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

yes, i get your point....if i did not have the options that i do know, i would have been a prizefighter as well.

 

While it is true that there were more who were in boxing before, many of them are actually not full-time fighters. MOst of them have day jobs because boxing can not raise a family. Unless you are a marquee boxer, then fighting is just used to supplement income.

Boxers fought several times a year even for marquee boxers but most of those are against fighters that are overmatched. That was because it was free to air event except in rare instances where it involves great fighters. Even if you re-examine Duran's resume, even when he was already the 130 champion, he had fought many fighters with absolutely bad resume, meaning fighters with less than 10 professional fights, fighters with more losses than wins. Those fights happen in between mega-fights. That is absolutely not acceptable in today's era because even a supposedly tune-up fight is expected to be competitive.

Armstraong had more than 100 fights in his belt. Had he done that today, with todays boxing standard and training, he surely would either be dead or brain-damaged.Sometimes he foughts once or twice a month but most are against part-time fighters, or fighters who had their backyard as training ground.

PPV changed everything because people who watch boxing are paying to see professional fighters. Now the main card and undercard has to have a semblance of an evenly matched fight or at least a possiblity of upset(that is supposed to be the theory).

 

Another difference is that Boxing is used to be owned by the MOB probably as a money laundering device. Everybody who knows history knows that Vegas was built by mobsters.

That is probably why it was so robust back then because they never need to make money in every fight. Everybody who is anybody has to be in a marquee boxing match because it has exposure via free tv.

 

same!:good

 

The old fighters were about 180% tougher basically in better shape too its impossible to deny wore gloves with less padding took more didn't quit when it was convenient look at Henry Armstrong on his opponets like flys on **** in his prime had something like a 97-1-87KO streak defended his title 18 times in 22 months held 3 titles at the same time when there was only 7 or 8 the old fighters were better actually faced eachother and often, way tougher the only thing they were lesser at was defense fans back then cared about more than just the win they liked getting there moneys worth.

 

Thats exactly what im saying back then the greats often fought eachother. Fighters from lower weight classes would often beat heavier fighters didn't even bother to bulk up they fought at the weight they were comfortable at and no one cared all to much - except the guys that bet a lot. When the great fighters lost to another great which happened often strangely enough no one was that bothered since great fighters fought eachother in great fights which is why I say do away with the stupid build every prospect up to a 20 something and 0 record against bums no one cares or ever will when all the top fighters fought eachother people didnt care so much about losses for good reason this bull**** intelligence insulting hype crap obviously hasnt worked since at least 90%+ people ive mentioned boxing too can only mention the names Tyson and Ali. People back then are the same as people now they want to see there fighters show heart battle through adversity and be warriors some may argue all that matters is the win but thats clearly not the case.

 

I think money in the sport has changed the way fighters have evolved.

As has already been mentioned, fighters used to fight many more bouts in their career for two reasons.

Until Ali there wasn't the huge sums of money involved in boxing (or most sports) as there is today and boxers had to fight more bouts to feed their families.

Also losing a bout wasnt as big a deal as it is nowadays. It used to be an occupational hazard but now it can be a career finisher.

In short fighters of the past probably contended with a large number of lower quality opposition making their performances look better and their records look greater.

 

Past greats are automatically considered to be greater, regardless if they are or not.

 

salute you

 

Ya i'd agree with what yer saying there.

But also i' say that in recent times, being a world champion or a multi-weight world champion means less and less these days. Back when there was 1 title, or even 2 per divisions, and fewer weight classes it meant alot more. You have to put accomplishments into perspective.

 

Agreed!

You can stand this debate on it's head by asking, What if we went back to the original 8 divisions? The talent pool in every division would be much deeper, and therefore, produce better fighters. If we went back to just two sanctioning bodies (WBA and WBC) along with that, we would not have world titlists who have never even been in the ring with a world champion. For example, if we elimated 154 and 168, WW, MW, and LHW would be absolutely jammed with talent. You would not be able to win a world title without actually being a world champion calibre fighter. Quite a game changer!