Boxing prior to 1960s SUCKED

First, they didn't all die in a plane crash on Jan 1, 1981, and aside from that the thread is about boxing in 1981, not on January 1, 1981.

But regardless of that as well, on January 1, 1981, the boxing landscape was filled with a ton of great matchups and fighters who showed a lot of promise.

As broadwayjoe mentioned, Spinks, Qawi, Chandler, Pintor, Sanchez, Pedroza, were not mentioned.. Hector Camacho made his debut that year .. Bazooka-Limon had just happened and both guys were active .. Ray Mancini fought Arguello that year .. JCC had just started fighting .. and on and on

In the Ring's current standings, of the 4 fighters that stand out as capable of hanging with the elite from that era - Donaire, Mayweather Jr, Marquez, and Pacquiao - 3 are close to retirement, with nobody on the horizon to replace them.

There really is no debate or discussion to be had here..

 

cdogg's Beavis bitch strikes again.

 

this

 

LUIS PRIMERA

:atu::atu::laughing::laughing:

 

He was undefeated, yo!

::

 

the numbers don't lie!!!

 

[1] You are the one who posted a p4p list from January of 1981, not me. I would have rather done this from a later date in 1981, but until you stepped up no one did anything.

[2] If we branch off into the landscape at the time, which may be relevant for comparison, then it should be established before we begin. Otherwise, the moron crew will keep shifting the debate. It happens everytime.

[3] I asked for rankings for each weight class from 1981, no one stepped up, and if you want to do that, then let's establish it ahead of time and one of you can post them.

[4] According to wiki, Camacho won 1979 and 1980 New York Golden Gloves. No way am I going to debate shit like that. He wasn't a world champ, he wasn't an olympic participant (well, would he have been if he could have been? Did they have a team?), I don't think he even did anything on the national scene. Giving 1981 credit for a fighter like Camacho would make any debate worthless and endless.

Afaik, Chavez was an unknown until he wasn't. Again, he has no place in the debate.

[5] This goes to the boxing 'scene'. I think it is bullshit to go here...it's a purely American view...Britain just had DeGale/Groves...a very big fight there and it probably filled more seats than Bazooka-Limon [?]. I assume you mean Chacon/Limon, anyway? (that's a guess on attendance, I could be way off).

[6] I want to see Donaire/Narvaez first. I sort of think Narvaez will win that fight and if I'm wrong, then I'll probably be in agreement with him being included.

[6a] I am not a fan of JMM, but I agree that most would agree with including him.

[6b] 'hanging with' should be defined. As their records show, most of the top 4p4 guys at the time already had losses and especially had fights where people 'could hang with' The way you are using the word is either foolish exaggeration or is wrong.

[6] I would include guys like Ward, Klitschko, Klitschko and others, but I'm not going to get into it right now until we explain what we are debating.

[7] This is an extremely naive and tiresome comment that we hear every single year and always proves to be false. If we are going to debate this, then I'll pass because it's a waste of time and it's not an 1981/2011 topic.

[8] Not if you are going to pull a cdogg bitch out.

1981 could very easily win the comparison. It's almost impossible to have a fair comparison in the first place (as has been pointed out many times) and we all know how the 1981 guys turned out. But until we establish what we are comparing, we're left with broadway joe nostalgic whining drivel.

 

Luis Primera::

 

I googled 1981 pound for pound list and that came up. It was just the list I happened to find, the topic is still 1981 and not January 1, 1981.

What the future portends based on the current roster of top fighters is definitely criteria for the quality of boxing, I would think that would be self-evident.

Camacho was a hot prospect who was expected to do great things, actually in 1981-1983 he was expected to be much greater than he turned out to be. There was definitely attention on him in his debut .. what fighters are there in 2011 starting out that are comparable to the noise Camacho made and more importantly, the talent he exhibited?

Of course he was unknown, the point is that in 6-7 years from 2011 it's unlikely an unknown fighter is going to pop out of nowhere and become a legend. That happens rarely to begin with, the last fighter I expect to see doing it for a good while is Manny Pacquiao.

