| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
One thing is true. In the 20's and 30's boxing had the greatest team of promoters, writers, and mgrs, which all worked together with the common goal of making boxing great. They were a tight nit group and the writers were the best of all time. They had the ability to make legends. Not taking away from the fighters. But if Runyon, Rice, Lardner, Igoe, and others couldn't make you sound great who could.
As a rule, I tend to discredit criticisms by earlier generations of boxers about their successors. I cannot recall a single retired champion who ever admitted that modern fighters were even half as good as the fighters in his generation. For this Choynski quote, you might as well insert "Corbett said. . ." "Jeffries said. . . ." "Jack Johnson said . . ." Its always the same song just a different singer.Originally Posted by apollack
Yeah, a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking that "way back when" the girls were prettier, the beer tasted better, the fighters were greater and it snowed more. I don't mind nostalgia, but it does tend to cloud judgement. Of course, when comparing boxers of different eras... but hell, that's a whole 'nother round of discussions.
I looked at my High school Year book (Class of 85') and the girls in 1985 were Definitely not prettier than today!
Yes as a 40 year old, And I know it is rather creepy of me to think this way, but when I go the Mall with my family, I'm seeing girls that DEFINITELY did not exist when I was in High School. DAMN, They did not look like they do today!
The thing is, the way they dress today (Hey listen, I grew up with the Madonna wanna-be Slutty look, that girls sported.), you have no idea how old girls are today.
I have a 7, a 5 and a 1 year old...ALL GIRLS!
I am absolutely TERRIFIED about them growing up. Becuase when THEY get in High School and go to the mall, there is going to be some 40 year old Creep looking at them and thinking the same things!
I need a drink.
Hawk
All great points. The bottom line is it all depends on perspective. Today, there are multiple types of analysis that I see: "those old time fighters were so much better and the modern are crap by comparison" or "those old time fighters were crap and the moderns would kill them" and "it is very difficult to compare modern and old because of the different rules, judging criteria, and fight situations that they are a part of." Perhaps reality is some old time would do well today, others wouldn't. Some moderns would do well back then, others wouldn't.
I agree that fighters always like to boost other fighters from their eras, including fighters they beat or who beat them, because it tends to boost themselves. So you always have to take these analysis with a grain of salt.
I can understand that from fighters. But many sportswriters do the same thing. Writers tend to also love the fighters of their youth. Even more so in the past. writers from the 1890's to the 20's truley believed the John L'S and Corbetts where the better fighters. This is harder to explain
in another thread that I thnk applies here as well:
I think to one degree or another, ALL fighters from every era are both over rated and by others Under rated.
I think it depends on the bench mark being used for the specific fighter in question.
I personally despise generalizations such as "All older fighters are better than Newer fighters" or "All Newer fighters are superior to older fighters".
I find BOTH viewpoints perposterous.
A SINGLE fighter does not make up an entire generation. Fighters should be judged on their individual merits anad skill sets. Not on the date they were born.
I also think it IS INDEED possible to be CRITICAL of fighters from yesterday, without being ignorant or lazy (in the research department). Just as I think YOU CAN be critical of Modern fighters and NOT necessarily be a curmudgeon caught in the Dark Ages.
Hawk
Hawk
Are you sure thats what you think. You seem a little gray on this one.
We all tend to do that, I think. We idolize the heroes of our youth. I recall one time my granddad (born 1900) and dad (born 1927) were in an discussion about who was best: Jack Dempsey or Joe Louis? Neither were particularly big fight fans at that time, but can you guess who favored who? At some point, I remember granddad remarking, "I had a discussion alot like this with my Dad about forty years ago, and he said John L. Sullivan would have made mincemeat of Dempsey."
I do the same with Ali, Foreman, and Frazier, I'm sure.
Last edited by raylawpc; 09-19-2007 at 10:11 PM.
You obviously never saw a picture of the lovely Cindy E. from Western Heights High School - OKC Class of 1971!
Last edited by raylawpc; 09-19-2007 at 10:10 PM.
Nor of Kathy S. (every guy wanted her) Montebello High School, Montebello Ca......Class of 1953You obviously never saw a picture the lovely Cindy E. from Western Heights High School - OKC Class of 1971!
We had our ONE knockout beauty as well.
It's the QUANTITY as well as QUALITY, that I see disproportionate!
I know...Perv.
Iskigoe,
I've been burned on my own sarcasm as of late. Not sure If I'm missing some here from you. Or did I yet again, mis-word something so that what I wrote takes on an entirely different meaning!
