Sugar Ray Robinson

[inan 841]

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

I'd say definitely at heavy,but also to varying degrees at every weight.

 

Outside of heavy modern fighters on top of that have much better speed and conditioning.

You use Calzaghe as an example but even a fighter like Hatton would have had an unheard of work rate.

 

Which of Wlad's challengers do you think had better speed and conditioning than say Ali's challengers?

 

Do you think Hatton's work rate is higher than Henry Armstrong's ,[ retired in1945,] or Beau Jacks,[ retired in 1955?] And those guys were fighting an extra 3 rounds.

 

Armstrong won the welterweight title in1938, he held it for 2 years, during which time he defended it 22 times, he also during this time defended his lightweight title twice and fought a draw for the middleweight title all in that 2 years.

In his prime,years 42-44 Beau Jack fought 28 times and not journeymen, champions and top contenders .

 

Do you think Hatton could average 14 fights a year against the likes of,

Bob Montgomery x4 world champ 57-8-3

 

Fritzie Zivic x 2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Allie Stoltz top contender49-5-2

 

Tippy Larkin top contender 89-7-0

 

Bummy Davis top contender 55-7-4

 

Henry Armstrong world champ at 3 weights 126-16-8

 

Fritzie Zivic x2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Lulu Costantino contender 81-7-6

 

Sammy Angott world champ 73-18-5

 

Terrry Young contender 44-11-4

 

Juan Zurita top contender 125-25-1

 

And you talk about better speed and conditioning?

These guys were fighting every other week, they were never out of shape,their conditioning had to be excellent to withstand those punishing schedules.

Edited July 31, 2014 by inan

[K£rry 1]

Inan could not ov put it better my self Holyfield drugs cheat what a shock I think you would find most big names have had a dabble in some thing or another fact

[neems 2,406]

Speed and conditioning in the other weights,size and strength is enough in heavyweight.

 

 

Hatton had a higher work rate and was more explosive,yes.

 

Everything you say is blind speculation,we can safely say the modern greats are much faster,stronger and with a higher workrate.

 

that's what we know,everything else is a guess.

[AKA-BRINDLE 879]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

 

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc?

So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast.

Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough.

Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's.

 

Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters?

Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him?

I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago.

bullshit. Most fights were fights not bouts. The skills have progressed and the styles have to. For example many imitate mayweathers and toneys defence. Also heavyweights are a lot bigger than before lewis. Furthermore, you would not get away with leaning on the ropes for 9 rounds like ali did and for that reason I dont see ali as a hall of famer, just a gobshite. Marciano vs klitschko. Klitschko too big.

 

Do you think the shoulder roll has just been invented? It's been around for many decades .

 

Let me ask you a question ,who do you think is likely to be more proficient at his craft, a guy who has had 100 fights against all styles, or a guy who has had 20 bouts against handpicked opponents?

 

 

Heavyweights are a lot bigger yes ,are they a lot fitter ?

 

Are they more skilled?

 

Which heavyweight today do you think is a master at feinting his opponent out of position?

 

Which ones are clever at slipping punches?

 

How many of them can throw combinations,or hook off the jab?

 

Which heavyweights are skilled in defense?

 

Which ones have good head movement?

 

Do you think Ali leant on the ropes for several rounds when he was prime? If you do , you need to watch some of his early fights.

 

Where you place Ali is your business,I'll just point out that he is either the consensus number one or two heavyweight champion of all time ,according to the writers and historians that have seen him and his predecessors

 

.You are out on your own in your opinion.

 

You started your post with an insult so I don't expect to be spending much time debating with you.I'll just reiterate my original question.

NAME ONE SKILL AREA IN BOXING THAT HAS IMPROVED SINCE THE 40'S

If you are right and I am wrong this should be a simple task for you.

If you can't name one, we need go no further and I won't waste any more time.

 

Ali was passed his prime by the time of the foreman fight...he wasnt the same fighter after the 3yr enforced lay-off due to the draft dodging...just like Mike Tyson wasnt the same after 3yrs in Jail...(im not comparing the 2 as boxers before anyone get hysterical)

[AKA-BRINDLE 879]

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

I'd say definitely at heavy,but also to varying degrees at every weight.

 

Outside of heavy modern fighters on top of that have much better speed and conditioning.

You use Calzaghe as an example but even a fighter like Hatton would have had an unheard of work rate.