Yeah I meant Chacon/Limon, Limon's nickname was Bazooka and I was somewhat distracted when I was typing that. As it turns out from checking boxrec, the fight I was referring to (the final one) actually took place in 1982.

But you make a comment that illustrates a profound lack of knowledge and depth wrt this subject matter.. the citing of Chacon-Limon IV has nothing to do with the boxing scene in America or attendance, and everything to do with what an amazing, awesome fight it was. Comparing DeGale/Groves to Chacon/Limon in any facet whatsoever is just ridiculous.

Chacon/Limon IV = WBC title fight between two established world class fighters, one of the greatest action fights of all time, and acknowledged as such by boxing fans worldwide

DeGale/Groves = two guys completely unknown outside of Britain, neither of whom appear to be especially good, engage in a boring match for the title of most underwhelming prospect of all time

Narvaez is no chump but Donaire is on another level, that will be established in their fight.

Who did they have losses to at the time of their inclusion on the list, and how recent were those losses?

In 30 years your 2041 equivalent is going to look back at Manny Pacquiao and say he sucked because he had 3 losses on his record to unknowns and struggled with JMM, who got embarrassed by Floyd Mayweather Jr. Erik Morales? Even worse, he lost to said Manny Pacquiao AND Marco Antonio Barrera, who of course got steamrolled by Manny "3 losses" Pacquiao as well.

Cotto's best wins will have been Ricardo Torres and Paulie Malignaggi, as they were undefeated fighters.

Qawi or Spinks might kill Ward. Holmes would school either Klitschko.

I would like to know who in 2011 you think is going to wind up being comparable to a Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran, or hell, who do you see starting out now being comparable to Mayweather Jr or Manny Pacquiao in a few years? Amir Khan?!

It has NOTHING to do with nostalgia. It has to do with the fact that as a rule, the top level fighters of that era were just plain fucking better, anyone with eyes can see that. Are there fighters today that are comparable? Yes. Are there as many of them, and are there a myriad of matchups to be made between them? No.

 

This is an incredibly bad "analysis" of these fighters. Your "analysis" is based on...

1. Your bias against and lack of knowledge of the fighters involved.
2. fighters' won-loss records with no understand of the fighters involved.
3. Heaping helpings of BoxRec.

All you have done here is cement your lack of knowledge of this time in boxing.

 

Yes...nothing that happened DURING 1981 is included in mikE's "analysis".

I think I would rather stick a very sharp pencil in my eye than read any of his "insight" into the early 80's boxing landscape.

mikE is nothing more than another attention-whore troll whose excessive posting, Boxrec rodeo riding and crappy attitude can't disguise his lack of actual knowledge about the fighters and fights involved.

 

My internets been down for the last 5 days. This thread is frankly too fucking stupid to justify reading through to find an appropriate place to wade in. Suffice to say, before reading any of it, I agree with cdogg & BWJ.

 

It's like Jaws and Kid Dynamite hooked up one night and had themselves a love child.

 

mikE makes Kid Dynamite look like Eddie Futch

 

I googled 1981 pound for pound list and that came up. It was just the list I happened to find, the topic is still 1981 and not January 1, 1981.

[Then blame yourself]


What the future portends based on the current roster of top fighters is definitely criteria for the quality of boxing, I would think that would be self-evident.

[It's an unfair standard, especially with the bias shown by the 1981 side so far. We don't know what the future holds for the current group of fighters. Speculation is nonsense.]



Camacho was a hot prospect who was expected to do great things, actually in 1981-1983 he was expected to be much greater than he turned out to be. There was definitely attention on him in his debut .. what fighters are there in 2011 starting out that are comparable to the noise Camacho made and more importantly, the talent he exhibited?

