As I read about the well deserving p4p all time greats (Robinson, Ali, Louis, Marciano etc.) who stood head and shoulders above all of their peers while enjoying the prime of their careers, I recall two fighters who are often overlooked or underated when all of the other legends are discussed. The legacies of Roy Jones Jr. and "Iron" Mike Tyson seem to be greatly affected by their apparent downfalls while, when both of these men were in their primes, it was believed that NO ONE past or present had not even an inkling of a chance to defeat them.

Rocky Marciano's greatest fights against the best fighters in his prime were most often boxers who were well past their prime when he defeated them (Walcott, Louis etc..). Not to discredit his legacy or ability, however we do not see any of his bouts as a fight of the century, decade, or even the year for that matter. And he retired b4 being forced to face the VERY prime and menacing Sony Liston.

Although Louis was one of the greatest finishers ever and had one of the best short hooks in the business with either hand, he was slow footed in a time period where the HW division severely lacked slick fighters that could have easily avoided his punches.

Robinson, regarded by many boxing experts as the no 1 p4p boxer of all time, was bested by a slower, less talented, Raging Bull Jake Lamotta in his absolute prime for his first loss after 123 bouts, but got his lick back 3 weeks later and 3 more times after that (Until Gayweather matches this output, he should keep his freaking mouf closed about being the G.O.A.T.). [Not getting paid for this blog, so I'm taking the liberty to write an opinionated statement]

Ali... Speaks for itself. How do you win a major HW championship for a third time while suffering from parkinsons???

Now, down to business...

Most avid boxing fans are aware of the Cus D'amato cultivated, Rooney trained Tyson and, during his prime, NO ONE gave any HW in history a chance of beating him. After suffering his first defeat, many people accused Tyson of being a fighter who could not beat men who stood up to him and were not intimidated by his 'aura' of invincibility, and that once his opponents survived thru to the later rounds, he became vulnerable. Well, my challenge to anyone reading this blog is to name me at least ONE decision that was close or that Tyson lost. Hell, name me even one SPLIT decision after the 12th round of any Tyson fight. (Like Katt Williams says... "Don't worry, I'll wait..."). We forget the often overlooked 2nd fight with Donovan "Razor" Ruddock, where Tyson was actually wobbled a few times and had the nerve put his fist to his jaw after taking one of those "mule kick" punches like, "gimmie some more" only to go on and win a hard fought decisive unanimous decision with slightly diminished skills. I also recall the fight with James "Quick" Tillis who lasted the entire fight with Tyson and traded punches with him without fear. There is also the fight with Mitch Green who gave an honest, fearless effort against him. I could go on as ALL of his fights that went the distance were unanimous decisions in favor of Iron Mike. Come to think of it, he was the underdog only once in all of his career bouts (Lewis). And let's not forget that there has been no other prize fighter in the history of sport that has generated as much revenue than Tyson to date.

As for Roy Jones Jr., I can NOT for the life of me believe that he is not regarded at least as the greatest LHW ever despite his downfall. Never has anyone in the history of the division stood as far and tall, head and shoulders above the rest of his peers as he has over a very significant amount of time in the style and fashion that he has done it. Without him in the division at the time he dominated, we would have a toss up of who would be the number one guy to unify the belts (Griffin, Tarver, Harding, Woods, Hill etc...). Many say the Superman ducked Michelsewski (sp?), however he rarely if EVER left his country for the big fights. Furthermore, why should Jones have compromised his comfort zone and barganing power to go overseas when he was regarded as the number one P4P boxer in the world at the time? I doesn't make sense. In fact, he mentioned Michelsewski as a possible opponent at the Glenn Kelly postfight interview. But I'm getting off point.

