What are your thoughts on the age-old question of whether modern fighters are really better than older fighters? Where do you stand?
Nah. Look at the star of the HW division right down to LW. SRR, SRL, Tyson, Holmes, RJJ, Toney, Hearns, Curry, Pryor, Chavez... Can you imagine those guys in today's era? They'd clean house!
I don't think that it is a particularly usefull question to be honest. The greatest figthers in any given weight class are standouts, and could theoreticaly crop up anywhere.
I don't make generalizations one way or another. I think you have fighters in every era, some of which would do well in other periods and some wouldn't. And then you have fighters who benefitted specifically from being in the given era they were raised in while others fell victim to it.. About the only division where there may be an exception is heavyweight due to the fact that heavyweights are constantly getting bigger and bigger. If you were to look at a graph which showed the size of every heavyweight champion from Sullivan to Klitscko you'd see a non stop rise with the exception of the occasional ripple here and there ( Willard, Carnera, etc...) This isn't to say that "bigger" is always "better".. But it does prove to be an advantage and in some head to head fantasy fights it may very well be the deciding factor.
I think modern fighters are better in some respects but the sport has regressed in some respects too so...it's basically a rhetorical question. As said, the increasing size of the heavies does throw some interesting questions in there, and same-day weigh-in's are long gone so you have natural middleweights scaling down to make weight at 154 or even 147 and then rehydrating to their full weight. It's thrown a curveball into fantasy fights and of course this in fantasy land favours modern fighters.
I second that. I think there are great fighters in every era, but there are less of them now, if that makes sense! You didn't even mention Arguello, Olivares, Monzon, Spinks or Napoles; there just seemed greater depth in previous eras.
No way. Fighters were much more seasoned than todays protected fighters. The Heavyweight division with its larger and heavier fighters has changed the discussion though. The old champions would still be able to compete, but they would be hampered. The Lower weight classes have no such claim. I think many of yesterdays champs would have a field day if they came along now.
Better in terms of skills. YES and NO. Fought more ranked opponents? No Hit harder? I'd lean toward Yes. The rounds allowed, gloves, corner work to repair cuts / swelling, and referee style has changed over time.
No. Watch May v Pac. If those are the absolute cream of the crop then modern fighters must be pretty awful. But being generous, I actually doubt those two are the best two. Also, old school fighters fought harder, longer fights, fought more often, fought with smaller gloves, and fights were not stopped as easily. By these objective measures, modern fighters are performing below the par of the old school fighters.
All them fellas proved themselves in the ring the best at their weight fighting the best about. Today's fighters don't have to do that. they get manouvered into title shots against abc champs and rarely fight the best at their weight. If they did some of them might even become better fighters for it. The fellas you mentioned did it the hard way and came out on top.
some fighters prove they are the best at their weight, by unifying today. for instance wlad is fair bet to be the best HW, since he holds mosrt of the crowns. The only one to dispute that is Wildman, and perhaps one or two prospects/contenders but once they fully prove themselves.