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

You agreeing or disagreeing with me isn’t an argument, I don’t care about that. Do you have something to say? Obviously not, you keep moaning without giving a single argument. I’m not using anything as a defense mechanism, you’re just having some sort of a breakdown. Your feelings are not an argument. Can you please find out what an argument is? Do you know what google is? Or do you still use homing pigeons to gather information? Do you want to emotionally assert that messenger pigeons were peak information transfer as well? Lolol

 

What would I be looking at? I’ve said exactly the same thing and pointed to particular fights and particular aspects of the fighters, with a discussion about those aspects and the factors of cultural evolution that influence those aspects.
Now compare that to what you think an argument is… lololol

 

007 373 5963,

I have merely given you some examples to consider.

We can work from whatever timeline you wish.

Fights are determined by how the guys match up on the night stylistically.

Again, great fighters are great fighters, who could fight and find success in any era.

If you dropped Loma into Duran’s era, he’d have success.

Likewise, if you dropped Duran into this current era, he’d also have success.

How can you not see that?

Again, any truly great fighter would be able to beat any other truly great fighter from any other era.

Styles make fights.

If Loma struggled with Salido by him being rough with him, and he also lost to Teo, then guys like Duran and Chavez would both have had very realistic chances of beating him.

Are you seriously telling me that guys like Leonard, Hearns and McCallum couldn’t find success today between LW-MW?

Those guys are BETTER and more skilled than SOME of today’s best guys.

Don’t be ignorant.

Don’t make ignorant assumptions.

Analyse the skills sets of these guys, do a comparison with the skill sets of today’s guys, and then look at how they’d realistically have matched up on the night stylistically.

Just look at all of the GREAT fighters we’ve had throughout the entire history of the sport.

A great fighter of YEARS ago would ABSOLUTELY be able to beat SOME modern day greats. 100%

Apply logic and common sense.

If we both put some names into a hat, where we had a huge tournament between the modern guys and the greats of the past, in their respected divisions, then the tournament would simply yield MIXED RESULTS.

Not all of the older guys would win.

Likewise, not all of the modern guys would all win.

The results would be mixed (I’m not saying evenly) depending on how they all matched up stylistically.

There is no cut off point.

Mike Tyson’s prime was 35 years ago.

Just 3 years ago, we saw Andy Ruiz (who is half the fighter that Mike was) run through Anthony Joshua.

So if Ruiz could do it, then so could Mike, as well as many others. And that is merely one example for your consideration.

Again, I have listed you specific divisions and specific fighters to look at.

If you wish, we can do one division at a time.

I didn’t say that athletic performance/athleticism wasn’t relevant. Again, I just said that skills and attributes were the most important factors.

If there’s no new techniques or punches to learn, then how can the fighters just continually get better and better?

They can’t.

What you have is great fighters, with great skill sets, but who all have different styles.

There will never be a PERFECT boxer in any division, who would be able to beat EVERY great in history. It simply would not be possible. Because again, every single fighter, no matter how great he is, will at some point, face a style that greatly troubles him.

Every fighter has a stylistic nemesis.

We’ve seen it all throughout the history of the sport.

Roberto Duran beat Ray Leonard.

Ray Leonard beat Thomas Hearns.

Yet Thomas Hearns easily beat Roberto Duran.

There’s tons of examples to give.

In 2013, Floyd Mayweather put in an absolute masterclass against Canelo Alvarez

Yet just 8 months later, a crude Marcos Maidana, (who wasn’t as talented as Canelo) who’d lost to the likes of Amir Khan, caused Floyd a lot of trouble. A lot more trouble than what Canelo did.

No.

1. It is ignorance on your part.

2. You don’t have to make comparisons so far apart in time.

We can make sensible modern day comparisons, where we can put forward EDUCATED opinions due to the knowledge and the evidence that we have on the fighters.

We can form opinions based upon their skill sets, their styles, and where we can also look at who they fought and at what point etc.

Although we could never say for sure what could/would have definitely happened, we can use our resources to put forward an objective and educated opinion.

We can debate fantasy match ups in a sensible way, which is what happens on the Classic section on a daily basis.

I think that the sport has clearly progressed from it’s roots, but that it clearly reached a plateau a long time ago.

