That's what I'm saying. Today's athletes benefit from modern nutrition and training and they're far better conditioned athletes and they still can't physically fight more than a 2-4X a year. That just points to competition being not as good back then. That's just straight up science and biology. Humans today live much longer despite eating much worse and that's not factoring in advance treatments in medicine. Put SRR in today's game and he's fighting 2-3X a year max. If he fought Spence, Crawford, and Thurman in a single year, he's not coming out the ring the same.
That's why a fighter that was 30 years old was past it in the good old days. 80 to 100 fights. It did take its toll. Not too many guys fought into their mid 30's. Doesn't mean the comp was worse. What makes you believe the comp wasn't as good. All levels of training was equal. Guys today don't fight as much because thay don't need to. They get paid much better. Especially at the top.
It's true that they get paid much better today... Butt be real, you think Canelo and GGG can fight each other more than 2X a year and not suffer permanent damage? Both as well conditioned as could humanly be possible. But both guys would be able to fight a dozen times a year against the competition back then.
Did Pac have modern sports medicine coming up? If not why was he able to wreck Americans when he came over? And they stopped fighting so often because they started making more money and became increasingly concerned about the risks. They were less careful back then and there was a lot less money in the entertainment/sports industries. A lot of good reasons for the changes that have been made, but it does deprive modern fighters from really being comparable on a resume basis to a handful of behemoths from the past. On a head to head basis Pac may or may not beat every pre-1980 FW-JMW in a 12 round fight, but he didn't accomplish as much in his time as SRR and some others. Not just total wins but championship wins, Ring top 10 wins, etc. Very worthwhile trade, but there are some negative consequences.
I'm moving this from boxing to present another perspective. Do you honestly think Cy Young was a better pitcher than Verlander, Scherzer, or deGrom? Do you honestly think Babe Ruth is a better hitter than Mike Trout? Mike Trout today would hit 100+ homers against pitchers in Cy Young's day. Why? Bigger, stronger, faster, more skilled (from analytics).
I think they would fight more. The only thing that has made a big difference in the sport is the big pay days. Guys can literally fight once a year and remain a millionair.
This is why the GOAT in boxing is so stupid. Do you think Manny could beat Ali in boxing match? Hell no. So how can he be GOAT? Manny couldn't beat ANY decent HW. In those other sports, we don't qualify how good a person was by their weight. They were either the best or not. Look at Mugsy Bogues, all 5'4". He played with the big boys with no special divisions for small basketball players.
Exactly! If you're the best boxer ever, it means you can beat everyone! There's no rule in boxing that says Manny couldn't fight at HW. He has to fight in the lower divisions because he's not man enough to fight at HW.
no. in fighting only the 1 top guy counts. boxing is a sport competition, with rules. and points awarded for doing things correctly. doing things correctly is what is judged in the competition. if it wasnt for those facts, then just watch mma, as thats where youll find the real top dogs when it aint about points and rules.
Boxing is different from other sports. Baseball and the like are increasingly dominated by people from elite sports focused prep schools and summer training camps and all that jazz. Boxing still requires getting punched in the face so those types haven't taken over, at least not yet. Mike Trout is a better hitter on a lot of levels, but what's his ERA, how does he perform in the playoffs, and how many decades do his curses last? Babe Ruth remains the GOAT. Mike Trout is the baseball Crawford. Maybe he has the most skill at some parts of the game ever, he's the goodest, but greatness is about what you do with the skill. It's unfair that it requires being on certain teams or getting with the right promoter but greatness is unfair. Again I don't think other sports analogies really fit here, this is just for explanatory purposes.
The top 1 guy in boxing will always be HW. If we're talking about the greatest fighter of all time then yes, we have to lookd outside of boxing too. Again, there's no rule that prevents Manny from fighting Fury. Manny is just too small.
thats what im saying, the top boxers, regardless of weight, would probably get quickly owned by the top mma hw in a straight fight. so it aint fighting were measuring with p4p, cause if it was, then hw boxers are just another guy on the losers list. but its boxing we measure.
