1981 compared to 2011

Sorry? Please quote me where I argued for today.

 

I remember this response Cdogg, I don't recall any where I've said that today's list is better.

So...care to retract your bullshit statement?

 

major logical fallacy that runs through every single strain of every argument you make... drop the baseball mentality... Records listed as W-L-D tell us nothing of the most important factors:

1) Level Of Opposition
2) How the fighter was managed and matched

 

you made that one statement followed by an endless litany of "but"s

Essentially you watered down your initial statement to such a degree as to make its initial meaning ambiguous

 

As compared to your ipsi dixit bullshit? I don't claim it to be dispositive, just relevant.

When you are comparing eras, it's pretty hard to compare level of opposition, especially when one of the eras you are comparing is the present. But, don't do anything. As usual.

 

why would this be?

And it's not relevant at all, certainly not when you are using only W-L-D to determine the value

Mike Weaver's rather ordinary W-L-D as of 1981 is more impressive than David Haye's sensational LOOKING W-L-D for 2011

Weaver, thrown to the dogs right out of the gate, went through trial by fire before emerging as a serious contender, and eventually a champion

Haye, well-managed, moved along with care and caution against opposition completely inferior to that faced by Weaver, emerged as a Heavyweight "contender" of sorts

Anyone who comes to the conclusion that David Haye is the better heavyweight would only do so because of complete ignorance and because of such pablum as your precious statistical crutches

A .276 batting average with 15 homers, 70 RBIs and a .350 On Base Percentage in the major leagues is a hell of a lot more impressive than a .386 batting average, 47 homers, 140 RBIs and a .450 On Base Percentage in Single-A

Your reliance on these numbers as having ANY meaning at all is simply preposterous and is an utterly useless barometer for measuring a fighter's worth without placing the numbers in CONTEXT

Ray Robinson wasn't great because he was 128-1-1 before he lost to Randy Turpin... he was great because he was 128-1-1 against OUTSTANDING competition

 

Worst argument ever. Hiding behind won loss records while entirely avoiding the quality of opposition.

 

These are my only three posts on the subject in this thread before the one quoted above...you tell me in which one did I suggest that that the 2011 fighters were better than the 80s?

1.

2.

3.

 

Bert Sugar is an annoying twat. I do wish he would just fuck off.

 

Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>"We can say that now....what Irish is saying is that in every era the fighters from past eras are considered better than the current crop. It's the mentality of the idiotic elitist fight fans. In the early 80s if you had asked 100 fight fans, over 90% of them would have probably not had Larry Holmes in their top 10 all time." </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________

The implication here is pretty obvious... 1981 is being considered better because of hindsight and one day we will consider 2011 it's equal or close to it.

 

Yes, but implication aside, the earlier point holds true.

I know, for a fact, that in 20 years somebody is going to see a Vitali Klitschko fight and think, hey, this guy could fight, and draw the conclusion that the then-heavyweight-champ might have lost to Vitali.

I would love if that somebody was called Romanza Soloquies Jr.

 

most people already see that Vitali can fight

his brother is a paper doll, but Vitali is a tough SOB and good at what he does... his opponents suck, but he treats them like opponents who suck, which is more than can be said for his sibling

And Vitali being respected still won't change how awful the division is

 

The Larry Holmes division was considered awful at the time also. That's why everyone was saying "thank God" when Tyson came on the scene and cleaned up the mess.

The 81 crop were better fighters overall but fans are always more critical of the contemporary crop than they are of previous eras.

Like I said before..Pacquiao and Mayweather are each as talented and arguably (not even arguable in Pacquiao's case) as accomplished as any two fighters of any era.

 

It's actually quite arguable

 

Pacquiao wins titles from Flyweight to Jnr Middle, knocking out Welterweight champions in addition to guys like Barrera and Morales and it's arguable whether he was as accomplished as the best guys in the 80s?

