Watching Boxing in the 70's up until now I realize that I cannot compare eras. In my opinion the talent pool is too diluted in this era, The promoters are doing their job and that is selling their boxers skills whether they are really that good or not. Perception is everything in this age of Boxing. There are too many titles out there and too much cherry picking going on in todays game. If a promoter can "sell" his Boxer by fighting opponents who are past there prime, don't deserve to even fight his fighter because of various disadvantages but they "sell" it's the greatest thing to ever happen because the boxer is ten times bigger. The casual Boxing fan doesn't know the difference between a fighter who is good in todays game compared to yesteryears great fighters, they only know what is being sold. So to answer the question the Boxers today are good and I love to watch them but no way I put ANY of them with yesterdays great fighters....You really can't compare.
I will answer with a few questions! How many fighters today fight beyond 12 rounds? How many fighters today could GO beyond 12 and still look fresh? How many fighters today have professional records of 173-19 with (108 KO's) Fighters of yesterday fought all the time, they had to because they didn't make that much money years ago. They couldn't afford to fight one time out of the year and take a vacation afterward they had to keep fighting in order to support their families. Boxers today are soft in my opinion compared to yesterdays fighters, Boxers today are boxing, singing running for office...etc No way I compare yesterdays fighters with the fighters of today......totally different!
^ do fighters before have amateur records? cause if you add present fighters amateur and professional records it could reach 100+ fights..
No way he gets into the top 10 !! Neither man is ranked in the top 20 yet a win over one of them ranks him in the top 10 all time ?? Dam this Google generation !!!atsch
How do u figure that? I have pac ranked somewhere betwen 15 and 20 at the moment. I said he gets into top 10 if he beats may, so a max jump of 10 in reality from the lower end of the scale..I don't see where ur getting the figure of 20 from.
One of the few Not Nubs on the forums. Exactly. People saying otherwise are the same people typing on their Apple computers closely rubbing their D3 high school football rings from 1950, smoking a cig and thinking about "the Good Ol' Days." Fighters today are better fighters. It doesn't mean they have the heart etc of old school fighters, but that isn't the question. Everyone asks about "who would win." It is easy....TODAYS FIGHTERS.
Ranking is based on Resume, Floyd's resume doesn't match his ability, Floyd is Top 3 greatest defensive fighters of all time, If pac beats Floyd, he wouldn't be facing Floyd's Resume (which he is ranked upon) but his Ability. I rank Floyd in top 35, Ability P4P I think he's Much Better.
Not All the time, Are you saying Klitchsko's would beat an Ali, or a Rios would beat a Duran. But i agree that some Old Timers are overrated.
Rios is the type of guy who would come to fight aswell not run, Duran would KO him in 2, Duran was a beast he beat Buchanan (who would Rule LW now) when he was only 21