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

Theres alot fighters that were burned out early or they died from something boxing related. But thats the price they had to pay, but at the same time became so skilled. Im not saying fighters toda should fight as much but atleast study those guys. But theres also alot of guys that had alot of fights and still had good longevity. Like robinson was still fighting at the championship level in his 40s or archie moore was champion till he was 45. They did fight some bad fighters between but they also fought alot of great top contenders. Robinson fought like 60+ top 10 young and hungry contenders aside from all the champions he fought. Archie moore fought 100+ top 10 contenders.

 

It works both ways.

If you fight tons of fights, it affects your longevity.

Your body wears out faster.

On the other hand, the more you fight, the sharper your skills are.

The older guys were always sharp and in shape.

They encountered every style on the way up.

They lived in the gym with many of them walking around at literally just a few pounds over their fighting weight.

They were in shape all throughout the year.

They were more experienced.


Seeing as though this clown won’t even respond to me anymore, can you kindly ask him why today’s LMW’s, MW’s and SMW’s, weren’t as good as what they were 20-25 years ago?


Thanks.

 

All of this.


Another thing - athletes today are much bigger than athletes of the past. 72' dolphins are giving up 50lbs per man to the Patriots. Bob Cousy's Celtics couldn't beat many college teams today. That doesn't mean that these weren't far greater teams....but physically you can't compare to the past .

This isn't true in boxing. 147lbs is still 147lbs. The same day weigh-in messes things up a bit, so it's not practical to compare Canelo to Monzon for instance, because Canelo couldn't never have actually competed at 160lbs (he's in the ring at 180lbs+) so mythical matchups should pit him against bob foster, ezzard Charles, etc.

I'm taking the old timers every single time.

 

thx

 

Of course ring iq is important and ring iq can help you overcome a certain disadvantage in terms of size and athleticism but you simply hit a sealing at some point. Floyd can beat the bigger de la hoya because if his ring iq but froch mauls him no matter how smart he is, boxing is not 100% a cheese match.
To the second part of your post, thats really the stuff that I dont like about american boxing fans, its that nostalgia suggesting that those old trainers were some sort of magicians and that the new globalized generation of trainers is somehow inferior. Its like germans having an obsession with their own cars and unwillingness to accept that there are car brands from other country's that are of same quality or even better like the japanese ones. Why are you blaming gyms and can not simply say that foreign boxers just have surpassed american boxing. If american boxing would simply start to learn from the eastern european ones or cuban boxing, they would be way faster back on top then by marveling about a past that is long gone.

 

i really dont think that thats a goos idea. I can only imagine how many of those old guys must have had serious joint issues and so on.

 

i wouldnt necessary say so. The bodyfat percentage you have will play a big roll in how much of a advantage you have inside the ring. The lower your bodyfat the more you have either a muscle, height or weight( rehydration is higher) advantage. A lot of fighters today are so ridiculously dry on the scale
[url]https://www.google.de/search?q=canelo+weight+in&client=safari&hl=de-de&prmd=niv&sxsrf=ALeKk008FSS_1uUo6UnMeWhFcAlNnee_MQ:1589739976146&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBxMD0wrvpAhWv1aYKHZMtCFQQ_AUoAnoECBsQAg&biw=375&bih=635&dpr=3#imgrc=eB9GomsZTJsYPM[/url]

[url]https://images.app.goo.gl/61BSfQUJHMiu43us5[/url]

this simply gives you a advantage.
The whole trend kind of started in the very late 80s to 90s when guys like holyfield, rjj and tyson started to look like freakin body builders.

 

It's like you aren't even reading my posts.

1-i never said Floyd could beat light heavyweights, let alone one as skilled as Carl Froch.

2-they aren't even in the same division so that's a bad example. Floyd never weighed more than 154 and Froch was a career 175 pounder.

3-if you're implying Johnson's technique wouldn't be enough to overcome the size difference with modern super heavies I ALREADY SAID he would struggle with and likely lose to guys like Bowe, Fury, Lewis etc. I Even explicitly wrote that if he were in a time machine he would be better suited for cruiserweight, only taking on b and c level heavies for the money if the opportinity was there (guys like Bruno, arreola, Smith, takam etc).

