All Classic Posters, Please Give Me Your Opinion...

This I do not believe. It might be true for the US, but boxing is a much more global sport nowadays. There are many fighter from other parts of the world today, like the former communist block and latin america. And up to about WWII blacks and latinos (which excludes Argentinians, who were more considered as "whites") had limited access to the upper levels.

So I find it very doubtful that the competition was harder "back in the day".

 

Don't dispute that boxing is more of a global thing now but it still doesn't change the fact that most of those greats "back in the day had to fight there way out of the pack where it was concentrated, the U.S. Most of the rest of the world had migrated there. Jews from all over the place, Germans,Irish,Italians, Scandinavians, Russians. The list goes on. All of them trying to earn a buck and fighting each other on the way up..

 

Yes, but that's still how it is in large parts of the world today. There's for example a lot more poor latin americans today than there were poor americans back then.

 

Yes, but I don't think there is a lot more poor Latin-American "boxers" than were were poor American "boxers" then.

By the way I'm not American.

 

Well, I do. And there's also many East Europeans and people from the former Soviet Union as well as some Africans, and still pretty many Americans and West Europeans. Also, don't forget that the world's population has doubled or even tripled over the last 100 years.

So all in all, there's really no basis for claiming that there were more active fighters in the old days IMO.

 

People give the benefit of the doubt to a lot of old timers when it comes to placing them above fighters over the last 30 years or so. Especially when it comes to 'calling it as you see it'. You can call it as you see it with Jones jr, but not Sam Langford. Going on a historians opinion of a fighter from the early part of the last century is no different from a journalists opinion on a controversial decision that took place two months ago. Quantity of fights also has much to do with it as well.

The old timers fought often, sometimes a fight every week during some periods of their careers. But how would they handle only having to fight two or three times a year for most of their careers?. They wouldn't handle it very well. Modern day fighters happen to be in a comort zone fighting three or four times a year. As do the old timers fighting every week or month. It may well be an advantage fighting every week or so. Depending on the quality of fighter, who he's fighting, his style, and how long ones career lasts. However, the more something is used the quicker it fades and doesn't work properly. It depends on the fighter. I don't think Whitaker would have a problem being as successful as Canzoneri or Williams if he fought in their era.

 

It's an excellent top 7 for sure, after that you start to get a little hazy with regards to leaving out certain fighters of the past. Monzon is in my top 20, but only just, though I know you have a very high opinion of him. As do I, I just have to give credit to others who deserve it.

 

Just litter your list full of fighters from the 20's and 30's for the sake of it then say to yourself "Am I wrongly overlooking modern greats" Just call it honestly and rate accordingly. Expect crucifiction from some others on here with Whitaker and Leonard squeezing into your top 10.

Not having Langford anywhere near your top 10 would be justified when it comes to a definite placing based on lack of footage. Langford is your #3, yet you haven't seen him fight.

 

Yes and the amount of champions has multiplied a lot more than that and they don't even have to fight each other.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I really think it was tougher for the oldtimers and it was the cream that rose to the top.
My original thread was a hypothetical way of looking looking at it, considering we've got a long and rich history to look back over.
I'm not advocating the older fighters just for the sake of it.
I noticed that you have Monzon, Duran and Ali as 3 of your top 5. Well that's fair enough, your opinion, and Duran would definitely be in my top 5, but 3 from the same decade ?

 

Of course we are; I don't think it can be argued really. Just five or six years ago, you'd be hard-pressed to find Lennox Lewis in anyone's top 10 list. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find people who rank him outside the top 10.

It's all about perspective, and that's something that has been consistent throughout time. Most contemoprary things are viewed as not being a good as things that came before.
We generally need a few years after a fighter has retired to get an overall picture of that fighter.
In Joe Louis' day, he was compared to Dempsey, Johnson and Jeffires, and invariably he was sold short. He was considered never as good as those guys. In Marciano's time he was compared to Louis, and the same happened.
Right up to the present that has been the case, and that has always been the case.
Now and then there is an exception, but generally moderns are never seen to be 'as good' as the older generation.
Nostalgia does play a part, and I think many of us are guilty of donning the rose-tinted glasses when looking at the greats of the past.

One of the biggest shocks of my life was when viewing fights of the likes of Jack Johnson and Henry Armstrong for the first time. Through reading accounts of their exploits in the ring and how wonderful they were, my expectations were built up enormously.
I was sorely disappointed when seeing fight film because suddenly these legends looked all too human, and rather primitive humans at that.

But the door does swing both ways.

For one, as someone who appreciates history in general (and not just boxing history) I think it's a crying shame that many names are being lost to the sands of time.
Few modern fans give little more than a second's thought to the likes of Manuel Ortiz or Ted 'Kid' Lewis or Petey Sarron.
Only the best of the best, the indusputable greats, like Robinson or Joe Gans are remembered. Even then, it's often a basic and rather flimsy knowledge.
It's up to someone to remember these men, and retell their stories. They lived and they fought and their legacies are worth remembering.

Besides that, I for one try and guard against being a knee-jerker, and I'm sure many feel the same.
Simply making a handful of title defences does not make someone great, nor going unbeaten in 25 fights. Just as some are reluctant to give credit to contemporary fighters, some others are all too willing to give credit and often it's ill-deserved credit.

Moderns have it both harder and easier. Yes, they're compared to the ghosts of the past and are often viewed as coming up short (unfairly sometimes) but then again their achievements can be fully savoured by the current generation and the scale of their accomplishments have not faded with time.

I think it's also easier to build up an impressive record these days. Again though, it's a double-edged sword. One or two losses today can be seen as a disaster, whereas 50, 60 years ago you could have a dozen losses and it would mean less.
On the other hand, few fighters today fight dangerous opponents, and a prospect or contender can go on a long winning streak with shrewd management. Records of 20-0 or 30-0 are not rare at all, and usually it's a result of these guys never having fought the dangerous guys out there.
Back in the past, especially if you were black, you had little choice but to take on guys best avoided. Contenders fought contenders far more regularly than today.
The splintering of titles today means that the best in each division rarely fight each other. Unification fights today would be just another championship fight in the past.

Today's guys have the benefit of better nutrition and more complete training methods, but the talent pool has also dwindled considerably as opposed to the 30's, 40's, 50's and so on. Many potentially good boxers are being lost to other sports which rank ahead of boxing in popularity.

So yes...fighters today often get a raw deal, but on the other hand the fighters of the past get sold short as well. It depends on who you're talking to I suppose.

 

Good post

 

The difference being that today if you're good enough, you'll get a title shot. Many good fighters of the past missed out because they were too dangerous to risk the title on.
You can't be ducked completely today. The press and the public will speak up and demand a title shot. There are numerous fighters from the past that never received even one shot at a belt, and they fully deserved one. They in turn had to fight the other guys who were avoided.

Also, while the sport is more global, I'd still maintain the talent pool in say 1938 was deeper than it is now. It's said that you could not find a youngster in Detroit who did not want to be Joe Louis one day.
While it was more localised, I'm pretty sure there were more youngsters back then dreaming of being fighters than there are today, globalised sport or not.

 

Thanks.