Can todays Champions hold a candle to past eras

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Boilermaker, Mar 17, 2015.


  1. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    I am thinking that right now, they can and at least from a champions perspective we have a much stronger era than is often given credit for. Going off boxrec:

    Heavy: Klitchsko - An ATG champion, as good as anyone.
    L Heavy: Kovalev - A good undefeated light heavy champ, whose last two wins show he is clearly a threat to any fighter.
    Middle: Golovkin - A huge puncher and excellent champion who is considered a possible ATG by no less than Burt Bienstock.
    Welter: Mayweather - An ATG Champion who is undefeated.
    Light: Crawford - Reasonably young and undefeated.
    Bantam: Yamanaka - Another undefeated fighter with a solid record.
    Fly: Gonzales - Yet another undefeated fighter.

    Looking at this list, it seems as if the actual 8 best fighters in the world are as good as any other time in history. we have 2 all time greats and 6 good fighters 1 or 2 of whom may even go on to become all time greats.

    Pick any random year and there wont be too much difference. I just tried with 1957 and came up with:
    Heavy: Paterson
    L heavy: Moore
    Middle: Basilio
    Welter: Vacant/Basillio
    Light: Joe Brown
    Bantam: Halimi
    Fly: Perez
    Being fair, i would say 2 all time greats and at the time there was a chance that one or two of the others (Basillio and Paterson) may have gone on to become atg fighters. with the rest being good champions. No different today. i wouldnt mind seeing how different years matched up.

    The only real difference (and shame) is that no champions (or worse yet) contenders ever actually fight each other. If we fixed that up, i dont think todays era would be anywhere near as bad as what we often think it is.
     
  2. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    Mayweather is far from ATG level at his current stage imo.


    Pascual Perez was a great, not just good.Yamanaka isn't that good.Crawford massively unproven compared to old ***** Brown.

    These random points aside, imo this is a terrible way to compare any era.You compare an era through depth and your own subjective opinion on the quality of the field, not just by who is champion.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yes, they are a very good bunch.

    My opinion has always been that the best are there or thereabouts with the best of the past. But the top ten is often quite a bit weaker.
     
  4. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    The emergence of some good soviet school(god bless it's soul) fighters has improved things for this sort comparison no doubt.And also finally having a very good champ at the lower-weights like Gonzalez( and guys like Estrada and Inoue coming through).

    I don't think most years from the last 10 or so would have fared so well, mind you.imo there's been a clear downturn in depth in the sport since the 90s, but there's always stuff worth watching nonetheless.
     
  5. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,233
    Feb 15, 2006
    Starting to look strong, as you say.

    Only fair to note that some of those guys are not yet the #1 in their division, at least on paper.
     
  6. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,667
    2,153
    Aug 26, 2004
    I have been around boxing quite a few years and I think all the era's offered strengths and weaknesses. I seen many live fights in the 70's and 80's and been watching fights since the 60's and the guys today are better in some ways and worse in others....by division the worst I have seen was the 80's heavyweights mostly fat and under motivated...Tyson made an adjustment, too bad Cus died and King took charge, Mike T may have been much better with Cus

    Today we have a few dominating champs and some with potential of greatness or close and we have had that throughout the era's ......other than maybe 2-3 fighters and 2 potential stars the heavyweights are weak but some talent at the top
     
  7. Halfordscream

    Halfordscream Global Full Member

    327
    11
    Aug 29, 2012
    That may be satisfactory to those that limit their expectations to using the benchmark of what occurred in the past (variously described).

    It is not impressive on a comparative basis with the results and capabilities of the athletes existing in the present.

    How many endeavors in life (whether in business, technology, science, medicine, the arts, etc., etc.) would use their measurement of "success", advancement, or accomplishment on the levels achieved with fewer people, or less socio-economic development, or in which fewer had the means and opportunity to study, train, or commit their time and efforts to improving some process or some thing?

    In this era, in which there are more athletic programs within the US collegiate system than ever before, with more dollars (e.g., college basketball and football are much larger aggregate revenue generators than the NBA & NFL) - just massive financial resources produced from its commercial success and reinvested into the universities, there are more young people that ever in human history competing and striving to participate in college athletics with a then only small percentage able to force their way into the professional ranks.

