The big difference between today's fighters and past greats.

I said 25 times. Fighters already fight more than 10 times a year.


atsch Simple Jack already forgot.

 

Wow.... you probably think you just made a point. Ignorance really is bliss... :rofl

 

You probably think you're very cool right now.



Simple Jack in a Simple World.


But no I don't think I made a point, you just failed at making a point.

 

The boxing trunks today are also completly gay. Leopard prints, bells and fringes hanging off, gay gay gay. :twisted:

 

to me the biggest difference is mental toughness. Too many of the fighters today are pampered prima donna cry babies.

 

The main reason a lot of fighters today are enjoying longer careers, along with the point you brought up about management (not so much the other two, which are clearly not backed by performance), are the lack of fights they've had and the lack of wear and tear they've accumulated in comparison to many past greats, who were fighting multiple times per month, against far stiffer opposition, in 15 round fights. Add to that a lot of them were thrown to the wolves from the get-go and had to learn in the ring.

It's the same with modern fighters as well. If they've been in a lot of fights, had a lot of wars, built up a lot of wear and tear, etc. they'll fade out a lot sooner than the more conservative stylists. Hardly anything to do with any "modern technology" or "advancements in training and proper diet". I don't see how people make such a big deal out of those claims when they're clearly not backed by evidence in the ring. Guys like Marciano (in the days where you claim they were not in as good condition) were able to fight the full 3 minutes of every round for 15 straight rounds, whereas a guy like De La Hoya, with the help of "advancements in nutrition" can't even go 9 without gassing, and this was as far back as 8-10 years ago in his prime.

 

yeah and with all that which you just mentioned fighters today still aint as good as the oldies and they got no balls either

back in the day they were real fighters today there all pillow bitters

 

:good

 

There was less money involved, less titles, therefore boxers needed to fight more often and more often the best opposition available !!

 

A modern very shallow tallent pool, and old fighters fighting old fighters and not like in the old days having to take on a single line of challangers who had to fight regular first for the little money offered, and to keep themselfs active in the ratings.
To stay a contender one had to fight contenders.
Then if a Champ reached down and took the #6 contender he was picking a easy fight.

Today the Chalanger can pick which Champion he thinks he can beat, and because the top 4 of say 5 position seldom fight each other, you have the number three fighting the number 7 in reality, as his manditory.

In the Old days a Lightweight was considered old at 28, a middle at 30 and a heavy was old at 33, one of the reasons Liston and Moore lied about their age, no one wanted to see old past thier prime fighters...and there were so many young ones waiting to fight. Fighting their way up.

No one until very young Patterson and Ali ever did anything as an amature and then pro that I can think of. Pro's fought from 18 or younger on, and no one poor boxers had any benifit from wasting time in the Rich man's amature games. You truned pro as soon as some one would put you in a ring....you needed money.
The build up came from winning real fights not sparing in head gear.