Khaosai Galaxy

Alright mate, no worries.

Since I said at the highest level, can you tell me why you think someone like Canelo is better than someone like Ezzard Charles? Or Inoue better than Louis?

 

He never actually answered my question of what does Inoue do better than Gomez.

Lemme put things in perspective, a PAST PRIME Gomez beat Juan Laporte more clearly than Chavez did.

Is Chavez also an antiquated great?

 

I must still clarify that I don't think every single top fighter of today is better than anyone from the past. A generational level of a fighter from the 40s can still be better than a short-time champion of this moment.

I don't claim that Canelo is better than Ezzard Charles. But I do claim that Roy Jones was better than Ezzard Charles, and that Canelo would probably have beaten Jake LaMotta.

The things I think the modern guys do better (this is for Xplosive too, if he still listens) is that they punch harder and straighter than before.

How do I know this? I don't. I just assume so, because in every measurable sport the development is just that. Soccer players sprint faster and kick harder, tennis players hit much harder, hockey players are on different level altogether. Shit, Michael Jordan wouldn't reach the finals of a Slam dunking contest anymore. Boxing has also been studied in universities and same laws of medical science apply to it as well.

As for the question of "what modern fighters do better technically"? Well, that depends on what we mean by technique. If we define it as all-around traditional skills, the answer is nothing. If we define boxing technique as "approach that wins fights" (as I would), then it isn't as simple anymore.

If one guy can duck, slip, arm-block and shoulder-block and the other guy can merely arm-block, it doesn't mean the latter guy automatically loses. His technique can be just as effective, even if it is more simple.

I don't believe the theory that trainers and boxers have simply forgotten how to box. If it is easily visible to us viewers that older skills were better, you'd think that someone would train them. Usually the changes in sports happen for a reason. In this case, I assume that since concentrating on power punching is more effective strategy than it has been before (cos power has increased in general), fighters approach fights in that manner.

Now, Inoue has a simple technique, but it allows him to hit his target hard and defend himself adequately. If his punching power is exceptional and his chin is sturdy, he can defeat much more skilled guys with this approach. Is it enough to beat more all-around skillful Gomez, who also was a superb physical specimen? Probably not. Is it enough to make a good fight? Maybe

 

As for Xplosive, I'm sorry if I have caused trouble here. You have done a marvelous job as a mod and I do respect your knowledge.

I do admit I don't know nearly as much about boxing history as many, but in this instance I think our difference of opinion is more about the principles of sports, rather than knowledge and the lack of it. But if you believe that nobody who knows enough can come to the conclusions that I have, then I'll respect your take, even if I don't agree

 

This man would send Jones to the morgue.

 

1. You haven't caused trouble. This is a very, very good thing. Fightbeat had been dead for years. We haven't had back n forth back debates on General in forever.

2. The principles of the sports is another topic entirely, and I didn't even think it was relevant in this particular case.

This was simply a case of Wilfredo Gomez getting sold short against a guy who really hasn't done anything to warrant being compared to him.

 

He damn sure would.

Junior Jones was a bantamweight.

 

Normally boxing debates don't get me angry, and I tend to laugh off any insults or condescension thrown at me.

But my fucking god, the level of intense rage I felt after arguing the toss for about two weeks about who'd win, Tarver or Charles, will never be rivalled.

The fact that someone genuinely thought that Tarver would KO him in one, as well as be favoured over Moore and Spinks, and was the second best LHW in history after Jones, made me physically sick.

 

Bout 10 years ago on ESB the Calz fanboys argued that he could beat Michael Spinks.

That one got me pretty boiled.

 

LHW has always been my favourite division, so it's the one I have the strongest opinions on (and most knowledge). Seeing someone argue that Kovalev would beat Foster was quite painful.

Froch being favourite over Saad and Pops was tough to watch as well.

 

Froch is painfully overrated on ESB. Painfully.

It's always been the case.

 

Galaxy fought some good guys. The problem is that the guys around at the same time as him, or just after, fought better guys, including his own brother.