I saw some people here getting a little desperate and silly in defending their heros. Nobody is trying to downplay their achievements or their ability compared to the rest of the field in their era. Some of us are simply suggesting that the sport evolved in some ways, but ESPECIALLY in the HW division in terms of the size, athleticism and skill(atleast the skill of the SHWs), no i dont think the HWs of the last 15 years are very skillful P4P, but theyre so big and powerful in combination with reasonable boxing skills that i dont see a 185 pound man who is hittable, who was susceptible to cuts, who fought almost exclusively going forward, and had a 67 inch reach beating a 250 pound powerhouse. I think most of us agree that if a Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano was born in the 60s or later, it would be a different story.
I just hope I'm not in here in 50 years arguing Riddick Bowe can KO1 some 8foot 500lb lab experiment that has laid waste to the HW division of 2067 with a 45-0 (45 KO's) record. "But he got 2 DQ's over Golota" - JoffJoff (2067)
No worries...Everyone has their opinion...and I can see the viewpoint that the modern day athlete is the bigger, stronger, faster athlete...But with that said, boxing draws on intangibles that other sports don't...you can't readily just crunch numbers and predict who beats who in a chaotic setting of controlled violence. In fact, correctly predicting outcomes of fights today is a tough endeavor to be consistent withThe old timers like Marciano and Louis were great during their times...each was trained by very knowlegable boxing men in Blackburn and Goldman...and you can include Dempsey in that mix...Dempsey bridged that gap to Louis, Louis and Marciano to Ali...With that considered I'll take Ali as the GOAT at his peak way back in '64-'67...and given styles Marciano and Louis would be more than credible opponents...They may lose to the modern day athlete, but I honestly don't think anyone walks through them...Boxing is called the "sweet science" and while strength and size do play a major part(s) it sometimes doesn't equate to who wins a fight...and still today lighter weight heavys that came up from cruiser ie Holyfield, Haye, Toney...etc have had success against modern super heavies. That alone blasts holes through bigger is always better... If I remember Emanuel Steward wouldn't even pretend to let Toney have a fight against Wlad...Why? I think Wlad would no doubt beat him arm wrestling...and he also had every major physical advantage you could possibly check off....Why would James not get that shot??? It was styles! and the old timers, (especially the great ones being mentioned as no hopers alot here recently) had the ability to flat fight. So everybody can go ahead and make fun of the old timers...but in doing so you neglect history...and it's been written..."There's nothing new under the sun" I agree with that...because I really haven't seen that huge quantum leap in evolution yet...at least not in boxing!....****...Spending too much ****ing time on here...
I would never try to downplay a past fighters greatness. How evolved or not evolved boxing is today has nothing to do with the sacrifices, courage and toughness that old time fighters needed to overcome their obstacles with the tools they had. But a direct comparison is a direct comparison
Bigger is better all things equal...but they are not...once a fighter gets above 6 three he will never be a great fighter...too easy to hit....he could be very good but never great....no boxing is not for very tall better suited for 6 three and below
I honestly think with a sport like boxing...any attempted direct comparison between eras is at best, to coin a phrase, is like comparing apples and oranges....Like I said before, with all the variables in today's game...consistently picking winners today...right now... is difficult. Comparing eras is that much further removed...making it that much more difficult. That is pretty far from a confirmed conclusion one way or another.
I know what you are trying to convey but i think you have technique mixed up with greatness. It's going to be hard for a guy over 6'3 to be a great "technician" but if he's beats everyone going for years on end (including very good opposition too of course, not talking a dud era like more recently) then he's surely great no? Also a guy over 6'3 with a top jab and great power is not necessarily going to be easy to hit. I wouldn't call Lennox Lewis easy to hit for example. His size and power kept many a brute in their shell i.e. David Tua.
lol I mean, the bubble is going to burst any decade now anyway right? Once high schoolers use commodity biotech enhancements, they'll be way better athletes than professionals who don't. Also as medical advances go, boxers will suffer much less injury. Eventually, they'll be fresh before and after every fight. Oh, not to mention that people will essentially stop aging. That will surely hurt some 20th century resumes. The best will be when we can recreate Marciano and Joshua in their primes, and match them up together.
btw, I was responding to direct critiques that were common, but yet ran afoul with what I saw on footage. It has less to do with respecting legends of old, and more to do with the accuracy of information about the sport. I know everyone here mostly respects the old timers, which I think is why we're all here. When we're talking about head to head, it should be on the merits of their boxing abilities. Sometimes out of the ring events play a role in the assessment, but old timers shouldn't get free points for being historic.
