Harry Greb vs Floyd Mayweather jr jr jr

Well, there's the problem right there....if you watched and read more about the days when boxing was great, instead of going by what sounds logical, you would perhaps understand more.

But if you want to continue to think that today's fighters are superior to the guys that fought longer fights, many many more fights against better competition under much worse conditions, in much more brutal eras where referees didn't stop fights as soon as one guy wobbles, back when being Champion actually meant something and fighters burned with intense desire to become champ, in eras when fighters learned how to fight with the enormous impetus of starvation for them & their families staring them in the face, fighting to pay medical & other bills while sick & injured, with no PEDS to enhance performances, fighting in smoky & unhealthy clubs/arenas........that's your call.

If you do happen to watch the old greats, what do you see that has improved so much? For instance, who in our day do you think has superior footwork to Willie Pep, who started fighting close to 100 yrs ago? Surely in that span of time, boxers today should have far far far greater footwork - you should easily be able to name many that are better. Same for Joe Louis; you should be able to easily list many fighters who have better punching technique today, since his prime was like 90 years ago or whatever.

 

How many times do I have to say, that I don't believe today's boxers are superior to the old-timers? I have said over and over again, that I don't think we've seen better fighters since Pep, Louis, Robinson. Multiple times, like here:

The 1920s' FOTYs MAY reflect the mediocrity of the times (for heavyweights at least) | Page 2 | Boxing News 24 Forum (boxingforum24.com)
Post #24

Or here:
Comparing fighters through the ages | Boxing News 24 Forum (boxingforum24.com) post #9

Or here:
I don't think boxing skills have evolved | Boxing News 24 Forum (boxingforum24.com) post#10

So what's with this if you continue to think today's fighters are superior? Why would you lie about what I think?

And this nonsens about how I should be able to easily name many modern boxers with far far better footwork than Pep, or better punching technique than Louis... why say silly stuff like that, when it's pretty obvious, that no such modern fighters exist?

 

This is why I said what I did, if there's been some confusion on my end don't get you panties in a bunch.

 

I don't get anything in a bunch! I just don't like, when someone else tells me what to think - especially when it isn't true! I'm sure you can understand this.

 

No problem.

 

Like who? Tunney does not look modern at all

 

This content is protected

 

and you think this supports your point?

 

Get some spectacles.

 

Doesn't look modern. Does reflex based stuff like Sergio Martinez, but loops his punches more.

 

How do we know, Greb's era was much more brutal than the precent - boxing-wise, of course?

We know that everyday life was tougher during the depression, where many struggled to make ends meet... but how do we know, this resulted in more brutal fights (on average) than today. What indicates that harder times spilled over into the ring, producing harder fights?


I mean this as a serious question... so please don't respond with something silly like if you read up on the period, maybe you would understand.

 

Some of the old fights that I’ve seen would never have lasted as long today.

The referees today would have stopped many of those old fights much sooner.

For example:

The St Valentines Day Massacre would never have happened today.

Dempsey vs Willard would never have happened today.

After knockdowns, fighters used to stand over guys, just waiting to attack them as soon as they arose.

Different gloves, different rules, different rounds and different referees.

It was just a completely different era.

 

Take the 1920s - more than 300,000 fights (that we know of!) took place during the decade. How many of those are we able to check out on YouTube? I don't know - but less than 1% would be my guess. So how can we have a qualified opinion about the general "brutalness" of the period?

The vast, VAST majority of fights back then were between journeymen, who were just trying to make a buck. We have no way of knowing, how hard (or "soft") those fights were - since we have never seen any of them!

Can we find brutal old fights on YouTube, that we think would have been stopped sooner today? Sure we can - just like we can find modern fights, that we feel were allowed to go on for too long, and should have been stopped earlier. Like Vitali-Briggs, for example... where I actually felt uncomfortable watching the slaughter! I also think someone should have stopped the Lebedev-Jones fight much sooner.

 

What do you mean, how do we know?

I’ve already told you.

You don’t need any more evidence.

I’m not saying that EVERY fight was brutal.

But was it a more brutal era, overall?

Yes.

Of course it was.

Look at the gloves.

Look at the number of rounds.

Look at the number of fights.

Look at the referees.

Look at the rules, where when somebody was knocked down, they were allowed to jump on them the second they got back to their feet. When you have rules like that, with those small gloves, then it’s not even up for debate.

There’s absolutely no doubt at all, that Greb’s era was more brutal than the current one.

Many of those old fighters may not even have passed today’s medicals.

 

Nothing you say here proves that the fights were, generally, more brutal than today. You just wish it to be so - but the truth is, that we don't know!

With the boxing pool back then being made up largely of desperate journeymen fighting other desperate journeyman - is it completely out of the question, in your opinion, that these boxers may sometimes have gone easy on each other?

Would it not make sense, that these men would help each other through hard times - rather than trying to take each other's heads off? I mean, who would benefit from these boxers trying to kill each other, in low-level fights that didn't really mean anything? Surely it would have been preferable to get through these fights without taking (or dishing out) too much punishment - so everybody could live to fight another day. Or is this thought too weird?

Also, isn't it possible, that between boxers who fought each other over and over again, some sort of friendship, or "understanding" could, in some cases, develop - resulting in the two going easy on each other? I think that's a distinct possibility!