 

The same level of success across vast weight fluctuations was attained by Jimmy McLarnin in the 1920s and 1930s... Flyweight to Welterweight... the only difference being that McLarnin had but one strap in each division to aim for, rather than 4... thus, in terms of "titles" Manny has the edge... but the accomplishment was the same, major and elite status in every division competed in, wins against the best in each division

In my view, Pac-Man's success, while very impressive, has as much to do with the ability to make "big fights", to more carefully pick the opposition, catch weights and the like... the lack of a significant number of real tangible threats (save one, your boy) in many of these divisions and of course, the matter of possibly illegal stimulation

The greatness of Manny Pac is that he has hammered his opposition, it has less to do in my opinion with his being "small" ... Small men have accomplished similar or better... Henry Armstrong, three world titles simultaneously when there was only ONE title... Armstrong was not the WBA Featherweight, WBC Diamond Welterweight, WBO Lightweight champion... he was the UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION... that is an enormous difference, and it never involved Armstrong contractually obligating his opponents to weigh less than the division limit

 

Then make your quality of opposition argument, asshat.

Of course, the obvious problem with quality of opposition is that you will say that the 18-5 guy that the old-timer beat was of higher quality than the 18-1 guy that the present-day fighter beat.

But forget that for now, just make your argument. At least try.

 

Brian Nielsen was one of, if not Tyson's finest victory in the ring.

 

It's a pointless exercise with someone with you who knows NOTHING about the fighters from the early 80's. Hiding behind won-loss records and ignoring the actual fighters who make up those records shows that you don't want to discuss that because it doesn't work for you.

If I were having a discussion with someone who actually knew something about the time period in question, it might be worth the time. But since you don't...it's not. Any opinion you might have about fighters from the 80's is invalid because you don't know shit about them.

It really is amazing to me that you really want folks to believe that a fighter with a better won-loss record is a better fighter than one with a less shiny won-loss record that is made up of better opposition. Every time I think about it, I am stunned at the complete lack of effort behind that argument.

 

The numbers don't lie!!

 

You don't know what I know about the fighters from the 80's.

You make some claim, whine like a nostalgic grandma, and then back up nothing.

Win-loss records are not dispositive. Go look that up. They are objective information that is likely to be at least somewhat meaningful to the discussion. Certainly far more meaningful than the bullshit 80's are better because they were the 80's shit that you throw out.

Make some effort to establish your point. As I said before, you don't do anything except show a list of fighters from the 80's and claim it's so great compared to today. Back it up.

 

When you know something about what I had to say, let me know. Or better yet...demonstrate it. Let's see you show that you know enough about that time period to make me believe discussing it with you won't be a complete waste of time with you continuously hiding behind won-loss records.

Because of your lack of insight...I will offer you one example with an 80's fighter so famous that even YOU have probably heard of him.

Sugar Ray Leonard had a career record of 36 -3 -1.

Julio Caesar Chavez Jr. has a record of 43-0-1.

Which one is the better and more accomplished fighter?

Using your method of using the won-loss record to determine a fighter's worth...I guess we would have to go with Chavez. Your "objective" test of a fighter's worth clearly demonstrates that Chavez is better. Right???

Unless of course we actually use our brains and knowledge of the fighters who make up their respective career records. Or we could just use our EYES and watch them in the ring. And then we would see that anyone who would think Chavez's w-l record makes him superior to Ray Leonard has even less of a clue than anyone ever imagined.

 

No one has stated that Chavez Jr is superior to Leonard as a boxer.

Again...Make some effort to establish your point. As I said before, you don't do anything except show a list of fighters from the 80's and claim it's so great compared to today. Back it up.

 

As much as I disagree with the content of some of your posts, Steve_Dave is king of the snide one-liner. He regards debate with our ilk as beneath him.

 

True. Although he isn't talking to me.

Seriously though, the incredible list of fighters in the OP backs up BWJ's argument for him. The fighters were better, it is what it is. It's not like anyone here actually WANTS that to be the case. We'd all love a stronger group of modern day fighters.

 

Who were they compared to again? No one.

Put up the comparisons and begin the discussion fully 23 pages into the thread.

 

Well, if you are ever on the steve_dave/cdogg/REED side of an issue, it's constantly obvious that they could use your help.

 

The top fighters today, you meatball.

 

well name them, although you are doing broadway's work if you do.

We are looking for depth here...dig up the top 10 (or top 5 whatever) from each weight class in 1981 from a specific magazine, if possible. I'll do the same for today although I'll use boxrec's ratings. And we'll see what we get.

 

but we won't "see what we'll get" because in order to make the comparison at all, familiarity with BOTH groups would be necessary

I don't have ANY confidence in your knowledge of the subject

Was Saoul Mamby a good fighter? answer that, and we will see where you are at