It's disgusting how the old fighters get extremely overrated!!!

I'm not saying Greb is not great, but slightly over-rated in my opinion



As is said before, its rare that you'll ever see him lose a head to head or pound for pound match up: people tend to read about the guy and suddenly they are experts.



In regards to the sparring footage i've seen that years ago and wouldn't think much of it, at any rate, it nothing mind blowing. I mean, imagine if all you had to go buy of Tyson and Roy jones in their respective primes was sparring footage.............anyone who saw that would think they were the greatest fighters to have ever laced up gloves! :shock:





I dont claim to be an expert in respect to the old school, however, there certainly seem to me like there are a lot of "armchair experts" who read up and a fighters bio and think all of a sudden nobody from the "new school" would ever beat them.




At any rate and in summary common sense must prevail, and it does tend to work both ways in regards to both the new and old school. I mean, i'm sure in 50 years there will probably be some guy doing exactly as we are now, claiming that nobody in history could have beat roy jones junior.



Old school fighters tend to be a bit romanticised, and there is nothing wrong with that. but personally, i like to believe what i can see as opposed i've read in a book and choose to believe.







Sage

 

You are correct sir!!! The prime fighters of the 80's were something
else. You forgot to mention the great Larry Holmes. That guy backed
his man up with a power left jab and punished his butt with a straight
right hand. A terrific, consistent boxer that would beat Wlad. But
it would be a competitive fight. Leonard was truly badass and amazing.
Check out his beatdown of the great Wilfredo Benitez. The 80's was
the mecca of boxing.

 

get some footage of roy or pac and slap em in black and white. they would both automatically go up in the alltime p4p for some obnoxious nostalgics.

 

you sir are damn right

e.g.
arguello ko's pbf
jcc beats pbf
harada destroys pacquiao
camacho schools pac and jmm combined

et. al.

it seems that it's becoming a trend here nowadays

favoring the old against the new does not automatically make you a reasonable boxing fan

 

80's is indeed the golden age of boxing.. the talent was there.. i'm just so sick of tired of people favoring the 'old' against the 'new', usual casualty being pacquiao

 

Provide me a link in which many posters pick Arguello to KO PBF please. I haven't seen this personally.

 

i was not able to find it. but i remember there was a link back then wherein some posters think arguello could ko pbf but i can't remember what it is.. damn i can't find proof i guess i was just too emotional while i was typing

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62833

although this proof here is 'quite' close...hearns against pbf at 147 and suddenly posters are jumping all over the place saying he'll get starched

 

I knew you did and thats why I pointed it out to you. Your a good poster, just don't let things get the best of you.

Hearns at 147lbs is another story altogether than Arguello at 130lbs btw...

 

Ill say one thing about this and that is you cant sit here and say the old fighters are no good because we havnt seen them. Or we havnt seen as much footage of them.

It makes no sense. I feel fighters of today are little bit different technique wise but as for strength and Power back then guys were tougher and harder.

I give you and instance.
Baseball for instance it is believed Walter Johnson a pitcher back in the 20's was as fast as say a Randy Johnson of today.

Same goes for Larwood a really fast bowler for England bacl in the 30's it is believed he bowled at 150 kph all the time the same pace as Brett Lee of today.

So some one tell me why PBF is so much better and quicker than a Pep or even Ray Robinson.

Or Jones was quicker than say Monzon or Foster.

The fact remains that the styles at the time were used for reason and i know this much guys back then werent as ***** or as weak as they are today.

**** most guys these days have 2 fights a year were back then guys would fight 10 to 15 times a year.

I think its bull**** when guys say **** like Roy Jones would school Jake Lamotta you dont know that.
Me personally i think the older guys were alot tougher could take punch after punch and still keep coming foward.

Plus it is fact that as we get older we get weaker.

Like ive read things about back in the Medievil times Archers could pull back a 180 pound bows.

Now without a compound bow we couldnt pull back 120 pound.

So as we get older we get weaker. It is fact as we dont have to do the same sort of labour because of technology.

How do we know that maybe the Jones Jr's and the PBF's could take more than 2 Power shots against say the Grebs and the Armstrong's.

**** they might get hit twice before being KO'd. We just dont know.

As we dont know if today's boxing technique's would wipe the floor with the Greb's and the Loius's of the world.

So me i respect every age as back then they were tough and powerful, today they are balenced with great technique.

 

I think people overrate the fighters of their time because they don't know the contenders of previous decades. Someone said something about Casa having a shot at beating Duran. The reason it's considered an absurd idea is that Buchanan, DeJesus, and Saoul Mamby, all of whom lost to Duran were better than Casa. Of course there is a chance, anybody can beat anybody, especially two champion-level fighters. But anyone who honestly thinks, by observing how each man fought, that a guy like Casa, or Castillo, or Hatton were anywhere near as all-around talented and skilled as Duran doesn't really know boxing. The man beat Ray Leonard and lost by a few points at 160lbs to Hagler. Like someone said, it goes both ways. I have 4 fighters who fought before 1950 in my top 10, but i also have Pernell Whitaker at #8. I consider J.C Chavez a top 20, and R. Leonard a top 15. Both Jones and Hopkins are in my top 35. Mayweather and Pacquiao (and others) are all-time greats as well, but these guys are often compared to absolute greats, like Duran or Robinson, or Armstrong. Floyd is much greater than Pancho Villa, or "Panama" Al Brown, or Carmen Basilio, or Bob Foster in terms of P4P. So, it's not about eras, it's about comparing the few best of just today to the absolute best of all-time.

 

agreed.

 

Your points are taken, however I really have to disagree with the statement highlighted in bold.

Roy was a blur. Monzon had decent speed at best.

 

I find that alot does seem to get overrated. I dont mind if your saying that a fighter who happens to be the best of the 40's or 30's is better than Floyd, but you have guys who in their day was probably the 10th best of the 30's or whatever decade being rnaked above the current best of 90's or 2000 just because their older fighters.

I think the older fighters are also largely glorified because of their huge records, when in truth they fought ALOT more bums. I would also say that those from around that time would probably see those great fighters week in week out destroying bum's, simmilar to how Cotto just destroyed Gomez thus their lasting impression of them is that they were VERY dominant..In truth, their dominance is all relative to their opponents. When facing equal greats, they did not dominate each other.

 

Not according to weaightlifting records

 

I suppose there is a chance. There's also a chance I'm gonna win the lottery on Saturday and then marry Jessica Simpson... I also think that I'd have more of a chance of that than Casa against Duran!