Stop comparing the fighters of the past to present day fighters!

your right...those old time fighters didnt fight like modern fighters...they fought with MORE SKILL....damn look at the guys fighting today..most of them suck....guys like pac and mayweather are the anomalys. As for holding your hands low...some fighters do that..their are reasons they do that....Vitali Klitschko does that today..im not saying that dempsey would beat Klitschko...but i ll but dempsey in their with Kevin Johnson...and other then heavyweight..the size issue means nothing... of course old time middleweights where smaller..but thats because they where real middleweights, who didnt get to weigh in the day before.

 

i wonder how fighters today will be if it was still the same day weigh in?

 

How, given Shannon's physical prowess?

Would you pick a 19th century runner to beat Jesse Owens?

 

He doesn't want to work hard, his heart is questionable. I think Marciano hits hard enough to hurt him, and he'll just outwork his ass. If he gets him tired and bothered enough, he might knock him out. I wouldn't be shocked to see Briggs losing to a smaller man.

Marciano had a pretty modern style, a crowding, hard punching pressure fighter. He would be a hell of a good cruiserweight today imho.

 

Not this nonsense again. I remember thinking exactly like you did, but as time went by and the more I learned that's when I realized this was bull****. Nothing really has changed in boxing over the last 60 years. Fighters from the "peak" eras (that's what I call it, because that's exactly when boxing reached it's peak) fighters had MUCH better technique than the guys fighting today and they got better by FIGHTING. While guys fight maybe 3 times a year now, most men then fought 3 times in 3 days which made them sharper than your average sparring sessions which are substitutes for live action nowadays. Absolutely nothing has changed as far training regimes are concerned as a matter fact most of the training regimes are based on the ones from past eras. Athletes may be bigger and faster now, but that doesn't translate into BETTER, because its not about who runs the fastest or who jumps the highest it's about which man has the better technique and skill from the man across from him.

Armstrong didn't have a high workrate??? He would be destroyed by Pac and Floyd??? Oh my...

At least you were right about one thing SRR was indeed ahead of his time.

 

I guess you don't have a TV. Or a computer. U must be posting from your Iphone. Because if you DID have a computer or a TV, then you would have seen some of the incredibly bad windmilling that the 'legendary' fighters of the past called a fighting style, and you would know they would get absolutely annihilated right now.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl oh yea, sure buddy. fighters back then were so much slower, bumbling oafs with so little skill. they obviously didn't know what a jab was or ever threw triple hooks because they were too SLOW. atsch[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pazrZZbvi6w&feature=related[/ame]

 

Shannon Briggs an athlete that guy said. I agree Marciano wins in additon to his obvious punch he great defence and freat weaving hand ducking Briggs also had a glass jaw

 

Look at the skill set of joe walcott...he was bigger and a hell of allot better then toney ever was..yet toney at his best was able...at 5'9, 230 and fat..to get in and bang with the so called great modern heavyweights

how about my man jack dempsey..yeah he is throwing wild when he has willard out....those are swing punches...punches that are easly contered but have a great deal of force that he could throw because willard wasnt throwing back. But look at his other fights...look at his sparring on youtube with billtate.

 

some of the real early footage was kind of windmiled, but in many cases those where sparring sessions where guys where putting on shows for the camras

 

Klitschkos would have beaten the older fighters because they are so much bigger and with so many skills. It is not just Klitschkos size, it is their skills.

 

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/are-there-fewer-good-trainers-than-before-

A long but great article.

u have to remember boxing was HUGE back in the 40s.
im not sure of numbers but i know if there is 10,000 pros today there was 100,000 pros then the talent pool was huge to be a top ten fighter was a huge accomplishment. ur saying boxers like pbf moved quiker than pep and walcott. boxing isnt like the 100m its not a race u move step by step using skills if aything the old timers have the advantage.
a guy might fight 100 fights b4 he gets a shot. think of all the tricks he would of learned, all the styles he would of faced.

 

well all but the heavyweights would be smaller...when junior welterweights fight now..most of them are actually fighting at 150 instead of 140...hatton i know came into the ring a few times over 150...middleweights often come into the ring as light heavyweights...supermiddleweights fight as heavyweights...

 

I don't think so. I have seen plenty of old footage that makes the oldtimers look less skilled. Max Baer was largely a one-handed fighter, jab pathetic by modern standards, hook seen about as often as the Loch Ness Monster, oh yeah, and I lot of them didn't have particularly good footwork. The heavyweight division has always been devoid of talent. Just find some old articles from Ring Magazine and you'll get a centuries worth of "the heavyweight division is completely devoid of talent." Jim Braddock was a top light heavyweight who didn't have decent left hand skills until late in his career and that was only because his right hand was busted and he was forced to learn how to use his left. A modern fighter couldn't get by with only one hand and reach the top of any division. Also, I think a rock solid jaw against a 188lber may not be so solid against a 245lber with talent, not to mention a six foot 208lber who was a giant in his day most likely couldn't manhandle somebody like Lennox Lewis or either Klitschko the same way he could manhandle a 190lber.