    The competition is severe, difficult, and challenging. Only the combination of the talented, gifted, physically benefited (as there are great athletes that simply do not have a chance to make the pros ONLY because they do not have the requisite size to compete at the highest level (i.e., the pros)), committed (driven), fit (far far more often not), and persistent can obtain one of the static or limited number of positions available in the major sports. Essentially, for one new player to enter, one old player is pushed out. In the pros it is essentially a zero sum game.

    The result of generation upon generation of said competition means that you can find thousands of athletes (with the requisite size, skills, and abilities) that could thrive in the NBA of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. It is the depth or number of such that has exploded. But, they don't all have jobs in today's pro era. There are only so many spots. The quality and level needed to get one of those few desired positions has made for fierce high end competition.

    The same is true for the NFL. There are thousands of athletes across the US that would THRIVE in the NFL of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. It is not a denigration of the best from the past. It is the product of a larger country, with more people, with more young people having the means (from their parents or through scholarships, etc.) and desire to practice and train from youth. But, huge numbers of these athletes don't end up with jobs in today's pros either. There are only so many spots. The competitive landscape is daunting. You have to be even bigger and larger than in the past overall to succeed in both sports today. America's biggest athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, quicker, and better than ever - but are not learning to box.

    That more of these eventual "unemployable" athletes aren't making an impression upon young parents, or the young themselves, so that more take up boxing is due to the lack of an educational opportunity as a trade-off for the risk/commitment. The poor can't subsidize their kids where no scholarships are possible. The rest are still captivated by the cultural status that is accorded stars in the immensely popular and ubiquitous sports. Whenever everyone wants to be something it matters not that an opportunity exists elsewhere. But not starting at a young age in anything - means these athletes are at a disadvantage if they were to attempt a switch to boxing after failing to succeed in the NFL or NBA. So, the quality level of the boxing participant population remains unimpressive.

    Where boxing is a failure, is in its lack of depth, athletic quality, and the result produced from that combination. All sports require or are best served by a commitment from the youngest age possible. The rest of the world (which I will leave to those from those countries to defend or explain) does whatever it does with its population and the resources available to it. In the US, boxing has not only not thrived but it has receded. Under many metrics it is akin to saying it is an advanced or developed country operating a third-world sized business. Sure, its increase in pop size and economic growth means that all kinds of niche activities have some successes, some quality participants, and may well be at or beyond many different periods within the long past. The main difference is that while few are pursuing the sport, general improvements for larger numbers in terms of relative quality of life, health, and welfare compared to the past means there are more larger individuals - even if they are closer to the "bottom of the barrel".

    But, it is a dismal and irrelevant progress and nothing like what has occurred in the major sports within the US. Without the same cultural identity as in the past, without scholarship or subsidy to boost participation, without the recycling of resources of all types to enhance the conditions, training resources, gyms, ancillary support, etc., the sport receives second and third rate talent and small numbers of such "talent" at that.

    Look at the arts, today you can find multitudes of small children (not even considering the numbers of youths and young adults) that are near or will be virtuosos, huge numbers of kids that can sing, dance, and play instruments at high levels. It comes from starting incredibly young and committing oneself to getting better. It doesn't come from "Well, I wasn't that great in the sports everyone wanted to be in so I'm gonna take up boxing at 28 and become champion there".

    There is no real defense of boxing or boxing as a "too difficult" endeavor on any level. It remains a sport with no more detriment than the hugely damaging affect found in the NFL in which HUGE athletes are padded and helmeted to accelerate the force from running and hurtling through the air like airborne missiles at opponents often in no position to see or absorb what is coming at them. It is why the careers there are so extremely short.

    The US heavyweights are terrible, usually poorly conditioned, and/or athletically flawed. These are not exceptional talents. These are not equivalents to what exist in our other sports. That some or a couple or a few are impressive or quality - over time - does not reflect, indicate, or substantiate a thriving environment. That the Europeans also have had almost no exceptional quality either (certainly 2 heavyweights of consequence from a major population broadly viewed is inconsequential) or appear only somewhat better today (with a Golovkin or Kovalev or perhaps Beterbiev) still exhibiting rather modest numbers of better performing examples is something for others to explain. The US has been on a long, long downtrend. A downtrend from a cultural shift in which the greatest youth athletes wanted to grow up to be powerful running backs, big elusive wideouts, grid iron enforcers, shooting guards, high flying slam dunk acts, and not heavyweight champs. This had already taken hold as the segregation lines loosened, pro sports began to open their doors, and civil rights made inroads in universities and larger and larger parts of the country. But, the shift eventually grew to take all of the country's youths, without exception.