I’ve been a hardcore fanatic of the sport for over 30 years now. And without being biased due to nostalgia, I simply know what I’m looking at. And I know for sure, that again, there’s a number of fighters today who aren’t as good as some of their predecessors. I know for sure that there’s entire divisions which aren’t as good as they once were. And again, not just in terms of depth, but in terms of ability.


You want some actual proof?

Again, we can look at the 6/7 divisions that I have listed for you.

You will clearly see where the divisions have just ebbed and flowed throughout the years.

The SMW division of the 90’s was stacked with talent. Fighters who had great technical ability. Then in the late 90’s, it became weaker with less talented guys. It then picked up in the mid 00’s and was very good again when the S6 was made in the late 00’s-early 10’s. Currently, it’s quite weak. There’s still some very talented guys there, which obviously includes Canelo, who’s a really great fighter. There’s also BJS, Smith, Plant and Benavidas etc. But if you were knowledgeable of the history of that division, then you’d simply know that these guys of today didn’t posses the skill sets of the guys before them. Guys such as: Roy Jones, James Toney, Joe Calzaghe and Andre Ward etc.


Here are today’s best MW’s according to the Ring’s current ratings:

GGG
Demetrius Andrade
Jermall Charlo
Ryota Morata
Chris Eubank Jr
Carlos Adames
Erislandy Lara
Jaime Munguia
Zhanibek Alimkhanuly
Sergiy Derevyanchenko


Here are just some of the early 90’s MW’s:

Roy Jones Jr
Bernard Hopkins
James Toney
Mike McCallum
Michael Nunn
Reggie Johnson
Sumbo Kalambay
Herol Graham
Chris Eubank
Michael Watson


A gap of THIRTY YEARS.

So where is the noticeable progression?


The fighters of the early 90’s possessed MORE ability.

I know that they did, because I watched them all.

If you wish, we can post a thread and you can ask the other members for their opinions.


That is just another example out of the 6/7 that I have put forward for your consideration.


Now common sense and logic states that IF they had been continual progression/evolution in the sport, then it would be absolutely laughable to even compare these 2 divisions. Because if your theory was correct, there would be a HUGE noticeable difference, but in favour of the modern guys.

Yet if I was to start a thread, I would estimate that 80-90% of the members would vote for the older generation as having possessed more ability. And if I also did this for 5/6 other divisions too, then your theory would just absolutely disintegrate.


The above 2 comparisons are all that you need.

There has been no noticeable progression across all of the divisions in a very long time now.

The sport just simply ebbs and flows, where it will continue to do so.

 

You are embarrassing yourself. You can’t even understand what the argument is. Lomachenko is part of a larger picture, you know the thread topic? Now you want to make rambling assertions about a single fighter?

who am I where am I lolol

 

You are so cringe. Why are you talking like you are ‘owning’ people.

Here is some logic. You keep crying about A couldn’t beat B.
That’s not the argument, and your assertion isn’t an argument. You need reasoning and evidence. For example you just mentioned styles (referring to Lomachenko), while completely ignoring styles in your A v B comparison.

Back to my point. You keep hysterically asserting A beating B as a reason for why they couldn’t beat X or Y.
That makes no sense when people are making the argument are stating that A and B both beat X and Y for these reasons.

All you have is ‘compare these lists’!!!! Lolol

You don’t even understand what an argument is, what the topic is, and you’re posting these hysterical rambling posts and finishing with talk about ‘logic’? The dumbest people love to talk about logic lolol

 

Actually, it is very easy to do so if you possess great knowledge of the sport.


If I said to you that Ray Leonard was a better fighter than what Amir Khan was, what would you say?


Would you say:

1. Well, obviously!

2. There’s no way of knowing


Which one would it be?


We can use our knowledge to assess the skill sets of the fighters.


Nostalgia doesn’t come into it at all.

You can decipher who has the higher level of skills between a guy like Mike McCallum and a guy like Callum Smith.


Yes, of course it becomes harder if the fighters are of similar ability. But then that doesn’t matter. Because when you’ve reached that point, the comparisons have already been concluded.


You are the one who’s claimed that the modern fighters have superior skill sets to the guys of the past.

So if that is your opinion, there must be something that you can clearly see.

