Unpopular boxing opinions

Dick phelan

Robbed for serveral other forums as the title saids what is a boxing opinion you have which would not be shared by many. My own personal one is that Jack Dempsey is not all that, he ducked a hell of a lot of fighters because of their race, he was outboxed by Tunney and beat a woful Willard to win the title in the first place, i mean yes he could punch but i can think of at least a dozen heavies better than him

gene_tunney

Today's boxers would demolish their equivalents from previous generations.
Gamboa is a KO waiting to happen
Rigondeuax and Froch are the 2 most overrated boxers today
Kell Brook will get his ass beat soon
Mike Tyson's power was way overrated
Nathan Clevery will be subject to a concussive beating as soon as he fights anyone half decent

Daroxtar

David Haye is the 3rd best heavyweight in the world

Dick phelan

gene_tunney wrote: »

Today's boxers would demolish their equivalents from previous generations.
Gamboa is a KO waiting to happen
Rigondeuax and Froch are the 2 most overrated boxers today
Kell Brook will get his ass beat soon
Mike Tyson's power was way overrated
Nathan Clevery will be subject to a concussive beating as soon as he fights anyone half decent

Agree with pretty much everything you said especially about Cleverly and that cherry picker Brook the only thing i would question is what you say about rigo i mean with the exception of donaire he is the best 122 pounder out there

Dick phelan

Daroxtar wrote: »

David Haye is the 3rd best heavyweight in the world

Second best in my view now that vitali is very much on the slide i think haye would beat him now, another unpopular opinion i have is certainly from an irish point of view is that Barry Mcguigan should not be in the HOF

badabing106

David Haye would beat Rocky Marciano

Dick phelan

There is way to much bullsh1t that gets spouted about old fighters, the likes of marciano louis would not have a hope against the modern heavies, just look at the weight differences can you imagine a guy of marciano size in against a klitschko

Syferus

Dick phelan wrote: »

There is way to much bullsh1t that gets spouted about old fighters, the likes of marciano louis would not have a hope against the modern heavies, just look at the weight differences can you imagine a guy of marciano size in against a klitschko

While it's true that people idealise past boxers you've cherry picked a horrible example. I have to imagine Marciano fighting today would be a light heavyweight.

The reality is boxing has not evolved so drastically in the last fifty years that from the days of Liston onwards there can be some very valid comparisons made. The only issue that crops up is the far more scientific approach to diet and physical training as you move through those years so I'd hope people are taking these dream match ups and comparing fighters on an equal fitness footing, be it from the older fighter's era or the modern era.

walshb

Syferus wrote: »

While it's true that people idealise past boxers you've cherry picked a horrible example. I have to imagine Marciano fighting today would be a light heavyweight.
.

More a CW. He was a solid 185 lbs. Another 10 lbs off that frame would be a hell of challenge considering that Rocky supposedly trained so hard to be at 185 lbs. He would be no match for either Klit. P4P and as a CW I think he would be hell for anyone. But giving away 3-4-5-6 inches and 20-50 lbs is too much.

As for today's other weights. No, I don't see a whipping being dished out to men from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Just check Rings ratings for men today and pit them against their equivalents from 30-40 years ago. One could argue either way. Boxing has not evolved to the degree to make a claim that today's boxers are so superior.

cowzerp

Boxers and I'm talking the average Boxer are technically far superior than Boxers from 30 plus years ago, and mismatches where far more common back then than now.

Ali the champion fighting Leon Spinks who had only 8 fights with 1 been a draw is a perfect example, Even though spinks won the 1st fight, this would not be tolerated now.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Boxers and I'm talking the average Boxer are technically far superior than Boxers from 30 plus years ago, and mismatches where far more common back then than now.

Ali the champion fighting Leon Spinks who had only 8 fights with 1 been a draw is a perfect example, Even though spinks won the 1st fight, this would not be tolerated now.

Spinks that night was a very very good fighter This wasn't a novice. He had a steallar amateur career and also he won gold in 1976.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Spinks that night was a very very good fighter This wasn't a novice. He had a steallar amateur career and also he won gold in 1976.

