Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Archie Moore vs. Roy Jones Jr.
FightHype Community > BOXING HYPE > Classic Boxing
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
torvix2000
I have a copy of Dempsey-Willard. So funny. How can a guy like that looked like he still has some baby fats. Hell, even the giant boxers today are well built. Even the Klitz know how to use the jab.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(Lil-lightsout @ Feb 3 2009, 06:49 AM) [snapback]423542[/snapback]
BTW, thanks for finally posting a picture of yourself Steven. laugh.gif No wonder you always make these crazy comments.


What can I say I share a affinity with Tarver & the Mayweathers.

QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Feb 3 2009, 07:12 AM) [snapback]423544[/snapback]
Jesse Willar is one of the worst Heavyweight Champions ever.


Not as bad as Roy so that is something.
Fitz
QUOTE(damarvelous1 @ Feb 3 2009, 11:07 PM) [snapback]423558[/snapback]
Well Said!

I guess Im a kid becuase I pick Roy over Moore. I pick Wladmir over Marciano so that makes me an even BIGGER Kid! LMAO, you guys kill me.

Alot of fighters today would dominate older fighters. (Doesn't make them greater) Just like the other day when we had a Willie Pep Vs Mayweather thread... People actually said that Mayweather would look stupid in the ring with Pep!!!! LOL
Golota would have beaten Jack Johnson! That might be another "CHILDISH" remark.


Thanks. I think there are some great old fighters that could hang with guys of today, but people nuthug old fighters too much. They think if you take a guy out of the 40's and place them how they are against a guy of today and pick the modern fighter to win, it must mean you rate the new guy higher. I just think they are different, I think in general man has improved, people have too much sentimental value with old guys, and they kind of feel guilty if they suggest someone not so great today could beat someone great from years ago.
Spyder
You guys act like man just started to walk upright. lol
BigG
Older fighters that would dominate todays time: Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis and Archie Moore. But seriously, the Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Sam Langford era, boxing has really evolved since then.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(biggeorge89 @ Feb 3 2009, 11:11 PM) [snapback]423588[/snapback]
Older fighters that would dominate todays time: Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis and Archie Moore. But seriously, the Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Sam Langford era, boxing has really evolved since then.


Yeah Dempsey, Langford & Johnson knew how to fight unlike a lot of today's so called fighters.
Fitz
QUOTE(Spyder @ Feb 4 2009, 09:56 AM) [snapback]423584[/snapback]
You guys act like man just started to walk upright. lol


No, but they are better now than then in general.
Spyder
QUOTE(Fitz @ Feb 3 2009, 06:45 PM) [snapback]423600[/snapback]
No, but they are better now than then in general.

Since the modern age...and I like most consider the modern age started with the boxer-puncher...boxing really hasn't changed.

Ray Robinson and Joe Louis would be just as good now as they were then.
Fitz
QUOTE(Spyder @ Feb 4 2009, 11:30 AM) [snapback]423604[/snapback]
Since the modern age...and I like most consider the modern age started with the boxer-puncher...boxing really hasn't changed.

Ray Robinson and Joe Louis would be just as good now as they were then.


QUOTE(Fitz @ Feb 4 2009, 09:38 AM) [snapback]423582[/snapback]
I think there are some great old fighters that could hang with guys of today


...
Spyder
You're saying that Joe Louis and Ray Robinson could hang?!?

How generous of you... laugh.gif
STEVENSKI
There are a lot of fighters that could hang today. Weight divisions have not changed & a lot of fighters that say fought at 160 would be 140-147 today with day before weigh ins etc.

The only point I make is that fighting is about experience & everyone rides Nard for being crafty & sly in the ring. That behaviour was dime a dozen when every men & their dog fought & fought weekly.
Fitz
QUOTE(Spyder @ Feb 4 2009, 11:39 AM) [snapback]423608[/snapback]
You're saying that Joe Louis and Ray Robinson could hang?!?

How generous of you... laugh.gif


You see the time thing up the top?

I posted at 9:38am
You posted at 11:30am.

I said old fighters could hang with fighters today or vice versa (fighters today can hang with old fighters if you are anal about how I phrase it). But yeah, if you look carefully, you will see that I wrote that before you.
Spyder
Fitz...you also said this:

QUOTE
I just think they are different, I think in general man has improved, people have too much sentimental value with old guys, and they kind of feel guilty if they suggest someone not so great today could beat someone great from years ago.
I'm telling you that they are not different. Man today is the same as he was in the 40's. If Ray Robinson got in the DeLorean with Marty and Doc, and was able to fight today...he would still be the best.

