In most sports the current guys are better than previous eras, why would boxing be any different?

Ok mate, crack on then.

 

I’m not so sure about that. Zack Page was around Dempsey’s size, but despite being almost 40 and out of shape Fury didn’t do a one round job on him and Dempsey was both more skilled and more experienced than Page and hit much harder.

This content is protected

 

I'd say this point applies equally well to boxing, but not to the same extent. But put, say, Shannon Briggs in the old time machine and drop him into the 1930's, and he'd be considered the greatest fighter who'd ever lived bar none.

 

I believe some of the greatest fighters of all time fought in the late 60s and early 70s and the champions of that time are in everybody's top ten so, Ali- HW Foster-LH Monzon-M Napoles-W Duran-L Saldivar-F Olivares-B Ohaba-F Agreed...

 

He was stopped by 215 Darrol Wilson in 3 rounds.

He was schooled by a 50 year old George Foreman.

 

The reason boxing is a stand-alone sport, is basically because those other sports rely more on athletic performance than what boxing does.

Runners and swimmers etc, are racing against a clock, where the results are timed using milliseconds.

Power and stamina = speed.

Speed = The fastest and best athlete.

Of course they are also skilled as well, with technique which they have to master. But athletic performance outweighs everything else.

In boxing, you’re not racing a guy against a clock, where speed determines the winner.

It’s a physical game of chess, that is based on how your skills match up.

You’re not out racing someone, you’re trying to out think them by using a strategic game plan.

There’s no difference between a perfectly placed left hook from the 30’s, to a perfectly placed left hook from today.

Boxing has progressed from the Marquess of Queensbury rules, but for a number of decades now, the sport has just ebbed and flowed throughout all of the divisions.

Sometimes divisions are strong and thriving, sometimes they’re average and sometimes they’re weak.

All you have to do is to look through the divisions.

The current CW division is strong with much more depth than of recent years, whereas the MW and SMW divisions are nowhere near as strong as what they’ve been in previous decades.

Some of today’s guys could beat some guys of the past.

Some of the guys from the past could beat some of today’s guys.

There’s great fighters in every era.

The year the fighters were born isn’t relevant.

What’s relevant, is how they match up stylistically with their opponent.

The boxers cannot and do not get better with each passing decade.

No new techniques have been invented.

Apart from the size of some of the HW’s, boxing today is the same as what it was 40-50 years ago.

 

Hi again - I think the point I am making is my own opinion that in the 1930's fighters were terrible. And that were Shannon Briggs (just for example) transported back then he would literally punch everyone's head off. This is not the same as claiming Shannon Briggs (just for example) is fantastic and is the best boxer ever ever ever ever. Hope helps!

 

Excellent post

 

Thanks.

 

Rubbish.

You’re not looking at one fighter.

You’re looking at the whole division in general, as well as all of the other weight classes.

 

Another excellent post

 

You admitted you were trolling on this subject 2 weeks ago.

So your opinion is worthless.

Look at your first paragraph. It mentions everything apart from the most important thing: Skill

Nobody knowledgeable believes that boxing keeps progressing.

All you have to do is use your eyes and do some quick comparisons.

The start of the 90’s was now 30’s years ago.

Go and compare the HW, JMW, MW and SMW divisions of today to back then.

There’s no comparison.

The 90’s had much more quality and depth.

That’s just a very quick example.

Now look at the other classes.

Boxing ebbs and flows and has done for decades.

You’ve got to be an absolute moron to seriously believe that these current fighters are the best fighters of all time.

Anybody who seriously believes that needs to delete their account and find another sport to watch.

 

Right.

Yet you could take Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis from the 1920’s and 1940’s, and they’d be able to knockout some of today’s CW’s and HW’s, depending on how their styles matched up.

So your analogy means nothing.

In running, the better athlete records the quickest time.

In boxing, the outcome of the fight is based on how they match up stylistically.

They’re completely different sports.

We know that Carl Lewis couldn’t have beaten Usain Bolt.

Yet I’d bet my house that Mike Tyson would have beaten Deontay Wilder and Anthony Joshua.

 

Great post.

 

It's a myth that athletes are better, conditions have changed, but athletes are still athletes.

Bolt runs on a perfect track in perfect condition, Owens ran on dirt. Models suggest that if Owen's was running on a track as perfect as olt he'd be within a hairs length.