Harry Greb vs Roy Jones Jr.

good points and it's not to say those conditions weaken all of them but i feel many boxers did not achive their best as a result. some thrived on those conditions, others didn't. it's not a matter of modern vs old time, but more of relative conditions. if you can't afford a trainer, or a heavy bag, and you work out in you backyard punching a laundry bag full of socks, maybe you'll turn out to be marciano but maybe you'll be a guy with a lot of talent whose tools were never sharpened to their finest point. i'm saying that many impoverished fights did not have access to the great boxing teachers or training sessions that COULD have made them great

 

i see your points, you're just harsher on old braddock than i would be. I think he made for a very solid (but yes unreliable) light heavy who on his best night was a force to reckon with. but as you said, he was inconsistent and it cost him big time

 

the same is true in this era. even more because the amount of real boxing coaches has dropped tremendously.

 

absolutely. i don't think it's an era issue per se, but the lack of resources can hurt fighters. especially now as there is a dearth of quality coaches and in turn, quality teaching and sparring as bb pointed out

 

I have to side with Burt on this one. Yes, some fighters in every era slipped through the cracks and still got fights, and even championships, despite being pretty pathetic. BUT the sport was FAR better at weeding out undesirable fighters in years past. If a fighter was thought to not be doing his best he was warned to fight or thrown out of the ring. You never see that anymore. The last time I saw it was when Mercante Sr. warned Zab Judah and Reggie Green. I dont think it was any coincidence that Sr. was ancient by that point and basically representing an earlier ideal.

 

Boxing is about more than the United States. Globally, there is extreme poverty throughout the world to this day.

 

Is this or is this not about two fighters from the USA?

 

We were comparing eras, and a boxing era includes USA and non-USA fighters.

 

Jones KO1 Greb.

Anybody who says differently is just a ****** ass classic enthusiast.

 

Don't be shy, just express yourself...

 

Yeah no doubt........


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2F2NC3FAjo&feature=avmsc2"]YouTube - N.W.A. - Express Yourself [Freedom Version][/ame]

 

Oranges and apples. You read pretty much any 4-8 fight card held in Philadelphia, for example, in 1900-1910, and you will find lots of examples, neither fighter trying much, and still the fight went on. And those were only 6-rounders. It was very seldom when the bouts were actually stopped and the fighters were ordered out.

 

:yep

 

Then let me rephrase. Just how many non USA, or USA for that matter, fighters did Jones actually face that were suffering under similar conditions as those from earlier eras and who were actually top shelf championship or all time great fighters?

Goose egg...

 

Old timers like Gans and Nelson could go 40 rounds because their fights back then resembled a tango as much as a boxing match.

Look at this footage of Sam Langford (considered an attacking fighter in that era) and Fireman Jim Flynn.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU90MwTU7yc[/ame]

Cuffing arm punch........extended clinch..........uppercut from long range.........extended clinch............close quarters mauling........extended clinch etc etc.

Matter of fact I reckon the stamina of the crowd's back then was more impressive than the fighters.Imagine enduring boring crap like that for 40+ rounds.

Seriously there were fighters back then who fought in a more modern,attacking style (Owen Moran,Terry McGovern are a couple) but the rule seemed to be excessive clinching and lenient refereeing which led to longer fights.I doubt the old timers could go 40 rounds fighting under todays conditions and using modern boxing techniques.