Are the past Eras overrated or the new generation just not that good?

You’re too dumb to even realise that I’ve agreed with you in certain places, and I’ve also labelled true nostalgics as been terribly biased and ignorant.

Read the posts and see for yourself.

Is this going to be your new defence mechanism?

Are you going to act like an infant, where you stick your fingers in your ears, shouting:

“I’m not listening!”

 

More crying.

Oh dear.

You now look even worse than what you did yesterday.

I’m actually offering the evidence on a plate for you.

Again, go and do a 30 year comparison with the MW, SMW and HW divisions.

THERE is your evidence.

 

The same Wilder who’s struggled with C class fighters in his prime??

Yeah, he’d have windmilled everyone for sure.

 

Here’s a very short post so you won’t get a headache.

You say that Loma etc would annihilate everyone from any past era.

So come and counter these quick points:

1. As great as they are, none of them have beaten any great fighters yet.

2. Some of them have actually lost to non great fighters.

3. No great fighter could beat every other great fighter throughout history, as at some stage, they’d meet their stylistic nemesis. And every fighter in history has a stylistic nemesis.

So given the FACT that a guy like Loma has LOST to Salido and Teo, HOW can you then claim with absolute certainty that he’d have annihilated guys such as: Floyd Mayweather, Roberto Duran, Oscar De La Hoya, Pernell Whittaker and Julio Cesar Chavez etc??

Explain yourself.

Because as it stands, I have absolutely HUMILIATED you.

 

Combination of both.

 

You're completely ignoring the evolution of the sport of boxing. As boxing has evolved, people discover new ways to get ahead, and when it works, people incorporate this into their boxing. Head movement, range, timing, and evasion have all drastically evolved. If they have not, then how come no boxer today boxes like dempsey or ali? How come there were no boxers from decades ago that moved like Lomachenko? The answer is simple. The modern boxer has the advantage of having at their disposal the lessons of EVERY OTHER BOXER BEFORE HIM to learn from. You are ignoring this and trying to argue that every boxer is learning boxing completely independently of all other boxers that have ever existed. This is ridiculous and just flat-out wrong!

Secondly, you've also completely ignored my argument that population growth -> more people -> more boxers -> a greater potential pool of talent -> more talented boxers. (This is the exact reason why, in america, high school sports are broken down into divisions based off of the size of high schools.)

 

You're comparing a century of fighters to a snapshot in time.

 

You aren’t even reading my posts properly.

Once again, yes, I AGREE with you that boxing HAS evolved.

Let me make that abundantly clear.

However, it does not keep evolving.

It is not a CONTINUAL cycle, where the fighters just keep getting better and better as each decade passes by.

Can I prove that?

Yes.

How?

By clearly highlighting the fact that there’s entire divisions today which weren’t as good as what they were 20-40 years ago.

By showing you many fighters who had better skill sets than SOME of today’s guys.


Now use your common sense and apply some logic.

A better athlete does not automatically = a better boxer.

Do you understand that?

Being a superior athlete in other sports is HUGE.

Whereas being the superior athlete in boxing, only AIDES a fighter.

Being a superior athlete does not determine the outcome of a fight.

Only SKILLS and STYLES can determine the outcome of a fight.

So: Even if it was true that all modern boxers were better athletes than their predecessors, it would not mean that they all possess a higher level of skills.

Athleticism and skills are 2 completely different things.

There is no one at MW today, who is more skilled than what McCallum, Toney and Kalambay were.

If you disagree, then give me their names.


Now, have I got proof that a superior athlete can’t ALWAYS beat a much LESSER athletic fighter?

Yes.


Wladimir Klitschko was a supreme athlete.

Yet he was hammered by a part time golfer who hated to train.


Deontay Wilder is a great athlete.

Yet he was beaten twice by a non athletic Tyson Fury.


AJ is the epitome of the modern day HW.

He has incredibly impressive numbers both in the gym and out on the track.

He has a chef, a masseuse, a nutritionist and a strength and conditioning coach.

He is the modern day: Mr. Sports Science.

Yet he was run over by a B class HW, who is LITERALLY OBESE.

So that is all the PROOF that you need, to show you that being a superior athlete alone, doesn’t win you a fight.


What you are doing is obvious:

1. You are making the assumption that every modern day athlete is a superior athlete to every one from the past.

2. You are assuming that being a better athlete means that you’re a better, more skilled boxer.

You are simply wrong on both accounts.


Regarding Lomachenko, he is a genius. However, he’s never beaten a great fighter, and he’s actually lost to TWO non great fighters. And just like anybody else, he has a stylistic nemesis.