QUOTE
The only point I make is that fighting is about experience & everyone rides Nard for being crafty & sly in the ring. That behaviour was dime a dozen when every men & their dog fought & fought weekly.


I completely agree.
Fitz
QUOTE(Spyder @ Feb 4 2009, 12:02 PM) [snapback]423615[/snapback]
I'm telling you that they are not different. Man today is the same as he was in the 40's. If Ray Robinson got in the DeLorean with Marty and Doc, and was able to fight today...he would still be the best.


Didn't you understand what I said? Why are you bringing up Robinson? I know he can beat many fighters today and it's why I said:
"There are past greats............"

Meaning I am not applying this logic for people like Ali, Robinson, Louis and all those type of fighters, but I'm talking in general. Fighters today are more advanced than man.
How can you say that man today is the same as the 40's?

It's funny that in sports where you can actually judge and there is evidence in improvement in man, we are seeing:
  • Men are running faster
  • People are jumping higher
  • Swimming faster
  • Lifting heavier
  • Throwing further

We know this as records are broken and we have evidence.

But sports where their are no numbers or times to go by, we see that old timers are better than now, such as boxers, football teams, basketball teams. We see improvement in man through all of these things as records are being broken, but yeah, this logic doesn't apply for boxing and other sports.
What a coincidence that man only gets better in sports you have numbers to go by.
Fitz
Haha.

Brad
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 3 2009, 04:07 PM) [snapback]423543[/snapback]
Vic put a guy in a coma from a insane amount of hard punches..Jess Willard killed a guy with ONE uppercut..Max Baer killed a dude with ONE right hand..Willard outweighed Dempsey by 70 lbs..Willard had 6 teeth knocked out,his cheekbone destroyed,a bunch of broken ribs,and his jaw broken in quite a few places..7 knock downs in 1 round showed how tough Willard was cause his body was fucked up and you say Tyson would of stopped him faster??I disagree..Tyson even said he wanted to kill people by knocking their nose bone into their brain but he never did..Tyson never did damage like Dempsey did with his left hook..Willard probably thought he was very close to death that night..

Roy would of never fought a guy like Willard..6'6,250 with deadly power..Roy would of been too scared to even get in the ring with Willard..

Also,Lil-lightsout,Roy's chin would always be a factor at any weight if he was in there with Archie..

hang on a minute, we are talking about William "Bull" Young aren't we, the guy who died ONE day AFTER his bout with Jess Willard where he was knocked out by an uppercut in the ELEVENTH round? Shit, if the fight went 11 rounds and Willard only landed ONE punch then I guess watching a Klitschko fight really isn't that bad afterall.
And the dude Max Baer killed, do you mean Frankie Campbell? The same Frankie Campbell who knocked Baer to the ground and when he went to the neutral corner the referree never started to count Baer and Baer ran over and king hit Campbell when he wasn't looking? But that wasn't ONE punch that killed him, Baer pinned him against the ropes in round 5 and absolutely unloaded on him, and he didn't die until the next day.
Willard actually outweighed Dempsey by 58 pounds, and it doesn't mean much, Nicolay Valuev outweighd Holyfield by 96 pounds!!!
I don't know if Tyson would have stopped Willard faster than what Dempsey did, but I do know that i've never seen an opponent survive so many knockdowns from Mike Tyson regardless of how tough they are. Tyson wanted to drive Jesse Fergusons nose-bone into his brain, Ferguson was a tough guy who went on to win the world title years after his fight with Tyson, but he wouldn't stop holding Tyson and was DQ'd. I think his grabbing had a lot to do with Tyson breaking his nose the round before, maybe he thought Tyson was actually trying to kill him. Mike has always said crazy things, he said before his fight with Spinks that he wanted to break his will, take his manhood, rip out his heart and show it to him. He said to Lennox Lewis that he wanted to eat his children, but something tells me he wasn't going to try that...
As I said before, Jesus Chavez has killed a man in the ring, don't think too much into it. 8 weight divisions in the old days, 17 weight divisions these days, fights that went for longer than 15 rounds in the old days to fights that go for no more than 12 rounds today, the addition of a 4th ring rope after Davey Moore died from a freak injury in 1964, extra padding on the ring ropes, loosening of the bottom ring rope, requirement of having a doctor and an ambulance at every fight. There have been a lot of small things done to make boxing safer and so less fighters die now than they did before. Anyway, the changes were needed because todays fighter is a whole lot tougher than yesterdays fighter aggressive.gif laugh.gif
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE(Fitz @ Feb 3 2009, 08:39 PM) [snapback]423623[/snapback]
Haha.




laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Fucking hilarious!!! That short clip there speaks volumes just watching. I will leave it at that, because I do not want to get into a debate how much today's fighters(the majority) have evolved compared to that skit I just saw.
Brad
QUOTE(Fitz @ Feb 4 2009, 10:33 AM) [snapback]423621[/snapback]
Didn't you understand what I said? Why are you bringing up Robinson? I know he can beat many fighters today and it's why I said:
"There are past greats............"

Meaning I am not applying this logic for people like Ali, Robinson, Louis and all those type of fighters, but I'm talking in general. Fighters today are more advanced than man.
How can you say that man today is the same as the 40's?

It's funny that in sports where you can actually judge and there is evidence in improvement in man, we are seeing:
  • Men are running faster
  • People are jumping higher
  • Swimming faster
  • Lifting heavier
  • Throwing further
We know this as records are broken and we have evidence.

But sports where their are no numbers or times to go by, we see that old timers are better than now, such as boxers, football teams, basketball teams. We see improvement in man through all of these things as records are being broken, but yeah, this logic doesn't apply for boxing and other sports.
What a coincidence that man only gets better in sports you have numbers to go by.

Ali had won some important fights, but with disputed wins against mediocre fighters, and what should have been 3 losses to Ken Norton and 2 losses from 3 fights with Joe Frazier, mentioning him with people who made a name for their fighting skill and not their talking skill is wrong IMO. Ali told people he was the greatest and they believed it, I think its so funny when you ask a non-boxing person who was the greatest heavyweight ever and they say Ali, unless their Italian then they might say Marciano LOL.
Fitz
QUOTE(Lil-lightsout @ Feb 4 2009, 01:17 PM) [snapback]423630[/snapback]
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Fucking hilarious!!! That short clip there speaks volumes just watching. I will leave it at that, because I do not want to get into a debate how much today's fighters(the majority) have evolved compared to that skit I just saw.


Like I said, there are many great fighters back in the day who would be successful now. I just don't understand that in general that you can take a group from back in the day and place them in today just as they were and think they will win.
I just don't like the idea that people write off fighters that perhaps aren't great today as not having a shot back then. Like I said, doesn't make todays guys greater, it's just that things have changed and like everything people have improved.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Feb 3 2009, 07:29 PM) [snapback]423593[/snapback]
Yeah Dempsey, Langford & Johnson knew how to fight unlike a lot of today's so called fighters.

I'm with you on Dempsey and Langford..Johnson was great for his time but not he wouldn't if he was around later in time..Dempsey quite possibly had the hardest left hook in history of boxing..He broke a dude's cheekbone in 13 different places from one left hook than knocked out 6 teeth with one more left hook..2 punches=cheekbone broken in 13 places and 6 teeth knocked out..Tyson couldn't do that shit..Kearns was betting with Willard's trainers that Dempsey would KO Willard in round one..10 to 1 odds for Kearns..If Willard was put away in the first,Kearns would have won 100,000 dollars..They told the ref. not to stop the fight no matter what in the first round..Willard was thrown to the lion with no one willing to stop one of the biggest beatings ever in one round..

Brad,Dempsey and Willard are on record as being 58 lbs in difference but that wasn't the real case..They made the size difference smaller to make it seem more legit..They bullshited a lot of stats and things like that to make things seem better..Do you also believe that Dempsey had 14 inch forearms while having 14 inch biceps too??hahahaha..That was a stat. but obviously is not true..Brad,who do you think the best heavyweight ever is??If Ali isn't,than you probably have to say Joe Louis..Ali fought all the best guys at the best time in heavyweight boxing history..That era was the best era ever..2 outta 3 losses to Frazier??What crack are you smoking??Ali whooped Frazier in the second fight with ease and stopped Frazier in the third fight..Ken Norton was no joke either..Joe Frazier talked about how glad he was that he never had to fight Norton..They used to spar together though but Frazier said a fight would of been a war for sure..
Spyder
laugh.gif

Lifting weights doesn't make you a better boxer...



Here answer me this...

Does running faster make you a better fighter?
Can the ability to jump higher win you a fight?
Swimming faster?
Lifting heavier?
Throwing further?