Hawk
Oh we had a few others, too. Linda McF - Class of '71, Pam H. - Class of '72. A real cute little gal from the class of '75 whose name I can't remember (but whose face I can't forget!!)
I've got one "modern vs. previous generations" generality of my own that I'd be interested in others' comments on: I believe the vast majority of today's fighters who are good enough to be televised (I know, PPV nowadays primarily), meaning they are better than most other fighters . . . STILL don't look like they have many, if any, boxing skills! In 1980, if I was watching a #15-ranked fighter, he could generally throw punches correctly, block and/or slip, move like a fighter, have great stamina, etc. Today, virtually anyone who's not a champion seems to look at best like Bobby Chacon, i.e., they seem to fight like girls, without proper training. Of course, Bobby COULD fight, he just LOOKED gangly and not as good as many of his contemporaries, to me anyway. But today's fighters as a group seem to lack basic skills. I know, I know, exceptions can be named, but I'm talking overall.
I also think of the multi-defense champion Lennox Lewis, who against his last Russian foe ran out of gas in about 3 rounds or so. They were both leaning on each other like guys in their 1st amateur fight.
Since its debut in 1993, I have become addicted to the Ultimate Fighting Championship, which has evolved from "the best at each martial art" to "mixed martial arts" where experts in one discipline cross-train in others. Nearly everyone who has entered the octagon is HIGHLY skilled, virtually no exceptions except 2 guys I remember in UFC#1. This timing coincides with my losing interest in boxing, whose practitioners really seem not very good at even just boxing.
Anybody agree? Disagree??
"Bobby Chacon, i.e., they seem to fight like girls, without proper training. Of course, Bobby COULD fight, he just LOOKED gangly and not as good as many of his contemporaries, to me anyway."
"Ultimate Fighting Championship, which has evolved from "the best at each martial art" to "mixed martial arts" where experts in one discipline cross-train in others. Nearly everyone who has entered the octagon is HIGHLY skilled, virtually no exceptions.."
While not getting the first point as it pertains to Bobby Chacon what so ever......I got the "luxury" of watching my very first UFC (I guess it was UFC) match two weekends ago when in some "cage match" a guy name Rampage Jackson(?) squared off with some other guy in what was supposed to be a Huge deal.
I went over to my buddies house to watch the LSU VA Tech game and he asked if we could watch this "match" first. I was told this was going to be awesome and it was going to make me think twice about wanting to watch boxing.
Well, this Rampage guy was supposed to be something special I guess.
So I sat through something like 15 mins of the most boring nonsense I have ever seen (Heck ST Gordon Trevor Berbick seemed intriguing by comparison). And if EVER someone threw punches awkwardly "LIKE A GIRL" it was this Rampage guy.
To compare this guys "skills" to what a Prime Bobby Chacon brough to the table? Complete and total nonsense.
I have no issue with anyone saying the sport of Boxing is having some issues today and fighters in general are not a "learned" as they have been in the past.
But I find it rather insulting to someone like Bobby Chacon, to state that non championship level fighters throw punches like a girl, LIKE BOBBY did. Or that the "skill Level" of these mixed martial arts guys, is at a Higher degree than even many of today's fighters.
I guess I should have stopped reading when the post said that the School Boy fought like a School Girl.
Hawk
Last edited by hawk5ins; 09-19-2007 at 04:04 PM.
Hawk, you couldn't be more wrong about the UFC. First, Chacon would have lost--quickly-- to EVERY guy who ever fought in a UFC over the past 14 years. See Ali-Gorilla Monsoon for a preview, except the UFC is real.
As usual, you say you "should have stopped reading . . . ", which is your usual insult reincarnated again for today. Chacon to me didn't have the fluid movement of a boxer (like either Leonard, Ali, Gomez, many others) and threw blows that to me looked like when a girl fights, and it was noticable to me because he was a champion. Sue me. I'm certainly entitled to my opinion. Ali even called Chuvalo "washerwoman," do you think his opinion is not worthy of your reading?? Yours is not the only opinion that counts on this board, much as you try to ram it down people's throats.
