controversial question for ranking old timers

sorry canvus that was no where near franks original question nor was it attempting to say how can we match fighter a from 1950 to fighter b from 1985..he was asking a solution to how can he rate a fighters greatness without seeing films of that fighter..he asked for a solution and i feel i and marble gave him one..and a dam good one at that..

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:

cutman a good one is of equaly quality wheather it be 1930 or 2010..its the numbers that differ in quality that marble points out..where was paviks cutman..answell is an improvement as a apparatus or tool.its not a thing that increases a cutmans skill.speed dexterity pressure cleaning the wound is part of that craft.a good cut man works fast an effective and efficent..how many times have we seen a cutman in the corner via of great tv cameras not ready to go to work..to often..and when they do they take ther sweet ass time in doing so..a chickie ferreara a whitey B a ray arcel a dundee a eddie futch would not have incompetence like that in the corner..a lou duva also..noo way..the numbers are down..on tv we see top fighters mostly..and this is a majority of the cutmans MO. a good one today is as good as one 70 years ago..where are they in numbers..tv shows us a different story then your telling..if there not in top fighters corners a lot then there not avalible in numbers.and with less fighters to take care off..soo the cutman in general has gone downhill...

That is probably a much more accurate way of putting it. One thing I'd argue is that cutmen back then had far more lattitude in the materials they used. For example, NOBODY could have stopped Marciano's nose from gushing blood against Ezzard with only Thrombin or adrenaline. The stuff used, Monsel's Solution, is banned today.

It is likely cutmen were better in the 1930's than today. Just math. More fights=more experience=improved productivity. Human beings generally do not get better at something by doing it less often.

Pavlik's cutman is comically bad. He showcases that the overall quality is not as good, but not that the elite quality has gotten worse. I'm not trying to argue the general or overall quality of anything. Guy's being able to use banned techniques makes perfect sense. That's an argument that makes sense to me. But the whole repetition argument doesn't work for me. Newton was on the cutting edge of math in his time, it's largely what he did. He's by all accounts amazing. But I know several grad level math guys that know more. Mainly because the things he discovered are the foundation of the things they learned. And all of the people who refined and expanded on his work means that they did not need to work nearly as much to achieve the same level of knowledge. That's true in most things including sports. The things kids are learning today in school are more advanced than the things I learned at the same age.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

1. Controlling distance means keeping the other guy AT THE END of your punches while inside or outside the end of his.
3. It is NOT easier to hit someone in the head if they have their hands down. Not if they are moving their head instead of using the inferior technique of blocking.

1. Fair enough. I still think that Kahn has done that very well in his fights.
3. Agree to disagree. Guys can still move there heads, legs and bodies while blocking. And if you make the area that can be hit smaller, you focus more on avoiding shots to your exposed area and better prepare yourself if you're hit there. Action time is faster than reaction time. The offensive fighter is at the advantage. If guy can time a knuckle ball, I'm confident they can time a moving head. Blocking is only an inferior technique if you can effectively slip and roll, and even then it has more wholes against a great offensive fighter.

But you CANNOT Counterpunch while you are using your hands to block. Major league difference.

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

That is a WHALE of a post. The only way I can think of responding is numerically.

1. I was NOT trying to win an argument saying people don't know what they are watching. But I do think the typical fan today is less educated than anytime since WWI. Your initial comments overlooked almost all of the craft being displayed by Petrolle and especially by Ross.
2. It is possible Kahn is a superior natural athlete two both Ross and Petrolle. But that is irrelevant to what we're discussing.
3. The flat footedness of today's fighters really is a technical backwards step. One does EVERYTHING better with "pigeon feet." But it takes a TON more energy.
4. "Rolling in today's game is risky." Why would you say that? It makes one harder to hit (unless one is overwehlmingly tall), enables one to throw from more different angles and keeps botyh hands free to punch. It is superior in every way to blocking except that it takes more skill and energy.
5. I'm not convinced scoring has changed. I can find you old fights where activity was over rewarded too.
6. Flurrying is simply throwing multiple punches. A COMBINATION is structured with a specific pattern for a specific purpose. They aren't the same thing.
7. Minimalism isn't a matter of taste, it is SUPERIOR in terms of positioning, opportunities created, energy savings and deception. Today's fighters aren't properly described as different, they are INFERIOR. What else would you call an energy sucking, less efficient, less useful approach in ANY endeavor?
8. You cannot name a single technique that Tyson, Manny, Hamed, Jones and Manny used that I can't show you a fighjter doing the same thing more than 50 years ago.
9. The jab has evolved since the 1920's??????? Really? Go watch Tommy Loughran my friend.

