1954 heavyweights v. 2004 heavyweights

Wrong.

It rests on the assumption that we don’t know exactly how the eras are unequal, or who the inequality favours!

 

I will defend that position, because those guys were rank novices.

They were fighters who would be “somebody” further down the line.

 

Janitor is correct here.

You can never entirely write off a decade of world class contenders against another era.

The theory that a contender becomes a champion in a weaker era is wrong.

It's a theory not fact.

We are talking non champions here. Non ATG.

Once you get to world class, with the best matchmaking in the world, a guy making any top ten would be doing well to achieve a 50-50 record if he only fought rated guys and champions beyond that point.

The guys who can string 4 back to back wins at this level get to be a champ. And he might not have anything left in him if those wins come before a title fight.

So to write off any era with any authority you have to first decide one set of contenders could even go 4-0 (back to back) at contender level. 90% can't. That's right, a whole top ten of guys who can do this. Often champions can't, that's why voluntary defences are allowed so a guy can make money as a champion.

Most contenders win some lose some if they meet only guys at top level. This is not even a theory. I'm talking rated guy versus rated guy only. Discount warm ups and fringe wins. Count the "at the time" rated guys.

Study records. Stop writing off eras just because those guys fought on black and white film.

All the modern training, and extra weight, is not producing consistent elite results for anyone. 98% always go 50-50 at best against the elite. There has never been enough top wins (throughout a top ten) in any era to afford that kind of superiority over another era.

 

The things Janitor said in that thread were so outrageously absurd, that I can't believe he was being honest. Ok, if he was a total idiot, who knew nothing about boxing, he might have been serious... but that is not how I see him! He obviously knows his boxing, and based on how he writes, I'd say he's a fairly intelligent man. So why is he trolling the way he does in nearly all old vs new threads? I can think of 2 possible reasons:

1. It may simply be his job to do what he does, in order to create controversy and generate traffic in the Classic forum. If that's the case, he's doing a pretty good job!

2. He may be so proud of his debating skills, that he gets a kick out of building a case for even the most ludicrous absurdities.

Whatever the reason, he's probably laughing his *** off, when people take the bait and try to argue with him!

 

Choklab has summed up my position as well as I can.

What you don’t seem to be betting your head around here, is that you are the one making the assumption.

You are not only assuming that era B is superior to era A, you are assuming that a regional level talent from era B, beats a top contender from era A.

While this might theoretically be the case, it cannot simply be assumed without justification.

 

You might find that the people who write the biographies on historic fighters align more with my position than they do with yours.

While your standpoint is undoubtedly gaining ground at the moment, it is actually a relatively now one.

 

All the modern training, and extra weight, is not producing consistent elite results for anyone. 98% always go 50-50 at best against the elite. There has never been enough top wins (throughout a top ten) in any era to afford that kind of superiority over another era.

Nothing technically has improved since. Things develop around the size of the fighter, rules and equipment of the time. It's not an evolution, certainly no improvement. more of an adapting or a compromise of techniques.

 

I would say just WATCH THE FOOTAGE.

There's no substitute for comparing actual fight footage to come to a conclusion as to how good or bad a boxer is. In general, I am of the opinion boxing and boxing techniques have improved.

 

Performance in every other sporting endeavor created by man has improved over the decades...



except boxing.

 

It's a recognised theory rather than fact. You might be right but you might be wrong. There possibly is no wrong or right answer.

 

I would say a fighter only looks as good as the other man let's him.

Think of any great fighter and there will be one guy who makes him look bad. If that is the one fight you have of him you might unfairly conclude he is a bad boxer.

So this "look at the film" claptrap just dosnt answer a thing.

Everybody looks great in a mismatch. In a fair match your lucky to look half as good.

A fight that dosnt look good likely involves two guys just as good or just as bad. One things for sure they both look great against a guy they can beat.