New vs Old

Boxing is not the same as it was. There are no longer 15 to 45 round fights.

The top fighters do not fight anywhere near as often as used to.

There are different rules.

Training and nutrition has changed.

But I suspect if you were to bring a Dempsey/Marciano/Robinson back and have them train and fight under today's rules, they would rise to the top of the sport again.

The same way as if the 60s swimmers would if they used today's training techniques, nutrition and swimming costumes...

 

I'm a steadfast supporter of the idea that recent boxers have more refined talent and are faster and stronger. I was one that'd based everything on film, but something doesn't stick. To me, Ray Robinson looks like he'd destroy anyone, in a time where nobody else really impresses me on film. Fast forward to recent times, A Mike Tyson highlight makes Tyson look unstoppable, of course i know this is absolutely not the case. But to a casual fan, Tyson is the man. To my casual boxing fan friends, Tyson is unbeatable.

What i've come to realise is that in essence i am a casual fan of the previous eras. Bias is spread evenly across the generations. And thinking about it, the traits of older fighters; fight everyone, tiny gloves(easily injured), not paid much(fighting for legacy), are traits of men i shouldnt be disrespecting.

 

Yeah but this is also due to film technique that today's fighter's look better. More cameras, more angles, better technique and so on. You can't compare a film from the early 00s, 20, 30s, or even 60s to today's. Look a the movies of back then and today. Not comparable.

TBooze is right. Greats would be always great no matter in which era. If you rate fighters you must rate them in their era. Discussing h2h is fun but in he end no one is right and everybody just has an oppinion.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptv-be_QafQ[/ame]

This is with a normal film speed and good frame speed, but it can change your perceptions imo.

 

I'll never understand these questions...

The only reason athletes in any sport can be seen to be getting better is because they are using technologies that were not available to previous atheletes.

If you want to use this as evidence that Floyd Mayweather is better than Ray Robinson then you're missing the point.

If I had a Ferrari and Schumacher a VW camper van I reckon i could win the race. Doesn't make me a better driver.

Einstein never used the internet, doesn't make us smarter than him.

 

That's the thing, it's impossible to say.

The rule's have changed so the extent where fighters have to fight a lot differently, I really don't seen much point in comparing era's as there's just too much to take into consideration.

Dempsey fought like that because the rules in his era allowed him to.

 

Well my point is really that on top of it being 1)completely hypothetical, 2)the rules and training methods being completely different, and 3)the fact that i never witnessed him in action or have seen him on clear film and do not know about the times or his opponents...that my hypothetical opinion ani't worth a ****, x3. And unless you can meet all the criteria above(which you cannot possibly meet the 1st point) then as others have said above, its pointless talking about. Or maybe not talking about, but pointless debating and arguing about. And P4P lists can only be relevant for each individual era. Thats the conclusion ive come to.

 

I refuse to accept that a top welterweight from today who has had all the benefits of modern training and nutrition, like Miguel Cotto for instance, would automatically beat an old fighter such as Sam Langford. If Cotto moved up to fight any decent middleweight of today, I believe he'd be crushed. Sam Langford moved up to fight lightheavys and heavys with distinction. Could Miguel Cotto of 2010 at 147lbs beat the 190-200lbs heavys of Langford's era? I'd say no. The special fighters of the past were special, it's not dewy-eyed nostalgia. Their achievements were and still are astounding. For a guy who fought at light and welter to go up and compete with lhw's and hw's to me is concrete evidence of a very special talent who would have been special in any era. For someone to say that a limited and flawed fighter like Cotto automatically beats someone of Langford's proven achievements due to nutrition just doesn't hold up at all IMO.

 

Arguing and debating is never wrong because you can learn plenty if you are open minded. Your point three is a no point btw. there is much film for most of the fighters discussed and you can read plenty about every era and their contenders.

btw. this is the first hread I see you writing posts hat make sense. I hope you keep it that way :good

 

Yeah but seeing the odd surviving tape and reading the odd surviving article is in no way the same as living in that era. As you can see in general, recent fights are thoroughly dissected, circumstances are known, issues, even the mood of the fighters. Sky sports can tell us one thing, ring magasine can tell us another, but we know anyway, or atleast can see the context of what they're telling us and if they maybe/probably are/for hype, twisting things. We know the feel of things, the general opinions, how highly regarded fighters are etc..

haha im abit of a clown anyway. Tbh i'm not too knowledgable on fighters from before the 70's i'll admit i didn't know much about them. But the feeling i got from this board was that only a select few of you actually do, then a shitload of posters just copy(ex. fleaman) what that select few say to make themselves look knowledgable. And it was annoying to read.

But still i stand by this, as far as Duran goes, i lived boxing through that era and I do not rate him above SRL or Hearns in any way, shape or form, but that is for the other billion threads

 

in the course of human evolution, 100 years are likea grain of sand. And so with boxing also...Except for the heavyweights of today, who are larger, not by natural process, but by access to better food, vitamins,and much much less running, vigorous training,etc...I am sure most of their bulking up is excess fat and water, not conducive for 15 and more round bouts....Bigger does not mean better I say...There is the law of diminishing returns.Joe Louis in prime at 200lbs, in a clinch once lifted 255lb. Primo Carnera,a foot a two away,so Louis would have punching room.Louis at 200lbs of lean muscle would,get inside George Formans ponderous punch,and counter with hooks,straight rights with such speed, and leverage, that it would be all over soon.Some old writer once wrote that "no human body could survive a Joe Louis attack"....Just watch the Louis of the Max Baer fight...To hit so fast and powerful,at 200 lbs., and for 15 rounds cannot be matched by todays Heavyweight dreadnoughts...In the golden age of boxing, fighters would have between 100 t0 300 career fights.Some woud averagea bout every 2 weeks or so...They had great great trainers, some who I would see at Stillmns Gym in the 1940,s, like Ray Arcel Whitey Bimstien, Freddie Brown, Charley Goldman,Chickie Ferrara,etc...Full time trainers, for 30 years or more...They would work in the 1940s,5 or 6 nights a WEEk in the New Work Arenas alone.To some this up...In the 19402 and certainly before there were five times vat least, as many pro fighters in America, boxers would averagethree to five times bouts in their carreers, and being trained more vigorously by the best experienced full time trainers, I think I make my case that the old time fighters,whose motivation was greater...If you did not fight ,you did not eat...One analogy..If I wereto require a heart bypass...Upon research, would I choose a surgeon, who performed apuot 60 operations or the surgeon who performed 300 or more surgeries....Same with fighters....Overwhelming experiences,under more tougher times makes me pick the oldtimers.....