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

With 4 light heavyweight champions, 4 Super middleweight champions, 4 cruiserweight champions plus super champions, it is almost certain that all of those opponents would be world champions, as would have Berlenbach, if they fought under todays conditions. In fact, if you factor in that today, they rarely fight, and when they do fight, it is rarely against someone in the same class and/or world class level. With padded records, each one of them would not only be world or former world champions, but each would probably only have a loss or two at most on their records. I wonder how this would change current perception of each of the fighters.

Incidentally, not that all this necessarilly means that older fighters were better, but there are definitely some strong arguments this way, as a whole.

 

No, and HELL NO!

the modern rules of prizefighting have been around for 120 years and in the first half of the century boxing was far more popular than it is today. With far more competitors in the sport of boxing, far more boxing gyms far more trainers and from what I understand a far better armature system, it seems improbable that the best boxers could exist today.

Also that every respected (I guess that depends on who you ask) all time great lists includes very few active fighters. All that has improved with boxing is nutrition of the athletes which im sure is an advantage but I would pick a poor hardened fighter minus a nutritionist over a rich spoiled vegan with three nutritionist drinking mango/spinach puree. (im exaggerating of course)

The tough fighter fighting for survival, schooled in the arts of boxing, and determined to win. a boxer training hard, talented, with nothing to fall back on except the skills they honed since a young age, is the type of boxer I would be the most hesitant to step into the ring with, if I was a fighter.

though that type of boxer probably exists somewhere currently do you think they are more of them today or in the past?

The point is These guys kick the ****

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Out of this guy (nutritionist)

This content is protected

 

I do. I guess he was considered good for that time.

 

It has. I know people fell sorry for the old guys, I do to, but looking at them and looking a boxing match today you can see there's a huge difference in favor of the modern fighters.

 

I thought you guys appreciate the old school. Guess not.

 

So no new styles and moves appeared in boxing since the 30's-50's? Moron.

Tell me a big fighter from the past that fought in the same way Wladimir Klitschko fights today.

 

Wladimir Klitschko ?

He uses a left jab, and an occasional right cross, and a left hook. That's about it. He keeps his hands up, but his main method of defence is the use of the jab.
He's very clever and great at what he does, but it's very basic stuff. Certainly nothing that hasn't been in the boxing textbooks for at least 100 years.

 

It's a good question but i'd just like to say I really don't rate Cox as a writer and feel that if he came on to this forum he'd be eaten alive.

 

I haven't seen him around here for a while. He was a decent postor.

 

Sometime a new style is just combining some basic moves. What did you expect, to throw a punch behind his back? In almost every sport in the world the tactics evolve. Why is it hard for you to accept the same thing in boxing?

 

But strategy and tactics differ in every single fight, regardless of era.
Every fighter has an individual style, regardless of era.

Every move made, every choice made at any given moment in the ring, defines the way a fighter fights. And you can bet it hasn't been done exactly like that before. Because no two fights are exactly the same.

But none of that equals evolution of boxing.
That would be like me getting some paint, paintbrushes and a canvas , painting a picture that no one's painted before and then declaring it a superior piece of art to the Mona Lisa, and myself greater than Da Vinci.

 

Al Capone, a great fighter?

 

What did he post under? I just feel that he is really blinded to different opinions and ignores certain facts whilst highlighting those that serve his agenda.

 

Athletically the best fighters of the last 30years are above the fighters who came prior to them (there are exceptions but generally faster/fitter more explosive boxers have emerged over this period). Skill wise there are great technical boxers today but there are perhaps less elite trainers, an amateur sport that isn't as similar to the pros as once it was and plenty that ofcourse try to get away with cutting corners, which is partly due to them feasting on overmatched opponents

 

Montrose was his username.

I agree, there are holes in his arguments. I certainly dont think much of the "Did Jack Dempsey take a dive ?" article. I'm a huge Dempsey fan but I found the arguments and quotes unconvincing, certainly inconclusive.

Still, he's written several articles that are a good read and spark debate.