 

Which of Wlad's challengers do you think had better speed and conditioning than say Ali's challengers?

 

Do you think Hatton's work rate is higher than Henry Armstrong's ,[ retired in1945,] or Beau Jacks,[ retired in 1955?] And those guys were fighting an extra 3 rounds.

 

Armstrong won the welterweight title in1938, he held it for 2 years, during which time he defended it 22 times, he also during this time defended his lightweight title twice and fought a draw for the middleweight title all in that 2 years.

In his prime,years 42-44 Beau Jack fought 28 times and not journeymen, champions and top contenders .

 

Do you think Hatton could average 14 fights a year against the likes of,

Bob Montgomery x4 world champ 57-8-3

 

Fritzie Zivic x 2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Allie Stoltz top contender49-5-2

 

Tippy Larkin top contender 89-7-0

 

Bummy Davis top contender 55-7-4

 

Henry Armstrong world champ at 3 weights 126-16-8

 

Fritzie Zivic x2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Lulu Costantino contender 81-7-6

 

Sammy Angott world champ 73-18-5

 

Terrry Young contender 44-11-4

 

Juan Zurita top contender 125-25-1

 

And you talk about better speed and conditioning?

These guys were fighting every other week, they were never out of shape,their conditioning had to be excellent to withstand those punishing schedules.

 

 

 

Supprised no-ones mentioned Harry Greb...fought more times in a month than most modern boxers do in a year...took on fights almost blind in one eye and with a broken hand....was one tough fighter...i think the one thing many of the old time fighters had thats often lacked today...is gameness...for the age Greb was always in top condition...would say that Grebs work rate and style was similar to Hatton's...(as this is a thread about Ray Robinson)...Hatton always reminded me of Terry Downes...of course Downes beat Robinson...but as Downes himself said...he didnt beat sugar Ray...he beat Ray robinsons ghost...but still a good W to have on anyones record.

[inan 841]

Speed and conditioning in the other weights,size and strength is enough in heavyweight.

 

 

Hatton had a higher work rate and was more explosive,yes.

 

Everything you say is blind speculation,we can safely say the modern greats are much faster,stronger and with a higher workrate.

 

that's what we know,everything else is a guess.

Higher work rate than who? More explosive than whom? Speculation?

 

Have you actually watched Armstrong and Jack?

Montgomery,Bolanos,Williams, and several hundred others

 

On what do you base your opinion?

If size and strength were the be all and end all Carnera,Willard and Valuev would be all time greats , but they are not ,they're probably the three worst champions at the weight.

How many fights from the 30's 40's and 50's have you seen to base the judgment that the modern greats are faster, stronger, and have a higher work rate?

 

The top ten heavyweight contenders are a bunch of overweight oafs with journeyman skills

 

.None of them would trouble a Holmes ,Holyfield,Tyson,Dempsey, or a Louis, none of whom were super heavyweights in stature.

 

I think it is you who is speculating and guessing, not me.

Edited July 31, 2014 by inan

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

 

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

 

Nicolai Valuev is the tallest and heaviest heavyweight champion he is also one of, if not the worst.

 

Jack Dempsey once sparred with a boxer named Big Ben Wray he was 7'22 300lbs, Dempsey hit him on the chin and broke his jaw in two places with one punch.We know what he did to Jess Willard who outweighed him by58lbs and was 6" taller with an 85" reach

 

.Louis regularly kod huge men ,Simon , B Baer,Carnera etc.Joe was 6'1.5"and at his best, around 200lbs.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better.

 

 

I was talking in terms of divisions not individual fighters.................the heavyweight division is the only division dictated by trends of style..............in any other division a brawler,a pressure fighter,a counter puncher,a come forward box fighter it doesnt matter a good fighter is a good fighter his style is within himself he,s not a product of his division.

 

Klitchko could not have the same reach/hit/hold style he has if he was a welterweight

Edited July 31, 2014 by gnasher16

[neems 2,406]

Look at them fight,it's plain to see they were a lot slower and the work rate generally wasn't nearly as high,they also plod along with very little explosive movement.

 

we can safely say they were also weaker.

 

if Hatton fought 10 times a month he wouldn't have been able to get in such great shape for each fight,he'd also have an entirely different style,he'd probably have learned the more subtle energy saving techniques you like so much.