Another thing that seems to hurt Jones' legacy is that he is often used as the measuring stick to guage the legitimacy of the legacy of Floyd Mayweather who is often accused of ducking fighters and not taking chances in the ring. However, the amazing differences between these two is where out of most of the decisions that Jones has won from the beginning to the latter part of his prime, he could have very easily have scored brutal knockouts in those wins, with the exception of Hopkins, Toney, Ruiz and Tarver (All future Hall of Famers), while in many of Floyd's bouts it was painfully obvious that he did not possess those same abilities. And we have YET to witness in PBF the killer instinct that Roy has displayed on occasion (Rember the second fight with the undefeated Griffin? The body shot to a VERY legitimate Hill? etc...). How often have we ever seen a fighter (Floyd included), with the exception of Ali as Jones has, carry or punish quality fighters on many occasions to the point where they would implore the referee to stop a fight during their bouts? Let's not forget his record of knockouts before his bout with Bernard Hopkins (20 KO's out of 21 fights). And out of the 27 fights since defeating Hopkins to the last fight in his prime with John Ruiz for the WBA HW Championship, he's scored 20 KO's. Hardly seems like a fighter that Mayweather can come close to comparing to.

Although I can further highlight the exploits in the primes of both Tyson and Jones, I'll stop here and wait for the responses to this post and hopefully we all can have healthy and well thought out debates and dialogue regarding this matter.

On a side note, here is my list of P4P boxer's that were deemed unbeatable in there primes:

John L. Sullivan
James Jeffries
Jack Johnson
Joe Louis
Rock Marcianco
Ray Robinson
Sony Liston
George Foreman
Marvin Hagler
Mike Tyson
Roy Jones Jr.
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao

Ali is excluded from this list as he was regarded as a heavy underdog against two of most feared boxers in the history of boxing and to me is the REAL magic man defeating apparently IMPOSSIBLE odds.

Respectfully,

Extant

A couple of points:



By fighting Leon f***ing Spinks.





There's a reason why Jeffries was considered unbeatable: his outright refusal to fight Jack Johnson, or any other black fighter for that matter. In his prime, would he have suffered the same fate as Tommy Burns did when he finally fought Johnson? Maybe, maybe not. Burns was woefully undersized and Johnson walked through him. By the time Jeffries finally fought Johnson, he was an overblown shell and that fight was just awful. Useless.

I wouldn't say that Sonny Liston was perceived as unbeatable. He was perceived as a soulless, emotionless monster that just may kill you rather than fight you. The perception of him as a champion is heavily skewed. Sure, the loss to Ali (Clay) in their first fight was considered a monumental upset but that was more about Ali coming out of nowhere to do it more than it was about Liston's mystique. His reign was short. He destroyed Patterson for the title, destroyed Patterson in a rematch to retain the title, and lost it to Clay. That's it. I don't think he was viewed as invincible in the same way that Tyson was pre-Douglas, or Foreman was after he hammered Frazier and Norton. The loss just came out of nowhere.

Liston might be one of the most overblown champions in history. The way so many make it sound, he was champion for several years and Clay showed up and dethroned him. It's just not really the case. He was champion for 17 months to the day. Why, then, all of the attention? Probably because, in retrospect, his story is so intriguing and mysterious. His life, his image, his death, all of it.

since when are antonio tarver and john ruiz future hall of famers?

IMO jones is one of the top 10 light heavyweights of all time

& i agree with what was said above by romulus about jefferies and liston

Okay, I tried to sneak Tarver and Ruiz in there. LOL. However, they were very formidable opponents at the time.

I have to agree with romulus also. However, given the circumstances of the times they were in, they were indeed deemed unbeatable.

The whole Tyson story is sad. If he kept a good trustworthy team that looked out for him, and he trained properly, he would have never lost to Douglas or a long time after that. Tyson's many personal problems led to his downfall. It definately hurt his ranking as an ATG.

Roy Jones... I have seen pretty much everyone of his fights. Many people hate him, but IMHO I have never ever seen anyone do the stuff he did in his prime. To me he was unbeatable in his prime. I also would think 160 and 168 were his best weights. You take anyone at those weights in there prime against Roy, Roy wins everytime. I do not think I will ever see anyone again like him with his speed, power, and showmanship.

James Toney is my favorite all time fighter, but he was definately an underachiever in my book. Sure he had a great career, but it could have been so much more for obvious reasons. He was not as flashy or fast as Jones, but his calmness, inside game, toughness, and defense was amazing. He was a complete fighter, minus the dedication in other departments to be at his best. He could have went down as one of the greatest.

...