What does any of that have to do with fighting?

The ability to fight has not changed since the modern-era began...a jab is still a jab, a hook is still a hook...fighters still only enter the ring with only two hands. The idea that just because something is newer it is better...that's pretty naive.


JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(Spyder @ Feb 3 2009, 08:30 PM) [snapback]423604[/snapback]
Since the modern age...and I like most consider the modern age started with the boxer-puncher...boxing really hasn't changed.

Ray Robinson and Joe Louis would be just as good now as they were then.

Ray and Joe would make guys today look like chumps..Some of you guys think bigger muscles from weight lifting and all that means stronger,you guys are mistaken..Weight lifting muscles are the worst kinda muscles for boxing..I used to use weights and now that I don't,I hit 10 times harder..Use a sledge hammer for 2-6 minutes and you'll find true power..

Guys are being trained by guys who don't know boxing these days..Joe Calzaghe has beaten everyone he has fought..Does that say enough for you guys??Foster,Ezzard,and Archie would all probably kill Joe if he didn't submit on their stuff..

Dempsey was destroying guys who were anywhere from 70-130 lbs more than him..Anyone of you hear of "Big" Ben(I think his fully name was "Big" Ben Ray,not sure though)??He was one of Demspey's sparring partners who was 7'2,300+ lbs and Dempsey broke his jaw with one left hook in 16 oz. gloves..Guys back then hit so hard because they knew how to punch..Their skills allowed some of them to have 200+ fights and live to over 80 years old..
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(Spyder @ Feb 4 2009, 12:21 AM) [snapback]423637[/snapback]
laugh.gif

Lifting weights doesn't make you a better boxer...

Here answer me this...

Does running faster make you a better fighter?
Can the ability to jump higher win you a fight?
Swimming faster?
Lifting heavier?
Throwing further?

What does any of that have to do with fighting?

The ability to fight has not changed since the modern-era began...a jab is still a jab, a hook is still a hook...fighters still only enter the ring with only two hands. The idea that just because something is newer it is better...that's pretty naive.


It's crazy how me and you both brought up lifting weights right away..hahahaha..We were typing that shit at the same time too..
JonnyBlaze
You all should compare Larry Holmes and Dempsey's shoulder muscles to guys like Lacy and Tyson..The difference between weights and no weights..Guys with weights have shorter shoulder muscles and guys who don't have long ass shoulder muscles which actually give you more reach than you naturally would..
Fitz
QUOTE(Spyder @ Feb 4 2009, 03:21 PM) [snapback]423637[/snapback]
laugh.gif

Lifting weights doesn't make you a better boxer...

Here answer me this...

Does running faster make you a better fighter?
Can the ability to jump higher win you a fight?
Swimming faster?
Lifting heavier?
Throwing further?

What does any of that have to do with fighting?

The ability to fight has not changed since the modern-era began...a jab is still a jab, a hook is still a hook...fighters still only enter the ring with only two hands. The idea that just because something is newer it is better...that's pretty naive.


Actually, it shows that man improve over time. You say a jab is still a jab, a hook is still a hook.

So how do men run differently from back then to now. How do they jump differently? How do they lift differently? They seem to have the same technique back then, just like boxing.
My point wasn't that boxers need to swim or anything, it was more to show that athletes seem to advance in every sport where they judge by numbers and records, but why isn't this the case with boxing? But of course you took my post at face value and thought that I meant that boxers need to swim, lol.

QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 4 2009, 03:31 PM) [snapback]423638[/snapback]
Some of you guys think bigger muscles from weight lifting and all that means stronger,you guys are mistaken. old..


I really hope you aren't referring to me. Also which guys are you referring to? I haven't seen one person that has said bigger muscles means you are stronger. Point me in the direction in what post you are referring to.
King Eugene
I haven't been on here in a long long long time and when I sign in the first thing I see is this. Roy would whoop Archie's ass in a damn near lopsided decision if not by stoppage. With Roys speed in reflexes in his prime I highly doubt Archie would have caught Roy and if he did it wouldn't have been clean enough to stop Roy.

ROY JONES JR.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 4 2009, 04:31 AM) [snapback]423638[/snapback]
Guys back then hit so hard because they knew how to punch..Their skills allowed some of them to have 200+ fights and live to over 80 years old..


