Originally Posted by MagnaNasakki
Lesser trainers, lesser work ethic, erratic careers that have a stop-go quality. Because of these, I'd agree on the lower skill level. I'd also add a lack of loyalty; Its not easy to hop, skip, and jump about trainers so often as these guys do. Its a detriment, much of the time; The big shot trainers can only take on so many fighters at once. Leaving a dedicated guy who you were having some success with to get on the waiting list with a big shot isn't gonna end well. Chad Dawson comes to mind; Looked brilliant with the underrated and extremely competent Dan Birmingham. I'd argue he's regressed with every switch he's made since.
I disagree about talent. Athletes today are great, scary good in cases, just as good as they've ever been since I've been alive. We have more purely athletic fighters thriving without sophisticated skill than I can remember, either. But without combining those gifts with that know how, we have precious few greats. Mayweather, Pacquiao, and Marquez come to mind. Andre Ward and Sergio Martinez likely make their mark on history, as well. Beyond that, I can't think of any I consider physical specimens with a boxing mastery.
I might make the argument that purely athletic talents get on better in an era without lots of technical types around. Any weight in that you think?
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler
yeah i needn't have asked about ward, really loving that guy now myself
as for broner, foolish i may be, i see a bit more in him than you. you're right: he's another floyd rip off i just HOPE he has the reflexes at the top level to do the job. his single bunch hand speed is impressive (even if he can't throw ****ing combinations) and his movement has been ok for the level he's facing. i worry that because floyd hasn't "lost" (castillo 1 aside) people assume his style is flawless...even though others (including his father) got destroyed using it because they faced smart and equally talented fighters.
btw: i ****ing love roy jones making a crack that broner's style was beatable and he knew how (one of the other hbo crew said he faced it in toney) but wouldn't say how. ****ers gotta do it themsevles
Check out George Benton. He faced the best. Beat the best. Lost to the best. Lost to the not so great some nights. Very experienced, fighting from 49-70, seeing middleweight champs as varied as Ray Robinson, Paul Pender, Gene Fullmer and Dick Tiger without facing a single one of 'em.
Oh, and he went on to train Whitaker, Holyfield, Taylor with mixed success admittedly. But mainly success of the highest order. Make some massive mistakes, but that happens at that level.
So why are fighters built up to have the '0' nowadays?