I have never EVER seen any guy in their prime given free reign by the networks be able to handpick the cream puffs that he did. Of course you're going to see showmanship. Glen Kelly? Rick Frazier? Derrick Harmon? I mean, those guys are the equivalent to the Harlem Globetrotters Traveling Team. WHOlio Ceasar Gonzales? Wasn't he Speedy Gonzales' cousin? Oh no, that was "Slow Poke" Rodriguez. Same difference.

Wasn't that smile, 'gimme more, hit me right here' in the 1st, pre maturely stopped fight? I could be wrong, haven't watched either in a few years

Agreed on all 3.

Yup, just checked on my Ipod, that 'gimme more was the 1st fight, where it was stopped early. It was the end of the 6th, next rd was the early stoppage

I'm not sure I understand the argument/discussion thats being made here...

Which forum or media outlet has under appreciated these guys?

Especially in regards to Mike Tyson. Boxing fans waited patiently for 15 years after the Douglas loss for him to morph back into the original version of Tyson.

That's how respected and appreciated Mike Tyson is.

You know i really hate when people say that Jones never fought anybody. Im not going to say that Roy is the greatest boxer ever but he is definitely the greatest talent that ever stepped in the ring and was unbeatable in his prime. Roy fought alot of quality opponents that were ranked in the top ten contender list, alot of them never been knocked down or out, and they were champions. Roy just dominated guys so bad that he made alot of good fighters look very average. To be honest if u look at most of the great fighters and the number of fights they had u could really only name a hand full of recognized names on their resume so i dont see why Roy gets criticized so much in the first place. Name me 10 quality opponents Hearns, Hagler, Sugar Ray, Trinidad, Hopkins, Toney, De La Hoya, Mosley ever fought. Most top fighters only have 5-8 big names on their resume out of 50 plus fights in the first place that u can name off top. All top fighters have some bums on their list, thats just boxing and last time i checked everybody says that Roy ducked fighters but i dont remember too many fighters calling Roy out when he was in his prime neither.

The argument is made in the first full paragraph regarding Tyson:

"Most avid boxing fans are aware of the Cus D'amato cultivated, Rooney trained Tyson and, during his prime, NO ONE gave any HW in history a chance of beating him. After suffering his first defeat, many people accused Tyson of being a fighter who could not beat men who stood up to him and were not intimidated by his 'aura' of invincibility, and that once his opponents survived thru to the later rounds, he became vulnerable."

This misguided analysis unfairly affects his all time p4p status.

And as far as Roy Jones, the argument is well noted in the 2nd paragragh regarding Jones being the measuring stick for the boring duckmaster Mayweather.

Take it a step further, Keith.

If Tyson-Holyfield III was signed TODAY, a placed on a date in August...


it would absolutely SHATTER PPV buy records. Partner it with a 24/7 series and have Freddie Roach train Tyson... it would be unreal. Again, for the sake of clarity, that's a 43 year old Mike Tyson, out of the ring for several years since a loss to KEVIN MCBRIDE, and a Holyfield that's pushing 50... and it would hammer PPV records.

No, Tyson is NOT under-appreciated. Tyson is the only guy with whom you hear the word 'mystique' tossed about.

Jones? Yes. I'd have to agree with that. There are many boxing aficionados who discount and deride Jones all the time, so, yes, he's under-appreciated.

How can you say NO ONE gave any HW a chance to beat him and have us take this seriously. Are you saying this to be controversial?

This is where I got confused. Your simultaneously telling us that avid boxing fans believed this version of Tyson was the absolute greatest HW of all time but then claim his legacy is under appreciated.



No it doesnt. I think whenever avid boxing fans place Tyson in all time status they are generally use the Cus and Rooney Tyson. However, if they dont, I have no problem with that as well. The fact is... Tyson was knocked out by Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis. You cant ignore that those fights happened.

Come on man, he has had some very quality wins too. It is easy to pick those guys, and it was not his fault he was that much better than everyone else. I mean Kelly was 28-0, Gonzales was 27-0, Harmon was 20-1. Frazier I will give you, that was a joke.

