The latest article on the main page got me thinking. Predicting Hearns would have TKO'd pacquiao in 8. I'm not even going to try and predict the result, but to say he would TKO pac in 8 is a bit silly IMO. That's just an example anyway. Whenever someone compares a by gone ATG to a current top P4P fighter, the old fighter always comes out more favourably. People remember all these old fighters and ATG's with too much nostalgia and bias, without considering how much humans have evolved as athletes. Imagine taking the best 100m sprinters in the world from the 50's and 60's, and line them up against todays top sprinters, what would happen? A mauling. We know this to be true because there is hard evidence in the times. The same is true of boxing or any sport, there's just no constant to compare fighters. Are people taking how much humans have progressed at sport into account when they do these comparisons? Thoughts? Let's see if we can keep this a decent discussion instead of a barrage of insults. i'm doubtful though!
One problem...boxing isn't sprinting. There are many styles of boxing and many different variables that contribute to a victory or defeat in a modern or classic boxing matchup. There's pretty much only one way to sprint, but many ways to train. Tommy Hearns would indeed beat the living **** out of Manny Pacquiao and the reason is stylistic. Manny has always been vulnerable to straight rights and Tommy Hearns has a Howitzer coming out of his right shoulder. I can certainly appreciate your argument but Pacquiao v Hearns is a really bad example.
Tommy Heanrs would punch open a wormhole in Pacquiao's face. The nostalgia only steps beyond its boundaries when ranking these black and white fighters of who there is little footage, in which they look like Charlie Chaplin.
One problem I have with your argument is that you assume that fighters are actually stronger and in better shape now than they were in other eras and this simply isn't the case. Boxers then had to train for 15 rounds and were far more active. This fact actually gives many classic fighters an edge over many modern guys. In short, boxing training has gotten far more efficient but it's basically the same as it has been for the past 40 years. Bottom Line: You tell me if Wlad or Vitali Klitschko are really any stronger than George Foreman '74 or Liston '62. Now a better example that actually supports your argument would be something like... Joe Frazier v Lennox Lewis(Frazier would pummel Wlad or Vitali over 12 rounds). Lewis would probably defeat Frazier because of his uppercut and his strength advantage. It's common knowledge that Joe was very susceptible to getting hit by uppercuts and Lennox's uppercut was excellent. Other than those obvious examples however, your argument is pretty weak when comparing guys within the past 30-40 years or so.
Exactly, he has a better argument when he talks about matching up Dempsey with Larry Holmes or Marciano with Bowe...
fair points! althoug i did say Pac vs Hearns was only an example! knew i shouldn't have used it! good replies though! i see where you're all coming from.
If landed on the button... Hearns could knock out any fighter within his weight class throughout the history of this sport. Why would Hearns knocking out Pac be silly?
I think he was trying to make the point that Classic Champions are often blindly favored over current champs for no good reason but he admitted that Hearns v Pacquiao was a REALLY bad example.
So much more goes into this equation than merely the individuals themselves. Sprinting, for example, as the OP mentions, has evolved dramatically. Not only the number of people competing, the level of competition, but also the training regimen and the equipment, particularly the shoes. Take a top runner today and saddle him with running shoes from 1955 and you'll see his performance suffer dramatically. With boxing, you could almost say the opposite: shorter amateur careers, fewer people competing, fewer professional fights fought by each fighter, etc, etc.
