Why do people compare old time fighters to modern day fighters when they. . .

Stick the 70's version in the era and you'd have him beating most men there.

The point is that you can't really make the argument that Foreman competed in this era when he only just skimmed the surface of fighters. Ok he beat Moorer who had just beat Holyfield, but Moorer didn't do anything after beating Holyfield and was a very weak champion in the end.

I give Foreman huge credit for what he did though, not many could have done the same.

 

Joe Calzaghe fought only bums and old men.

 

I do agree that the past gets overrated..
But this not really fair.

 

Beat you at your stupid arguement

You are dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Now another thread that old school fighters are poor

You are dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

cant knock that; there's NO Comparison!!!

go and find proper old film footage, PROPER, there are some out there, Canzoneri, Lynch, countless 40s fighters, the Best Ever and even an old Langford footage that has been corrected, they were/are great fighters the best.

don't let poor old film technique misrepresent the fighters, the film is poor not the fighters!

 

Unlike track and field athletics boxing skill is something you can't measure. Athletes in 2011 evidently run (and swim and anything you can measure a time in) faster and jump higher than classic athletes which is to be expected due to various reasons.
Boxing on the other hand is supposed to stagnate or even degenerate according to nostalgists - to be fair, neither can they prove that nor can I disprove it but bearing in mind that virtually EVERY OTHER SPORT IN WORLD has progressed whereas boxing has not is that unlikely that this theory can easily be considered negligible.

 

Why so Aggressive?? :?

 

Yeah of course its not impossible, not many people would say it is. It's just a lot harder nowadays with the smaller number of fighters.

Pac is on the right track for sure, I just hope he doesn't retire anytime soon.

Wlad is another example of a modern fighter breaking into the top 15 HW's. After he beat Haye pretty much everyone had him in their top 15. He has a chance to push higher too

 

Yes that is stupid but to say todays fighters are superior simply because they are from a later time is just as stupid. Yes there have been advancements in technique & physical conditioning but in the past boxers fought more rounds, fought more often, and I think it was a more competitive environment (the best fighting the best) which i think pushes you to a higher level. I think a lot of past boxers would smash a lot of todays boxers and vice verse.

 

100% right man

not only r modern day boxers more skilled but 4 (the most part) better nutrutioned better managed better med care game plans going into each bout and the list goes own and own.

 

I hear this a lot, and cringe every time I hear some young ignorant punk express this stupid opinion.

The truth is, these young fighters, and young musicians/Singers, Basketball players, are are far less than the last generation.

Look at music as example. The new generation has better recording equipment, has the illusion of being paid more, but has far less talent than the old school musicians. They depend on Golden boxes to smooth their voices, sampled tracks of real old school musicians to play the music and lights, laser, explosions to create the excitement. Diana Shore had more talent in her little finger than Lady Gaga, and Trey Songz compared to Marvin Gaye is a no contest.
Same for boxing where they lessened rounds from 15 to 10/12. Fight only once or twice/year and still gas out in round 6.

In many cases, today's boxing stars are spoiled, weaker, and would be annihilated by the old school champions as Bernard Hopkins and now Tarver have been very successful at proving.