Classic vs Modern. Aus Forum Only. You decide!

Its common knowledge to everyone as we get older as a Humanity. We get weaker.

Take Medi Evil Times archers that weighed 160 pound could pull back a Bow with 120 pound pressure with ease. Now these days we need a Compound Bow to pull it back.

As we get older things are made easier for us so we naturally get weaker cant take as much punishment because medicine's are better and we dont heel naturally.

Thats why Ray Robinson and these type guys could take Punch's from LaMotta and move up weight class's etc.

Take Guys from the early 1900's and before that the late 1800's they could fight until they dropped with bare knuckles taking huge amounts of punishment.

Yes the Technique of fighters are better but there strength and overall willingness to survive is way less than the guys say back in the day.

I bet if you go to the Classic forum and post a thread like this with matchups style wise from the best fighters of yester year against the Champs of today ill bet more will pick the Robinson's before they pick a over hyped dud in Taylor.

 

OK this is for MSTR

I want your picks on these fights and style wise and who wins and how and we see who is better the fighters of today or the fighters of Yesteryear.


160 (1952 Ray Robinson vs 2007 Jermain Tayor)

135 (1966 Carlos Ortiz vs 2007 Juan Diaz)

147 (1942 Henry Armstrong vs 2007 Miguel Cotto)

140 (1959 Dulio Loi vs 2007 Ricky Hatton)

HW (1938 Joe Louis vs 2007 Wlad Klitschko)

126 (1951 Sandy Saddler vs 2007 Chris John)

175 (1954 Archie Moore vs 2007 Chad Dawson)

147 (1969 Jose Napoles vs 2007 Floyd Mayweather)

Now theres are the fights.

Now the only one i think i see a modern day fighter winning is Wlad beating Louis from his sheer amount of size and reach.

The rest of the other fights i have every other guy winning easy and some by KO or TKO.

Robinson TKO 9

Ortiz UD 12

Armstrong KO 10

Loi UD 12

Klitschko UD 12

Saddler KO 5

Moore TKO 11

Napoles TKO 8

Thats the way i see all those fights going.

 

I nearly fell off my chair when I saw you had Klitchsko beating Louis...not a chance. If Lamon ****ing Brewster can starch Klitschko, Louis would put him in a coffin. In no way am I having a go at you, quite the opposite, but I don't follow you on that one.

Absolutely I think them fighting is more beneficial. You often here people talking about training as much as they want, but there's no substitute for "fight fitness".

 

Anyway...enough of this rubbish. Let's talk Choc and Danny...

 

Man im only a young fulla and only been into the boxing for not a very long time but from what i have seen and stuff all i know is the boxing back then is nothing like now...

the way they fought is completely different...

boxing like most other sports is a progressive thing, as technologies improve and people get a better understanding on how the body works.. the way fighters train and prepare themselves will become alot better and produce physically stronger and fitter fighters...


also i reckon the learn from the mistakes of others theory works as well... people saw what the old timers did and saw there weaknesses and strengths and built themselves as boxers based on that....


so basically i reckon todays fighters are better.....


but remeber i havent really seen alot of the old timers

 

But wont some fail to realise is that Some Boxers today get protected and given decisions they clearly lost all because of Boxing Politics.

I dare anyone to compare the 50's Middleweights to 1997 to 2007 and this is what you get.

Sugar Ray Robinson
Jake LaMotta
Dick Tiger
Gene Fullmer
Joey Giardello
Carl Olson
Randy Turpin
Del Flanagan
Dave Sands
Gustav Scholz
Joey Giambra
Cecil Hudson
Terry Downes
Paul Pender
Peter Mueller
Carmen Basilio
Rocky Graziano
Spider Webb

Now from 1997 to 2007 we have seen
Bernard Hopkins
Jermain Taylor
Winky Wright
Felix Trinidad'
William Joppy
Antwun Echols
Kelly Pavlik
Kassim Ouma
Felix Sturm
Howard Eastman
Edison Miranda

Now we cant say a Modern fighter is better than older fighter because it should go by Era's in boxing not by because he seams more skillful because he has had better training.
It all counts for nothing in the Ring head to head.

Jermain Taylor against Spinks showed me all i needed to see to know he wouldnt have lasted 5 rounds with LaMotta and will more than likely get KO'd by Pavlik who isnt all that great.

 

I dont think the gap in technical skill is that big anyway. Watch old fights and guys from the 50's, 60's still had decent skills. I think it would be pretty hard to adjust, even the the hardest guys today with protection still are clearly affected by low blows as they do not train to deal with dirty tactics.
You look at a lot of fighters today who have made it to the top with little technical skill Soliman, Valero, Sam Peter (in fact much of the heavyweight division), Ponce De Leon, Edison Miranda, Chi, Magarito, Andrade, Sakio Bika, Jesus Chavez, Berrio, Joe Calzaghe (he is all talent) hell even Ricky Hatton and Vic. Its not like every single fighter today is all that technically sound. I dont think the basic art of boxing has changed that greatly obviously training, equipment and rules have though.

I made no comment about how Marciano would fair against modern heavies, it was about of Rocky had a punch in his kit that was basically an elbow and he was allowed to get away with it. No fighter today would dare foul so blatently thus would not be able to use that tactic to his advantage.

 

History Channel thats where i heard. They did a special on Archers and said that only about %5 of people today could use a bow with 120 pound pressure but back then any male could use a bow with 120 pound pressure.

As for why those fighters would win its common knowledge that they would be busy stronger and better fighters thats why they would win.
Most of Today's stars are hand fed shitty fighters until they are ready for a title shot and then also if there is alot riding on them as a Pro they get gift decision's from the boxing community because they are the ones that will make more money.

Take Sturm vs Dela Hoya (Dela Hoya lost but was given the decision because of money)

and there are plenty more fights like that today. Fighters back in the day had losing records because sometimes they actually lost but at the same time why should i believe the fighters of today are better because they have better records or they are better techniquelly.

Maybe they are more gifted naturally but they are more protected they fight less because they cant handle getting like in the 50's.

Back then fighters fought 15 rounders and most fighters would fight at least 5 times a year.
Look at todays softcocks they fight once a year mybe twice if we are lucky then they get decision's given to them so the orginizations make more money out of bigger names.

This is Bull**** you question me because i believe in the past and have a bit belief in the older guys and although i think boxing is pretty good today there is alot that makes it bad like Promoters the ABC's belts and of course those shitty judges that get it wrong time and time again.

And those names i gave out for the Middleweights from 1997 until 2007 was just about every fighter that had a World Title Shot at the Middleweight title. This era is shocking i mean you have Dela Hoya going to Middleweight aswell as Spinks and Ouma. All these guys are getting title shots at midleweight.
Please if these fighters are some how better let me know how and why.
Carl Olson would tear these guys a new ******* all of them not just get by in a UD win.
Jake LaMotta Left Hook would drop all those guys without him working up a sweat.
Tell Me im wrong.