    I don't think a comparison that says here are six or eight good or great fighters today and then lists six or eight from yesterday is any evidence that the current times are on a good footing. The present should be far, far deeper, and the quality extremely or incomparably high. After all, it should be built on the backs of what came before with the benefit of watching, reviewing, examining, and learning from what the sport's "forefathers" had already contributed.

    In a thriving era, an old athlete should always be rare. In an era (like this) in which humans are growing larger on average and thus, athletes are larger and the heavyweight division is open-ended it should be rare for ex-MWs, LHWs and CRUISERS to make the climb to HW. In an era with high or meaningful participation rates the competition would produce and result in highly skilled, fit, and impressive talents that would be inarguably or universally lauded. While it doesn't have to reflect the "chicken or the egg", it would certainly mean that the US audience would be avid buyers of heavyweight fights as their consumption of media and entertainment has been second to none. For most discerning eyes, you can simply look at the list of world boxing rankings and whether it is the WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, Ring Magazine, or Fightnews or whomever, the obvious point or realization is that the 16 or 20 names reflect a straight out majority of mediocre big men.

    And for those that dislike the US-centricity .. the reality is that if the US is not watching .. it isn't very good or good enough (yet). The US is not discerning if something is at all entertaining ...
     
  8. 2piece

    2piece Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,995
    278
    Feb 14, 2014
    I think Mayweather, GGG, Kovalev, Ward, and Rigondeax would be in the fight with a chance against fighters from all eras.
     
  9. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    That was a really enjoyable post until those last two sentences.i take it you aren't a football fan then:lol:
     
  10. Halfordscream

    Halfordscream Global Full Member

    327
    11
    Aug 29, 2012
    I don't fault anyone that thinks watching MLB is a bore either ... :lol:
     
  11. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,837
    4,174
    Dec 16, 2012
    Now it is hard to know exactly what is the depth of the water as we swim in it-what the average pro represents. And that the best & contenders do NOT fight each other-& other risk-averse contenders-means it is hard both to gague how good they are, & there is less intense competition to hone skills.

    Very good post HalfordScream. Yes, the social & other conditions today means that the boxers have not progressed proportionate to any popular sport. But I quibble with these statements:


    "In a thriving era, an old athlete should always be rare. In an era (like this) in which humans are growing larger on average and thus, athletes are larger and the heavyweight division is open-ended it should be rare for ex-MWs, LHWs and CRUISERS to make the climb to HW".

    Two factors mitigate against these things as complete explanations for the phenomena in question. Each with a two-fold explanation...

    1) Greater trainingm nutrition & conditioning, mostly science based, significantly limit the otherwise more natural deterioration of age.

    Also PEDs make a dramatic difference.
    So while lack of proportionate to the top athletic talent pool representation is a factor, these two things must be somewhat larger explanation.

    2) The guys smaller than HW who now succeed? Well that always had more or less traction in the past. yet likely you will argue it SHOULD have less today when they are larger today.

    Yet the same advances in training & cheating (PEDS) make these formally smaller men bigger than the average HW of the past.

    The rules & equipment favoring size-clinching more, big gloves, 12 round fights...& the very lack of glamor & opportunity below HW produce incentive for so many to try their hand as a very bulked up version of what they would have been years ago.

    And they did not even have much weight training/discouraged in boxing so often, before the '80's.
     
  12. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,354
    Jun 29, 2007
    Solid post. I think boxing today is loaded with excellent champions from Heavy to Welter.

    Heavy- Wlad
    lt heavy- Kovalev
    Middle - GGG
    Welter -MayWeather

    Modern boxing is a little weak on fly and bantam in my opinion.
     
  13. N_ N___

    N_ N___ Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,204
    93
    Oct 1, 2014

    Why'd you leave off Rigo and Walters? They're strong champs at feather (since 122 didn't exist).
     
  14. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    51,110
    25,266
    Jan 3, 2007
    Some of them would and other wouldn't. Its like comparing any two eras. You'll have some from each who will mesh well in the other and some who benefit too greatly from the era they were born in to adapt in a different one..
     
  15. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005

    Have you got something against featherweights ? :huh