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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by madmanc3210, Jul 28, 2011.


Page 8 of 11
  1. Gneus7

    Gneus7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,277
    495
    Mar 29, 2007
    Modern fighters should be better but they're not. Andre Ward is better technically than old school fighters but not as tough. Carl Froch is as tough but no better technically. Boxers used to fight a lot more rounds so modern fighters obviously don't have greater stamina or endurance. Modern fighters on average are less tough mentally also. I think certain fighters would do well in any era.
     
    Gneus7, Jul 29, 2011
    Gneus7, Jul 29, 2011
    #106
  2. madmanc3210

    madmanc3210 Guest


    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=harry+greb+sparring&aq=f
     
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    #107
  3. Gneus7

    Gneus7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,277
    495
    Mar 29, 2007
    Gneus7, Jul 29, 2011
    Gneus7, Jul 29, 2011
    #108
  4. madmanc3210

    madmanc3210 Guest

    im talking more from 1900 to 1930's fighters should have been more clear
     
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    #109
  5. Gneus7

    Gneus7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,277
    495
    Mar 29, 2007

    A lot of those guys had massive flaws which would be exposed today.
     
    Gneus7, Jul 29, 2011
    Gneus7, Jul 29, 2011
    #110
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,758
    22,013
    Sep 15, 2009
    this thread is so completely ******ed i do not know what to say about it.

    greb, armstrong, langford, walker, fitzsimmons these guys are all legends.

    a quick flick through boxrec (which is obviosuly all these morons have done) does not tell the story of the glittering careers these guys experienced.
     
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    #111
  7. BremnerBomber

    BremnerBomber Guest

    One doesn't have to be a "moron" to have a diffrent opinion than you lufccrazy...why is so hard to take that boxing has evolved from the early 1900's 10's 20's 30's 40's and 50's

    imo the "modern era" of todays boxing where you can really compare fighters h2h is 70's onwards, but even since then things are vastly diffrent

    boxing is now a global sport with fighters from all over the globe fighting each other with a higher knowledge of science, nutrition, techniques.

    I know boxing historians always use the old addage...all you need is a rope, punching bag and gloves in boxing therefore it hasn't changed, so what!!! the aim of soccer is to get a ball in a net just look at how tactics, skill and athleticism have evolved in soccer
     
    BremnerBomber, Jul 29, 2011
    BremnerBomber, Jul 29, 2011
    #112
  8. Bub

    Bub Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,807
    7
    Jan 26, 2011

    I'm not saying old boxers were better or not but you will always get the odd Maradonna type.
     
    Bub, Jul 29, 2011
    Bub, Jul 29, 2011
    #113
  9. Bubby

    Bubby Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,564
    3
    Sep 14, 2010
    Right! Never look at facts, because they just get in the way of believing only what you want to believe:good.....
     
    Bubby, Jul 29, 2011
    Bubby, Jul 29, 2011
    #114
  10. madmanc3210

    madmanc3210 Guest

    his nick name alone "windmill" is sononymous with pub fighting "windmilling" lol
     
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    #115
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,758
    22,013
    Sep 15, 2009
    i completely agree.

    what i said was a moron is one who judges the career's of these greats simply by flicking through boxrec.

    if that is how a career is judged then yes you'#re a moron.

    if you've done research and studied the career's of these men and still reach the conclusion these aren't greats, then i strongly disagree but atleast you can back up what you say.
     
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    #116
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,758
    22,013
    Sep 15, 2009
    :huh not really sure how that relates to my post criticising those using boxrec as a means of judging a fighter's career.
     
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    #117
  13. madmanc3210

    madmanc3210 Guest


    in one post you say you can only judge them by their resume,in the next you say people are morons for going off what boxrec say ie his resume. i didnt for one second say i dont consider him great but that he would lose to the stated fighters,you dont agree fine,but i find it hard to believe he wouldnt.i knew about harry greb from about the age of 10 if not earlier as my grandad was a fanatic and i used to hear all about the old greats from him and was bang into boxing from then on.these days ive probably forgot more than i know but to suggest all i know is boxrec is bull****.
     
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    #118
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,758
    22,013
    Sep 15, 2009

    no i said comparing jackson with greb means you can only look at resume's.

    the only way to appreciate these guys is to dig deep into history, boxrec doesn't always do justice due to incomplete records and lack of context.

    anyone judging a career based off boxrec is a moron.
     
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    lufcrazy, Jul 29, 2011
    #119
  15. madmanc3210

    madmanc3210 Guest


    if you judged greb off boxrec it would hardly put him down it makes him out to be some kind of superman
     
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    madmanc3210, Jul 29, 2011
    #120
Page 8 of 11