4-Johnson has several fights where he weighs in the 210-220 range. He is also a defensive wizard. A cruiserweight fighting a guy whose 10 lbs heavier is NOT the same as a guy like Floyd who started at 124 and ended at 154 moving up to fight a guy like Froch who campaigned at 175 and walks around at 180-190.

5-why are we comparing welterweights to light heavyweights anyway? How does saying Floyd or sugar ray leonard would lose to a light heavyweight "prove" that the sport has progressed? In order for things to be accurate you would need to compare guys if similar size. For example, Marvin Hagler and golovkin or Willie pep and lomachenko.

6-your statement about a ceiling for ring IQ and that a smaller man would never beat modern sized guy is simply not true 100% of the time. In modern times Roy Jones and James Toney moved up from 160 to 200+ winning belts. Spinks went from 175 to 200+ and so did Michael Moore. Holyfield was a legend at cruiser and heavy.

In the old days ezzard Charles and Moore had tremendous succeeds at middle light and heavy. Sam Langford, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis became famous for KOing much larger opponents (sometimes giving up 30+ lbs in weight and several inches in height). You can make all sorts of excuses for the quality of the big men they beat, but you can't see example after example from multiple fighters across multiple decades and call them flukes. It's illogical.

7-it isn't thinking these trainers were "magical" their expertise and results spoke for themselves. Eddie Futch won multiple championships across multiple eras, from Frazier to Bowe and is highly praised to this day by both his colleagues and other fighters. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or American bias. Do you think Futch or Cus D Amato or Ray Arcel would be clueless or not very helpful or insightful in today's era? If You do, then you MUST think modern day trainers like Emmanuel Stewart or Roger Mayweather would be clueless and useless 50 years from now. Not all trainers are the same quality just like not all fighters are the same quality and this is your problem. Don Turner is an old school trainer and I think he's terrible. Even old school fans in the classic forum have criticized some of things he's said. Boxing ebbs and flows, it's not "linear". The current generation of boxers at 147, cruiser and heavy are all very exciting but that does NOT mean that when guys like Errol Spence or Usyk retire the next generation will be even more exciting and skilled. This does not require a lot of critical thinking it's simple observation.

The 60's were seen as a fairly mediocre era, then the 70's heavyweights were praised, then the 80's were criticized, then the 90's were seen as a resurgence of a great era. Why? Because the OVERALL crop of talent and skill were higher in some eras more than others. Generally speaking, the average 80's heavyweights were slightly larger than the 70's but they ALSO had drug problems, promotional disputes, were overweight, weren't dedicated to their craft, weren't as active, etc. This is an observable fact and even the fighters themselves will tell you they wish they could have some things differently.

However, it's easy to forget Tyson was very much of the 80's era yet he is considered one of the best heavyweights of all time and a head 2 head nightmare for many fighters both past and present? Why? Because combat sports are individualized one on one affairs. You cannot compare them to group sports like basketball or football, especially because you can have slackers on a team who don't train hard but get lucky and join a championship team! Not every athlete will naturally progress or break records universally. If you disagree go ahead and point out some modern fighters who have better head movement and hand speed than Tyson? Do any modern heavies have a jab as good as Larry Holmes who was ironically also an 80's era heavyweight?

 

The difference between Usain Bolt 2014 and Jesse Owens 1936 is less than one second. You also said "most sports". Boxing isnt "most sports" Baseball and boxing are two sports that immediately come to mind as being pretty close to timeless. Ted Williams would be one of the bestt players in todays game and Joe louis would be a dominant cruiserweight. He`d beat some heavyweights too but size would be a factor which is tthe only advantage todays fighters have over yesteryear.

 

1 second is a gigantic difference in track running.

 

Yes but the point im making is if you take Jesse Owens and put him against todays runners he still beat the majority of them.

 

I’m one of Usain’s biggest fans.

The man’s a legend.

I wish we had a time machine though. Because he’d be miles away from his Beijing record if he’d ran on an asphalt track in a pair of ‘Chuck Taylor’s’

 

Why aren´t today’s LMW’s, MW’s and SMW’s, as good as they were 20-25 years ago?

 

Jesse owens ran on ashes from burnt wood and without starting blocks, and with bad shoes. They calculated that he would have been just behind bolt if he ran on the same material and had running blocks.

 

So in addition to all the champions he met, Robinson also fought more than 60 top-10 ranked contenders?

This seems quite exaggerated - so I wonder, where you get this from?