 

but he didn't,so the only way to compare is how they'd do against each other on their best days from what we've seen.

[inan 841]

 

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

I'd say definitely at heavy,but also to varying degrees at every weight.

 

Outside of heavy modern fighters on top of that have much better speed and conditioning.

You use Calzaghe as an example but even a fighter like Hatton would have had an unheard of work rate.

 

Which of Wlad's challengers do you think had better speed and conditioning than say Ali's challengers?

 

Do you think Hatton's work rate is higher than Henry Armstrong's ,[ retired in1945,] or Beau Jacks,[ retired in 1955?] And those guys were fighting an extra 3 rounds.

 

Armstrong won the welterweight title in1938, he held it for 2 years, during which time he defended it 22 times, he also during this time defended his lightweight title twice and fought a draw for the middleweight title all in that 2 years.

In his prime,years 42-44 Beau Jack fought 28 times and not journeymen, champions and top contenders .

 

Do you think Hatton could average 14 fights a year against the likes of,

Bob Montgomery x4 world champ 57-8-3

 

Fritzie Zivic x 2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Allie Stoltz top contender49-5-2

 

Tippy Larkin top contender 89-7-0

 

Bummy Davis top contender 55-7-4

 

Henry Armstrong world champ at 3 weights 126-16-8

 

Fritzie Zivic x2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Lulu Costantino contender 81-7-6

 

Sammy Angott world champ 73-18-5

 

Terrry Young contender 44-11-4

 

Juan Zurita top contender 125-25-1

 

And you talk about better speed and conditioning?

These guys were fighting every other week, they were never out of shape,their conditioning had to be excellent to withstand those punishing schedules.

 

 

 

Supprised no-ones mentioned Harry Greb...fought more times in a month than most modern boxers do in a year...took on fights almost blind in one eye and with a broken hand....was one tough fighter...i think the one thing many of the old time fighters had thats often lacked today...is gameness...for the age Greb was always in top condition...would say that Grebs work rate and style was similar to Hatton's...(as this is a thread about Ray Robinson)...Hatton always reminded me of Terry Downes...of course Downes beat Robinson...but as Downes himself said...he didnt beat sugar Ray...he beat Ray robinsons ghost...but still a good W to have on anyones record.

 

The reason I didn't mention Greb,[ who was described by opponent Tommy Loughran as having stamina bordering on super human,]was because there is no footage of him in an actual fight.

 

 

Those I mentioned can be seen for purposes of comparison.

 

People keep popping up making pithy remarks like," bullshit post," be when I ask them to give examples they suddenly go quiet and vanish.

 

 

Greb was blind in one eye after Kid Norfolk thumbed him in 1924 Greb had a further 62 fights in the next 2 years before dying on the operating table having surgery to repair his nose.

[inan 841]

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

 

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

 

Nicolai Valuev is the tallest and heaviest heavyweight champion he is also one of, if not the worst.

 

Jack Dempsey once sparred with a boxer named Big Ben Wray he was 7'22 300lbs, Dempsey hit him on the chin and broke his jaw in two places with one punch.We know what he did to Jess Willard who outweighed him by58lbs and was 6" taller with an 85" reach

 

.Louis regularly kod huge men ,Simon , B Baer,Carnera etc.Joe was 6'1.5"and at his best, around 200lbs.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better.

 

 

I was talking in terms of divisions not individual fighters.................the heavyweight division is the only division dictated by trends of style..............in any other division a brawler,a pressure fighter,a counter puncher,a come forward box fighter it doesnt matter a good fighter is a good fighter his style is within himself he,s not a product of his division.

 

Klitchko could not have the same reach/hit/hold style he has if he was a welterweight

 

He could if he could make 147lbs at 6'5".

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

I'd say definitely at heavy,but also to varying degrees at every weight.

 

Outside of heavy modern fighters on top of that have much better speed and conditioning.

You use Calzaghe as an example but even a fighter like Hatton would have had an unheard of work rate.

 

Which of Wlad's challengers do you think had better speed and conditioning than say Ali's challengers?

 

Do you think Hatton's work rate is higher than Henry Armstrong's ,[ retired in1945,] or Beau Jacks,[ retired in 1955?] And those guys were fighting an extra 3 rounds.

 

Armstrong won the welterweight title in1938, he held it for 2 years, during which time he defended it 22 times, he also during this time defended his lightweight title twice and fought a draw for the middleweight title all in that 2 years.

