It's disgusting how the old fighters get extremely overrated!!!

thats a helluva good post boppa.:good

 

Can you say Steriods.

**** 10 weightlifeters just got done last week.

 

Cheers Mate. Its better to respect all of them was what i was trying to say.

But i can tell you i would love to see

Les Darcy vs Bernard Hopkins

Carlos Monzon vs Roy Jones Jr

Floyd mayweather vs Roberto Duran

Thats why we love talking about boxing because these guys all of them give us memories and great glimpses to get our boxing hearts pumping.

This is why i love this sport.

 

:happy :happy :happy :good :good :good

THANK GOD someone else has said this. I get tore into and ripped to pieces when I continually put forward this argument on this forum. Well done amigo!!

The evidence?? The difference between the times in the 100m between Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis, and Asafa Powell, or the difference in physical condition between George Best and Ronaldo, or the difference in power and technique between Rod Laver or Roy Emerson or Bjorn Borg and Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal.

Fans of every other sport recognize this as an obvious fact, but not boxing fans.

I got heavy abuse for starting more or less the same thread on here the other day!!

 

But the same point you make about say George Best isnt as good as Ronaldo or Bjorn Borg isnt as good as Roger Federer as in a pyshical nature is mute.

Why is because look at the advancements in technology in the way we train and say footballs and football boots to even Tennis Racquets etc.

Imagine if these older guys got the same training as today did you ever think of that.

I would love to see George Best with a Pair of Adidas Predators and a Nike ball that swings and swirls like today.

Imagine Don Bradman with a decent Cricket Bat like a Kookaburra and even a Helmet.

Imagine The Grebs getting hit with the Reyes Glove of Today to a what they used to use.

Or say even PBF getting hit with 8 ounze (spelling) Gloves.

Did you think about these things.

Every era is diffenrent but at the same time you cannot count them out.

 

I have a feeling the thread starter was thinking about Bernard Hopkins

 

damn right manny pacquiao would butt fuk pep and saddler and beat em up good

 

I don't know man, 135 was Duran's best fighting weight. I'm not even sure if Mayweather would beat him prime for prime.

 

i think the old timers are correct in their assesment of the current heavyweight division. it is truly terrible at the moment.

but i think you are right the old timers do overate there hero's. it gets on my nerves when people say the likes the de la hoya, mosley, tito and co would not stand a chance against leonard, hearns and duran

 

For arguments sake, let's accept the contention that today's athletes due turn in better performances by most objective standards. The debate over this is then about what is the primary cause of these improvements. The two major theories I will address are the environmental factors theory and the organic change theory.

The debate is whether this change is due to environmental factors or some organic change in humans. If the changes in performance in sport are due to environmental factors, then the old guys would still be great in this era, because they would have access to the same items as current athletes. If the changes in sports are due to an organic change, than yes the old athletes are overrated.

The argument for the fact that environmental changes being the cause is fairly simple. Athletes in the current era have access to, better nutrution, equipment that makes it easier to move with speed (for example much better shoes), new medical techniques that make it easier to train, and recover from injury, and superior video collections to scout out new opponents.

If these are the major reasons for why athletes seem to be better, than older boxers would do just fine if they were born today. Joe Louis would be bigger today. He would be eating the same foods, using the same supplements, and training in the modern fashion. He would recover better from injuries and would be able to improve his performance through better scouting. Thus, assuming that environmental factors are the main cause for the changes in performance, there is no reason to believe Joe Louis wouldn't be the man in the division today.

The other argument is that some natural change has developed amongst humans that makes them bigger and that environmental factors only play a small role in the process.

Thie organic change theory is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Evolution, amongst humans, occurs other thousands of years, not just a few generations. It is scientifically impossible for such a severe change in humans, with regards to speed and size to occur over a few generations. The scientific community is in almost unanimous agreement over this. Thus the organic change theory cannot accuratly explain the changes in performances.

It has been established than that environmental factors are the likely primary cataylist for these changes. This will determine how we should compare fighters accross generations. When we compare old fighters to current athletes we can either talk about the comparison as if we are using a time machine to drop a 1930s Joe Louis in the ring with a modern heavyweight or assuming Joe Louis was born at the same time as current boxers.


The consequences for us as boxing fans when we compare boxers accross generations is this. A 1930s Joe Louis would likely lose against modern heavyweights, but Joe Louis born today would almost certinally be the best heavyweight alive. The later approach is the correct approach in these comparisons.

 

...But tell me that in 20 years you won't do the same thing. It's natural.

Besides, terms like 'underrated' and 'overrated' are so relative, being based on individual perspective.

A case can be made for (for example) the heavyweights of today or the very recent past being able to batter the heavyweights from 60, 70 years ago.
They are bigger and the sport has changed a lot since those days.

BUT

Are they more talented? Is boxing as a sport better to watch now than it was in the 30's or 40's?

 

The old guys did not get a chance to rest their body so of course they will have more

losses . Can you imagine PBF fighting every three weeks with those brittle hands.

Also let's not forget that no light heavyweight before Michael Spinks ever won a portion of the

heavyweight title even though heavyweights were under 210 pounds. Now you have

RJJ,Toney, and Byrd who started there career at 160 beating guys who weigh over 230 pounds

 

who are these faster,stronger,more powerful and bigger heavyweights today? who today is faster than ali? stronger than foreman? more powerful than tyson? the bigger guy must be valuev right?

 

The answer to your question is quite simple. Little floyd was not the best in any of the divisions he fought in. They would like very much for us to forget that Arguello, Duran, Pryor, Robinson, Hearns, Lenoard, and others existed!

 

Brilliant post.

Bear in mind that the 1930's Joe Louis fighting today would be fighting at cruiserweight, where, given the handspeed and power that is apparent even in older clips, it's quite likely that he would be a champion, and a long-reigning one, in that division.

Greatness is greatness, regardless of whether it was exhibited in the modern era, or in the past. Sage used the example of Harry Greb (who, by all accounts, fought using a similar style to Joe Calzaghe). We have no film of him, but his record indicates an astonishing success ratio against a wide variety of styles, and against fighters who were not only bigger, but undeniably good to great fighters in their own right. It certainly isn't out of the question that someone with a problematic style, and the gifts that he possessed could do rather well in just about any hypothetical match-up, if not win most of them.