Exactly. Guys knew how to fight & dig deep when things got tough in the 6th or 7th round.
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(3King3 @ Feb 4 2009, 05:08 AM) [snapback]423648[/snapback]
I haven't been on here in a long long long time and when I sign in the first thing I see is this. Roy would whoop Archie's ass in a damn near lopsided decision if not by stoppage. With Roys speed in reflexes in his prime I highly doubt Archie would have caught Roy and if he did it wouldn't have been clean enough to stop Roy.

ROY JONES JR.


Stop with the damm tweaking & deal with reality. Skill & experience beats athleticism hands down IMO.
King Eugene
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Feb 4 2009, 12:12 AM) [snapback]423652[/snapback]
Stop with the damm tweaking & deal with reality. Skill & experience beats athleticism hands down IMO.

Like George said earlier...it'll look just like Jones-Toney or hell Jones-Hopkins!
Fitz
Older guys were definitely tougher and had more heart in general though.
Fitz
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 4 2009, 03:31 PM) [snapback]423638[/snapback]
Their skills allowed some of them to have 200+ fights


Mainly because they were poor and desperate.
King Eugene
QUOTE(Fitz @ Feb 4 2009, 12:17 AM) [snapback]423656[/snapback]
Mainly because they were poor and desperate.

Agreed!
STEVENSKI
QUOTE(3King3 @ Feb 4 2009, 05:14 AM) [snapback]423654[/snapback]
Like George said earlier...it'll look just like Jones-Toney or hell Jones-Hopkins!


Stop please just stop with this.
Fitz
I don't like the idea of people saying that the fighters fought 200+ fights because they wanted to. It was because of poverty and they COULDN'T afford to fight a couple of times a year then. They would have to fight that much to feed their family, it was there job. So I never like the idea that they fought 200+ because it was for their legeacy and because they were tough. That is not true at all. They were tough and it did add to their legacy, but it wasn't why they did it.
Brad
Brad,Dempsey and Willard are on record as being 58 lbs in difference but that wasn't the real case..They made the size difference smaller to make it seem more legit..They bullshited a lot of stats and things like that to make things seem better..Do you also believe that Dempsey had 14 inch forearms while having 14 inch biceps too??hahahaha..That was a stat. but obviously is not true..Brad,who do you think the best heavyweight ever is??If Ali isn't,than you probably have to say Joe Louis..Ali fought all the best guys at the best time in heavyweight boxing history..That era was the best era ever..2 outta 3 losses to Frazier??What crack are you smoking??Ali whooped Frazier in the second fight with ease and stopped Frazier in the third fight..Ken Norton was no joke either..Joe Frazier talked about how glad he was that he never had to fight Norton..They used to spar together though but Frazier said a fight would of been a war for sure..
[/quote]
funny thing about them old days isn't it, they bullshitted about a lot of things to make things seem better, it seems to have worked.

Joe Louis is hands down the best heavyweight, and Ali doesn't even rate in the top 5. I'd rate George Foreman over Ali, he only lost to him once through poor strategy that could have been corrected if they had a rematch. Big George also had much greater longevity, returning and winning the title at his old ass age. As said by Joe Frazier "THEE Greatest, he called himself. Well, he wasn't The Greatest, and he certainly wasn't THEE Greatest. . . . It became my mission to show him the error of his foolish pride. Beat it into him."
You must have one of them Ali highlight dvd's where they only show Ali's flashes of dominance but fail to show the opponent actually winning more rounds. I'm not on my own in thinking Frazier won the second fight, many of the fans and sports writers present at the fight thought the same thing, and the third fight came down to the heart of Eddie Futch compared to Angelo Dundee. In the third fight Ali wanted to quit and his trainer made him get up and fight, Fraziers trainer called it quits before the final round of an extremely close fight. Joe Frazier fought all three fights with cataracts in his left eye that had been getting worse as the years went by. Not too mention that Joe's last two fights against Ali were after Joe's first fight against George Foreman where he just wasn't the same after. We won't use Joe's diminishing health as excuse for getting beat up though. Sam Langford ranks higher than Ali. Mike Tyson ranks higher than Ali. Evander Holyfield ranks higher than Ali. Shit, i'd even say prime Ali loses to prime Larry Holmes, battle of the boring jabbers. He was not as special as he wanted you to believe. I'm not saying Ken Norton is a joke, Leon Spinks didn't want to fight him either, I don't blame Spinks really. Spinks only had 7 fights and he wouldn't have been ready for Norton. But after 7 fights he was more than ready to take on "Thee Greatest", and he beat him. If Ali is the greatest then guys like Frazier and Norton must be gods.
STEVENSKI
Woah Brad. I despise Ali as evidenced in another long running thread with me calling him a disgrace etc etc.

