Please name...

20a87 and donkey king constantly telling everyone how the old fighters are nobodys and Mundine and co. would flog them etc.

If we had more boxers willing to fight the best and prove themselves like our champions of old then the sport would be alot healthier than it is in this country.

 

Not really true though, i actually said that their achievements should be viewed in context and not trotted out as a (weak) comparison to a different breed of athletes.

The health of boxing is certainly not helped by zealous 'boxing historians' who are forever telling people that the form the sport took 100 years ago is far superior to what it is today. The effort required to reach the top of the sport now is far greater and thus you don't get a fighter fighting every 2 weeks as the training camps are so complex in their design.

You are disrespecting the sport as a whole by suggesting it has gone backwards and you are leaving your 17th century heroes open to be ridiculed when you try and shoehorn them in amongst modern athletes as still relevant.

 

Could not agree more, but I have to say sports science has made a lot of progress and it is easy to look back on the past with rose coloured glasses. Do you really expect logic from someone who states that Mundine has the best jab in the world though? :think

 

Too true. I'm done arguing with this ****. He's obviously just here to get a reaction from everyone.

 

Another win :happy. You have run out of weak counters??

 

If this is how you get your "wins" in life, you seriously need to think about opening up some veins

 

Do not put words into my mouth. Where did I ever say Lionel Rose and Les Darcy weren't great fighters. They are heroes of their time and their achievements have to be respected.

Read "Their Time". The were the best in their time but if they fought modern elite fighters they would get beat. Professional fighters today have better training, nutrition, recovery techniques, medical treatment. The athletes of today are superior. The advances in technology overcome any percevied mythical extra "heart" the dinosaurs may have had. You simply cannot compare fighters of early 1900s with those now.

Case study. Fiji Rugby Sevens Team. 1990's. Rugby sevens is a game where skill and speed overcomes brute strengh. Well in the 1990s when rugby sevens were amateur, the Fiji Sevens team would win everything. Beat NZ and Australia more than they would lose. The players would get paid to play but they had full time jobs etc.

Then NZ, SA and England started to take it more seriously. Players were contracted full time to play the abbreviated code. Well since then the last time Fiji won the sevens series is about 10 years ago. The advantages of being full time professionals with massive sports science budgets have annilated "heart and natural atheleticisim".

I'm talking only talking about 10 years ago. Imagine 100 years ago when people were happy to just have a full plate of food on the table. Calories, fat content, minerals etc all not a consideration. Plus they had to do manual labour for 10 hours a day. Then fight in the night. And fight every second week. What kind of athelete would such an environment create? Les Darcy has the record he has because he was better than the fighters of his time. All of them were in the same situation.

If Les Darcy had to fight a modern elite fighter he would lose. People like Flamengo would like us to believe that Jessie Owens would beat Hussain Bolt in the 100m because he had more heart.

 

You make a good point but I think this is the exact reason why you shouldnt compare fighters from different eras this way.

I've always believed to compare people of differing eras we have to look at there acievements and resume. The opposition fought by some of our older greats is what puts them above many modern fighters imo.

 

But how can you say with any certainty that a fighter from 80 years ago with today's sports science/training techniques etc etc + the natural talent that they possessed wouldn't still be a force in todays world of boxing.

 

Exactly we arent. What I said was Les Darcy would lose a fight with an modern elite fighter due to the advantages a modern fighter has.

The Historians are changing their story. Yesterday it was Les Darcy would beat todays fighters because todays fighters are pussies. Now they are saying Les Darcy with todays training/nutrition would beat todays fighters. Case closed. Modern Superman 1 - Historians 0.

 

I'm not sure who this is aimed at but I dont see anyone changing their story. Sallywinder was the only one I know of that said Darcy would beat todays fighters because they are pussies and I havent seen him change his mind.

 

Well in this case Rest of ESB 1 - Sallywinder 0.

Ill put it into perspective. Jessie Owens ran 10.3s in the 100m in the Berlin Olympics. High school kids run 10.5 now.

 

well written

 

I dare you to bring that up in the classic forum.

 

Here we go again... WTF

Donkey thinks Lionel Rose would be beaten by modern fighters... LMAOx100. Why??? What is it about Lionel from his Bantam days as champ, that is paled by todays fighters?? The only argument appears to be diets, dietry suppliments, nutrition and science??? Lionel was a brilliant boxer, a fighting warrior with a tremendous heart, will and courage... 3 out of those 4 mentions are lacked by Mundine by comparison.

Usain Bolt becomes a laughable figure when compared to Jesse Owens also. If idiots pretend to assume that Usain is 'clean', then you'd probably think the same about Carl Lewis being 'clean'. Oh, you'd also like to assume that Ben Johnson was the only drug cheat in the '88 Souel 100 metre final no doubt???