Do you believe that IN GENERAL, fighters from previous eras were superior?

When you say fighters of previous eras, you are comparing legends/hofers/atg's etc from a long period of time to a current snapshot in time.

This doesn't seem like a fair comparison for the relatively few high level players in the game atm.

 

we simply just remember all the great fighters... we dont really hold onto the memories of the average ones

but i loved the fact that they generally had alot more fights

 

I you talk 100 years ago then no, but fighters from 70s 80s are in no way inferior in comparison to today fighters, i dont see no fighter today that would beat, for example Hagler at 160, and specially Hearns at 147, and we have 2 best fighters in the world at 147(Pac, Floyd).

 

The sport has clearly regressed, especially the technical side of the game.

Why are there so few genuine punchers these days?

 

Yes. The gap isn't terrible, but it's there. There's a big difference nowadays between the technical skill of elite fighters and the fundamentals possessed by lower ranks of competition that I believe wasn't as stark.

 

Terrible post which shows an incredible lack of knowledge about the game.

If all todays super fighters are such amazing atheletes why do they gas so quickly?

Why dont they punch as hard?

Why are they less skillfull?

Why are they slower & less explosive?

How is it possible that guys from the 1980's & before were able to perform at a higher level than today's fighters without modern S&C & nutrition?

 

No certainly not. back in the old days it was the norm to be let out of prison early to take up boxing and then actually become the HW champion of the World after a couple of years. To think that this type of scenario could happen now is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

I feel where you're coming from but I digress. This generation of boxing has it's greats that could match up with greats of the past, we just have more distractions as well as competition in modern times which I think has hurt the sport. Boxing isn't nearly as well marketed as MMA, the NFL, the NBA, WWE, TV sitcoms, reality shows, and other forms of regular programming, nor are people as well educated about boxing to understand it to an extent and have any real passion for the true and pure form of combat that it is. Years ago a lot of people learned how to box at least a little bit because people settled their differences that way, no excuses, no bull****, and they really understood the toughness and ability that truly went into being a pugilist.

Now days they see a bunch of guys that couldn't hack it in anything else fight each other like a couple spider monkeys or gorillas, and because it's marketed to them as "Ultimate Fighting" under the guise of being a real discipline called "MMA", they think it is all that, even superior to boxing even though "MMA" is a made up term used to market Cage Fighting as a legit discipline or form of fighting like Boxing and many of the other martial arts.

Popularity is what it comes down to. If these boxers today were held up like the heroes and legends they were years ago, people would feel differently about them. Instead you're getting the fraud and joke that is MMA crammed up your ass day in day out, being told that these are the best fighters in the world. When that's the status quo in pop culture, why would they pay attention to boxing? It's one dimensional, Joe Rogan said so, and he knows everything about fighting so that must be true right?

As far as the athletes of yesteryear being inferior to those of today, I don't really see any argument that can be made to say that is so. Boxing is Boxing and it's always been what it is today. However, Guys used to go 20, 30, 40, 50 rounds plus, a feat that hasn't been asked of boxers for 75 years or more. Hell, they haven't even been going 15 rounds for at least the last 20 years, and look at how these guys struggle to make it 12. These aren't 12 knock-down-drag-out rounds either like they used to go in the late 1800's and early 1900's(bare knuckle at times). The whole philosophy of the sport has switched from "safety last" to "safety first" and that is the only dramatic evolution of the sport, is that fighters are much more defensive minded on average than the fighters of the past. For that reason alone I find it hard to argue for anyone to say that modern day fighters are anywhere near as tough as the old school fighters of even 30 years or more ago either.

So, in retrospect I agree with you that the sport today is in a rather disgraceful place, but I don't think your math adds up in lieu of said admission. Why would the sport be in such a bad spot if the modern boxers were so much better than those of the past? You get my snowdrift here? It's not as radical a thought as you make it out to be either. There are teams and athletes from all eras and all through the ranks whose ability could and would stand the test of time, not just the greats. A good point of support for that would be noting all the records in all the sports that still stand from years and years ago, and how many of them that have been broken are still well above what the average athlete today is capable of, just as they were when they were set. Nobody is going to be breaking Wilt Chamberlain's record game of scoring 100 points, nobody is likely going to be breaking Joe DiMaggio's record of getting hits in 54 straight games, and Joe Louis still stands as the longest reigning heavyweight or boxing champion period, with the most defenses as well.