As to the recent UFC, Jackson beat a very accomplished fighter, Chuck Liddell (UFC's #1 or #2 star for years), in what was a major title matchup. Unfortunately, it was over fast and not competitive, but had you ever seen Liddell--apparently never before--you'd know he's one of the UFC's greatest ever champions, but here he was fighting a guy who had beaten him before and had his number. Liddell is an incredible KO artist and has another amazing quality, he can get up while pinned to the floor no matter how expert the man on top is at taking down or pinning. He (like many in the UFC) was a top college wrestler and in fact a world-class wrestler. Some of these UFC competitors were on Pan-Am games teams, one in the past (Mark Shultz) was an Olympic gold medal wrestler for the US (in 1984). Royce Gracie, the first UFC champion (he won several UFCs), was the world light-heavy champ (175) in jiu-jitzu more than once. Others have been kick-boxing world champions, karate world champs, savate world champs, etc. This is NOT an Alaska toughman competition!
Maybe in the UFC they don't throw punches in the manner YOU would like to see, but they are ALL better ALL-AROUND fighters than boxers--which is what the UFC is all about: who would win a real fight. Boxers have NEVER won one fight in the UFC when they entered; they always lost their first fights and were eliminated. Embarrassingly. None even enter anymore. An opponent grabs a boxer and it's over. Tyson was repeatedly challenged in the 1980s by the Gracie family (Brazilian jiu-jitzu experts) to fight one of them (a 175-pounder) for money-- a no holds barrred fight--and he ALWAYS turned them down. This was noted in PEOPLE Magazine in the late 1980s.
The MMA guys are so much tougher and more skilled than boxers it would make your head spin. They train harder and more scientifically, with top trainers--not the (usually) non-expert, unable to treat cuts, illiterate trainers often found in boxing. Almost all have more athletic bodies than boxers, not that this is important. Liddell, a great striker, is an exception to that.
The most-liked UFC fighter may be Randy Couture, a Pan Am games wrestler who beat the sport's greatest stars while over age 40! Moved up to the heavyweight division recently and easily won that title from a 6'8" 260-pound champion with fine skills who was more than a decade younger--Couture is about age 43-44 now. The guy is an inspiration to many. The fans that come to these events include many famous actors and athletes, it's no underground sport. It's always packed (unlike boxing).
I guess, the way you evaluated Jackson and Liddell, people should draw conclusions about Duran based on the Hearns bout--Duran must have been a bum, based on this one fight. That's how you draw conclusions, right, Hawk--on one fight?
If you know nothing about the UFC, admit it (it's no shame), rather than say the things you did. I know admitting ignorance of anything fight-related is hard for you but, come on, you beat others over the head constantly on this board to essentially get them to admit they don't know as much as you.
My God, on another thread, you corrected me about my Holmes-Shavers II comparison with Lyle-Shavers and I immediately relented, and pointed out my memory was probably being colored by the knockout of Shavers-- and damn if you weren't still harping on my error in several subsequent posts. Man, get over yourself.
Do you think you can respond to people with whom you disagree without belittling them??? You do this to me constantly and frankly, the fact that you can't correctly spell "Michael"--ever--makes me know you're not perfect.
Off every name in the book as they pertain to UFC or whatever and it will not really impress me. Or make me bat an eye. I have no idea who the hell they are.
I've seen One match that invovled a supposedly a high quality competitor (Junk Yard Dog or Rampage Jackson or Action Jackson) and he had no idea how to throw a punch and the "match" was dreadful.
I've seen enough. No need to view agian.
THis is a boxing forum. Boxers are discussed here.
Bobby Chacon is one of them.
You said he threw punches like a girl.
I took exception to that comment.
I found it "Belittling".
I apologize for nothing.
Not even my spelling.
(Boy you did get me there. What a comeback!)
Hawk
Last edited by hawk5ins; 09-19-2007 at 05:06 PM.
Michael
That insult you threw at Bobby Chacon was uncalled for in my opinion and i would make a guess it would be the opinion of most on board, including a few guys here who had dealings with Bobby. I know each and everyone is entitled to there opinion but i might suggest a little bit of tact would not go amiss in postings on here. After all this is a boxing forum and you never know a guy we could be really insulting could well have friends on here or perhaps even be a member himself. Anyway might be a good idea to close the book on this one now.
Wildhawke,
I didn't "throw" an insult at Chacon, if I had intended to I'd write him personally or if I thought he was on this board I'd send him a personal message. But I'm not that kind of person to tell him something insulting, he seemed like a good guy. It was an analogy to describe his gangly style. The phrase was, "Today, virtually anyone who's not a champion seems to look at best like Bobby Chacon, i.e., they seem to fight like girls, without proper training. Of course, Bobby COULD fight, he just LOOKED gangly and not as good as many of his contemporaries, to me anyway."
