Flip back several pages I have already explained it. Ask yourself. Where did most of the brazilian team of 82 play? Eh, thats right in Brazil. Where did all the best players overall play? thats right, in Europe. Where does the majority of this Brazilian team play? eh, thats right - in Europe. Where are all the best players in the world situated? thats right, in Europe. Do you even remember how bad Valdir Perez was? He was the worst keeper at international top lvl of all time. Why did the 82 team fail? Because the brazilian team was all about offence and had no regards on neither tactics nor strategy. Have they evolved since then? Yes, they have. Same goes with African team which at first obducted at Brazilian play style, only to mix in with european play style and sense of tactics. What tactics did the brazilian team of 58 use? thats right 4-2-4, which often resulted in 2-4-4. What tactics did the Swedish team use? 2-5-3 - would that work today? Of course not. 2 defenders rofl.
I'd favour RJJ and Calzaghe to both beat Monzon, though they'd be tough fights. I'd make Monzon favourite against the other two. :good
Ali was not primitive. Fair enough the 70's version would be 50/50 against Lewis, stylistically Lewis potentially gives him a very tough time. He'd beat both Klits, Bowe and quite likely a peak Tyson too. :yep
Drugs.Every major sprinting champion in the last twenty years has tested positive. But maybe your right, Pavlik, Kessler and Dawson all beat Jones because of modern methods. Audley harrison beats Ali, Miranda beats Robinson. that's just the way it is, evoluton...atsch
The '82 Brazil team would kick the **** out of the current one. Defence is the only thing they sucked at, but better possession retaining players, better goalscorers, better creative players, better everything going forward. If negative defensive football is the true evolution of football then England would be the best team in the world and **** me, we are not.
Have you also discounted the fact that more people are into track & field and swimming today as well? When more people are competing for the same thing doesn't the level of competition also rises? From what I understand there were more people into boxing in the 40s/50s then there are today. Infact boxing is a dying sport. It's seen as brutal and primitive and some people are trying to ban it. Didn't boxers back then constantly go 15 rounds at 2 or 3 week intervals? I'm not sure what more effective way to condition the body and sharpen the skills than to fight quality opponents regularly. Sure beats nutrition to me. No amount of nutrition and modern training techniques could prevent De La Hoya from fading late. Back in those times or even Monzon's time there were less belts, which meant that you were forced to fight more people or the best, unlike today. By doing so doesn't this mean that it's more competitive? So, I don't entirely agree with you that todays fighters feeding on advanced nutrition knowledge and modern boxing techniques alone are superior to active fighters from yesteryears. The probable exception is the heavyweight division where size gives a distinct advantage as there is no limit.
How? You can't just say this boxer beats this guy and not explain it. Oh yeah Carl Froch could definitely beat Wilfred Benitez like bruh
Hold up hold up, you can't say RJJ lacked top level competition, you can't really say this fighter did this or that simply because of the year they were born in. Just by the eye test I could tell RJJ would knock out Monzon in 5 rounds. RJJ simply looked to good against above average competition. RJJ would easily beat Monzon opponents.