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

I've been saying the same **** for f*ckin years!

BEST POST I HAVE EVER READ ON THIS SITE HANDS DOWN!

 

Good thread, nostalgia clouds peoples vision.

As for claiming the older fighters were more skilled- who teaches modern fighters? The same old fighters, who teach what they know to healthier more athletic guys than they could ever have been, given they fought in an age when doctors prescribed smoking :yep

 

yeah but many of the fighers,,,in american espicallyare teaching kids who start boxing later...and dont have the same kind of hunger...trust me..the poverty of 2009 is nothing like the poverty of 1920...as for smoking..thats just dumb...fighters always knew not to smoke. Dr.'s sometimes prescribed it for people with "nervous conditions" they way they prescribe zannies and what not.

 

baer is one guy who did look sloppy at times....but many others looked damn sharp...look at prime dempsey, or louis, even baer looks a hell of allot better then say Rahman ever did. Or for that matter Briggs.

 

This is the best post I've read on ESB.

What people don't understand is that there is big difference between physical abilities of fighters (who would likely win if they faced each other) and the legacy of fighters, which is developed as years pass and is based on circumstances the fighter faced DURING HIS TIME IN BOXING. You can't compare boxers based on records or paper stats because over time the rate at which boxer fight has decreased while the talent of boxers has increased. To think that the greats of old (no matter who) could achieve the exact same success boxing at the same rate today is absurd. As time passes, the older fighters are more glamorized and develop an aura that modern fighters simply don't have.

If I were to make a top 20 list of the best fighters of all time based on talent alone comparing against any era of boxing, I would get flamed like hell since most names would be from the post 70s era. For example, on paper, I believe Pep, Armstrong, and Dempsey have better resumes and achievements than any modern boxer in their respective weight class. While their legacy is certainly greater, I would not think for one second that they would defeat the modern greats if they faced off in the ring.

Like the OP said, techniques, nutrition, training equipment, have all improved. Even the size of fighters in general has increased over time.

By the way, this holds true for almost every sport (football, basket-ball, bodybuilding, etc). Wilt Chamberlain would not score 100 points in a basket-ball game today just like Ray Robinson's career (although he was the perfect boxer) would not last over 25yrs with the same success he enjoyed in the past if he fought 200+ fights in the post 70s era.

Flame away...

 

Good post.

 

It was just to point out the changes in general health and sports science between now and then. Rocky only stopped smoking when he got the Appollo fight, and that was the 70s :good

 

Marciano would not have the benefit of the new skills and training techniques of modern cruiserweights. It would be an unfair contest.

 

Absolutely and look at how small heavyweights like Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed were!

 

Great post. Ali would be a well-respected journeyman today.

 

And I've seen what boxers were like back in the primitive days of the 1970s: fat, unconditioned and with no skill. Look at Ali: he didn't even know how to move around the ring, and instead would lay on the ropes. No way he could last against John Ruiz using that strategy.

 

Never say that you will hurt the felling of a few guys.

 

You also said in another post in another thread that Pac would have knocked out Armstrong in "a round or two".

Which I really took exception to, as it makes it look like you have seen and know **** all about Armstrong. And for record Id probably side with Manny over Hank at 140-147..but there is no way in hell Manny is easily knocking out one of the most durable and proven fighters of all time when it takes him 9 to slaughter a can like David Diaz. Comments like that reek of bias.

Mate a I watch plenty of boxing..believe me I was EXACTLY like you...EXACTLY when I first started really getting into boxing.
But there is a hell of a lot more to it...You can not broadly compare boxing to other sports as there are to many things unique to boxing that make such comparison irrelevant.

Ive probably seen as much if not more of modern fighters as you have.. But Im fairly certain Ive seen a hell of a lot more of fighters from past eras then you. Trust me I had almost down to every letter the same opinion as you only 6-7 years ago when I was a wee teenager but Ive come to the conclusion that its not as simple as that...and I still dont even know the half of it.

 

so true. wicked post mang