You'll note that I complimented Bobby in the next sentence but apparently that's lost on you. There's a real double standard on this board. My "girl" comment is unacceptable to you, while people talking of Duran masturbating a lion is acceptable fodder for all here (recently, on another CBZ thread). The same Duran calls other fighters girls and chickens, but many of you love that when it's him talking.
My entire post related to a concern that today's fighters lack skill compared with those from yesterday. Is it a wicked insult to Chacon to suggest that he didn't have the appearance of a ring master like his contemporaries Ali, Arguello, Leonard, Palomino, Hagler, and many others. He still was a FINE champion whom I like and agree "COULD fight" (quoting my words in the original post).
What is it with some (luckily just a few) guys on here, they can say anything, but if others don't worship a particular fighter or his style, and note that it looks like what it indeed DOES look like (to me, anyway), I am "throwing insults" at him. And then you seem to need to defend his honor. Fighters are SLAMMED on this board all the time. Maybe not compared with girls, but then, sometimes worse.
Yes, this matter can be put to rest, but I didn't start with you guys. I wish when I discuss a fighter--a public figure who probably has heard worse-- that the few of you who choose to respond negatively will understand I wasn't insulting YOU. Or anyone on this board. At worst it was an insult to Bobby--not that I meant it mean-spiritedly, it was just the obvious comparison to me--but not to any of you.
Bobby, if you're on this board, I loved to watch you fight, admired your heart, tenacity, and courage, own many of your bouts on tape, but if I were a boxer, I'd like to have a style more like Ali's.
Wildhawke, your point about tact is well taken and I will bear it in mind going forward.
Why not ask the regular insulters on this board to show some as well, though?
An who might those be? why not name 'em?
Kikibalt,
Sir, you aren't one of them, I enjoy your positive posts all the time.
I think if I name them then it will just cause more posts on this matter, so it doesn't seem fruitful. But I think their identity is obvious to many of us who receive their barbs regularly.
I am told that a couple have been thrown off of other boards for this behavior.
Personally, I am much more interested in any replies to my post #104 apart from defending Bobby's honor. The disparity between this generation's fighter's skills and those of the mid-1980s on back seems very apparent to me. Which was the point of that post. Would anyone care to comment on that, pro or con?
I'll respond to your post #104, Michael. I think when you compare UFC - which I have watched a few times (my adult sons enjoy it, and I like doing things with them, so . . . ) - and professional boxing, its like comparing apples and oranges. I know that's a old analogy but an applicable one here. None of those UFC guys can punch worth a d**n, but I suspect most boxers wouldn't do too well rolling around on the ground in the missionary position looking for a choak hold.
To use another analogy - those UFC guys are the proverbal "jack of all trades, masters of none." Another old but good analogy. I have a client who wrestled NCAA Division 1. He says those guys have wrestling skills at a high school level.
Regarding boxing today, I think the skills have plateaued. The guys today certainly do not seem better to me than the guys who fought in the 80s.
Last edited by raylawpc; 09-19-2007 at 10:16 PM.
Hey raylawpc, I appreciate your feedback.
As to the UFC, I reaffirm that one former contestant, Mark Shultz, won Olympic gold in 1984 for the US in freestyle wrestling. Quite a few others are known as "NCAA Division 1" wrestlers. Dan Severn, an early UFC champion, was an Olympic-caliber wrestler who became a college wrestling coach. The absolute top UFC guy today, heavyweight champ Randy Couture, was on the US Pan Am games team in the late 1980s in Greco Roman. So I think maybe your friend didn't see the better (wrestling) UFC contestants showing their wrestling wares. But again, many UFCrs are not wrestlers at all, but from jiu jitzu, other submission disciplines, etc.
An interesting note: in the UFC, it became established fact in the very first year that "grapplers always beat strikers." Boxers, karate experts, kung fu masters, kick boxers, etc. all lost miserably to wrestlers, jiu jitzu practitioners, submission experts, judo guys, and the like. The idea, as stated by 3-time UFC champ Royce Gracie: " I'm not punch-proof. I simply work to avoid the striker's blow while getting close enough to get him in a clinch or get him to the ground. Then he is out of his element and even if he punches me from that position, there won't be much leverage." Things changed when kickboxer Maurice Smith KO'd champ Mark Coleman a decade ago, with a kick to the head after like a 30 minute-plus fight. After that, they all started to cross-train, hence it's now mixed martial arts.
Anyway, as this board is not about the UFC, I'll get off of that. But, Ray, it is interesting to see another vote for the previous generation's fighters being better than today's.
That isn't what I said or how I "voted." I said the fighters today don't seem any better than the 1980s guys.