Would Loma have success in any era? YES. Because he is GREAT.

Would he be able to have beaten EVERY former LW great? Obviously not.

We also had 2 modern era greats at LW, in PBF and Sweet Pea.


Again, anybody who thinks that the guys of the past could beat all the guys of today, are simply biased nostalgics.

Anybody who believes that the sport hasn’t progresssed, is also a biased nostalgic.

However, again, the sport doesn’t keep progressing EVERY decade.

There has been no progression over the last 30 years or so.


It doesn’t matter if todays guys all have access to footage of the greats of the past.

Because we can clearly see that SOME of the past greats have superior skill sets to SOME of today’s guys.


Now if we go with your logic and reasoning, where every world class boxer just keeps getting better and better with each passing decade, you’re essentially saying that you’d have favoured Amir Khan over Duran, Leonard and Hearns.

That is what you’re saying, IF YOU’RE NOT going to take into account skills and styles etc.

If you’re just going to assume that any world class fighter from the modern era, is simply athletically superior, and therefore superior overall to any of their predecessors, then that is what you are saying.


Finally, let’s use your logic and look to the future.

If the boxers keep getting better and better over time, does that mean that in 20 years time, today’s version of Loma wouldn’t even be able to compete with those future LW’s?

Are you saying that whoever ‘The Man’ is at HW in 2042, would clown today’s Tyson Fury, based on another 20 years of evolution?

Are you saying that whoever ‘The Man’ at HW is in 2062, he will definitely be able to clown ‘The Man’ from 2042??

That is how dumb your logic is.


Great fighters are simply great fighters no matter when they fought.

There’s been no new skills, punches and techniques invented in decades.

Any great fighter could beat any other great fighter from any era, depending on how they matched up stylistically on the night.


Now I welcome you to come and try and refute this logical post.

 

Can somebody please answer the following question:

If a better athlete equates to being a better overall boxer, which also means that a superior athlete could always beat a lesser athlete, then:

How was an obese Andy Ruiz able to beat AJ??

Obviously, skills and styles are far more important that a fighter’s level of athleticism.

 

Is EVERY fighter today better than EVERY fighter 10 or 20 years ago? Of course not. Is there even the occasional genetic and gifted freak who could be competitive 30 years into the future? Probably. Prime Michael Jordan could probably still outscore 75% of today's NBA players even though the sport has evolved. This doesn't dispute the fact that the sport and its competitors do continually evolve towards greater skills and talent, just like every other sport on planet earth does.

The modern boxer has the advantage of having at their disposal the lessons of EVERY OTHER BOXER BEFORE HIM to learn from.

Population growth -> more people -> more boxers -> a greater potential pool of talent -> more talented boxers. (This is the exact reason why, in america, high school sports are broken down into divisions based off of the size of high schools.)

You can certainly cherrypick the rare genetic freak here and there, but that doesn't demonstrate that the sport ceases to evolve towards greater skill and talent.

Also, when trying to argue that an entire division isn't as good as it was in the past, you need to define "good". Are some divisions less exciting at certain times? Well sure. Some of that may be politics and some of that may be the ebbs and flows of the sport, weaker talent now, stronger talent later, etc, but this still doesn't dismiss the idea that the sport evolves towards greater skill and talent. Every fighter today does not have to be better than every fighter yesterday to demonstrate that fact.

I never differentiated or discussed athleticism vs skill. You are making this distinction, and I never said anything to the contrary, nor did i ever focus on one over the other. But your argument still isn't strong because my previous statements still hold, even if we are ignoring the importance of pure athleticism:

The modern boxer has the advantage of having at their disposal the lessons of EVERY OTHER BOXER BEFORE HIM to learn from.

Population growth -> more people -> more boxers -> a greater potential pool of talent -> more talented boxers. (This is the exact reason why, in america, high school sports are broken down into divisions based off of the size of high schools.)

So, McCallum could take Usyk then? if ONLY skills and styles determine the outcome of a fight, right?

Once again, I never differentiated or discussed athleticism vs skill. You are making this distinction, and I never said anything to the contrary, nor did i ever focus on one over the other. But your argument still isn't strong because my previous statements still hold, even if we are ignoring the importance of pure athleticism:

The modern boxer has the advantage of having at their disposal the lessons of EVERY OTHER BOXER BEFORE HIM to learn from.

Population growth -> more people -> more boxers -> a greater potential pool of talent -> more talented boxers. (This is the exact reason why, in america, high school sports are broken down into divisions based off of the size of high schools.)

I never said that anywhere. I said: Over the long run, boxers have gotten more talented, and that every sport has progressed over time including boxing.

I never said that anywhere. In fact, the incorrect assumption here is coming from you. You are trying to argue that just because there exists a few instances where an athletic boxer got clobbered by an unathletic boxer, that athletics is absolutely meaningless.

If we are going to differentiate between athletics and skill, isn't it obvious that both are important? There are likely just as many examples of boxers who got clobbered BECAUSE they lacked discipline, they showed up on fight night out of shape, and consequently they ran out of gas. So sure, there are examples where the better athlete didn't win, but there's plenty of examples where the worse athlete lost because of their poor athleticism. Simply dismissing athleticism outright is just being completely ignorant.

Would he have success in any PREVIOUS era? Yes, because, he has the advantage of modern advancements in nutrition, sports medicine, exercise science, and as i've said multiple times now, the modern boxer has the advantage of having at their disposal the lessons of EVERY OTHER BOXER BEFORE HIM to learn from, and population growth -> more people -> more boxers -> a greater potential pool of talent -> more talented boxers.

But to claim he would still hold a candle to the greats decades in the future from now is ignorant and assuming, just like the idea that jack dempsey could hold a candle to today's top fighters is silly. Why? because the sport and its competitors evolves and continues to evolve.

I never invented a specific timeline in which i said every boxer now is better than all boxers from exactly one decade ago. I don't know where you got this "every decade" claim from.

NO PROGRESSION? Cherrypicking the best of the best from 30 years ago does not prove that boxing hasn't progressed.

Again, I never invented a specific timeline in which i said every boxer now is better than all boxers from exactly one decade ago. I said the sport has progressed, and over the long run boxers have gotten better. You fabricated this "one decade" cutoff.

 

Again, you're inventing specific criteria i never claimed. I said the sport has progressed, and over the long run boxers have gotten better. I never said ALL boxers are ALWAYS better than ALL other boxers from 10 years ago or 20 years or whatever cutoff YOU are inventing.

Great for their time, of course. And you can look back and call them "great". But to think that a great fighter from a bygone era wouldn't get destroyed by modern champions is to deny that the sport has progressed, which is what you're clearly attempting to argue.

Well yeah, it's kinda hard to invent a brand new way of throwing your fist at someone when people have been throwing fists at each other for thousands of years. But why is "invention" even necessary to demonstrate progression? Refinement of skills, punches, and techniques would be just as valid to demonstrate a progression, as well as the advancement in athletics, which you claim has ZERO influence over the sport simply because an unathletic person occasionally defeats a clearly more athletic person, while conveniently ignoring all the times that unathletic boxers have lost precisely because of their unathleticism.

This is just ignorance. Unfortunately, without putting Gentleman Jim Corbett in a time machine and having him face a prime Mike Tyson, people such as yourself will never be satisfied.

One final question for you, if boxing has truly ceased to progress: tell me the exact moment it stopped progressing and provide proof.

 

007 373 5963,


Part 1:

We’re not talking about an anomaly though.

We’re talking about a number of entire divisions, and a huge number of fighters.

Amazing.

And??

That means that they’ve all learned from their predecessors and have all become better, more skilled fighters??

Ha!

Are you sure?

Go and look at the early 80’s WW’s.

Go and look at the early 90’s MW’s.

Go and look at the early 90’s SMW’s.

Go and look at the early 90’s HW’s.

Go and look at the late 90’s WW’s.

Go and look at the early 00’s JMW’s.

Go and look at the P4P lists of the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s.

Go and do a modern day comparison, where you analyse their skill sets.

If you know what you’re looking at, not only has there been no noticeable progression, in some cases, there’s actually been some noticeable signs of REGRESSION.

Except I’m not cherry picking the odd guy am I?

Again, I’m looking at a number of entire divisions, looking at a big number of fighters.

I suggest that you go and do the comparisons yourself.

I’ll give you one example:

Go and name me the MW’s of today, who possessed either the same, or a higher level of ability, than James Toney, Mike McCallum, Michael Nunn, Reggie Johnson and Sumbu Kalambay.

It should be very easy for you to do, since those guys fought there THIRTY YEARS ago.

I’ll wait.

I’m not talking about excitement or depth. I’m talking about ability. The fighter’s skill sets. Today’s group of MW’s do not possess the same level of skills as the guys I mentioned above.

Go and do a thread if you wish, and we’ll see the responses.

Fair enough. You didn’t. I just wanted to know the exact page that you were on.

Again, theoretically, yes they certainly do.

Again, and??

Go and do the comparisons I’ve set you and then get back to me.

That’s a different debate. They’re different weights. Of course size can play a factor. I was merely pointing out that the better athlete doesn’t always prevail. But that’s when I thought that you were talking specifically about athletic performance, and not about their actual skill sets.

Correct. I agree. But again, there isn’t continual progression. And that is absolutely obvious to anybody who’s been watching the sport for as long as I have. How do I know? Because again, not only has there been no noticeable progression in a big number of entire divisions, again, in many of them, there’s actually been regression, where the modern fighters aren’t as talented and as skilful as what they once were. And if you look at the comparisons which I gave you, and you possess knowledge of all of those fighters, it will then be abundantly clear to you.

 

007 373 5963,


Part 2:

I merely gave you SOME examples. There’s many more. I never said that it was meaningless. I said that skills and attributes are more important than athletic performance.

I’ve not dismissed it, Again, I was just highlighting that skills are more important than athleticism. But again, that’s when I thought you were saying - a better athlete = better athletic performance. When I first wrote that, I didn’t realise that what you were actually saying, was - a better athlete = a more skilled fighter with more ability. But we’ve cleared that all up now.

I’ve already said that Loma would have success in any era, as he is an amazing fighter. But you just waffling on about having more knowledge etc, is meaningless. These are the FACTS:

Even with all of this knowledge and sports science etc, he has LOST TWICE to non GREAT fighters.

So yes, he’d have success. But if he couldn’t beat guys of this era, who were LESSER fighters than some of the GREATEST LW’s of all time, than it’s unrealistic to think that he’d have beaten all of the former great LW’s where he’d have ruled every era.

Do you understand that?

He’s not even ruling this era of NON GREAT LW’s.

So if he can’t legitimately beat a guy like Teo, then he wouldn’t definitely have been able to have beaten Roberto Duran, Floyd Mayweather and Pernell Whittaker etc.

Apply some common sense.

Yes, he has the knowledge and the old fight footage at his disposal. He has the nutrition and the medicine and the sports science. But he’d still have had to have tried to overcome his opponents skills and styles in order to have won. And again, if he can’t rule an era of LW’s who aren’t as great as some of the former greats, then there’s no reason to assume that he could have beaten every LW that came before him. It’s completely unrealistic.

This is truly one of the most hilarious and ignorant things I’ve ever heard in my life.

The sport has evolved from the 20’s. But again, there is ZERO EVIDENCE that the sport has progressed over the last 20-40 years. Again, see for yourself.

If the MW’s of today AREN’T as good as what they were THIRTY YEARS AGO, then neither you or I know how great the LW’s of the future will be. In 20 years time, yes, they could be better. Or, they could be significantly weaker, like what’s happened in a huge number of other divisions.

The fighters don’t just keep getting better and better continuously. Today’s MW’s aren’t the best group of MW’s in history, Today’s SMW’s aren’t the best SMW’s in history. Today’s WW’s aren’t the best WW’s in history.

The sport simply ebbs and flows, and as done for years now.

It’s just ridiculous to assume that the LW’s in 20 years time will definitely be better than Loma.

It could be 30 years until we see that. But then in 50 years, we might find that those LW’s are nowhere near as good as what they are currently.

The sport has reached its plateau.

That was just an example put to you.

When do you think it progresses then?

You said that it continues to progress.

So be specific.

Once again, I have not cherry picked. I have given you 6/7 divisions off the top of my head. And if I put my mind to it, there’ll be many more too. You can also ask some of the other members.

I have explained above.

Again, I agree that it has progressed. But again, it doesn’t keep progressing, where each of us knows for sure that all the fighters in 20-30 years (or any point in the future) will all definitely be better than everyone of today.


I’m enjoying the debate, and I appreciate you being civil.

I’ll happily debate all of your points.

Just a polite request:

Please let me finish responding to your other post before you reply to these 2 parts, otherwise we’re going to end up in a muddle.

Thanks.

 

I don't wanna keep this going because we're going around in circles, and neither is going to convince the other. There are two things that simply make the discussion difficult to completely resolve:

1. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to definitively quantify boxing skill, as there is no universal measuring stick.

2. matchups involving great fighters across different generations will always be nothing but hypotheticals.

 

Do you know what an argument is? You have premises that lead to a conclusion that naturally follows.
Now go look at your posts. You have assertions. You have no premises. Only conclusions. There’s nothing to address.