The fact is that Ali is one of the greatest heavyweight fighters ever.

For the record I rate Louis at #1 & had Frazier edging the 2nd fight with Ali.
Brad
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 4 2009, 01:35 PM) [snapback]423640[/snapback]
You all should compare Larry Holmes and Dempsey's shoulder muscles to guys like Lacy and Tyson..The difference between weights and no weights..Guys with weights have shorter shoulder muscles and guys who don't have long ass shoulder muscles which actually give you more reach than you naturally would..


a lot of boxers use weight training to build strength without compromising speed, rather than doing isolation weight training they do compound weight training which mimics real life body movements and function. Doing a body weight exercise or swinging a sledge hammer is still weight training IMO. A sledgehammer is just a stick with a weight on it. Guys like Tyson and Lacy are naturally built the way they are. With the right stretching before and after weight training you can pretty much eliminate and chance of shortening your muscles, but you'll never change your genetics. Weight lifting has been researched extensively and implemented in the more modern training techniques for its effectiveness, probably why todays athletes is so much more powerful cool.gif

If lifting weights reduces your reach can you imagine if the sports most well known weight lifter, Sugar Shane Mosley, didn't lift weights for most of his life? His reach was already longer than the taller Antonio Margarito and Shane has lifted weights since he was in high school.
King Eugene
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Feb 4 2009, 12:25 AM) [snapback]423659[/snapback]
Stop please just stop with this.

Check that...it would look like Hearns vs. Duran!
Fitz
QUOTE(Brad @ Feb 4 2009, 04:54 PM) [snapback]423670[/snapback]
a lot of boxers use weight training to build strength without compromising speed, rather than doing isolation weight training they do compound weight training which mimics real life body movements and function. Doing a body weight exercise or swinging a sledge hammer is still weight training IMO. A sledgehammer is just a stick with a weight on it. Guys like Tyson and Lacy are naturally built the way they are. With the right stretching before and after weight training you can pretty much eliminate and chance of shortening your muscles, but you'll never change your genetics. Weight lifting has been researched extensively and implemented in the more modern training techniques for its effectiveness, probably why todays athletes is so much more powerful cool.gif

If lifting weights reduces your reach can you imagine if the sports most well known weight lifter, Sugar Shane Mosley, didn't lift weights for most of his life? His reach was already longer than the taller Antonio Margarito and Shane has lifted weights since he was in high school.


Wow some common sense. I really like what you said about compound training, people seem to think weight training are the stupid exercises like bench press, bicep curls and kick backs, lol.
It's about weight training smart like you said. Compound training. Weight training is essential for boxing IMO, but somehow when people think weights, they automatically think about body building. Body building is a whole lot different to strength training, but people don't understand that at all.
I think Johnny needs to be educated a little bit regarding weight training.
This new Brad guy seems to know what he is talking about, I like this guy.
Brad
QUOTE(STEVENSKI @ Feb 4 2009, 02:42 PM) [snapback]423665[/snapback]
Woah Brad. I despise Ali as evidenced in another long running thread with me calling him a disgrace etc etc.

The fact is that Ali is one of the greatest heavyweight fighters ever.

For the record I rate Louis at #1 & had Frazier edging the 2nd fight with Ali.


No doubt that Ali is one of the greatest heavyweights but he certainly isn't the greatest, I would probably have him scraping into my top 10 heavy's. Its just a shame that the general public think he is the greatest and yet they don't even know who Joe Louis is!

The Ollie Reed Fan Club
QUOTE(Brad @ Feb 4 2009, 01:03 AM) [snapback]423679[/snapback]
No doubt that Ali is one of the greatest heavyweights but he certainly isn't the greatest, I would probably have him scraping into my top 10 heavy's. Its just a shame that the general public think he is the greatest and yet they don't even know who Joe Louis is!


That some ballsy posting Brad.

I personally have Ali at number three, but saying that he barely scrapes in to your top ten takes some moxy. But hey you back it up with solid arguments and as it's all subjective, I guess we'll never know. I would agree though I think he's overrated.

I often muse how Ali's career would've been viewed if Dundee hadn't slit his glove after he'd been knocked senseless by that B level journeyman Henry Cooper.