Regarding UFC, I still think its an apples to oranges comparison. Gracie was absolutely correct in his UFC tactic against "strikers." But if you put Gracie in with a decent boxer in a boxing ring under boxing rules, the boxer will clean his clock. Even my UFC-loving sons admit you can't rationally compare the two, and a boxer would win pretty easily in a regulation boxing match with a UFCer.
They are both completely different sports with completely different rules. Both have their own skill sets which can be appreciated and admired if you watch carefully. I'm not anywhere near as big a mixed martial arts fan as boxing, but I still occasionally appreciate and enjoy it. Bottom line is a boxer has no chance with those guys under their rules, just as an mma guy will get slaughtered by a boxer under boxing rules.
WIth this UFC crap talk.
Save that nonsense for another thread. (In the Non boxing section preferably.)
Marciano Dempsey...........
Hawk
Last edited by hawk5ins; 09-20-2007 at 07:32 AM.
To be honest I wouldn't even call UFC a sport..
It's barbarism with little or no regard for real skill.
It's a mixture of all the combat and skilled sports, but
it does NOT show real skill in any one discipline.
Street fighters at best....
Actually, the whole idea of UFC was to see which discipline would be best in a "real fight." The rap on boxing, as exposed in the very first UFC 14 years ago and confirmed repeatedly, is that a boxer could not win a street fight against someone skilled in any of the other self-defense arts (or sciences if you prefer). As the announcers noted, there are too many rules in boxing, esp. that a clinch calls for the ref to stop the action, whereas in other disciplines, the clinch is where the fight really begins. Also, the ref doesn't step in nearly as much. The Marquis of Queensbury made boxing more gentlemanly, or maybe civilized!
As a guy who grew up loving boxing, I had always wondered how a boxer would do in a real fight. Mixed martial arts has answered this. Incidentally, a boxing buddy introduced me to MMA. It's almost hilarious that some here call boxing a sport but not MMA . . . millions around the world will disagree with you and tell you that boxing is no sport, esp. when someone is killed in the ring, as has happened all too often. Many, if not most, boxers are injured in some way for life. The MMA guys almost never are, except for some wrestlers who previously had cauliflower ears.
Walshb, I'd respectfully argue that these UFC guys have IMMENSE skill, which they work on improving daily, but it's hard to discern by a cultured boxing fan when one sees the UFC guys when they're on their feet, boxing not so well (but note they wear much lighter gloves, or none, so the damage can be much greater). Once you see nearly any of them submit an opponent with the most subtle hold, and the bout is over in a few seconds, its science is quite apparent. Or when a much smaller guy takes down someone 70 pounds heavier, due to great wrestling or jiu jitzu knowledge. Pretty much all of them are incredibly skilled at submissions, but of course, since none are boxers, I'd agree a boxer would beat all of them at boxing. And would look better performing boxing in a boxing ring. But he'd assuredly lose to all of them in any other fighting arena or in the street--they are skilled at several disciplines, and always at expert level (i.e., 8th degree black belt, Olympic team member, NCAA champ, etc.) at one discipline. I've seen way too many actual street fights, unfortunately, and even if they started by throwing blows, they always ended on the ground, fighting there. As an Army instructor once told me, "the fight hasn't even started until both guys go to the ground."
Hawk, did I detect your using the derogatory "crap" word, which you so easily chastise others for using? And, "nonsense?" Now, now. Not happy with what others are talking about on YOUR website? I thought it was GorDoom's and his colleagues'.
But the thread is about Marciano-Dempsey, true. It's just that I see SO MANY other threads go off on tangents, like what clothes guys wore in the 1970s, that a comparison of boxing with the UFC is more on point on the CBZ board. But I'll let it go, and I appreciate the feedback from the rest of you. Thanks.
Last edited by Michael Frank; 09-20-2007 at 03:10 PM.
That said, I think we all enjoyed the tangent, with accompanying photos, about Chris Evert a few weeks back. In my view, we could go off on a few more tangents like that one.
And does not belong in a thread that is discussing Dempsey And Marciano. Or on a Boxing board for that matter, unless the subject were "Compared to Boxing, UFC is CRAP". And even then, I'd have that in the Non Boxing section.
If you are some how trying to Equate My calling UFC Crap (Crap Crap, double Crap) with you suggesting that Bobby Chacon (a Boxer. Like the ones that are discussed on a Boxing related site, such as this one), throws punches like a girl.....Well I'm not surprised.
Some posters think a lot of things are comparable when they could not be any more different.
What are you going to do?
Hawk
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks