Just how "GREAT" were the former American "WORLD CHAMPIONS" of the past??

So which Americans in which time period are you referencing?

And which non-Americans do you feel were underrated and better than them in that same time span?

Thanks.

 

but without the world titles, 20 odd defences, numerous HoF accolades, top dog status for years, world class resume and ATG status.
yes, great point there.




or the great jab. otherwise just like holmes.

 

American boxing WAS great.

Just in the 90's, boxing had Jones Jr, Toney, Whitaker, Nunn, Taylor, Holyfield, McClellan, Mayweather, Tyson, Norris, De La Hoya, Bowe, Randall, Kelley, Johnson, Corrales, Jackson, Winky, McGirt, Mosley, Hopkins.

Out of those guys, there are 9 ATG's, the others are HOF worthy or almost HOF worthy. That's a crazy number.

Who does America have now?
Ward (THE ONLY ATG), Wilder, Crawford, Thurman, Bradley, Porter. That is abysmal. There's only one ATG from that list, it's Ward. Bradley is possibly a HOF.
Crawford is completely unproven at the elite level..going life and death with a tiny + chin in air Gamboa doesn't cut it.

 

No hturd, I've reflected the Georges longevity is indicative of larger truths in boxing. The only arguments that have failed in these posts are yours. But you do it time and again, over and over, so I guess you're used to that.

 

so you confirmed again that you are extrapolating an individuals abilty on the entire generation, after just saying doing so is stupid, thanks.

now I remember why u are on ignore.

 

Try to get this straight hturd, I know logic is an impossible subject for you, so I won't hold my breath. I'm saying that Georges traits are indicative of larger tendencies in the world of boxing. Anything else is your inane and mindless delusions or color commentary.

 

too late chump, you used up your allotted time by both advancing then destroying your own argument singlehandedly.

bak to ignoreland 4 u, no need for anyone to argue against your self destruction.

 

I would take Hughie over prime Holmes right now. But it's not fair to compare historical heavyweight fighters from past eras against super heavyweights from the modern era.

 

I love how in hturd land, reality doesn't exist, its all but a land of hturd's whimsy. Seriously, the sht you say doesn't even make sense in the slightest, the rules of rational construction do not apply with you. The only argument I destroyed is yours, to the extent that you even form rationally cohesive enough ramblings to be called arguments.

 

You don't have the ability to separate mediocrities from ATGs. ? Cheers to you my friend. No wonder the General sucks so much these days

 

I'm not sure if you're trolling.

Very important points:
1. 60's-90's was THE ultimate PED era. It was rampant, testing was laughably weak (sometimes fighters weren't even tested at all). They have great benefits from modern nutrition.

2. Natural athletes are moving to other neighbouring sports i.e NFL, basketball. Opportunity costs also arise - many athletes are spending more time in education, some 'natural athletes' are not using their athletic potential at all as they're going into full-time education and careers. This trend is ever rising.

3. The amateur system in America has massively regressed in the last 20 years, and thus trainers have specialised in a way that isn't directly transferrable to pro boxing and all of its facets, today.

4. Eye test. It's very easy to see Larry Holmes is just echelons above Hughie Fury. If you're highly skilled, then your size as a heavyweight does not matter - Tyson being the main example.
Larry was 220lbs and had an 81 inch reach and was 6'3.

You are basically trying to tell me that Hughie Fury is BETTER than Holmes simply because he's 3 inches taller and 10lbs heavier

 

You are assuming that every fighter fought more than a hundred fights in his career and are taking the outliers for the norm. Sugar Ray Robinson's 200 fight career takes place in the same time period as Rocky Marciano's 49 fight career, Gene Fullmer's 64 fight career, Rocky Graziano's 67 fight career, Paul Pender's 48 fight career, etc.

James Toney 91 fights and Pongsaklek Wonjonkam 97 fights exists at the same time as Floyd Mayweather 49 fights. Boxing is a spectrum with Roberto Duran 119 fights at one end and Ray Leonard 40 fights at the other, with Julio Cesar Chavez Sr 115 fights on one end and Pernell Whitaker 46 fights at the other. Alexis Arguello will fight 96 times and Aaron Pryor will fight 40. James J. Jeffries has 23 fights on his CV while Jack Johnson has 104. James J. Corbett only has 24 fights compared to Bob Fitzsimmons 99.

If you'd bothered to click the link I provided to the thread comparing eras, you would see that only two of the champions were keeping up a breakneck pace of title defenses. Most of the fighters were meeting two or three opponents a year, the same as now.

The difference between the NFL and boxing is that boxing matured earlier and achieved a professional status decades before other sports. When Gene Tunney fought Jack Dempsey for the first million dollar purse, which would be worth the equivalent of 14 million dollars today, football and baseball players still had to work second jobs to support their families. The games and their audience were not as developed as boxing's was. In other words, Football and Baseball had a lot more room for growth, since boxing had already realized it's full potential whereas those other sports were still almost at an amateur level.

There are more people, but there are also more outlets for athletic endeavor. Ask yourself this, if there are more people now than in the 1960s, then why are the television ratings lower? Because there are more channels.

 

Far too premature to call Ward an ATG.

 

Responses in bold above.