I think the sentiment of wearing rose colored glasses when appraising talent is just as prevalent or more as it pertains to folks today evaluating modern athletes, as if because they are the athletes of today they are better than Jess Willard even though Jess Willard actually killed a guy in the ring he hit so hard, beat Jack Johnson for the title in 1915, and didn't start fighting until he was 27. He was also as big as both Klitschko's, and much tougher. Let's not even get into his successor, Jack Dempsey. I think it's also worth noting that Rocky Marciano's punch power was measured in his hey-day and it was said that Marciano's knockout blow packed more explosive energy than an armour-piercing bullet and represents as much energy as would be required to spot lift 1000 pounds one foot off the ground. How exactly do you think most fighters of any era would hold up to that?

I'd say you haven't seen enough footage then, you weren't paying attention, or you could't understand what you were seeing because it was so far removed from what you identify with. I get what you are talking about regarding the evolution of all sports, and modern athletes being these repositories of all the combined knowledge of the sports histories, but that doesn't nor can it negate the ability of people from the past who may not have benefited from the development of technique, training, etc... that the modern athlete does, nor does it necessarily make the modern athlete any better. I agree with you a lot as it pertains to most other sports, but not so much in boxing. As I said earlier, the biggest change has come in the general philosophy "protect yourself at all times" rather than "beat the **** out of each other at all times", and that is what has really brought about a major distinction between the generations.

As we've moved on, health and safety have become more important to people, and that has changed the way boxing matches are fought in some ways. Training is mostly the same as it has been for the better part of a century. The only real changes have come in how fighters manage their diets and nutrition in general when you think about it. Have you ever really trained for a boxing match? It's not really as foreign to the methods of the past as you think.

I disagree. I don't think it would matter what era or at what level of the sport you were making matches of past vs present. I think a lower ranked boxer from the 20's or 30's is every bit as competitive against a modern day lower ranked boxer as two all time greats from the same two eras.

Not even close if you ask me as I stated above. If you think guys like Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey couldn't hang with the Klitschko's for instance I think you're sorely mistaken.

I think I made a pretty good case against this. In most sports you may be accurate based on some technicalities, but not so much in boxing. The guys from the 1800's and early to mid 1900's were in no way inferior. They may have fought in a more crude way, but that doesn't equal inferior.

 

Examples?

 

This content is protected

We could be here all day giving examples if we're honest.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0hZKnQ07IE[/ame]


Simply woeful.

 

somebody should have let george foreman know how much superior today's fighters are before he embarrassed himself in his comeback. morales too, doesn't he realise maidana is clearly a superior athlete to anybody who made his debut nearly 20 years ago?

if you really want to know how fighters from past eras compare then listen to what people like angelo dundee had to say, people who actually saw and trained fighters from the middle decades of the last century through to contemporary times and can compare them directly.

boxing is in a rut. too many titles, too many belts, too many organisations, too many promoters protecting their fighters, too many paper tigers, too much pissing about. boxers of yesteryear fought seven or eight times a year, fought the best there was to fight, fought for one title in their division, fought in larger divisions and fought for 15 rounds, routinely throwing 70+ punches a round. of course they were better, they were practically practising a different sport.

fifty years ago floyd and pacman wouldn't have just fought already, they'd have had a three, four, five or six fight series through their primes and both would have learned and improved as a result of facing that challenge. today? how can anybody describe either of them as a contender for goat when they've not fought the standout rival of their era?

 

Liston was already a golden gloves champ & had been a pro for over 3 years when he served time in 57, then won the title in 62.

I'd like to see some examples of the "many" HWs who left prison to start boxing & within a couple of years were champ.

 

No they were not 6'7 and 6'8 beasts the Klitschkos would have killed them as they have the so called puffed up cruz. weights who are the same size as Ali and such .....

 

Better? If anything classic era fighters are way inferior to their modern counterparts.