Fighters Were Better In The Old Days Because.....

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by salsanchezfan, Jun 15, 2011.


  1. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,425
    Aug 22, 2004
    .............Please finish the sentence, and expound on it as you see fit.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,669
    21,957
    Sep 15, 2009
    there weren't afraid to duke it out to prove who the best man was.
     
  3. tommygun711

    tommygun711 The Future Full Member

    15,756
    101
    Dec 26, 2009
    because of the passion
     
  4. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,425
    Aug 22, 2004
    Personally, I think it's because they had better trainers. I don't really believe they were tougher or inherently superior or better suited to fighting as opposed to their modern-day counterparts......there just isn't anyone around to teach them properly anymore. There aren't too many Freddie Roaches around.
     
  5. HAYEDAJOKE

    HAYEDAJOKE Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,115
    0
    Jan 11, 2011
    they had balls and it wasnt all about the money
     
  6. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,669
    21,957
    Sep 15, 2009
    can't take you seriously with that username.
     
  7. JAB5239

    JAB5239 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,470
    58
    Feb 23, 2008
    1. They fought more often.
    2. They fought 15 rounds for the championship
    3. They fought a better array of competition.
    4 They weighed in the same day.
     
  8. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    84
    May 30, 2009
    Well you finished it for me, except I do think they were tougher for different reasons, though.
     
  9. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,758
    46,446
    Feb 11, 2005
    ... this is the Classic Forum and it is the myth that sustains a sense of superiority and self satisfaction in these parts.
     
  10. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,758
    46,446
    Feb 11, 2005
    Are you going to tell me that Vitali, Hopkins, Cotto, Bute, Diaz, Martinez... don't have balls? Would like to tell them this same fact?

    And would you like to point to the era "when it wasn't all about the money"? Humor me here.
     
  11. tommygun711

    tommygun711 The Future Full Member

    15,756
    101
    Dec 26, 2009
    Yeah, there's always going to be exceptions. He meant that there are considerably less warriors out there today then there were back then.
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,028
    48,144
    Mar 21, 2007
    - the talent pool was bigger

    - they fought more

    - they fought top opponents more

    - they sparred more

    - they fought over longer distances making them generally better in terms of stamina, generalship and (elements of) tactics

    - they fought closer to their best weights more, generally being less extremely dried out, which makes giving your athletic best tougher by definition

    - they were less pampered. men are more likely to give more at the absolute extreme if they are not millionaires

    - there was more boxing culture



    There are counter-arguments of course.
     
  13. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    151
    Jul 30, 2006
    desperate times breed survival mode, and only the fittest do survive!

    - multiply that by sheer number of fighters, as there were litterally 100s of 1000s fighting weekly to monthly,
    - 8 world champions divided over 5 main boxing nations,
    - usually 3-5 years of fighting for much respected national titles,
    - many, many more fights... and at the top, against honest true fellow top men
    - fights against fellow top contenders were just as desired, exciting and expected by fan and promoters and fighters alike

    - and for the champs & contenders that stayed on top for more than a few short years was truely remarkable as compitition was fierce.

    boxing was better for these reasons no longer existing today, softer people even in hard places and circumstances.
     
  14. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,579
    Nov 24, 2005
    .... they didn't wear gloves that were bigger than their heads.
     
  15. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    34,221
    5,875
    Apr 30, 2006
    The biggest fights happened, and very good fights happened routinely. Much moreso than today. I think the best fighters of today could do what the old timers did, but unfortunately, we'll never know because the best don't fight the best consistently. The current boxing environment just doesn't allow for it. And if they do, there's no guarantee we'll see a rematch even if the fight's close enough to merit one. You need to fight frequently, even if the opponent is outmatched, to stay sharp and to master the craft, and that just doesn't happen.

    There are other issues- a shallower talent pool not just for boxers but especially for trainers makes for fewer good fighters developing, for example. But that's nothing compared to the first issue. Too many times, guys become "champs" by their 18th or 20th fight and then fight once or twice a year. A fighter can't really keep developing and maximizing their potential at that rate.