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

He is running back now, just wait.

 

atsch

 

uhmmm, this is a very good topic, and one that i am always very careful to discuss. I dont believe i have the answer to this situation, but i do have an example. Now, before someone tears me up, let me explain my self... what i'm about to say is not a comparison between the sports (as i know they are very different) and definitly not a comparison between the sports "greats". But a few years ago there was a very important match up in the UFC weltereight division. It was between Matt Hughes and Royce Gracie... for those of you who dont really know the story i'll sumirze it very quick. Royce Gracie was the first fighter to win the UFC tournament, and not only that, but he actually won a few and eventually moved on to other MMA fights leaving the octagon undefeated and as their Hero. Matt Hughes was the established new era champion, and the match was made to see who was greater, the slick seasoned Ju jitzu master, or the young strong wreslter... and this is where i come to the comparison between the Situations. Both argumanents came up, the new advanced training methods against the purist who belived Gracie was just to smart, too slickand to make it simple, too good... the result, Matt Hughes punishes the living legend in less than a round. Royce Gracie wasnt that old, and his style was suppoussed to be effective at his advanced age, so of course Matt Hughes went on to become one of the greatest (or the greatest welterweight) of UFC history, only to lose i think it was 3 times in a row after one or two defences to his demolishion of the greatest figure of the UFC. i bring on this example because it shows both arguments, and at the end the 2 of the most hyped up welter weights were taken down from their pedestal in brutal fashion. So my point and my view??? well, with out the old greats we wouldnt have this great sport that we treasure so much, and even if they would lose to some of the new kids in the block (im not saying they would) they deserve the respect and appreciation of all boxing fans, just like the knew greats do. Regardless of who would have beaten who, it doesnt really matter.

 

I think boxing was modernized in the 40's, based on footage, given their stances and technical abilities when reviewed on film. This was the period when the high guard came into play and the techniques as have been used nowadays became the norm and the basic. Watch the footage, the proof is there. There isn't a chance you could watch extended footage of Robinson near his best and tell me he was primitive, nor Gavilan, nor guys like Patterson, Liston, Charles, etc.

 

As a fan of both sports, I'll explain the vast difference.

Royce was successful at the very beginning of modern MMA, when everyone was a one art practitioner or street fighter. He got dominated by a modern stylist after the ins and outs of the sport had been figured out. The sport modernized within about 10-12 years. Boxing(Queensbury rules) started in the late 1800's, and the fighters that are being called primitive by those in this thread fought in the 40's and 50's, many many years later. If MMA can modernize that quickly, why not boxing after a much longer period of time? If we were comparing today's boxers to guys from the early 1900's or late 1800's then I would most certainly agree with you, but not the guys from the 40's and 50's, considering the sport had evolved to its peak by then from a technical standpoint.

 

I understand, and agree to an extend. I just think the modernization had more to do with times we live in rather than the time frame. But like i said, i know my example is not the answer, I just think it's worthy of consideration, just like i will consider more deeply what u said

 

Fair enough.:good

 

I concur.

 

Have you...ever...seen Louis fight?

 

You're just stupid. Don't be so stupid, stupid.

 

I agree, boxing really began to evolve around the 40's. Before that time most boxers employed a low guard and where often wild in their offense, the reason they competed is because everyone was doing it. Once people began using the high guard and correcting their technique, everyone else had to in order to stand a chance. Generally fighter from the 40's onwards are quite comparable to those of nowadays, some fighters especially were very advanced in their technique. I feel all those fighters you listed would do very well in today's era, which is evident if you comapare them on film to nowaday's. Of course there are still some fighters around that era that where somewhat primitive, those of whom I feel would not do well today (eventually those sort of boxers fazed out anyway).

Once you get to 1960 and onwards, I don't think you could argue that they couldn't compete with today's fighters. Boxer's like Jose Napoles for example impress me more than the majority of today's fighters, he is not anywhere near primitive as some would say. The only thing I find somewhat different between today's fighters and older fighters is defence, generally speaking I think boxers nowadays a little more defensively sound. That's not to say that there were not defensive wizards in other era's, as there certainly where. This could possibly be put down to the emphasis that was put on entertainment, as many boxers felt it was there duty to go to war in the ring. It may just be some new techniques have been developed (such as the Philly shell) and more time is spent of defence rather than offense.

I feel the majority of boxers from the 1940's onwards are comparable today's fighters. Just watch the film and you'll see that there not a whole lot different.

 

RJJ is not an old legend but a lot of people favor him over old legends h2h:huh

 

Nice counter.