I haven't seen much of Archie Moore but I'd say it's enough to know he'd lay a world of hurt on Roid. I don't know if it's been bought up but if they'd fought would it have been over 12 rounds or 15?
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(Fitz @ Feb 4 2009, 01:05 AM) [snapback]423647[/snapback]
I really hope you aren't referring to me. Also which guys are you referring to? I haven't seen one person that has said bigger muscles means you are stronger. Point me in the direction in what post you are referring to.

No,not you Fitz..It was more of a general statement..If I asked 20 friends if they thought bigger muscles meant you were stronger or could hit harder,I bet most would say yes..People on here have said similar type stuff but I don't recall who..

You can be just as big or bigger than weight lifters without using weights..It's a different looking muscle though..
BigG
Ali is the greatest. Just take a look at the opposition he beat.

George Foreman, Joe Frazier, Floyd Patterson, Ken Norton, Jerry Quarry, Sonny Liston, Doug Jones, Ernie Terrell and so on..
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(Fitz @ Feb 4 2009, 01:17 AM) [snapback]423656[/snapback]
Mainly because they were poor and desperate.

This thread is about Archie and Roy..Archie loved boxing more than anything..Did ya ever read my quote from him before that was about his love for boxing??He got divorced from his first wife and after that he said he knew it was coming and that boxing will always be number 1 to him and that boxing is his woman and he needed no other..hahaha..

I think there were a lot of poor and desperate fighters but those were the guys who were second in line..Archie was first in line and fucked you up if you were only in the ring because you were poor and desperate..
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(3King3 @ Feb 4 2009, 01:57 AM) [snapback]423672[/snapback]
Check that...it would look like Hearns vs. Duran!

HAHAHAHAHA..Now I know you're fuckin around..Archie took Marciano's best punches and still was standing..If he wasn't as old as he was,he might of won the fight or atleast gone the distance..

Brad,all this weight lifting talk is stupid..Look at shoulder muscles in Larry Holmes or Dempsey and compare them to Tyson or Lacy..The shoulder is tight and compact(like Mosley)..Dempsey's shoulder muscles are going into his bicep muscle just about..

Fitz,if you and Brad could talk to my trainer,he'd shed some serious light on ya guys..I'll talk his word(which is also Tony Zale's word and his other trainer was trained by Doc Kearns)..The top heavyweights of all time never used weights and neither did Ray Robinson,Archie,Pep,Saddler,and Hearns..If it works for the best ever(Ray Robinson),why try to fix it??Brad,you say Louis is the best heavyweight ever but he never used weights either..

BigG knows what he's talking about when it comes to Ali..How the hell can someone rate Foreman over Ali??Ali was in the best era of heavyweight boxing..If ya can pick someone over Ali,I think Louis is the only guy..Watch Joe Louis and watch Ray Robinson and tell me if ya see a big different in style(not speed or power)..There isn't much difference at all..

Ollie,if Archie and Roy fought I'd prefer it to be 15 but I think the length of the match wouldn't matter..
King Eugene
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 4 2009, 02:45 AM) [snapback]423696[/snapback]
Ollie,if Archie and Roy fought I'd prefer it to be 15 but I think the length of the match wouldn't matter..

Nope not at all cause a prime Roy would give him a world class beating for 15 rounds straight. Yea he could take a punch but so could Margarito. You can eat those punches all day but eventually you'll get full. And we all know Roy dont mind going the distance dishing out punishment.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(3King3 @ Feb 4 2009, 04:04 AM) [snapback]423698[/snapback]
Nope not at all cause a prime Roy would give him a world class beating for 15 rounds straight. Yea he could take a punch but so could Margarito. You can eat those punches all day but eventually you'll get full. And we all know Roy dont mind going the distance dishing out punishment.

I knew it would come to this 3King3..Archie can take a big shot but it's a rare thing to have happen..His defense is in my opinion one of the best ever..He brought the cross arm defense to boxing..Roy has a lot more speed than Marciano but Archie made Marciano look stupid a couple times when he was tired and sat on the ropes..He was over weight in my opinion for the Marciano fight and he was old so if that's the only fight you've seen of him,that is only a sample of what Archie was really about..Have you seen either of the Durelle fights??It is hard to see good footage of Archie but if you're patient,it'll happen..I've only seen the first Durelle fight once and it was by far one of the best fights I've ever seen..This was Archie at his best..I've looked all over for the fight and I think I've found it so I can study it more..I highly recommed to see that fight or buy it if you can find it,then come and put your opinion about Roy/Archie..I know your opinion could never change but atleast check it out..There are clips on youtube,but ya gotta see the whole thing..
King Eugene
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 4 2009, 03:17 AM) [snapback]423700[/snapback]
I knew it would come to this 3King3..Archie can take a big shot but it's a rare thing to have happen..His defense is in my opinion one of the best ever..He brought the cross arm defense to boxing..Roy has a lot more speed than Marciano but Archie made Marciano look stupid a couple times when he was tired and sat on the ropes..He was over weight in my opinion for the Marciano fight and he was old so if that's the only fight you've seen of him,that is only a sample of what Archie was really about..Have you seen either of the Durelle fights??It is hard to see good footage of Archie but if you're patient,it'll happen..I've only seen the first Durelle fight once and it was by far one of the best fights I've ever seen..This was Archie at his best..I've looked all over for the fight and I think I've found it so I can study it more..I highly recommed to see that fight or buy it if you can find it,then come and put your opinion about Roy/Archie..I know your opinion could never change but atleast check it out..There are clips on youtube,but ya gotta see the whole thing..

I've seen clips of Archie but still not enough to convince me he would have beat Roy. I'll try to find the Durelle fights though.
JonnyBlaze
QUOTE(3King3 @ Feb 4 2009, 04:04 AM) [snapback]423698[/snapback]
Nope not at all cause a prime Roy would give him a world class beating for 15 rounds straight. Yea he could take a punch but so could Margarito. You can eat those punches all day but eventually you'll get full. And we all know Roy dont mind going the distance dishing out punishment.

I knew it would come to this 3King3..Archie can take a big shot but it's a rare thing to have happen..His defense is in my opinion one of the best ever..He brought the cross arm defense to boxing..Roy has a lot more speed than Marciano but Archie made Marciano look stupid a couple times when he was tired and sat on the ropes..He was over weight in my opinion for the Marciano fight and he was old so if that's the only fight you've seen of him,that is only a sample of what Archie was really about..Have you seen either of the Durelle fights??I know your opinion could never change but atleast check it out..Durelle/Archie 1 is exactly like Corrales/Castillo..Archie may of been put down a couple of times but he had the heart to get up and win the fight..Here are some Archie clips..Archie's slipping ability is crazy!!Toney may of gotten his style from Archie,but he is no Archie..Archie would be one of the only guys to be able to put down Toney on a legit shot,not a balance shot like Roy..I think you guys will see a lot of things that Mayweather and Toney like to do in these,especially in the Pompey fight..





Fitz
QUOTE(JonnyBlaze @ Feb 4 2009, 06:45 PM) [snapback]423696[/snapback]
Fitz,if you and Brad could talk to my trainer,he'd shed some serious light on ya guys..I'll talk his word(which is also Tony Zale's word and his other trainer was trained by Doc Kearns)..The top heavyweights of all time never used weights and neither did Ray Robinson,Archie,Pep,Saddler,and Hearns..If it works for the best ever(Ray Robinson),why try to fix it??Brad,you say Louis is the best heavyweight ever but he never used weights either..


No he wouldn't. I have heard it before, and I know that old trainers look at it the same way you do. They are old school and do things how it used to be done. Not that they do it wrong, but it's stupid because they think another technique is wrong, when it is achieving the same results, but they are too naive to even know that.

This


isn't much different to this:


Evander is your favourite fighter yes?







The thing is, when I was defending weight training, I wasn't even talking about it the way Holyfield does it, there is weight training that is more compound training like Brad mentioned earlier. Where it works multiple muscles with a basic lift (like a dead lift) which is one of the best exercises instead on focusing on one single body part and that's where you and your trainer are wrong. You think weight training is body building.

http://www.rosstraining.com/articles/strengthtraining.html

You should read it, he says good things.

QUOTE
Many old-school trainers frown upon free weights, yet encourage bodyweight exercise. This is an illogical mindset however, as each form of training can produce similar results. Free weights are not better or worse than bodyweight exercise. There are many fighters who swear by free weights, while others prefer traditional methods such as bodyweight exercise. There have been successful fighters from both sides of the fence. To deny this fact is a demonstration of nothing more than ignorance.


I was wrong, I called it weight training. He calls it strength training, but it is training with the weights you so despise. I don't think your method is wrong, but you are ignorant for thinking weights is wrong when you can achieve the same results. You know that you can train with weights and build strength without gaining mass?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.