But what about Griffin 2x, Hill, Del Valle, Johnson, Hall, Telesco, Harding, Grant, McCallum(past his prime), Toney, Hopkins, etc. There are many other decent fighters he faced too, I would like to know all these fighters he ducked or should have faced. Darious is the only guy I wish he woud have fought, but both of them and there teams could never get it done. His resume is much better than people give him credit for.

For that matter, I could pick Hopkins resume apart if I wanted to. I dare you or anyone to check boxrec and compare there resumes and I consider Jones better as far as facing tougher comp. Hopkins definately performed better after Jones hit his roadblock in Tarver II, but prior to that Jones has some weak spots, but overall it is not as bad as made out to be.

Here are some of Hopkins title defenses, I will pick a few out for you, and I seen all of these fights live except one.

Steve Frank- Who?
Bo James- Fringe contender, TNF favorite, very limited.
Andrew Council- Blown up welterweight, seen better days.
Simon Brown- Another blown up PHP welterweight who never should have shared a ring with Bernard at that time.
Syd Vanderpool? Who?
Keith Holmes- Another blown up welterweight.
Trinidad- Great fighter, but his best weight was welterweight.
Carl Daniels- Washed up former Jr. Middleweight who got thumped by Terry Norris I think about TEN years before the Hopkins fight.
Joppy- Another former Jr. Middleweight who was blasted out by Trinidad.
Oscar- Former 130,135,140,147,154, and now fighting Hops at 160!!! Sure it was a $ fight, I get it. But still shitty.
Left the best for last...MORRADE HAKKAR!!! He made Richard Frazier look like "Sugar" Ray Robinson.

Where are all the great MIDDLEWEIGHTS Bernard beat in what was like 20+ defenses?




So there are some of Hops questionable title defenses, no one seems to bring this up. The thing is most champs have resumes like this and anyone can nitpick on fighters they dislike.

Anyway bro, feel free to respond, look forward to your take.

I'm not saying this to be controversial at all Sir. However, many experts (Teddy Atlas being the main vocal point) after Tyson's first loss have, and still accuse Tyson of ALWAYS being a fighter, either Cus/Rooney trained and post trained, who could not stand up to fighters who were not afraid of him. That accessment is COMPLETELY false.




And with this one? C'mon man... with the exception of Douglas, who was COMPLETELY on his game that night, but still got knocked down by an unfocused Tyson, those other two names represent one who is currently in the HOF and the other one is a 1st ballot HOFer.

Sorry cannot agree whatsoever there. Gene Tunney is a prime example except he faced far better competition at 175. Roy would be lucky to be top 5 at 175 really.

STEVENSKI, I get your post as a boxing historian myself, and also an overall historian period. However, as I have mentioned facts, records, and objectional analysis, I would need to get the same from you to give your response a positive acknowledgement. Not that you need my acknowledge anyway. But, as you mention Tunney of all boxers to me, I feel like Allen Iverson when approached with the notion of 'PRACTICE'... TUNNEY??? Tunney?... Tunney has NEV-ERRRRR been considered as unbeatable. And are we that delusional to think that someone with the likes of a Tunney would have ANY chance of beating someone like Jones in his prime?

Thanks for your response

Actually it is far from delusional that a rangy, powerful highly skilled ring scientist like Tunney would have a even chance at worst of beating a athletic fighter like Jones. Jones is not some skilled fighter he is a or more to the point was a fine athlete who once his athletic ability diminished had no fundamentals to fall back on. The man lost one fight in his career & avenged that defeat multiple times. The quality of opponent he faced in his career was excellent. Guys like Battling Levinsky & Tommy Loughran are HOF legends not to mention he beat the reigning true heavyweight champion twice in dominant fashion.

Sorry but I will take proven skill & ring knowledge over athleticism & flash any day of the week when it comes to the noble art.

If you're talking who was the best in their relative eras I'll agree with you.

But if you're talking straight up who would whoop who's ass, then Gene Tunney has no business in the ring with Roy Jones, or even any half decent professional of the modern era.

Tunney lived in an era where boxing fundamentals were still very basic. Anyone with a half decent grasp of what are now considered 'normal' skills was, back at the turn of the century up until the 1930's, ahead of their time.

Watch a Tunney video and you see his footwork is basic, his punching is basic, his defence is basic. Back in the 1910's that was enough. But by the 1930's the game had changed.

By the 1950's/60's, the game had hit it's peak. Any fighter from previous eras would have been destroyed. It's only natural, it takes several decades for a brand new sport (which gloved boxing was) to develop and for it's participants to learn how to train in it.

We've seen it with MMA...you wouldn't put a guy from UFC I in with an Anderson Da Silva and expect them to hold their own.


Therefore, IMO, you can't really include any pre-WWII (or you could stretch it to pre 1940's) champion in an ATG list without there being some kind of handicap rule about respective eras in there.


Of course, you can also say that skills have slid a little since the 50's based on the fact that fighters fight a whole lot less these days, so therefore have learned less along the way. I'd agree with that, too, but counter that fighters are hitting harder these days.




Getting a little off point here, so here's where Mike and Roy are in my ATG lists:

Heavy
1 ALI
2 LOUIS
3 HOLYFIELD
4 HOLMES
5 LEWIS
6 FOREMAN
7 FRAZIER
8 MARCIANO
9 TYSON
10 CHARLES

Light-heavy
1 SPINKS
2 MOORE
3 JONES JR
4 FOSTER
5 GALINDEZ
6 QAWI
7 SAAD MUHAMMAD
8 JOHNSON (Harold)
9 MAXIM
10 HILL



Black

I can agree with this. I'm not sure I agree with "many experts". Have you done a head count among boxing experts beyond Atlas?

You continue to speak in absolutes which I dont agree with.



Are you claiming that these knock out losses shouldnt affect his all-time great status and thus his legacy? From my point of view the two categories are essentially linked to each other. You seem to want to look past the fact he got his ass kicked 3 times and say he legacy is under appreciated.

For instance... especially in terms of Holyfield and Lewis, you need to apply these losses to their all-time great status relative to each other. I think it would be ridiculous to put Tyson clearly ahead of Holyfield in all-time status. Absolutely ridiculous.

Your claiming that Tysons legacy is under appreciated. How do you compare it to Holyfields or Lewis then?

Imo... if you put Tyson's legacy/all time status ahead of Holyfields and Lewis then you completely discredit your own argument that Tyson is the one being under appreciated.

Well that is your opinion & whilst I respect it I certainly do not agree with it. You can debate how skills have been developed & all that jazz but I will take someone like Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney & Jake Lamotta who may be basic over their modern counterparts because they could fucking fight & do it well. Having a solid foundation in basics would have made Roy a much greater fighter than he was. I disagree with a lot of your points to be honest. Saying any fighter from previous era's would get destroyed by a modern fighter is insanity of the highest order.

I just think that if you took the quality old school fighters & I mean guys like Lew Tendler, Mickey Walker & Maxie Rosenbloom for example & transplanted them to the modern age they would fare better than OK. Much much better in fact. If they actually trained in modern gyms & had a modern diet etc then combined with their actual proven in ring abilities they would be champions at worst.

Not many would agree with me & I really don't care as my opinion is just that. I know at least one guy on here that I see eye to eye with on old school fighters vs modern.

Well if you gave them "modern" gyms and "modern" nutrition then that would make them "modern" fighters, right? That defeats the whole purpose of the arguement. Would anybody give Jack Johnson a chance at Vitali? Jack was a great fighter. There are very few fighters from "back in the day" that would compete with today's era.

A lightweight Floyd Mayweather would wipe his ass with Lew Tendler. Sure those guys were great fighters but today's era is far more advanced.

Actually I am one that would give Jack Johnson a chance with not only both Klitchko Brothers, but I would also give him a chance with many of the all-time heavyweight greats as his boxing style was well over a half century ahead of his time. He had one of the greatest defense and counterpunching abilities that I've ever seen in any HW past or present, one of the best uppercuts in the clinches, and very fluid and slick movement around the ring with cat-lick reflexes that allowed him the ability to look like a full grown pit bull pitted against the best the world had to offer as baby kittens...

...with a HUGE smile on his face all the way thru. LOL

I'd say he'd have one HECK of a chance. In fact, I got him beating most of the all time HW greats.