In his prime,years 42-44 Beau Jack fought 28 times and not journeymen, champions and top contenders .

 

Do you think Hatton could average 14 fights a year against the likes of,

Bob Montgomery x4 world champ 57-8-3

 

Fritzie Zivic x 2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Allie Stoltz top contender49-5-2

 

Tippy Larkin top contender 89-7-0

 

Bummy Davis top contender 55-7-4

 

Henry Armstrong world champ at 3 weights 126-16-8

 

Fritzie Zivic x2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Lulu Costantino contender 81-7-6

 

Sammy Angott world champ 73-18-5

 

Terrry Young contender 44-11-4

 

Juan Zurita top contender 125-25-1

 

And you talk about better speed and conditioning?

These guys were fighting every other week, they were never out of shape,their conditioning had to be excellent to withstand those punishing schedules.

 

 

Ive had this exact conversation with a very succesful trainer his theory which i tend to agree with is no.....Hatton ( using your example ) would not be able to take a schedule like that.....but that he is still a far superior conditioned athlete than those old timers were.

 

This is why i dont get too wrapped up in facts and figures....yes Henry Armstrong had x amount of fights in x amount of days..............but they were much slower paced fights.... fighters were far more durable back then than they are now in terms of punishment absorbed.....but conditioning has changed so much, Henry Armstrong probably weighed in at something like 10% bodyfat....today these boys are weighing in under 3%..........the way a fighter rehydrated after weigh in back then was absolutely nothing like they do today.......fighters today are peaked in such a way that they have less weight/stability to work off during a hard fight than they did back then so their core structure is not as strong........which in turn means Henry Armstrongs recuperation between fights would be far superior to today as today the lines are so much finer between performance and durability.

 

Its a bit like the footballers today they are far superior to years ago in terms of athletes......but are far less tough and durable..........a finely tuned athlete is quite a delicate piece of machinery and the more finely tuned the more core strength is lost.....................in other words Hatton is a fitter athlete than Armstrong was......but not as tough.

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

 

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

 

Nicolai Valuev is the tallest and heaviest heavyweight champion he is also one of, if not the worst.

 

Jack Dempsey once sparred with a boxer named Big Ben Wray he was 7'22 300lbs, Dempsey hit him on the chin and broke his jaw in two places with one punch.We know what he did to Jess Willard who outweighed him by58lbs and was 6" taller with an 85" reach

 

.Louis regularly kod huge men ,Simon , B Baer,Carnera etc.Joe was 6'1.5"and at his best, around 200lbs.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better.

 

 

I was talking in terms of divisions not individual fighters.................the heavyweight division is the only division dictated by trends of style..............in any other division a brawler,a pressure fighter,a counter puncher,a come forward box fighter it doesnt matter a good fighter is a good fighter his style is within himself he,s not a product of his division.

 

Klitchko could not have the same reach/hit/hold style he has if he was a welterweight

 

He could if he could make 147lbs at 6'5".

 

And keep the strength that gives him what he has at 250 odd .....yes.....i could be the greatest sumo wrestler in all of Japan............if i had another 200lb bodyweight !

[inan 841]

Look at them fight,it's plain to see they were a lot slower and the work rate generally wasn't nearly as high,they also plod along with very little explosive movement.

 

we can safely say they were also weaker.

 

if Hatton fought 10 times a month he wouldn't have been able to get in such great shape for each fight,he'd also have an entirely different style,he'd probably have learned the more subtle energy saving techniques you like so much.

 

but he didn't,so the only way to compare is how they'd do against each other on their best days from what we've seen.

You didnt answer my question so I have to assume you haven't seen many fights or fighters of the decades I mentioned .That being the case I have to say you aren't qualified to make the comparison you so are so confidently making.

 

If Hatton fought 10 times a month his career would last about a year because he was always much to easy to hit.

He relied totally on offence.

Compare him to other welter champs? Ok name ONE great welter champ he could beat?

 

To put Hatton, a very good entertaining fighter whom I watched get sparked by Pacman as I sat In Molly Malone's Phuket, drinking Guiness and eating a fry up breakfast ,] in ring with the great welters of the past would be cruelty. He met two great boxers, both outclassed and kod him.

 

Can you imagine Hatton in the ring with the prime Robinson who not only was never beaten at welter weight but beat full middleweights like Lamotta while weighing inside 147 lbs?

Hatton would not beat some of our welterweights like Lewis and Roderick.Let alone the great US fighters at 147.

Edited July 31, 2014 by inan

[inan 841]

 

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

I'd say definitely at heavy,but also to varying degrees at every weight.

 

Outside of heavy modern fighters on top of that have much better speed and conditioning.

You use Calzaghe as an example but even a fighter like Hatton would have had an unheard of work rate.

 

Which of Wlad's challengers do you think had better speed and conditioning than say Ali's challengers?

 

Do you think Hatton's work rate is higher than Henry Armstrong's ,[ retired in1945,] or Beau Jacks,[ retired in 1955?] And those guys were fighting an extra 3 rounds.

 

Armstrong won the welterweight title in1938, he held it for 2 years, during which time he defended it 22 times, he also during this time defended his lightweight title twice and fought a draw for the middleweight title all in that 2 years.

In his prime,years 42-44 Beau Jack fought 28 times and not journeymen, champions and top contenders .

 

Do you think Hatton could average 14 fights a year against the likes of,

Bob Montgomery x4 world champ 57-8-3

 

Fritzie Zivic x 2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Allie Stoltz top contender49-5-2

 

Tippy Larkin top contender 89-7-0

 

Bummy Davis top contender 55-7-4

 

Henry Armstrong world champ at 3 weights 126-16-8

 

Fritzie Zivic x2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Lulu Costantino contender 81-7-6

 

Sammy Angott world champ 73-18-5

 

Terrry Young contender 44-11-4

 

Juan Zurita top contender 125-25-1

 

And you talk about better speed and conditioning?

These guys were fighting every other week, they were never out of shape,their conditioning had to be excellent to withstand those punishing schedules.

 

 

Ive had this exact conversation with a very succesful trainer his theory which i tend to agree with is no.....Hatton ( using your example ) would not be able to take a schedule like that.....but that he is still a far superior conditioned athlete than those old timers were.

 

This is why i dont get too wrapped up in facts and figures....yes Henry Armstrong had x amount of fights in x amount of days..............but they were much slower paced fights.... fighters were far more durable back then than they are now in terms of punishment absorbed.....but conditioning has changed so much, Henry Armstrong probably weighed in at something like 10% bodyfat....today these boys are weighing in under 3%..........the way a fighter rehydrated after weigh in back then was absolutely nothing like they do today.......fighters today are peaked in such a way that they have less weight/stability to work off during a hard fight than they did back then so their core structure is not as strong........which in turn means Henry Armstrongs recuperation between fights would be far superior to today as today the lines are so much finer between performance and durability.

 

Its a bit like the footballers today they are far superior to years ago in terms of athletes......but are far less tough and durable..........a finely tuned athlete is quite a delicate piece of machinery and the more finely tuned the more core strength is lost.....................in other words Hatton is a fitter athlete than Armstrong was......but not as tough.

 

No one in the last 50 years has had a higher work rate than Armstrong, he had an abnormally slow heart beat and was known to shadow box for 30 minutes before fighting . Armstrong weighed in with weights in his shorts he rarely was up to welter .He would walk through Hatton of that I am convinced

[inan 841]

 

 

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

 

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

 

Nicolai Valuev is the tallest and heaviest heavyweight champion he is also one of, if not the worst.

 

Jack Dempsey once sparred with a boxer named Big Ben Wray he was 7'22 300lbs, Dempsey hit him on the chin and broke his jaw in two places with one punch.We know what he did to Jess Willard who outweighed him by58lbs and was 6" taller with an 85" reach

 

.Louis regularly kod huge men ,Simon , B Baer,Carnera etc.Joe was 6'1.5"and at his best, around 200lbs.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better.

 

 

I was talking in terms of divisions not individual fighters.................the heavyweight division is the only division dictated by trends of style..............in any other division a brawler,a pressure fighter,a counter puncher,a come forward box fighter it doesnt matter a good fighter is a good fighter his style is within himself he,s not a product of his division.

 

Klitchko could not have the same reach/hit/hold style he has if he was a welterweight

 

He could if he could make 147lbs at 6'5".

 

And keep the strength that gives him what he has at 250 odd .....yes.....i could be the greatest sumo wrestler in all of Japan............if i had another 200lb bodyweight !

 

it was a joke.