Old Legends v Our Current Greats: what is the big debate??

Great Post....Close this Thread. [Ended...]

 

beat me to it

 

Another class post by by the forum's classiest poster.

 

]

How absurd, you are suggesting that all trainers today are of lessor quality. Based on what? That is a sweeping generalisation if there ever was one. If anything, technical coaches in the sport are much more knowledgable, as they are able to use all the knowledge and film from generations gone. They also have much more technology, as well as time and money at their disposal.

Not only this, but you are judging the corner advice (only a very very small part of a trainers role) even though you simply cannot compare it to the older eras. That is in itself ridiculous.

Another generalisation. Giving a fighter tough and brutal losses earlier in their career is more likely to ruin them than anything else. Fighters these days are brought along gradually, stepping it up bit by bit before facing top comp. Meaning they have time to learn from their fights, and to focus on developing their craft. Especially with the longer training camps, which is to their benefit. How does getting beaten in a brutal fight whilst still developing as a fighter help? ​

Just because title holders today are weaker overall, doesn't mean boxing as a whole is though. Times have changed. Boxing is a business now, and with the many sanctioning bodies it is inevitable that at times you will have a weak champ. The belt doesn't make the fighter though. You are claiming that the fighters from past eras had more time to learn against different styles... But the champions today often do that whilst they have the belt. Miguel Cotto being a perfect example. The end result is the exact same, so what does it matter. I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make here.

So how does having a dozen fights a year help a fighter again? Common sense tells you this is damaging for their body, causes injury, and means they have less time training and learning from their fights, and more times battering their bodies. Unfortunately, there is no way to accurately compare the two, and it is totally subjective. However that said, sports medicine tells us that the body needs a large amount of time to recouperate from a hard fight. If it was so effective to be fighting so often, why would fighters not be doing it today?

If this were true, why wouldn't promoters keep their fighters busy, against journeyman or contenders. It would make them more money, and apparently make their fighters better? The simply answer is that it doesn't.

Vargas is a perfect example of a fighter being ruined by taking too many hard fights too early. All you have done here is contradict an earlier part of your post. Not sure what you were trying to prove once again. Vargas wasn't ruined through inactivity, that is for certain.

Once again you are using examples that are favourable to your case. There are plenty of fighters though who have been ruined by taking a tough test to early. How often do we see a young prospect shoved forward too early only to have his career ruined. By the physical and psychological damage a loss can do... This point is totally invalid, as it depends on the fighter themselves. Guys like Sam Soliman and Baldomir, Maragrito even are examples of taking tests and improving. Plenty of guys don't though. This happens both ways in modern boxing as well. Your statement that no one in modern boxing takes tough tests early on is pure fiction..

This part of your posts is subjective. I have watched film and seen that the modern day counterparts are far superior. So do many others. To try and claim your opinion as fact though is plain wrong. Whilst many of the supporters of the older eras have come on this thread and applauded this post, i see a lot of holes, and a lot of wishful thinking. ​

 

guys - for all the good points you make you let yourselves down by labelling the points of views of others.

if you cant get over that then you only have yourselves to blame.

because when you try to cheapen the arguments of others they lose respect for you. please try to get over this.

 

.

 

Who exactly are you reffering to with this comment? Because I don`t believe I did any of the things you mention here.... MSTR disagreed with what I had to say, so I responded to him and thats it, no harm done really.

 

its a generalisation...

i think people have made some real good comments but when push comes to shove they let their heart rule their head.

 

Its quite clear watching old tape that some fighters would not match up well today. Even my brother who knows nothing about boxing saw some tape of Joe Louis thrashing a tomato can and commented on how little technique was involved in the beat down. Athletes get bigger, faster and stronger as years go on, this is a plain and simple fact.

 

Thats the first time I hear that about myself on this site, but thanks for the compliment... your not too bad yourself SP

:good

PS, you still missing some Saijo footage are you?

 

Louis threw textbook punches. If you going to post on this forum you need to stop making statements like this.