Do you think in general terms that some of the old school fighters of the past are overated, i mean i look back at some of the past Hw for example and think against a modern fighter could Max Baer beat a Klitschko or could Henry Armstrong beat Floyd. I know boxing as a sport and the sceince behind it have changed but does anyone else feel that just because some of the older fighters came first that their better or would today's fighter rewrite history. So give me some examples of modern fighters who would defeat their old school counterparts the only requirements in there within two weight classes of each other
Armstrong was really just a featherweight who skipped over lightweight to win the welterweight title . Then, Armstrong won the lightweight title. This is at a time when there was one champ per weight divison, so Henry couldn't cherrypick which beltholder to take on . But you may be right, perhaps Floyd could have beaten Armstrong at 147. Although if Hank was around today, I wonder how Floyd would go about avoiding him. Certainly Armstrong is superior to Pac, and if Floyd pulled out all the stops not to fight Manny, one can only imagine the evasive tactics Floyd would use not to fight Armstrong.
Yeah, they do get slightly overrated but there is also no doubt they're superior to today's fighters. Watch tapes of guys like SRR who I find remarkable, the level of competition has to be another factor to take into consideration, how do you rate Durans victory over Leonard? I'm only just scratching the surface on some of these guys too, im a complete noob on the subject tbh
Which fighters get over rated, and how though? For example, if I said that Tommy Hearns would destory the entire 154 division today, would you disagree, and say that I'm over rating the old timers? I doubt it. Same for Marvin Hagler at 160? I think he'd own the entire MW division, Sergio included. I know the division is shitty, but does that mean I'm over rating Hagler? I don't think so. :good
