Are Today’s Fighters Better Than The Greats Of The Past?

I probably believe more in the progression of the sport than most on this forum, but the post-war period just had some unbelievable practitioners. Guys like Robinson, Louis, Walcott, Pep, Moore etc still look unbelievable when you watch them. I have a very hard time spotting any serious improvement in technique since then. In pure athletic terms today's fighters are better in general, though.

 

repeat!

 

Quote of the Month

 

No for one specific reason. The benchmark of boxing now is making money, it has nothing to do with being a champion and fighting for pride. Its all about money, so how could one have the same mindset knowing they are going into a fight that they will be financially set for the rest of their life.
Look at Chad Dawson from this weekend, perfect example. He showed the mindset of a guy who has great skills, but the wrong mindset. The first answer he gave in the post fight interview regarding losing, was that he didnt care because he had a rematch clause.
Fighters may have the skills and heart, but mentally they are not prepared to use all their resources so they could never be better.

 

Pac and May and a prime Marquez would be awesome in any era,however after that boxings elite has fallen off a little and im talking just in the last 10 to 15 years. The rest would be hard pressed to crack any pfp list in other eras.

 

i love the fighters of the past, and it is hard to say who is better then who

but if you watch tapes of these guys who you say would crush guys like calzaghe, you will start to doubt your statement

 

wowatsch

 

atsch That's a ridiculous thing to say.

When you have SRR fighting 0-1 people in his prime that is verging on ridiculous. Jones Jr's average opposition is higher than any old-time light heavy.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

Robinson did not fight an 0-1 opponent in his prime unless he was in his prime at 42 years of age.

Pernell Whitaker, who had around 40 fights compared to Robinson's 200, fought tomato cans such as 0-3 Jim Flores, 7-16 Martin Galvan, 1-6 Jesus De La Cruz and 12-13 Jerry Smith during his title reign. No one denies that he fought great opposition. They are called tune-up fights and they are meaningless when it comes to rating a fighter, unless said fighter only ever fought these kind of tune-up fights.

Jones's average opposition is most certainly not higher than any old-time light heavy. A lot of his opponents barely made the top 10, or didn't at all, in a horrible era for light heavyweights.

 

Just an example. Paul Berlenbach, who was an average lhw in his time fought the following guys multiple times:
JAck Delaney
Young Stribling
Battling Siki
Mike McTigue
Jimmy Slattery
Mickey Walker


Who on Jones´ lhw resume compares to them? Perhaps Virgil Hill. That´s it. And Berlenbach was one of the weaker lhws of his time, with a less than average resume for the top lhws of his time.
Jones´ having a higher level opposition than the top lhws of the past my ass.

 

Because boxing was very popular at that time. But if you look at video tapes of old fights you can see how much boxing has evolved since.

 

Really? Do you really look at Robinson from the late 40's early 50's (before the first retirement) and say "Man, what boxing have evolved since that time"?

 

Have you even seen guys like Ross, Canzoneri, Kid Chocolate and others of the lot of great fighters of the 30s fight? Watch the films and tell me boxing has evolved. Other than very few exceptions like Mayweather or Hopkins no one around today is as skilled as them.

 

I would suggest looking at more videotapes then...or move on to dvd, the players are pretty cheap now.