1981 compared to 2011

Chris has completely lost it, by the way.

 

Had it been Chrith Eubank in the ring with either of thothe pugilithts, neither would have had a chanthe of ethcaping a trip to the canvath

He would have fired off a thimply thtunning therieth of puncheth and left the poor chapth in a thupine pothition

 

Cheerth!

 

:l1:

 

:bears:

 

Jaws doesn't talk that way. And stop ganging up on him. You guys are acting like a bunch of girls. Remember: small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. And smart minds discuss ideas. People, let's get back to discussing ideas. Shall we?

 

for fuck's sake, you drunk bastard, I'm imitating Chris Eubank

 

::

 

That's even worse. Small minds? We're in mindless territory.

 

::

 

A veritable mind-field.

 

It was a better time for most American boxing fans because Americans were at the top of the sport. Your nostalgia is biased by knowing how many of these fighters would later turn out so it's really an unfair thing you are doing. You have the benefit of hindsight with 1981; you don't with 2011. Hell, we aren't even done with 2011.

I don't think the talent pool is worse today; I think the American talent pool is much worse today.

And if you are going to list 1981 guys, then you should go to the trouble of listing the 2011 comparables. I began making a more thorough response, but it was just too much work because of the vagueness of your OP.

 

:laugh11:

 

that on me is correct. many are on the side that it is very bad but if you are to say this then how does it work with the ones from that many time ago? this is the important one which is not discussed

 

But that's Britain. Come on. That's not boxing.

 

as usual, you speak from your ass

 

I and everybody else with eyes and the ability to judge what is happening in a boxing match

 

Agreed. Least he could do is get off his donkey before addressing us. He's not Jesus, you know.

 

::

 

Did you guys know Riddick Bowe was heavyweight champion in 1996 because Tommy Morrison beat George Foreman?

 

Give it up. People were at that shit in 1988 for Spinks vs Tyson and they were at it for Briggs vs Foreman.

 

Eubank and Benn weren't that good. When they were in their primes. When US commentators had anything to say about them at that time.

 

It's interesting...save for Manny and Floyd there's really not much to the 2011 list. I discount the Klit brothers because they're equally a product of their talent and the shallow talent level of the heavyweight division. It says a ton about he division when a cruiserweight can talk his way into a "big" fight.

Manny and Floyd can fight and it doesn't change the landscape of the fight game one iota. It's one fight. One night. Ring Magazine ran an article "The Fight To Save Boxing" when Floyd and Oscar fought.

How did that turn out?

 

no, you talk from your ass, it's awesome, better than ever, mikE said so, he knows the game, brah

 

Then you're disqualifying the Heavweight division of the late 80s and early 90s as well. Evander was even smaller than Haye.

But I agree with you. Except for manny and Floyd there's not much else to brag about.

Calzaghe is gone, Jones is gone, Barrera's gone, Hopkins, Morales and Marquez need viagra.

The Klits are very good fighters and deserve more credit though.

 

you quoted Muzse not mikE! ::

 

Evander FOUGHT his way to a shot, what are you talking about???

 

I know:dunno:

 

I didn't realize that the distinction was "talk" vs "fight". I mean Haye beat the giant and Ruiz and had one of the belts before getting the big fight. It's silly to say that he did nothing but talk.

 

oh, ok. I misunderstood your response then. It seemed like you were telling Muzse that he was talking out of his ass.