1. I didn't think we were talking about the typical fan. I took that the wrong way. I purposely overlooked most of the craft because I want to make a strong initial argument. I still overlook Petrolle because everything he did was neutralized by Ross. The things he did didn't work in that fight. I think Ross is all class. He's the first guy I thought of when thinking of a fight to show.
2. Agreed.
3. I misunderstood "pigeon footed". I'm naturally extremely flat footed so I've been pigeon footed my whole life in order to be an athlete. It's worse on your balance but let's you explode more and allows your to do things with your calves a lot of people need their hamstrings for. I'm still not sure what I think about this.
4. Rolling is always risky because the trade off for being harder to hit is if you get hit, you're more exposed. That and the added energy, concentration and reaction needed make it riskier. You block a punch bad and you're body is still better positioned to absorbed the shot than if you rolled wrong.
5. You're probably right. I just don't think it's right as it is now, and guys don't get rewarded for the right reasons. Guys exploit the system.
6. I agree, but I think flurrying can be effective. De La Hoya is a great example. I think there is combination punching and flurrying today and they can complement each other when used the right way.
7. I think that's true in a vacuum, but different things work for different people when they actually get out and fight. A big move can put someone more off balance than a small one. A looping punch can land over a straight one. If you slip a punch by a fraction you can set up your offense. If you make him miss by a mile and he loses his footing he's wide open. If someone expects you to make wild, big moves and instead you make small subtle ones and you win, that's great technique. But the opposite is also true. So it depends on how you define usefulness. I look primarily at effectiveness. Did you win with your technique? Did it dominate the other guys? After that it does become subjective. If something is less efficient but it's more exciting, or intimidating, or unpredictable, or whatever it can be argued it's better. To the point, great fighters define great technique.
8. It's not even a single technique. It's the total package of the way they fought combined with their athletic gifts. I can't think of a single fighter that really reminds me of them. That's innovation.
9. Just saw a little Tommy Loughran. Not enough to comment, but I'm comparing it with the Ali, Holmes, Lewis and Wlad's jabs. The thing is...if I can find even one of them whose jab I think is better...that can be considered the evolution of the jab. The bar would've been raised.

Responding to these numbers
4. You are better at absorbing maybe. But that is a LESSER art than being able to TAKE ADVANTAGE of what the other guy is doing. The point is not to let him hit you for free, it is to make him pay for doing that.
6. Flurrying CAN be effective, see Leonard Hagler round nine for example. But it's a LESSER technique. It simply involves volume rather than a connected series of punches each designed to set up the next with a specific desired outcome.
7. I might agree that the greatest the greats can do things that are fundamentally unsound and pull it off. Tony Canzoneri leading with his chin, Muhammad Ali pulling straight back are examples. But they are exceptions. 99% of guys who lead with their chins or lean straight back get dropped. Johnny Bench caught one handed. That doesn't make it the right technique. It made Johnny Bench a freak. Sound technique applies to 99% of fighters and what happens when we have a physical and unsound freak matched up with a good, not great athlete with excellent craft? See Naseem Hamed-MAB for a good example.
8. Mike Tyson is almost a CLONE of Jack Demspey. No surprise, it's how Cus designed him to be. Roy Jones isn't like anyone because people who tried to fight that way back in the day got KO'd. Crapola footwrok, leading with hooks doesn't work against craftsman. Manny is a toned down version of Henry Armstrong and Terry McGovern. Again nothing new with any of these guys. It's not a surprise, Boxing has been around for centuries. Most of the innovation was done a hundred or more years ago.
9. Nonsense. Evolution isn't ONE guy. Evolution is when something becomes the DOMINANT approach. You will not find someone with a better jab that Loughran. He was effectively a one handed fighter. Nobody worried about his right. So how good did his left have to be?

Gumby wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:

alis not modern.he won the title 46 years ago..lennox lewis jab.you got to be joking..holmes won over 30 years ago..WTF is modern..the last 15 years..not 50 years ago per ali..every see willie pep jab..4 full ones on the money in less then a second.ive seen it tons of times.gee what about joe louis 70 years ago or 50 years ago liston..lennox lewis and the pawing thing..yikes.ever see saddler jab and close the real estate at the same time..you think lewis jabs better then tunneys..hmmm.or foremans..thats almost 35 years.or bob foster some 40 years ago..whats modern.anything after 1950..please..its today.this era.the past 15 years..anything else is nonsence..sorry.want to talk facts and evidence.bring it on..want to talk fiction modern medicine science..please.get real..

They are all modern relative to the 30s. I put them in chronological order in an attempt to show progression. I limited it to heavyweights and tried to put in a variety of different types of jabs that have all been effective. I've attempted to stay consistent. If I'm trying to show that the sport has evolved why should I be limited to the past 15 years? The idea that I'm throwing out nonsense just isn't true. I'm offering counter points and differing opinions. All of my arguments have had some logic. We as a society have more knowledge and resources than we did in the past. That's a fact, there are measurable ways of proving it. The majority of sports have shown considerable improvements and athletes across the board can physically do more today than ever. That's a fact, there are measurable ways of proving it. To say that the top boxers or cutmen of today are better or worse than before is an opinion. There is an argument to it either way.

I don't see facts and evidence as "lennox lewis jab.you got to be joking..lennox lewis and the pawing thing" That's opinion. Lewis had a great jab. I would definitely put Lewis' jab over Foreman's (if we're talking George). I'm not sure about Tunney but I'm sure if I broke them both down a case could be made.

The bold is the source of your error. Your assumption is because society has progressed in many areas it has progressed in ALL areas. It isn't true. Do we have more or better public pay phones than we used to? More or better horse-cavalry regiments than we used to? More or better wooden sailing ships than we used to? Do we know how to make Greek Fire?

NO! In all those things fewer resources have been applied to them and fewer people are involved with them. They have gotten WORSE.

We have less than 10% of the boxing gyms we used to have. We have HALF as many fighters as we used to have. They are sliced up into TWICE as many divisions. They fight HALF as often. Boxing inarguably has FEWER resources and fewer people. Your own argument makes the conclusion inescapable.

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

guys enjoyed the topic..im ridding to florida to take my younger grandson who spent the summer with me back home...yuck 700 miles..see you in 5 days.

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

i agree, i think sometimes people talk about a prime louis as some sort of invincible monster, but i think young ali is the best ali, ie the one that fought liston, and williams etc, i think he could give louis fits

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

Alexis lands a punch from nowhere? You just described the guy's entire career! Behind to Chacon, behind to Olivares, behind to Castillo and then KABOOM! It's what the guy did. At 130 he and Floyd is a race to the finish line.

Why is it that the Joe Louis who struggled with Billy Coinn is an argument and the Ali who got knocked down by Cooper isn't?

dmar5143 wrote:

guys enjoyed the topic..im ridding to florida to take my younger grandson who spent the summer with me back home...yuck 700 miles..see you in 5 days.

Safe trip!

sugarrayhatton wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

i agree, i think sometimes people talk about a prime louis as some sort of invincible monster, but i think young ali is the best ali, ie the one that fought liston, and williams etc, i think he could give louis fits

I think Ali gives anyone who ever walked fits.

So does Joe Louis.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

Alexis lands a punch from nowhere? You just described the guy's entire career! Behind to Chacon, behind to Olivares, behind to Castillo and then KABOOM! It's what the guy did. At 130 he and Floyd is a race to the finish line.

Why is it that the Joe Louis who struggled with Billy Coinn is an argument and the Ali who got knocked down by Cooper isn't?

Honestly, Marble. I think this is the first time you've shown signs of getting personally involved in a judgement between two fighters. What did Ali do after Cooper? Ali has an argument for the best chin in the history of the HW division. Joe was outboxed by Jersey Joe as well. An old Ali took the best Earnie Shavers had to offer. A young Ali was hard to hit, but if you hit him, he wasn't going anywhere. The Cooper fight was one fight and if anything, it was an anti-thesis to Ali's ability to take a punch.

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

Alexis lands a punch from nowhere? You just described the guy's entire career! Behind to Chacon, behind to Olivares, behind to Castillo and then KABOOM! It's what the guy did. At 130 he and Floyd is a race to the finish line.

Why is it that the Joe Louis who struggled with Billy Coinn is an argument and the Ali who got knocked down by Cooper isn't?

Honestly, Marble. I think this is the first time you've shown signs of getting personally involved in a judgement between two fighters. What did Ali do after Cooper? Ali has an argument for the best chin in the history of the HW division. Joe was outboxed by Jersey Joe as well. An old Ali took the best Earnie Shavers had to offer. A young Ali was hard to hit, but if you hit him, he wasn't going anywhere. The Cooper fight was one fight and if anything, it was an anti-thesis to Ali's ability to take a punch.

Personally involved in an argument over a fight in which Ricardo Lopez or Mr. Ronald Wright isn't involved? LOL!

It is utterly illogical to simply dismiss the Cooper knockdown when discussing Louis for two reasons. First it wasn't some flash knockdown. Ali was on queer street and in real trouble. Second Louis was the kind of puncher who just liquified fighters who had never been down before. He was also perhaps the finest finisher the game has ever seen. When Louis got men in trouble? There was simply little chance of escape.

Louis was 137 years old when Walcott beat him. You put the 1937-1940 Louis in with Ali, especially the young Ali? It's a coin flip in my view.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

Alexis lands a punch from nowhere? You just described the guy's entire career! Behind to Chacon, behind to Olivares, behind to Castillo and then KABOOM! It's what the guy did. At 130 he and Floyd is a race to the finish line.

Why is it that the Joe Louis who struggled with Billy Coinn is an argument and the Ali who got knocked down by Cooper isn't?

Honestly, Marble. I think this is the first time you've shown signs of getting personally involved in a judgement between two fighters. What did Ali do after Cooper? Ali has an argument for the best chin in the history of the HW division. Joe was outboxed by Jersey Joe as well. An old Ali took the best Earnie Shavers had to offer. A young Ali was hard to hit, but if you hit him, he wasn't going anywhere. The Cooper fight was one fight and if anything, it was an anti-thesis to Ali's ability to take a punch.

Personally involved in an argument over a fight in which Ricardo Lopez or Mr. Ronald Wright isn't involved? LOL!

It is utterly illogical to simply dismiss the Cooper knockdown when discussing Louis for two reasons. First it wasn't some flash knockdown. Ali was on queer street and in real trouble. Second Louis was the kind of puncher who just liquified fighters who had never been down before. He was also perhaps the finest finisher the game has ever seen. When Louis got men in trouble? There was simply little chance of escape.

Louis was 137 years old when Walcott beat him. You put the 1937-1940 Louis in with Ali, especially the young Ali? It's a coin flip in my view.

You've got a point. I'm going to find some mid ground with you here. Ok, Cooper floored Ali. Ali went on to fight Liston, Terrell, Chuvalo, Folley, who were all better fghters than Cooper. Ali got caught against Cooper, but what are the odds that another fighter in the 60's was going to catch him like that? Just about none. I just think the styles (Ali and Louis) work to Ali's favor. However, there was no better finisher than Joe Louis. A young Leonard could challenge him in that department but even he's no match for him there. If he catches Ali consistently, Ali goes. I just don't think he's fast enough to do that. But God, I wish I could see that fight. You may deny it, but I think you like Joe Louis a helluva lot more than you like Ali. That's understandable. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's just that, if you've seen one Joe Louis fight, you've seen them all. Yes, he was greater than great but very predictable.

