/Rant on/ Past v. Present threads, they multiply like friggin' rabbits, the same fantasy **** repeated over and over by the same self-proclaimed experts who yet never address the relevant questions... First off: when would the Past v. Present fights virtually be taking place: in the past or in the present? And then, who are we comparing? Past and Present fighters, each in their respective fighting contexts -or- both in the same context, the former's or the latter's? Say PBF v. Wilfredo Benitez, what's the year of the fight? 1979 or 2002? And which PBF and Benitez are we talking about? The ones who respectively fought against Corrales, Hernandez, Chavez, Castillo, etc., speaking of PBF; Leonard, Duran, Hearns, etc., in the case of Benitez? Or, instead, are we talking about a different PBF, one who would have fought in the late 70's/early 80's against Leonard, Duran, Hearns, etc., and a different Benitez, had he fought against the Corrales and the likes? Context, when comparing Past v. Present athletes, is relevant because of a couple of phenomenons common to every sport: "evolution" and "emulation". Evolution: the science behind sports, boxing included, evolves with time. Training and diet, for instance, are more sophisticated nowadays than it used to be. Therefore, present athletes are generally better prepared than past athletes. Emulation: athletes tend to improve when the opposition is (slightly) stronger then they are. Accepting as true that the WW division was stronger in the 80's than it is now, would - say - PBF be a better boxer had he fought in the 80's instead of now? In other words, would he have pushed his potential further had he fought Duran, SRL, WB and TH? Conversely, would Wilfredo Benitez have been a weaker boxer had he fought in the allegedly weaker WW context of the 2000's? /Rant off/
I think everyone has heard this weak ass argument too many times to take another thread dedicated to it seriously.
Do I honestly come off that way? I have strong opinions, but I wouldn't consider myself a know-it-all. I speak on topics I am knowledgable on, while reading others.
And you fail to recognize the relevance of "context" when it comes to compare past and present fighters? Then the best you ever did here is to express opinions: like assholes, everyone's got one...
"Evolution for Dummies" (sigh...) Here's a analogy: Olympic standards have been in constant progression. Early 1980's weightlifting standards for the 110 kg+ weight division was set near the 440 kg mark (i.e. snatch 190 kg + 250 kg CI.&J). As a matter of fact, 440 kg was the total achieved by the 1980 Gold medalist. 440 kg in the 2004 Olympics didn't get anyone a medal as Gold, Silver and Bronze were won respectively at 472.5, 455 and 447.5 kg. In a matter of less than 25 years, peak performace for HW weightlifters has increased by 7% and some... Question: why wouldn't it work that way for boxing? Strenght, aerobic, etc... training, nutrition, name it... get more and more sophisticated as years go by; all that sophistication benefited boxers as well. Therefore it makes little sense to compare past and present boxers if we don't factor in this notion of evolution...
I know, everyone's busy revamping the strong ass argument which pretty much goes like this: Poster A: Whitaker better than PBF. Poster B: You're a moron. Poster A: You know ****... Yeah... :roll:
