Have boxers gotten better as time progressed?

Ray Robinson was 85-0 before turning pro.

 

I'll agree with this. The way Armstrong positioned himself on the inside was a thing to behold, he was consistently off-axis in his stance, plus he was good at rolling with punches to take the steam off of them. He could slip the jab on the way in, or parry it before initiating the charge into range.

Henry's D was underrated.

 

I'd never **** on anything prior greats did. Armstrong is a big reason of what makes this sport so great.

Today's fighters are standing on the shoulders of giants and will probably never match the good ol' generations in toughness or ruggedness. But they have their exploits and progressing science to build on.

Foe myself, I can literally can't get enough of watching Sanchez, McCallum, the Fab Four, Arguello and many others. What happens currently is more of an afterthought - hence why I only post in Classic.

 

You said Benitez never beat a prime great. I was correcting you. Cervantes was a great fighter. Benitez beat him in his prime. Cervantes beat Dejesus who I think was great or close to it and turned in a performance for the ages in doing so.

Your point about May and Pac MAYBE meeting some day illustrates my point better than yours. Fighters avoid each other for the better part of a decade now and only fight when it no longer matters. Tyson-Lewis, Pac-May (if they ever even fight) or both a couple of examples of this among tons. Whatever. The sport sucks today. Less fighters, less talent, less schooled trainers, more weight divisions, more titles. Hell, Im probably champion of something and dont even know it. To each his own I guess but fans today dont understand how bad it is because they didnt get to see how good it was.

 

Was De Jesus a a great just because he beat Duran in a non title fighte, but then was clearly beat in their title fights? Well... But, anyhow, you still haven't answered me about Hearns, Hagler et al.

For me, the sport isn't **** today just because Pac and Floyd haven't met yet (which wasn't really on the cards when Pac was a lineal Flyweight champion and Floyd a SFW title holder). The mere fact that a showdown between the two is seen as a given shows things are pretty exiting.

Hopkins, Pac, Wlad and Floyd are winding down great careers, Ward and GGG are in the middle of theirs, and Lomachenko and Rigo are on the start of what could well prove to be greatness. Doesn't seem that dismal to me.

 

I disagree that Floyd has had a great career. Hes had a great career for him but as a boxing fan his career has been pure ****. Hopkins is 50 and cant carry the sport on his shoulders (not that he ever could). Wlad's career has as well carried its share of criticisms and hardly an example of the sport thriving. Indeed, again, his and his brothers career of sharing the title is a better example of how watered down boxing is today. When was the last time Ward fought? He fights once a year and GGG hasnt even had a single marquee fight yet and you call that a great career? The guy is about to fight another no-hoper journeyman in Rubio. At this point in his career in 1950 he wouldnt even be on TV yet and today hes called great. The fact that you can call a four fight veteran "on the path to what could well prove greatness" again proves how weak the sport is. Rigondeaux is 33, ancient at BW how much further can he realistically go? No, all of this again points to how weak the sport is today.

 

I just said Ward and GGG are in the middle of their careers, not that their careers are great. Just that the possibility is there.

But I think your post is a bit symptomatic of this forum when it comes to the sport currently. Only focussing on the negative. Floyd's career being "pure ****"? That's just pure madness. It could of course be improved upon, as could SRR:s career and many others', but "pure ****"? Jesus.

I'll just close with this:

Saying that the current era is **** and earlier ones much better has been done all throughout boxing's history and actually as far back as in ancient Greece. So since very few of those hundreds of generations critizing their current one as inferior to previous ones can't possibly be right, are you sure you are? When something you're saying is extremely generic and in most cases wrong, you should really ask yourself this question and think hard before answering.

 

agreed, the accomplishments are there but where were the great wins?
as a fan, his career, however successful, was always a bit dissatisfying to say the least

 

Boxing us at its lowest ebb technically, with a few rare exceptions.

Sugah Jay is a troll who should kill himself.

 

I can see an argument that talent and ability wise today's fighters are as good as any other time (i wouldnt necessarilly agree, but they are not as bad as some make out). Mayweather, Hopkins, Klitchsko and a few others are arguably top 10 all time fighters. But in the last 5 years, do we even have 1 true champion of any section?

Wlad is the first obvious answer, but he clearly didnt fight his no 1 contender and clear standout in his brother. We all cut him the slack, of course, and it is understandable from a personal point of view, but it creates a situation where we dont have a champion. And i think it typifies todays situation. If the same scenario had existed today as it had years ago, it isnt inconcievable that we would see guys like Fred Fulton, Sandy Ferguson or George Godfrey establish claims as top 10 all time greats or at least dominant champions by ducking and not fighting others. Others like Carnera, Willard Imagine how good the careers of guys like Tommy and Mike Gibbons, Les Darcy, Jack Dillon etc would look. Or it could go the other way. How good would Robinson, Greb etc look when they have only 30-40 fights including close decisions or losses to the likes of Servo, Levine, Gibbons, Tunney, Maxim etc. All of these opponents, of course, being completely unproven at world level even if most of them had close to 25 and 0 records.

In the last 5 years, i dont really think i can name a contender who is the champion, and has fought his best available challenger. In fact, in most cases, i dont even think i could name the best available challenger. I alreasdy mentioned Wlad and Vitali who are at least two standouts. What about light heavy? who is the best fighter. is it Hopkins? in a pretty decent division, he probably did more by fighting Dawson

Actually, to be honest, i dont think i can be bothered finishing looking at the current scene. There are some decent fighters named, Hopkins, Klitchsko, Mayweather, Golovkin and fair few others. But what is the point, they never fight each other ever. Mayweather Pac was a great fight at one stage. It just doesnt happen. Every single meaning full fight that ever happens nowadays involves at least one completely unproven fighter at world level, who has a questionable chin (questionable or unproven, not necessarilly bad we just dont know whether it is good or not and a padded record). Usually world title fights involved nothing more than top contenders (unproven again) fighting each other more often than a not in a case which if it goes to the cards will mean nothing because the everyone knows the loser will be trumpeted as the winner by at the very least his own supporters and the confidence in the official decision and importance in it will pretty much be nothing. It isnt unusual for the loser to be trumpted as the victor (even if it isnt a particularly close fight) and for him to go on and become the world champ in his next fight or so, with the winner largely ignored.

I can remember a commentator in one of Austin Trout's world title defences making the comment once that he really surprised tonight and he showed that he had the potential to become one of the best fighters in the world. To me that sums up todays scene perfectly. A world champion and we dont even know if he is World class or not.

 

The technique is pretty hideous today, bar a few exceptions.

If anyone refuses to acknowledge that more weight classes than ever, as well as more fighters than not cutting huge amounts of weight has drastically changed the boxing landscape, they are a modern day apologist, and are exactly the same as those they point the finger oht for wearing rose tinted spectacles and whatnot.

 

Those fighters from earlier eras didnt have the benefit of being able to watch high definition DVDs of all of their opponents bouts before hand (and thats after cherry picking a guy you know you can beat). Those old time fighters had to be prepared to fight a big guy or a little guy, a banger or a boxer, a pressure fighter or a cutie, a lefty or a righty, etc etc sight unseen. In short they were much better schooled at dealing with a wide variety of sizes, styles, temperments, etc. Given as often as they fought how could they not be. Nowadays its the rule not the exception for top fighters to only fight against a fighter they are comfortable facing. Its made doubly easy because rather than wait forever for a title shot the fighter being ducked can just go find a title in another sanctioning body and do the same thing. The sport is a crock of **** today. Im amazed sometimes it still exists. But for a few guys who carry the sport (and more because of their adoring fan base than because they are really that good) the sport would be a complete backwater. It has nobody to blame but itself (the promoters, networks, fighters, and even fans). Theyve all colluded in a myriad of ways to dumb down the sport and make it a sad spectacle compared to what it once was.