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

Alexis lands a punch from nowhere? You just described the guy's entire career! Behind to Chacon, behind to Olivares, behind to Castillo and then KABOOM! It's what the guy did. At 130 he and Floyd is a race to the finish line.

Why is it that the Joe Louis who struggled with Billy Coinn is an argument and the Ali who got knocked down by Cooper isn't?

Honestly, Marble. I think this is the first time you've shown signs of getting personally involved in a judgement between two fighters. What did Ali do after Cooper? Ali has an argument for the best chin in the history of the HW division. Joe was outboxed by Jersey Joe as well. An old Ali took the best Earnie Shavers had to offer. A young Ali was hard to hit, but if you hit him, he wasn't going anywhere. The Cooper fight was one fight and if anything, it was an anti-thesis to Ali's ability to take a punch.

Personally involved in an argument over a fight in which Ricardo Lopez or Mr. Ronald Wright isn't involved? LOL!

It is utterly illogical to simply dismiss the Cooper knockdown when discussing Louis for two reasons. First it wasn't some flash knockdown. Ali was on queer street and in real trouble. Second Louis was the kind of puncher who just liquified fighters who had never been down before. He was also perhaps the finest finisher the game has ever seen. When Louis got men in trouble? There was simply little chance of escape.

Louis was 137 years old when Walcott beat him. You put the 1937-1940 Louis in with Ali, especially the young Ali? It's a coin flip in my view.

You've got a point. I'm going to find some mid ground with you here. Ok, Cooper floored Ali. Ali went on to fight Liston, Terrell, Chuvalo, Folley, who were all better fghters than Cooper. Ali got caught against Cooper, but what are the odds that another fighter in the 60's was going to catch him like that? Just about none. I just think the styles (Ali and Louis) work to Ali's favor. However, there was no better finisher than Joe Louis. A young Leonard could challenge him in that department but even he's no match for him there. If he catches Ali consistently, Ali goes. I just don't think he's fast enough to do that. But God, I wish I could see that fight. You may deny it, but I think you like Joe Louis a helluva lot more than you like Ali. That's understandable. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's just that, if you've seen one Joe Louis fight, you've seen them all. Yes, he was greater than great but very predictable.

I don't think that's true...but it could be. I am attached to Louis' excellence and accomplishments as an intellectual matter. I am attached to Ali on both an emotional and intellectual level. He provided me with some great thrills as a youngun and is a hero of mine for his acceptance of the cost of his stance on the draft.

I DO think that holding the opinion that the outcome between two men so accomplished is a forgone conclusion a little hard to fathom.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

prime Joe Louis beats the ever loving piss out of a young Ali IMO, and Joe enjoys every second of it

C'mon Bird. You're telling me that the same Joe Louis who was outboxed by Conn and Walcott beats a young Ali? I can understand people hating Ali. His personality can come off horrible at times, but I don't think you should get it mixed up with the action in the squared circle. Another great figther that didn't fight boxers well was Alexis Arguello. I loved Arguello and really don't like Floyd Mayweather however styles make fights. Vilomar Fernandez (spelling) was able to outbox Alexis. If Floyd fought Alexis...... let's just hope Arguello lands a punch from no where.

Alexis lands a punch from nowhere? You just described the guy's entire career! Behind to Chacon, behind to Olivares, behind to Castillo and then KABOOM! It's what the guy did. At 130 he and Floyd is a race to the finish line.

Why is it that the Joe Louis who struggled with Billy Coinn is an argument and the Ali who got knocked down by Cooper isn't?

Honestly, Marble. I think this is the first time you've shown signs of getting personally involved in a judgement between two fighters. What did Ali do after Cooper? Ali has an argument for the best chin in the history of the HW division. Joe was outboxed by Jersey Joe as well. An old Ali took the best Earnie Shavers had to offer. A young Ali was hard to hit, but if you hit him, he wasn't going anywhere. The Cooper fight was one fight and if anything, it was an anti-thesis to Ali's ability to take a punch.