Not saying he didn't do well, but he didn't belong in there at the time, and rematch when Ali realised it was not easy match showed why, plus him losing half his fights the rest of his career.

walshb

Boxing is littered with champs taking "easy" fights against green pros. Today/recently is no real exception.

One need just look at Senchenko and Paulie as WW champions to see that the talent today is not at all superior to 30 years ago.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Not saying he didn't do well, but he didn't belong in there at the time, and rematch when Ali realised it was not easy match showed why, plus him losing half his fights the rest of his career.

But one could argue that many men who get shots today/recently don't/didn't belong, and just because they may have had more than 8 fights doesn't explain it.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Boxing is littered with champs taking "easy" fights against green pros. Today/recently is no real exception.

One need just look at Senchenko and Paulie as WW champions to see that the talent today is not at all superior to 30 years ago.

Paulie is a great Boxer, lacks power but has real skills-All era's have had champs that may not be all time greats so i dont see the issue.

walshb wrote: »

But one could argue that many men who get shots today/recently don't/didn't belong, and just because they may have had more than 8 fights doesn't explain it.

You'd be arguing just for the sakes of it, as Floyd said-Numbers don't lie.

megadodge

I know I'm not the only one who is of this opinion and I'll probably get killed for it but...

Sugar Ray Robinson was not the greatest P4P boxer of all time - Roy Jones was!


And before anyone says it - No, that does not mean I think SRR was not one of the greatest boxers ever. He was. He just wasn't as good as Jones.

cowzerp

megadodge wrote: »

I know I'm not the only one who is of this opinion and I'll probably get killed for it but...

Sugar Ray Robinson was not the greatest P4P boxer of all time - Roy Jones was!


And before anyone says it - No, that does not mean I think SRR was not one of the greatest boxers ever. He was. He just wasn't as good as Jones.

I think for his time he was leagues ahead, He'd compete now and that's a big thing to say, shows how amazing he was.

Plus i think the likes of RJJ might not have been if it was not for Sugar ray and how good he was

gene_tunney

Roy Jones vs Richard Hall. Jones looked like superman that night.

Frankie Lee

gene_tunney wrote: »

Roy Jones vs Richard Hall. Jones looked like superman that night.

Didn't both of them fail a drug test after the fight? Still though there will probably never be a boxer with the same levels of talent coupled with flamboyance as RJJ.

JohnFalstaff

Dick phelan wrote: »

There is way to much bullsh1t that gets spouted about old fighters, the likes of marciano louis would not have a hope against the modern heavies, just look at the weight differences can you imagine a guy of marciano size in against a klitschko

Is this sort of comparison not redundant when you factor in the advancements made in diet, training and conditioning over the past six decades? Olympic records are constantly being broken by faster, fitter athletes - would Jesse Owens be able to compete with Usain Bolt?

Fighters like Marciano can be respected for their achievements without comparing them negatively to their modern counterparts.

megadodge

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Is this sort of comparison not redundant when you factor in the advancements made in diet, training and conditioning over the past six decades? Olympic records are constantly being broken by faster, fitter athletes - would Jesse Owens be able to compete with Usain Bolt?

Fighters like Marciano can be respected for their achievements without comparing them negatively to their modern counterparts.

But the opposite is what actually happens. Old-timers constantly belittling modern fighters and making out the greats of yesterday were light years ahead of them. This is the one constant in boxing. It has been happening for decades and it is just sickening.

Isn't it just remarkable that the old-timers opinions are so silent in any sport where you can actually measure the performances. But, gee golly, as sure as sh!t in any sport where you can't actually measure it, the old-timers will always claim the older generations were so much better than their modern counterparts. How bloody convenient!!

token101

Box Nation is absolutely dire. That set, these presenters, absolutely appalling! It's like they just set up a camera in someone's living room. Shocking.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

But the opposite is what actually happens. Old-timers constantly belittling modern fighters and making out the greats of yesterday were light years ahead of them. This is the one constant in boxing. It has been happening for decades and it is just sickening.