[this just demonstrates your ignorance of the current scene. I don't want to argue best prospects of 1981 vs 2011, that's even stupider than the thread has been so far. Again, the only 'fair' way to do this is to define the debate. If you are trying to say the '1981 scene vs the 2011 scene' includes NY prospects...that's just ridiculous. Any Olympian gold medalist trumps whatever Camacho brings to the table, except for the NY/USA bias]

Of course he was unknown, the point is that in 6-7 years from 2011 it's unlikely an unknown fighter is going to pop out of nowhere and become a legend. That happens rarely to begin with, the last fighter I expect to see doing it for a good while is Manny Pacquiao.

[It happens all the time. All the time. Any legend who didn't have a big amateur pedigree fits the bill.]

Yeah I meant Chacon/Limon, Limon's nickname was Bazooka and I was somewhat distracted when I was typing that. As it turns out from checking boxrec, the fight I was referring to (the final one) actually took place in 1982.

But you make a comment that illustrates a profound lack of knowledge and depth wrt this subject matter.. the citing of Chacon-Limon IV has nothing to do with the boxing scene in America or attendance, and everything to do with what an amazing, awesome fight it was. Comparing DeGale/Groves to Chacon/Limon in any facet whatsoever is just ridiculous.

[Oh shit. Now we are trying to say that an exciting 1982 fight is what makes 1981 better? How a fight turns out is far less comparable than how big it was going in. I guess the year Castillo and Diego fought must be the high point of the sport?]

Chacon/Limon IV = WBC title fight between two established world class fighters, one of the greatest action fights of all time, and acknowledged as such by boxing fans worldwide

[Great fight, but these guys aren't at the top of the p4p ratings for a reason.]

DeGale/Groves = two guys completely unknown outside of Britain, neither of whom appear to be especially good, engage in a boring match for the title of most underwhelming prospect of all time

[What was the attendance for the fight, that's the biggest indicator of how big a fight is, unless we have tv numbers or something. Of course, oh yeah, objective criteria need not apply to the debate.]



Narvaez is no chump but Donaire is on another level, that will be established in their fight.

[Hope not, but we'll see.]


Who did they have losses to at the time of their inclusion on the list, and how recent were those losses?

In 30 years your 2041 equivalent is going to look back at Manny Pacquiao and say he sucked because he had 3 losses on his record to unknowns and struggled with JMM, who got embarrassed by Floyd Mayweather Jr. Erik Morales? Even worse, he lost to said Manny Pacquiao AND Marco Antonio Barrera, who of course got steamrolled by Manny "3 losses" Pacquiao as well.

[No, because I didn't focus on the early losses. I didn't have to for most of the guys because they had more recent losses that indicated the earlier losses weren't exactly flukes.]

Cotto's best wins will have been Ricardo Torres and Paulie Malignaggi, as they were undefeated fighters.

[Beating undefeated fighters around 20-0 generally means more than beating a 20-4-3 fighter, especially if the 20-0 guy is world rated. If it doesn't, at least the burden should be on the guy trying to explain why 7 non-wins should be so discounted. Cotto has a lot of candidates for his best win and Ricardo Torres would be one of them.]


Qawi or Spinks might kill Ward. Holmes would school either Klitschko.

[No reason to believe that Ward couldn't compete just fine with either. We don't know how good Ward will be, but no one has found his number yet. We'll learn more after Froch. Either Klitschko beats Holmes more often than not. I don't think Holmes lands the right hand enough against either and if you can't waste Cooney, you are likely to have your hands full against a Klitschko.]


I would like to know who in 2011 you think is going to wind up being comparable to a Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Duran, or hell, who do you see starting out now being comparable to Mayweather Jr or Manny Pacquiao in a few years? Amir Khan?!

[Different debate, but I would say both Mayweather, Pacquiao and both Klitschko's already are. Other possibles include Ward, Dawson, Gamboa, Khan, Huck, Donaire, Rigondeaux, Roman Gonzalez and I'm sure there are many others who could possibly rise up that direction. Again, if you want to bet against the pack, it's a suckers bet. Every era has its greats and with the money and participation levels where they are, there is no reason to believe otherwise unless you just want to be part of the nostalgic sheep crowd.]


