How the hell can you say the guys today aren't better than the guys of the past if they haven't fought them? You don't know how good those guys were because they were fighting other undersized guys with poor nutrition and training. Anybody who is honest knows that most of the all time greats would only be journeymen these days. Old school boxers have no sharpness or explosion. Great fighters like Patterson.. he was an undersized cruiserweight. If you're 250 pounds you're not going to have the aerobic endurance of an 180 pound man, that's not how the human body works. It's a different time so stop trying to compare. Your heavyweight heroes are little boys in comparison. Compare Patterson to Andre Ward if you must, they're about the same size.
Wow theres no arguing with you your head is so up your own ass you cant even take valid points, and Patterson would beat Ward if thats what your saying... Patterson was the fastest heavyweight combination puncher and would beat Andre, andre dosent have any power so couldnt knock out Patterson. I know you wont think hell win cause your head is once again up your ass so far you cant see out of your **** goggles old man or young dousche whichever one it is... dont bother replying i cant be bothered talking to an idiot.
My head is up my own ass? All I did was make some extremely valid points, we'll never know who wins between Patterson and Ward. My point was that they're the same size, Ward couldn't beat Wlad now could he? If you don't reply it's because you have no answer, nothing to do with me.
Dealt with not sure if your on the wind up but marcel cerdan was a beautiful boxer as was Burley and Patterson. I do think its ridiculous when people talk about bob fitz etc when there is nothing to watch of them 'master feinter' lol... The advancements in sports science mean athletes should be stronger but it's immeasurable really. In terms of boxing skill alone though the old guys are more advanced generally then boxers today.
Thats the things,boxers were really skillfull back in the days.More so then boxers today.Especially in the hw division. But thruth be told they did do stupid **** all the time(s&c wise,nutrition),in some ways considering that we have to thank them,cause we can see what wrong and what right.
Yeah Burley, Patterson are great boxers. I haven't seen enough of Cerdan to make a judgement really. I just think it's stupid to compare heavyweights of the past to guys of today, old school heavyweights are really light heavys and cruisers so of course they are going to be more skilled, generally speaking. I also think the most skilled boxers today are more skilled than the top guys of the past from the video I've seen. Really I think it's an exercise in futility trying to measure fighters from different eras against each other. Apart from when you see fighters from the 20's-40's, those guys are noticeably inferior in every aspect of boxing and athleticism.
I partly agree with you- but your looking at HD images. With all the modern slow mo's and jazzyness. If you look deeper- beyond the punching, there is a lot of skill that is so subtle you have to watch again and again to see it. Also worth noting is tha some birds,through generations lose their wings due to lack of use- they are surplus to requirement. I'd venture that the work capacity of our recent ancestors was a lot higher then now- especially with the diminishing amount of manual labour, easier transport, sit down hobbies etc etc.
dealt with, you're an idiot who doesn't know **** if you don't think Dempsey was not explosive. You also don't seem to understand punching mechanics, so there is no wonder why you haven't posted a video of you punching. Dempsey reminds me of a heavyweight Pacquaio the way he could move around the ring at his best. You're a fool if you think he was slow and plodding.
There is nothing to watch about Fitz, but Jack Johnson held him in very high esteem, and if you watch footage of Jack Johnson, you can tell that he's a master boxer in the mold of Bernard Hopkins. He also spoke very intelligently about styles. Many people today discredit Dempsey because he was duckin Wills. While that may be true, the outcome of the fight may not have anything to do with that. And according to Johnson, it didn't. He said that Wills style was made for Dempsey. And if you look at Wills, you'll see that it's true, as his straight up and down style was made for a bobbing and weaving, explosive, low to the ground fighter like Dempsey. At the same time, Tunney was similiar to Marquez in the sense that his heavy emphasis on footwork, pivots, and and counterpunching made it very difficult for Dempsey to implement his gameplan. dealt with is a ****in idiot that's probably never seen any footage of the man.
Its the Truth Jeff, we Havent a Clue. My Father was at Dunkirk when the 1st Shot was fired. When the 2nd was Fired He was in Dover, thats Power and Speed.
Evolution doesn't happen in 100 years, the top athletes of today are better than older athletes in every event, there's no reason to think boxing is different. Old footage tends to look faster than it was and the old timers still look slow and plodding. And yeah I must be missing the subtle skill, people jizz over Burley but I don't see him doing anything that Hopkins or Toney didn't do, I haven't seen fighters do things Mayweather and Jones couldn't do, and I've never seen a fighter as complete as Lomachenko. In general people are probably lazier than they've ever been but genetic expression is altered by lifestyle, if you have someone active from a young age then their work capacity would be exactly the same, probably advanced even because of nutrition and knowledge.
:rofl:rofl:rofl Yeah look at this tight, skilled, explosive boxing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3P00DwCVcE He's from an era of rock 'em sock' em robots who wrestle half the time and don't protect their chins. Dempsey reminds me of a hobo fighting in the local park, thank god boxing has progressed.