Personally involved in an argument over a fight in which Ricardo Lopez or Mr. Ronald Wright isn't involved? LOL!

It is utterly illogical to simply dismiss the Cooper knockdown when discussing Louis for two reasons. First it wasn't some flash knockdown. Ali was on queer street and in real trouble. Second Louis was the kind of puncher who just liquified fighters who had never been down before. He was also perhaps the finest finisher the game has ever seen. When Louis got men in trouble? There was simply little chance of escape.

Louis was 137 years old when Walcott beat him. You put the 1937-1940 Louis in with Ali, especially the young Ali? It's a coin flip in my view.

You've got a point. I'm going to find some mid ground with you here. Ok, Cooper floored Ali. Ali went on to fight Liston, Terrell, Chuvalo, Folley, who were all better fghters than Cooper. Ali got caught against Cooper, but what are the odds that another fighter in the 60's was going to catch him like that? Just about none. I just think the styles (Ali and Louis) work to Ali's favor. However, there was no better finisher than Joe Louis. A young Leonard could challenge him in that department but even he's no match for him there. If he catches Ali consistently, Ali goes. I just don't think he's fast enough to do that. But God, I wish I could see that fight. You may deny it, but I think you like Joe Louis a helluva lot more than you like Ali. That's understandable. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's just that, if you've seen one Joe Louis fight, you've seen them all. Yes, he was greater than great but very predictable.

I don't think that's true...but it could be. I am attached to Louis' excellence and accomplishments as an intellectual matter. I am attached to Ali on both an emotional and intellectual level. He provided me with some great thrills as a youngun and is a hero of mine for his acceptance of the cost of his stance on the draft.
I DO think that holding the opinion that the outcome between two men so accomplished is a forgone conclusion a little hard to fathom.

I stand corrected. LOL

Marble, by the way, did you get my PM?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Nonsense. Evolution isn't ONE guy. Evolution is when something becomes the DOMINANT approach. You will not find someone with a better jab that Loughran. He was effectively a one handed fighter. Nobody worried about his right. So how good did his left have to be?

I think the dominant approach is different. I used the jab because when I've watched old eras, the jab is not thrown the same way and at the same time at a whole. I could be way off because I haven't seen enough, but I think there are many aspects that have changed. I just think it's debatable if it's better or worse now, and what factors caused the style changes were caused.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Your assumption is because society has progressed in many areas it has progressed in ALL areas. It isn't true. Do we have more or better public pay phones than we used to? More or better horse-cavalry regiments than we used to? More or better wooden sailing ships than we used to? Do we know how to make Greek Fire?

NO! In all those things fewer resources have been applied to them and fewer people are involved with them. They have gotten WORSE.

We have less than 10% of the boxing gyms we used to have. We have HALF as many fighters as we used to have. They are sliced up into TWICE as many divisions. They fight HALF as often. Boxing inarguably has FEWER resources and fewer people. Your own argument makes the conclusion inescapable.

I think this is the real case. Public payphones and horse-cavalry units have been replaced. Wooden sailing ships still exist, but there are also steel and fiberglass ships. There have been numerous sailing feats accomplished in recent years with people sailing over large distances alone or in small groups that rival past accomplishments. I had to google Greek Fire, but I know we can make napalm and acids strong enough to eat through wood. So those things mentioned are largely obsolete today.

Boxing is not obsolete. It's not as popular, but it's still an active industry. So the question is how does the quality and quantity of one era compare to the best quality and quantity of another. If we compare the past to the present, the overall quality is definitely down. But I think the best of this era have been able to incorporate things from several eras that help them compensate for the fewer resources. Going back to my "nonsense fictional" arguments, how would the smartest mathematician compare against 10 of the smartest from different eras (or whatever equivalent in each era). I use math because it's another place where younger people today have lost the fundamentals and overall quality has declined (spelling is another), but the few who become masters are as brilliant as ever.

I'm going to take a break from this argument for a good while, but let's return to it in the future.

4445Frank wrote:

Marble, by the way, did you get my PM?

I did. I am thinking about it. Will respond later today.