Isn't it just remarkable that the old-timers opinions are so silent in any sport where you can actually measure the performances. But, gee golly, as sure as sh!t in any sport where you can't actually measure it, the old-timers will always claim the older generations were so much better than their modern counterparts. How bloody convenient!!

Agree.

But, I think a strong case can be made for the boxers from the 60s/70s/80s against any boxers today. Sure, the heavies is a different scenario due to weight, but the non heavyweight divisions has seen some truly era great fighters over the past 50 years. Very difficult to split them.

Look at the top ten heavies today. I would think that the equivalent men from the 70s and 80s and 90s would be well up to them. Adamek for chrissake is ranked in the top 5 I think.

el flaco

token101 wrote: »

Box Nation is absolutely dire. That set, these presenters, absolutely appalling! It's like they just set up a camera in someone's living room. Shocking.

I think that can be classed as a popular boxing opinion.

Dick phelan

To be fair while boxnation isnt perfect it is nice thats its around nice to have a station for boxing least we get to see plenty of fights plus i like bunce boxing hour loved it when it was on setanta and i like how all the people on the channel have a real passion for the sport not sayin its perfect but im glad its around and if it was to go id miss it

megadodge

token101 wrote: »

Box Nation is absolutely dire. That set, these presenters, absolutely appalling! It's like they just set up a camera in someone's living room. Shocking.

The set???

Who cares? I paid my subsciption to see boxing - lots of it!
And that's what I get.


As for the presenters, while Buncey takes a bit of getting used to, he is very knowledgeable and passionate about the game. Compare that to your average jack-of-all-trades presenters with their predictable and bland coverage.

Boxnation is good value-for-money for boxing fans.

barney4001

megadodge wrote: »

The set???

Who cares? I paid my subsciption to see boxing - lots of it!
And that's what I get.


As for the presenters, while Buncey takes a bit of getting used to, he is very knowledgeable and passionate about the game. Compare that to your average jack-of-all-trades presenters with their predictable and bland coverage.

Boxnation is good value-for-money for boxing fans.

very poor value when all boxing can be got free

walshb

barney4001 wrote: »

very poor value when all boxing can be got free

But that us hardly an argument. One could say that about so many things that we can get for "free." Boxnation provide a monthly service. Guaranteed. Analysis, commentary and a clean and clear feed.

megadodge

barney4001 wrote: »

very poor value when all boxing can be got free

Are you talking about streams?

Cos I gave up on them a long time ago. WAAAAAAYYYY to unreliable. Plus the hassle of jumping from one stream to another, etc.

TheNap

Roy Jones should not be mentioned in the same breath as the greats

walshb

TheNap wrote: »

Roy Jones should not be mentioned in the same breath as the greats

I don't see why not. At his best he was pretty much unbeatable, and at 168 lbs I don't see many men ever beating him. I wasn't a huge fan of Roy but the man had serious skills and talent. When he committed and exploded it was a thing of beauty.

walshb

I think the problem for Roy and some others when evaluating all time status is the weight division. Roy was not ever establised in one of the original weight classes(FW/BW/FEATHER/LW/WW/MW/LHW/HW).

The blue riband weights were the HW and MW men. Roy was too big for MW, not really a true LHW, and above LHW he didn't do much. I thinks folks handicap men like Roy and Toney and some others when discussing their status as all time great fighters.

When I think of the great Jones I think of 168 lbs, a relatively new weight class. Just above the second most famous weight division. It can cloud one's judgment when evaluating the all time status of Roy and other men at these new weight divisions, and catch weight divisions.

cowzerp

RJJ is 1 of the best Boxers ever, skill wise he is p4p up there with any-Like Bren said he can't be pinned into any division as such and this affects his legacy but skill wise and entertainment wise he's right up there.

If he'd been around in Marciano's time he would be talked about like Ali.

clubwelly

Jose Sulaiman is a good honest man!!!

bellybuster12

Bob Arum is in boxing for the love of the sport, in fact id say he would do it for free.