Professionals weighing in on old timers' abilities?

Yes, it's not difficult to see, that they fight differently. But how do modern "experts" interprit, what they can see with their own eyes? Who do you think, the majority of today's experienced "historians" would pick in a fantasy-fight between the two?

 

There has been one truth in boxing, we will never know until it's settled in the ring.

There are men who lived and breathed this sport their whole life and couldn't pick a winner, or accurately analyze the outcome.

Boxers and trainers like us, have their favorites and biases. The example given...Ali didn't like Dempsey because he had a chip on his shoulder about everyone. Ali did like Sugar Ray because he was a fast dancer like himself. Tyson idolized Dempsey
because he was an aggressive giant killer.

 

Just curious: what do you consider to be the golden era? Are we talking about the 1920s... or later (or maybe even earlier!)?

 

It used to be a joke on this forum, that if Teddy Atlas picked somebody to win, you knew that it was the kiss of death for them.

 

The 1920's and later, it sure is not today, the fighters barely fight today. There was a need and a purpose years ago, fighters today are too demanding purse wise and are unwilling to put the work in.

 

So back in the 20s there were real boxers, who fought for prestige with pride and dignity, and who were humble and respectful. Yes, I'm sure there were fighters like that - but do you really think, this can be used as a general description of what was going on back then?

 

I honestly believe that modern fighters are overall better as a median than the fighters of the 1920's etc. I believe that the guys from 100 years ago were often finding the best ways to box and adopting some things and discarding others. The best knowledge and methods that they discovered are what has become textbook today and what is widely disseminated in gyms. I humbly submit that there's no way that techniques that are known for a century and honed in the fire of competition don't become better and optimized. But it is thanks the the pioneers that we have what we have today.

Now if you said to me that the early boxers had more grit, were tougher and fought more, then yeah, probably. They got paid peanuts and had to fight often just to make a living.

 

I am not even sure that there is a single optimal way to box.

I think that there are a number of stances and guards that work, and they all have strengths and weaknesses.

 

The golden age of boxing was between the world wars..
Bookened by terrific 1910s and 1950s

 

Yes I do because back then, especially during the Great Depression which occurred in Oct 1929, people had to eat as thee were no jobs, the Banks had closed down. Most men accepted the responsibility of providing for their families just as portrayed in the motion picture The Cinderella Man. Fighters fought more often, they were good examples to the youth, positive examples, to get into fighting shape they put in the work, no Modern (Steroids) Nutrition. Again that is my opinion, I do not pay attention to the heavyweights of today. The WBC champion does not like to fight, while the other champion has fought during the Pandemic. As I said, the 1920's and beyond to me were the golden era's. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, just like I am entitled to.

 

It's amazing how few people seem to grasp this.

It's not hard to imagine how a lot of what the old timers did differently, was due to different rules amd equipment.

If you took a top 2020s boxer and had them fight in the 1890s, or a took a top 1890s boxer and had then fight today, I had little confidence either would do well.

We've seen how poorly many transition between boxing and MMA,, and I don't think it's far off that magnitude of difference between boxing of such different eras.