Although personally, I don’t think that you can.

It’s clear to me that you have just made assumptions based upon other things.


Regarding your second point, yes, that is difficult.

All you can do there, is to analyse their skills before then making an educated guess based upon how they’d have matched up stylistically.

 

I have given you breakdowns.

I have given you comparisons to look at.

I have given you both facts and opinions based upon logic.

I have given logical examples for you to consider.

Yet all you could muster as a reply, was that I was rambling.

That is merely your defence mechanism, as you CAN NOT refute any of my posts.

You have been ignorant all throughout the thread where you’ve failed to address any point that has been put to you.

Now if you could have responded to my posts, then you would have.

This does not even constitute as a response.

It’s just you whining because you haven’t got the required amount of knowledge to take this any further.

 

I’m not having a breakdown my friend.

I’m taking great delight in destroying you and making you look stupid. And you absolutely deserve it.


Look at the above.

What is it?

Just more nothingness because you have nothing to say.


Let’s get back on track, so you can impart some more of your incredible wisdom upon me.


This is your view point:

Loma would ANNIHILATE any LW before him.


That’s your opinion.

Okay.

However:


1. There’s been many GREAT LW’s throughout the history of the sport.

2. As great as he is, Loma has NEVER beaten a GREAT LW.

3. He has actually LOST TWICE to 2 NON great fighters.


So Einstein, explain to us all why you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that he would be able to annihilate EVERY great LW of the past.


Let’s receive some of your great knowledge.

Because all that is, is a completely IGNORANT statement which carries no weight whatsoever.

It’s just the thoughts of an uneducated man.


If you want to address this, then go ahead, and then we’ll debate it.

If you don’t want to, then run along and find another thread which isn’t as taxing for you.

 

More nothingness.

You’re so out of your depth here it’s painful.


What would you be looking at??


You’d be looking at some of the older fighters who possessed more ability than many of today’s guys.

You’d be looking at divisions which were better than the ones of today.

If you possessed any knowledge or understanding of what you were looking at, you would clearly see that there has been no progression in the sport for a long time.

 

Agreed.

People like to post on boxing forums pretending their Bert Sugar talking about fighters from the '80s would mop the floor with current fighters.

 

If you possessed any knowledge on the sport, then you would clearly see that the divisions that I’ve highlighted were better back then, than what they currently are today. And by a considerable margin.

The fighters in those divisions clearly possessed more ability than what the current fighters possess.

There’s also many other divisions to look at too.

You would then realise that although boxing HAS progressed, that it is NOT a CONTINUOUS cycle.

Sit down and take a rest.

Then try and absorb this information.

 

You are the only embarrassment here.

Making absurd claims that Bivol and Loma etc, would annihilate all before them.

So come and back up these opinions.

Tell me the thinking behind them.

 

WTF is this supposed to be?

When you’ve finished taking your LSD, you can try and act like a normal human being, where you may possibly be able to type something coherent.


Here’s a quick question for you:


Floyd Mayweather was at LW around 20 years ago.

20 years is a significant amount of time.


Therefore, in your honest opinion, would the versions of Floyd Mayweather that we saw as ‘PBF’ in the early 00’s, have been able to have competed and been successful against today’s group of LW’s?

 

You clearly still haven’t googled what an argument is. When have I stated that I’m absolutely certain Loma would beat other LWs? I would never say that about anyone beating someone else. You miss the whole point. Read the thread title, learn what an argument is, and then come back. Sounds good? Great!

 

There is literally zero information here. Like every other post, this is just another variation of you being emotional and making a claim without the hint of an argument in sight.
Everybody can understand your repeated hysterical claims. I’m sorry that people don’t blindly share your passionate opinion, if you start providing some reason and evidence maybe I could agree with you? As I said, learn what an argument is, think about why you hold these passionate opinions, if you still hold your view after doing some thinking then come back here and look at my arguments, then devise a counter argument to what I said. You can passionately express your opinion as much as you want, that isn’t going to convince anyone or change anyones minds.
We are both saying go look at this… the difference is I’m explaining it while you’re saying nothing and getting hysterical.
I get that you think you have the ‘correct’ perspective. You can stop with your ranting. WHY do you think your perspective is correct. That’s what you need to start addressing here.