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

Most people don't know **** about boxing today.

There are so many nuances and tricks from the past that are not utilized today.

Additionally, big gloves fighters like Winky Wright would have got the **** beat outta him back in the day if he couldn't use those big ass gloves.

 

Shut up with your Winky Wright hate you muppet.

 

I just used him as example.

Arthur Abraham, Eddie Chambers, and a bunch of other bull**** fighters can get on the same bus as Winky.

 

In General, Boxing started to improve at an accelerated rate in the in the early 60s and peaked and plateaued in the 80s-00s (perhaps in the mid 90s). I am not talking about just the Heavies (Unlike some so called fans who only know Klitbros) but in general. Some divisions may have had different peaks and valleys but in my IMHO this is the reality

 

So without big gloves, you think Winky is less than Championship callibure?

 

If you can find me any footage of a great fighter from back in the day that used to defend like Winky, I might have to rethink my opinion.

Until then...

 

So Winky Wright was only as well regarded as he was because he could wear large gloves?!

:-(

 

In general an emphatic yes.

Fighters in general are technically inferior now, there mostly cherry pick their opponents, fight less than the fighters of the past, and basically won't come out of their comfort zone unless they really have to or are forced to.

Check Manny Steward's, Joe Goosen's and Harold Knight's views on this subject from Ring magazine.

Sorry no link.

 

I don't recall saying that, but considering his entire gameplan was centered around his "impenatrable defense" in which he would allow his opponents to bang on his gloves, I think I would say that was a major factor of his game, wouldn't you?

If you could at least find me some footage of a great fighter with a similiar defense to Winky Wright, I might change my opinion about him...

But...I'm guessing you can't. If you do though...let me know...and like I said....

 

A thing about Boxing pal. You don't need to fight like a great before you, in order to reach that same level.

Winky had an excellent jab, a solid chin, a nice left hand and right hook and a very high Boxing IQ. He still could of fought with his high guard had he fought in the 50's, technical adjustments would of been needed but it's not beyond comprehension.

You don't like the high gloved turtle shell style, that's fine. Winky would do just fine in the 50's, small gloves or giant inflatable ones.

 

Now, you're just speculating.

We don't know if Winky could make the proper adjustments. We do know, unless you can find film footage that says otherwise, that the turtle shell high guard did not work back in the day.

Does Winky have power? Nope. Is he a speed demon? Nope.

I admit that he had a high ring IQ, but all of it centered around his high, turtle shell defense.

If ANYONE can find me a fighter from back in the day that used the same defense style, despite having smaller gloves...I would have to analyze the film and possibly rethink my position.

But everything you said is merely speculation considering, as stated numerous times before, that Winky's gameplan revolved around his defense.

His jab was as good as it was, in a big part due to his defense.

 

The same could be said about soccer across the world. Kids were playing soccer in the streets all over Europe after the war. They was no XBOX, no iphone and no dope to smoke like the kids do today. All they did was play soccer from an early age on. Kids held tournaments neighbourhood A vs. neighbourhood B each Saturday.

Today few new kids enter soccer. They don't give a **** about sports in general and rather load up on junk food, play XBOX and play with their iphones.

So was the 'talent pool' for soccer bigger in the 50s and yet nobody would bet a single buck on a 2010 soccer team losing to a 1950s soccer team. How come? :deal

This isn't about 'talent pool'. This entire discussion is first and foremost about the evolvement of professional sports. 1930s and 1940s athletes were not the dedicated professionals of the modern age. Youth training and scouting, nutrition, training regiments, sport scholarships, injury recovery and surgery. All these made huge improvements in the last 100 years. A lot of this is a function of money flowing into sports, from both TV stations and sponsoring/endorsements.

Arguing the allegedly huge 'talent pool' for athletes in past eras makes up for the dozens of circumstantial disadvantages they have compared to their modern peers doesn't do modern athletes justice :deal

 

You are completely overlooking the main point. Don't confuse "A great fighter" with "A great athlete."

It's all about spirit, desire to be the best, and desire to win at all cost. Fighters of past eras had this. Todays fighters, no matter how strong or quick, do not, for the most part. Today, it's all about padding records, protecting zeros, ducking serious opposition, collecting meaningless belts, and playing it safe in the ring. (with a few exceptions.)

 

Well said!Although judging from most posts from people all across these boards,most people would consider fighters from "their generation" to be the best.

 

Exactly how I feel. The nutrtion, training, and technique of today should be better than it was in the past. However, most of the fighters of today don't have the "win at all costs" and killer instinct mentalites of past greats. No way do Joe Louis, Ali, or Foreman let Haye hear the final bell like Wlad did. SRR would have faced Pac with a syringe in his arm. Fighters didn't go on "vacation" during their primes.

Of course, these changes are largely the result of the economics of boxing changing.