what is the difference between the past greats and the modern greats

Stamina . . . they use to fight 15 rounds fights. But in terms of technique the modern greats has it. We already have scientific training methods.

 

it is hard to be great today if you only stayed in only one division

 

Not a lot really. For me, hideously over rating people that there's not even any video footage of is one of the most annoying things that goes on here.

Whether people actually believe the stuff they say or whether they just thing saying "Harry Greb KO1" will make it sound like they know about boxing is the interesting thing.

Realistically, its a 2 factor thing:

1. There used to be more people boxing. This means its statistically more likely that the best 100 boxers at any given time were probably more naturally talented than the best 100 boxers now. This is simply because of having a larger field to pick from.

2. Modern training and nutrition is massively better than it used to be. Massively. I don't understand how people don't get this. In other sports you have yardsticks you can measure against, eg how high, how fast etc. In boxing you can only compete against whats in front of you, so it is harder to compare. However, do people genuinely believe that boxing is THE ONLY sport whose participants have not become better athletes as a result of modern technology, science and methodology? (Fatass heavyweights notwithstanding). The other thing is as a result of all these advances as well as the timing of weigh ins, modern fighters are substantially bigger at the weight than old time fighters

As such, the answer to your question depends on how you compare them: If you grabbed a fighter from the 1930s and dropped them into 2009 to fight for a belt they would get the **** kicked out of them. If you got the best 10 middleweights from the 1930s and bought them into today aged 12 and gave them the benefits of modern science, technology etc they would be better than the 10 best current middleweights. This is based purely on statistics.

 

15 round fights.

 

when you cmopare modern greats to past greats i always look at how that past great dominated his opponents relative to the percieved skill level and difficuilty at that time and compare how the modern great dominated his opponents during his time. in Financial modeling you call this covariance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance

obviously the skill level level of modern greats is much higher but some of the guys who you were using footwork head movement in the past were pioneers! get me?

teh biggest difference between the past greats and modern greats is that the throwback fighters had more heart!

 

:good
I've always thought that in general, boxing included, the athletes get better as we have the advantage of learning from the past and the advantage of better nutrition and conditioning.

But you made a really good point about how the boxing scene was very different back then. There were way more fighters fighting way more often and way more rounds. So those who reached the top went through hell and high water to get there and you can be sure that they were really extraordinary fighters.

 

This is why I try not to compare people from today and people of like the 1920's or something. I just like to see who is the best in their own era. Like for example Bernard Hopkins is the best Middleweight of his era, but of all time? I don't know and I wouldn't know if Hopkins would beat Hagler, Monzon, SRR, etc.

 

this is EXACTLY how i feel, i honestly dont think i have anything to add to this.

i just dont understand why everyone else doesnt get this.

 

When a modern heavyweight builds Ali's resume, or a modern welterweight goes on a 120 fight winning streak like Robinson did, I'll buy right into your position.