It has NOTHING to do with nostalgia. It has to do with the fact that as a rule, the top level fighters of that era were just plain fucking better, anyone with eyes can see that. Are there fighters today that are comparable? Yes. Are there as many of them, and are there a myriad of matchups to be made between them? No.

[If it had NOTHING to do with nostalgia this same stupid sentiment wouldn't show up every single year. Boxing has been dying for 15 straight years according to the internet whiners. Every single year. Amazing coincidence, don't you think? I don't mind you resorting to your eyes as the determinate because I agree that personal assessment is important, although the same sheep on your side have already dismissed using your eyes. They resort to the bullshit 'just plain better', ignore losses, and don't try to justify their position.]

 

I didn't go to work today, but I might bother replying to this if I'm bored at work again at some point and really can't find anything better to do.

 

This is where I think we will end up...

your side will not be able to prove 1981 was better, but you will still adamantly believe it was better because you just 'know' it was regardless of the objective information. You will have your eyes on your side which can watch more familiar styles winning fights back then they we have going on right now.

otoh, I do not buy the bullshit proclamation that 1981 is better because 1981 is better. However, I don't have the Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Pryor, and Arguello on my side. We all know how great those fighters turned out so the comparison is bullshit until 2011's fighters can be looked at in retrospect.

I'm not saying 1981 isn't better, but you will need more than just it's better because I say so and so far your side has come far short of that.

If we would narrow down the issues, I would suggest any of the following...

1. Depth of the weight classes...This is the topic I would prefer to debate. Somebody find a fucking Ring magazine from 1981 and post the ratings at each weight class, and preferably the records of the fighters. (blah blah wah wah I know that records aren't the end-all, be-all, but to dismiss records as meaningless just shows the fear) I suspect that 2011 will win this comparison if fairly analyzed. Why?

1. I think there are more participants worldwide right now than there was in 1981.
Boxrec shows
1970s: 98,043
1980s: 127,795
1990s: 138,204
2000s: 181,764
and I do not think that whatever records are missing are going to be near enough to get the 70s and 80s ahead of the 00's. There probably are records missing...see the great Thomas Americo mentioned below...(anyone have the tape that might say what his record actually was?)
and I don't think today's fighters fight as often as in the 70's so most of today's fighters will have fewer fights per fighter = even more participants
and we have Eastern Europeans fighting pro today.

2. There are more titles. This gives more guys credibility, at least in some sense.

3. Somewhere along the line promoters and fighters learned that you can't lose a fight and expect it not to matter. Today's fighters (and it's been this way for a while, but apparently not back in 1981) don't lose fights for bullshit reasons like they did in the 70's and early 80's. They know that they need to win to make money so they win.

4. There are more world title belts so there are more fighters who have to prove themselves regularly. Nobody gets to be a 50 fight fighter without a title shot. One of the main reasons sanctioning bodies are a NET good for the sport is that they have every incentive to have the best fighter at each weight class as their champion. They are competing with each other and therefore the best fighters get title shots. Sure, there are still gimme title shots for lesser fighters, as there has always been, but it's easier to move on with 4 titles than it was with 2.

If we just want to argue the boxing scene...I suspect
televised boxing...1981 wins for 'free' boxing (which is a bullshit stat), but 2011 will win for non-ppv championship boxing.

2011 has a HUGE advantage for fans with the internet. Not only for fan discussion, but for being able to see fights from all over the world.

1981 has a HUGE advantage for boxing being more mainstream in the US (and perhaps most of the world). I suspect that this is the part your side has a hard time ignoring when it comes to the other comparisons.

1981 has a HUGE advantage because time dissipates negatives and accentuates positives. In 2011, the sport is flooded with negativity from outside the sport, but also from within the sport like your side has demonstrated throughout these lame threads.

