Ring SERIOUSLY hammers modern boxing in favour of classic this month: Punchers

I agree with most of this. Boxing has turned to ****. I watch very little of it these days because of it. Fighters are called great before they prove anything and the media is made up of a bunch of guys who dont know **** about boxing but twitter, blog, and write ridiculous articles. Just read Scoop Malinowski's blogs. Its just flat out ridiculous.

It only takes a few reads in the general forum and you would understand. Thats where these kids get their info from **** writers.

The talent may still be there. Im sure it is, but you have to be taught correctly and you have to experience the type of fights to make you a great fighter. That doesnt happen today with promoters keeping everything in house and refusing to risk their investment because they can just use the media to hype fighters even if they suck.

 

I agree with some of this - in particualar the latter part - but it's another question.

But... Boxing has turned to "****"? With Mayweather Jr, Pacquiao, Morales, Barrera, Klitschkos, Lewis, Jones and Hopkins? I don't think so. That's a bit respectful to an era which could have five boxers in the top 50 of all time.

The discussions sbout modern vs old-timers is always skewed because modern fighters often get measured against "the past". This, of course, is unfair - you could take any era, put it up against the selected "best" of ALL the other eras and make that era look bad. It smells of agenda.

And when clarifications are asked, we often have to stick with vague remarks about current fighters having forgotten the finer, more functional aspects of technique beacuse trainers have themselves forgotten about it. Fighter XXX would only be a contender i era XXX and fighters like Margarito is being made fun of so to really exemplify how bad things have turned.

I'm not taking a stand aboout what era is better - I haven't seen enough of some of the earlier eras to comment and somehow I suspect that goes for quite a few others (not all) with strong claims - but it's easy for an outsider to see the limitations in the discussion.

I don't want to get OT too much, so my answer would be that Goosen exagerrates about amateur boxing. The killer instinct is still there in a lot of fights. I, too, have my concerns about the scoring system but it's not really how he makes it up to be.

The Finland part and the steel part are things I referred to above: strange unbased assumptions wich could sound good but has no substance. A lot of people came to see it and violence always attracts viewers (not just boxing).

The pad part is generally correct (for some fighters it helps getting them into a rhytm though, including me) but I know a lot of trainers who hates that kind of thing and want their boxers to extend, with full force to make it realistic. And who's to say old-timer trainers didn't do this too? We simply don't know and have to go on hearsay by trainers. As Seamus says, this might do down well on those already with the same opinion but it does little to convince new ones.

Morales, Barrera, Jones, Wlad, Lewis, JMM and Pac are excellent punchers. Pac has stopped Morales, Barrera, Cotto, Hatton and Sasakul spanning over eight divisions! How is that NOT excellent, even in historical terms? Wlad and Lewis have limitations to their punching success but this comes as much down to carefulness. The sheer power is amongst the best in history. Hopkins and Jones have excellent technique and are functional. But we cannot take neither good nor bad examples from different eras - we have to get the full picture.

 

I gave up on Ring Magazine a long time ago. I still watch boxing with enthusiasm.

It's funny that Ring's demographic is old codgers while their writing and analysis seem the product of 8-yr old minds.

 

so is the ring worth buying this month.the thread also shows why i rarely come into the classics as usual overrating old timer fighters and underrating modern fighters

 

since the change in management i have been underwhelmed hopefully it improves

 

I have almost ever issue from 1988 to 2004 or 05 ish.

The writing is largely ****. I do like Doug's insights on the web, though.

 

It's not 'underating' boxers of today do not match up to their counterparts of yesteryear.

 

a load of rubbish. fighters like bhop,floyd,pac,jmm,morales do match up their counterparts ever era has its greats,its goods,its average and its bad

 

I agree with a lot of what Steward said.

Guys like Bradley, Alexander and Khan were/are seen as young talented boxers, but none of them can throw half of the punches from the great book of boxing correctly. Alexander throws jabs to the gloves while screaming to impress the fans, Bradley throw hooks with the side of his fists and Khan throws wide as hell when under pressure. They're good fighters, but should not be anywhere near where they are... but props to them for making the best they could...

 

Most of the fighters you mentioned are so far past this current era. Jones Jr Hopkins, Mayweather jr?? Really those were 90's fighters for crying out loud. Im not a fan of the Klitschkos. Pac is a very good fighter but I believe he is bit overated for the reasons I wrote before. Same goes with the Klitschkos who dont have anyone to compete with besides themselves. Evander Holyfield at 48 could present a more difficult fight for either brother than anyone theyve faced since Vitali faced Lewis.

 

I look at it occasionally on the news stands these days. I may purchase one on your recommendation. You can reimburse me when I think it is ****.

Seriously, it got to be nothing more than fluff about 7 years ago.