Even without the modern gym equipment boxing training still consists of speedball, heavy bag, pushups, situps, chinups, running, jumping/skipping & sparring something all old school fighters did & had access to. Adding modern components of diet & exercise would only make them better but even without that I believe they are better fighters.

As for Tendler vs Mayweather I would give him a shot. He is a far better fighter than a Castillo type fighter & Mayweather was uncomfortable under the pressure Castillo applied. Add in the mix a brilliant body attack combined with a perfect straight punching technique & southpaw stance & no one is wiping their arse with Lew.

Dude Super Mario Brothers 3 is STILL better than MOST games today!

NO WHERE in my argument do I put the legacy of Iron Mike, past Lewis or Holyfield's. However, it is indeed a fact that his prime was far more celebrated than theirs as Tyson is one of the few in history P4P that were perceived unbeatable for a considerable amount of his prime, although his current legacy IMO seems to be lacking. I will be posting a part II to this forum (If Y'all don't mind), as I see I will need to specify further.

Y'all on point here!!! I love it!

Thanks for the welcome Keith.

Hey... its all good breh. Welcome aboard, I hope you stick around.

Back to the discussion...

If you're not puting Tyson's legacy ahead of Lewis or Holyfield.... Then how is his legacy being under appreciated?

I think avid boxing fans realize that there are 2 different Mike Tysons. Perhaps the general public does not, but avid boxing fans know that the Cus and Rooney Tyson was superior in everyway to the Tyson that followed.

Marciano is one of the most overrated fighters in the history of boxing.

Just my opinion... I've seen "limited" film of Tendler and he was a really good fighter (in that time) but I just feel that the advancements that has been made over time would just be too much to overcome for the "old school" fighters. Guys like Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson, and Henry Armstrong were before their time so I feel that they could have been competitive in this era, ESPECIALLY if they had access to the new technology. I'm a huge fan of American Football, and there were very few football players who could have played today. jim Brown just to name one, But most wouldn't have a chance. Sure, they were considered "tougher" but athletically they were ages behind. You have defensive ends that weigh 285lbs and run a 4.7 forty. Offensive Linemen back then weighed 245lbs. Same prinicples. Check this out...




I'm sure most have heard of this kid... but my point is that the people are now more physically gifted then they were back then.
Do you think any 7 year old looked like this in the 1920s?

I would have been pretty fucking spent after a round of mitts like that. Kid didn't even look like he broke a sweat.

He's jacked up on sweets. 3/4 of his body weight is sugar.

I agree with the notion that anyone from the past (early 1900's) COULD have been a prospect today with 'modern lifestyles',
but if you picked them up and placed them in a boxing ring as they were, most of them would get beat by B class fighters.



Shoot, the amount of video's I've seen of the 'old school' fighters and it's kind of embarrasing to watch when they're ambling around the ring throwing punches like a kangaroo's and Joe Calzaghe's love child.

A decent boxer today with a bit of footwork and a half decent jab would be enough to beat them, imo.


Not to discredit the really old timers (early 1900's), but the overall boxing basics have improved as the sport became more widespread. They were as good in their time as the Ali's, Holyfields, Hopkins' and Mayweathers.

Aw shoot, Steve, you know me and you are boys but I gotta disagree on this one.


The way I see it, if I started a brand new sport tomorrow, how long would it take the players in the game to learn how to play it? A decade? Two decades?

Whatever it takes, rest assured the first few generations aren't going to be as good as later generations. It's got nothing to do with modern training, athleticism, diets and shit, just down to the face at the start of the sport, the first players aren't going to know the techniques.


That's like boxing in the first twenty or thirty years of the 20th century. It had not long become a gloved sport, the guys in it were still learning the best way to throw punches, defend from punches, move around and stuff. You can TELL that by looking at old videos.

However, as the decades went on, the fighters started to realise how to do stuff, how to defend, how to move etc. By the 1940's they'd got it down to a tee. They were fighting a few hundred times and the sport hit it's pinnacle, performance-wise.

There has been a slight decline since based on the fact that fighters only fight, like, 50 times now so don't get enough experience in the ring, but they at least are able to look back on previous generations and learn from them.


Of course the guys at the pioneer stage of boxing couldn't do that. That's why they weren't as good.