1981 has a big advantage because the US dominated the sport. Not one of the fighters listed on the 1981 list didn't have a US presence. Most of the people on your side are americans or wish they were (the canadian).

Finally, and this may be the tipping point, but 1981 has a HUGE advantage because Saoul Mamby finished the year 32-12-5 as the WBC JW champion with 5 successful defenses including a majority decision over 2-0 Thomas Americo and a split decision over the great 21-1 Obisia Nwankpa.

 

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XE8xqtIkXsk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

Admittedly, nothing here compares to the honed technical mastery of say, Jean Pascal vs Carl Froch, but I wouldn't say the fighters of the 40s & 50s 'sucked', either. :Thumbs:

 

Frankly, I don't even see the point of going back 30 years to 1981 to put perspective on today's crop.

10 years ago is already sufficient.

Early in 2001, the top ten pound-for-pound, if I remember correctly, looked something like this...

Roy Jones Jr.
Felix Trinidad
Oscar De La Hoya
Shane Mosley
Marco Antonio Barrera
Erik Morales
Lennox Lewis
Kostya Tszyu
Floyd Mayweather Jr.

 

mikE is the only person in the history of the world to attempt to make a case for Primera as a quality opponent.

Just more proof that his meaningless W-L loss record fighter grading method and boxrec surfing do notw hold a candle to actually seeing the fighters fight and/or actually knowing something about them and what was actually going on in the sport at the time in question.

And no amount of spamming the forum with meaningless stats, biased rambling, and impossibly weak attempts at sarcasm will change that.

 

How about you make your first substantive contribution to the topic?

Tell us all how Luis Primera was viewed at the time Hearns fought him. I'm interested. Was it a throw away fight for Hearns? Was he considered a no-hoper.

 

Yes, it was considered an easy defense against an inexperienced guy with a glossy record against tomato cans

It was considered that, and that was exactly what it was

 

First of all, you have not posted one bit of substance at all to support your ridiculous topic. Endless spamming the board with meaningless stats and your opinions based on bias and boxrec shows you know nothing at all about this topic.

And yes, Primera was not remotely highly regarded or expected to be much of a test at all for Hearns. And guess what...he wasn't. And each and every one of the fighters cdogg listed were better and more accomplished than Primera. But according to you ...since he was undefeated he MUST have been better than them.

Another difference between 1981 and now is I don't recall anyone back then being lame enough to rate fighters based strictly on their W-L records or to think an undefeated fighter HAD to be a quality opponent just based on being undefeated.

I've NEVER seen a poster make his determinations regarding fighters as simplistically and irresponsibly as you. What's next...will you be deciding which fighter is better than another by playing a boxing video game? Wait...come to think of it...that's probably a better way to do it than anything you have offered so far.

 

Imagine if I tried to justify quality wins of today's fighters by beating guys with records of 20-5 who lost a previous title shot along with losing to fighters with records like 14-6...

You twits are so biased it's fucking ridiculous. I don't give a fuck if Primera is a good win or not...No one else on Hearns' record would qualify, either. Bruce Curry?? Come the fuck on. Please make that case.

"1981 is better because 1981 is better! Bahhh bahhhh bahhh"

Instead of criticizing my assessment, make your own. Why don't you do today's scene you are such experts at? Stupid fucking sheep.

 

Are you retarded?

 

No, but apparently you are. Somehow, some way there is always one poster like you...who knows nothing about boxing before a short time ago, but tries to act like they know it all even though their lack of knowledge is glaring (and sorry...endless posting of W-L records and "insight" almost entirely formulated from spending far too much time on BoxRec doesn't cut it). And somehow...those posters end up being among the most arrogant and long winded.

Sorry...didn't mean to interrupt your forum spamming. As you were...

 

Bruce Curry was a good fighter, ask Wilfred Benitez

Instead of just looking at stats, look at fighters

You suck at life

 

NO!! NO!! YOU CAN'T USE THAT FUCKING WORD!!!