View Single Post
Old 10-09-2012, 04:49 AM   #105
bodhi
So I can die easy ...
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 1337
Default Re: How were old timers so good?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachilles View Post
It depends when you're talking about. 40's to 90's are at a similar skill level. The 30's and the 00's are a step below overall. The 20's and before fighters were absolute dog****e
Ah, come one. You are somewhat right for the pre-20s which had to do with vastly different rules. Under their own rules a lot of them were more skilled than todayīs fighters. Which is true for the other way around as well. And still there were exceptions as the aforementioned Gans, McFarland and Driscoll which would count as very skilled even today.
But a lot changed from the 20s onwards. Ture the 20s were a transition period but you had a lot of skilled fighters there as well like M.Gibbons, Tunney, B. Leonard and then you had loads and loads of skilled fightes in the 30s which easily would have been able to compete with their 40s through 90s counterparts like Ross, Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate, Louis, Armstrong. Not to forget that fighters like Robinson and Pep learned their craft and started their careers in the 30s.
And even in the last 12 years you have skilled guys like Mayweather, Hopkins, Marquez, Pac, MAB, Morales and quite a few others. The main difference between them and the guys from the 30s through 70s is that they fight (each other) less often. But I donīt think they are much worse.

In fact, I donīt think at the very top is much of a difference in the history of gloved boxing. Not at all. The difference is on contender level and underneath, where there are just (a lot) less skilled guys in some eras.

Boxing is a craft and like in any craft you get better in it when you are practicing it. In the past fighters fought more and such on average were better. Of course a talented fighter today with some experience is better than an average guy from back then with loads of it. No doubt. Also no doubt that thanks to more scientific training - also I think too much focus is on the training of athleticism nowadays - and nutrition fighters on average are more athletically talented than in the past which is an advantage but without this athelticism beeing paired with experience it will be more flash than substance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Boxers are far better today than in any era previous.

A Corvette Stingray is fun to look at but it gets blown away by a Bugatti Veyron. Simple enough, things progress. Bolt would blow the doors off Owen. Klitschko would humiliate Louis, Marciano and Ali.

All hail progress.
Simple opinions for simple minds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Senya13 View Post
So you know better than the writers/experts who lived during that time and saw those fighters in a lot of fights?
Ah, come on, you know better than that, Louis beat quite a few very good, even great hws, before, during adn after his reign. Yeah, he fought his fair share of average fighters but who didnīt?
"Bum of the month club" is sensational journalism, easy to throw around but meaningless in the end.
bodhi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote