

This debate is non stop, and good too. I just cannot fathom this "technique is better today." Where? I mean, pick the best and pair them, the average and pair them, or the duds and pair them across today's men and the 60s men. Like with like there is nothing I have seen from today that proves that the technique is better. Liston's technique is every bit as good, if not better than anything I have seen at HW today.

Same Peter has not got better technique than anyone in the 60s that rates like he does for today. Peter is a top fighter, and any of the top fighters' in the 60s are every bit as good as him.

As for sxts claims. He makes the debate laugable with some of the stuff he comes out with.

Mike Perez annihilates Liston?

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm not dismissing Liston, I'm saying he was good-today not so much.

I have studied the old timers over and over-i already told you i used to have many videos of these lads.

Youtube is there-you can't hide there skills or lack of by pretending you think i have niot viewed the people i'm talking about.

I dunno whether to pull my hair out or to admire your dedication to your side of the debate...

I don't think you've watched enough of the great old timers. Most of the great technicians where pre 80s. Boxing is a sport that hasn't changed all that much. There's been no significant improvements in technique. Its even regressed if we're focusing on the heavyweights. I've nothing against modern fighters and there's some damn good ones but the heavyweights have not improved. Wlad and Vitali have kept the flag flying while the vast majority have let the side down.

cowzerp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg8UJBCwWxw

Go to 5.40 to skip the intro, this was his opponent before he fought Patterson for the title!! HA HA is all i can say!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVsl3SAboE

And his opponent after he lost the title on his 1st defense, after Ali.

Lame.

sxt

cowzerp wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg8UJBCwWxw

Go to 5.40 to skip the intro, this was his opponent before he fought Patterson for the title!!

And before he fought Albert Westphal , he decided to tune up , and test himself against a fighter called ,Howard king, who was coming off 5 losses and a draw in his last 6 fights ! ! !



http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=011970&cat=boxer

cowzerp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYA4qt-LBmA

Another tough fight!! Cant believe people can claim these lads could hold their own today!!

gene_tunney

It's pretty obvious to anyone with two eyes and the ability to be objective that the likes of Wladimir Klitschko would beat Liston like a red-headed stepchild.

As shown above, Liston feasted on bums, all of whom he simply overpowered with sloppy technique. Modern gatekeepers like Hasim Rahman, whom Liston would not be able to bully, would give him a torrid time.

Maravilla33

Lads ye are hilarious. Basing your whole opinion on a couple of Youtube clips. Go do some proper research and stop being lazy. Watch some full fights, read a few fight reports.

My favourite comments so far are Mike Perez annihilates Liston. Sam Peter is a beast and Arreola is a good fighter and added to the list Liston would struggle with Hasim Rahman. In no world are these lads troubling Sonny Liston. I love your analysis as well. "Oh hes bigger he'd have to win. "Sonny couldn't bully him"

As for being objective I'm one of the few being objective in this thread. Have given Wlad & Vitali plenty of credit and haven't resorted to the he's a bum etc etc..

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

Lads ye are hilarious. Basing your whole opinion on a couple of Youtube clips. Go do some proper research and stop being lazy. Watch some full fights, read a few fight reports.

My favourite comments so far are Mike Perez annihilates Liston. Sam Peter is a beast and Arreola is a good fighter and added to the list Liston would struggle with Hasim Rahman. In no world are these lads troubling Sonny Liston. I love your analysis as well. "Oh hes bigger he'd have to win. "Sonny couldn't bully him"

As for being objective I'm one of the few being objective in this thread. Have given Wlad & Vitali plenty of credit and haven't resorted to the he's a bum etc etc..

Maravilla your resorting to trying to make out that people have not watched these fighters, the Youtube clips are accessible on here, many people have tapes, dvd's etc of past boxers and can't post them up here, The clips we put up are definite proof of the boxers abilities, Do you genuinely think that the better stuff is not on youtube?!

Are you genuinely trying to say you have watched lots of full fights of Liston's opponents, Because if you have i'd love to find out where, 10 Min clips show their skills.

Sam Peter compared to Liston's opponents was a beast, he'd have smashed little Patterson up and would be stronger than Liston.

What is research? interviews with people from back then who said they where great when at the time they actually where-Now they would not be, apart from in memory only.

Youtube contains the best research you can find on these lads and fact you keep dismissing it show's you have already made up your mind regardless of Listons terrible record opponents, his lack of defending the title, His getting the title shot after beating handbags and getting creamed by the not even big punching Ali.

I like you as a poster but i think your last post was you saying "No mas No mas"!!