Do you fail to understand...

Oh, I get it.

147 lbs today is not the same as 147 lbs from back then.

atsch

What the **** are you talkin about?

Robinson was usually the smaller man in the ring.

That's called SKILL.

****, I heard that some of that same **** is happenin today...with what's his name....****....

Oh yeah...

PACQUIAO

 

Has boxing evolved since 1980, when SRL, Thomas Hearns, Duran, and Hagler were in their prime?

That's 31 years. Six years before that a somewhat faded Ali KOed George Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle.

20 years later, in 1994, a fat slow George Foreman KOed Michael Moorer to win a Heavyweight belt.

Evolution in boxing in my opinion has been largely stagnant since 1980 probably due to waning interest in the sport.

 

Sure.. An era where an old Lightheavyweight was the champ..
I like the rock and all the great fighters from the past, but they wont stand a chance against the fighters of today.
If Wlad had Marciano's comp he would take even more **** than he does right now

 

Ali is infinitely faster and slicker than Chris Byrd.

 

Lets go to the tape. Here's Ali. Looks pretty slick, doesn't he. Looks, indeed like the very definition of slick. No, it's more than slick, it's beautiful.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu2nKcfMS9A[/ame]

Now, roll the Chris Byrd video and lets compare.

Go to 1:12, and view combination. Can Chris Byrd do that? Show the tape!

 

I bet all of these guys who says that the likes of Liston and Dempsey would rule the HW division today, have never tried to fight a guy 7 inches taller than them self..
Dont give me that "Willard heroic", Willard was never an elite HW..
have there ever been an elite HW despite Lewis, Vitali and Wlad who were above 6"5"?

 

OK!

Do you think there has been evolution since 1980?

 

Williard wasn't elite despite the fact that he beat Jack Johnson, AKA, the most hated man on the planet, and was champion in the division that everybody cared about?

What the **** you gotta do to be elite?

 

So you think that if the old time fighters where fighting today they would not have access to the same modern gyms etc? DUH

 

You're problem is that you're a SCARED as **** individual.

If you see a guy physically bigger than you, you automatically lose. He would take your girl and your wallet because mentally, you're scared as ****.

Thank god for guys like Mike Tyson, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Demspey...etc...etc.

 

Coming at it from a purely Sports Science perspective; Power and strength to weight ratios are much better in most sports today than they were 40-50years ago. Endurance at high weights has also improved in most sports.

There are sport science papers on certain sports over the years. I don't know any from Boxing, but there is an example from Rugby when they were all tested. The England Rugby team in the late 1990's early 2000's all weighed similar to in the early 80's, but are all much stronger now (tested by multiple tests) and about 3-4 levels higher on the beep test. These gains are all down to improvements in training methods/science.

Still, no way Ali isn't a great in todays era, same with SRR etc. However, on a whole if you take two fighters of the same talent one is born in 1950 and the other in 1985, they each have access to the best training, diet etc of the era and then time machines get them to fight in their primes, the 1985 fighter should win everytime (if not, then you have to question why training methods in Boxing haven't progressed as every other sport has).

 

i think the great from any era would be great in another.boxing is weird as some argue modern fighters are fitter,stronger while some argue old time fighters had more tech skills the truth is probably halfway between both

 

Exactly.

Owens was running in training shoes on a dirt track.

And, more importantly, he wasn't pumped full of PED's like all of todays track and field athletes.

 

John, Both Marciano and Robinson are over flowing with talent/skills/abillity.
You don't go 49-0 beating Morre, Wallcot and Charales with out being great. Marciano may be the best swormer in the history of boxing. I think Armstrong can compete with him for that honor. Where Morre, Wallcot and Charalesthe best heavyweight chalangers ever? No and that's why Marciano is #3 behind Louis and Ali. However Morre, Wallcot and Charales where pretty good.
I'm one of the few people that dose not rank Robinson as the greatest boxer of all time. There is no question that when it comes to talent/skills/abillity. There are few better than Robinson. In fact I can say with certanaly that only Benny Leonard was better. I think that Whitaker is right up there as well. The more I watch Willfred Bentiez the more I think that he too deserves to be in the comversation of the best talent/skills/abillity of all time. In more recent times Jones Jr. and Mayweather Jr. deserve conserdation. Bentiez brings up an important point Results matter or results in championship fights and results against other great boxers matter. You can have all of Robinson's non-tittle fights. No matter how you dress them up they were meanless exbitions same goes for every boxer who took part in them including Benny Leonard.
When Robinson was the most skilled middleweight ever he lost championship fights not to guys who were better than him or his equal.
Benny Leonard and Pernell Whitaker can at the very worse compete with Robinson in terms of talent/skills/abillity. They also preforeme better on the big stage. While Ray Leonard is just behind Robinson in terms of talent/skills/abillity perhapps no one was better on boxing's big stage as Ray Leonard.
I agree that Robinson is a great boxer just not the greatest.

 

No but at the same time, I don't think there was anything magical about them.

Seriously, if you can't watch some of Robinsons fights and see what was great about him, somethings wrong. Robinson took risks, fought almost everyone and was rarely involved in a bad fight.