I mean, c'mon guys, can't you look at some old videos and SEE that guys like Gene Tunney and Jack Johnson had inferior technique? I sure as hell can. Look at Jack Johnson running across the ring to punch Stanley Ketchel. It looks like a new kid in an amateur gym who hasn't been taught to punch yet.

It's not Jack's fault...that's how everyone thought they were supposed to punch back then. And in his time Jack did it better than anyone else, but thirty years later they'd learned to do it so much better.





Black

Ummm... I believe Jack FLEW across and over Ketchel trying to take his head off for not playing right when that fight was only suppose to be an exhibition. It's the ONLY time we see Johnson use reckless abandon in a fight.

And I don't see how Johnson had inferior Technique as he was a patient counter-puncher that took advantages of openings when he FELT like it.

No the poor 7 year olds were standing over shopkeepers & mugging people with pipes. They were getting their training by actually fighting rather than flashing pads in a nice gym. One thing that seems to be underrated is actual fighting experience. You can look like a world beater in the gym but in a real situation be found lacking.

They may not have been check hooking people but their guile, feints & actual knowledge of fighting would serve them well. Shit half the time a modern prospect sees a feint they don't know what to do. They also seemed to display levels of stamina on average that is rare today. Maybe the modern training methods are less taxing on a fighters stamina than those of old? Who knows.

As I said I have my opinion & when people marvel at a chump like Calzaghe throwing 100 punches a round how would they feel seeing a guy like Greb throwing double that?

Toney is no doubt an ATG..He obviously watched a lot of Archie Moore I feel and I wish Percy or someone could ask him if he really did..Toney is a complete fight but could of had a better work ethic..Being so calm and relaxed allowed him to fight longer than he would have had he been tense..His relaxation enabled him to go longer even though he hadn't trained as hard as he could have/should have..

As for Joe Louis,I don't see slick fighters avoiding his punches..He was too precise with his punches..Look at Chris Byrd vs. either Klitchko..The Klitchkos still hit him even when Byrd was the best defensive fighter at heavyweight..It was the skill that allowed them to hit Byrd..Louis moved slow only because he didnt have to move fast..Watch Louis in training,his foot work is a HELL of a lot faster than what people say these days..Also,they mention back then how fast his feet really were..It'll always be hard to hit someone who keeps running..Louis put so much fear into people,the guys who could move,didn't stay around while Louis was comin after them..Louis in my opinion is one of the smartest fighters ever..Friends of mine who don't watch or study boxing a lot have even said to me that they feel Louis had a 6th sense and could sense when a guy was coming towards him or away..That's exactly how he was too..If Ali fought him and tried to do the Ali shuffle on him,he'd end up the same way Walcott did in the second fight after he tried to bust a cakewalk..

The bolded point is spot on..I have been tellin people for a long time(not on here though) that feints are a thing of the past..I'm just lucky I've been trained to use feints and in lots of variety..If you feint a guy and watch how he reacts,you can lure him into punches by feinting him another time later on and capitalizing on his reaction..Feint a jab,watch how he parrys or catches,then feint again and come with a right hand or left hook depending on how he tried to parry or catch..If he tries to catch it,keep the jab out and push it into their face so it blocks their vision and come with a right or hook off it since their right hand will be pushed against their face..

I also agree with the thing you said about stamina..I wonder if guys in the past were more relaxed in the ring like James Toney is today or if it is the training methods..I kinda think it may be alittle of both..By being more relaxed,it also allows you to see the punches better,almost like in slow motion like I said in my post about Toney..Fighters in the past like Ray Robinson would go to the gym and train for 2 hours,then go home..He would do his roadwork by walking,jogging,sprinting,jogging,then walking then repeating that..He also would spar 5-6 rounds when sparring to get ready for a 15 rounds fight..A big thing Ray believed in was never to over train..Over training is worse than under training..If you gas out from under training it is a lot different than if you over training since the effects of over doing everything will add onto you being real tired,especially on a boxer's legs(being drained out)..

Also,a lot of fighters in the past would hang around their fight weight by stayin in the gym year round..I think this is one of the smartest things a boxer can do since if you're not contantly thinking about weight in camp,you have a lot more time to focus on your skills and opponent rather than yourself..