The overating of older fighters with so many fights.

I'm a skilled labourer, a bit handy (just), there is far more I Can't do than I can...

if it is a really Highend Quality finish you want, then you call an expert not me, do you understand the difference.

 

It all depends on the fighter and the particular fights.

I do think some of the multi-fight series' some of the old fighters had need to be examined more closely.
Seriously, when guys like Langford, Jeanette, McVey and Wills fought each other a dozen times each or whatever, we have to at least suspect that some of these fights they were deliberately going easy on each other, knowing that they would meet in another town, city or country a few months down the road for a better purse.
Sometimes "real fights" were exhibitions, pre-arranged work-outs, glorified sparring .. and perhaps the opposite was true also.
It's a business after all.

 

Though I somewhat get where you're coming from...

Jeannette and Mcvea first met in 1907. 2 years later they met up in Paris and went 20 rounds. Just two months later, they fought to the death for 49 rounds...
Eight months later -- Another 30 rounds. And eventually fought once more in 1915.

These are the LAST mother ****ers to assume didn't give everything they had in each and every single bout the fought.

 

This content is protected

 

Even this gentleman whould put most people who came after him to shame.

 

WHO talks "as if these were all 15 round fights"? This makes no sense at all. Show me a single post here or source anywhere that backs your assertion on this.

 

In what regard? Ability to draw the color line, ability to dodge the two greatest contenders to your throne and/or sitting on the belt for years?

If any or all of those be the case, you are correct.

 

In the all the outrage over his failure to fight Harry Wills, people have lost sight of what he actually achieved.

He fought everybody stupid enough to fight him on the way up, and fought a string of dangerous contenders as champion.

The criticism of his record wouldn’t be so bad, if the people attacking him didn’t then grub around trying to find some merit in the wafer thin heavyweight resume of James Toney, when they were matched in a fantasy fight.

The same people were often trying to talk down Toney’s accomplishments at the time, because they were held up as evidence that smaller heavyweights of the pat could be successful today!

This content is protected

 

The fact is, just like ANY other sport in the history of mankind, BOXING HAS EVOLVED. Fans of old time fighters need to realize that the rules of boxing, the training, the nutrition, the techniques, even the gloves and the rings and the rules, all of these have changed dramatically. Most old time fighters would get humiliated if they fought today, period. They were good for their time, and their time only.

 

Good point. :good

 

get up at 5am, walk to work, put in an 8 plus hour LABORIOUS day, have a small sandwich for lunch, go home see to your mother, sibling and/or wife, kids, extended family and even a needy neighbour, have dinner, go to the gym or YOUR FIGHT (X one a month or less), and oh yeah at some point in there you've done a 3-5 mile run, and then go home and give your wife or gal a good bare arsed boxing match.

yeah things have changed alright, pass me the remote, mouse or joystick... get a _ucken grip pal!!!

 

I do completely agree with this. It's common sense.

With regards to overrating older fighters, we have to consider how great they were..accordingly how boxers lifestyles used to be. Then you will acknowledge their greatness.

 

Meh... most of the impressive names he beat on the way up had seen far better days... Levinsky, Pelkey, Flynn, Morris, Smith... And once at the top, he chose a couple no-hopers in Miske and Carpentier, a true oaf in Firpo (tho at least HE was brave enough to face Wills)... which leaves his championship legacy hanging on Brennan and Gibbons.

At this point, I am not sure Dempsey can defeat a prime Ann Wolfe.

 

Surf bat is right. A fighter with 40 professional fights has so much experience that he does not move or react the way a fighter with half that number does. It's purely an experience thing and making sure that a fighter has that experience when he hits his prime to maximize potential. However, it is debatable whether or not a fighter can get the same practice in the gym sparring, or whether his overall conditioning is better with fewer fights.

And then one must consider as OP brought up that old time fighters would often fight a lot of sub-prime level competitors, and whether that contributes much to their experience is also debatable. Just from checking the Hall of Famers records against their top 10 competition, you can see that most of the modern guys have similar records to all but the very best old guys. A fighter today who captures a title after 20 fights and only fights top level competition for the rest of his career does as much with 40-45 fights as an old timer would do with 100. A perfect example would be modern fighters Pernell Whitaker versus Julio Cesar Chavez.

Pernell Whittaker 19-3-1 (5) * 21-2-0 (5)
Mayweather, Santana, Ramirez (x2)*, Haugen, Lomeli, Pendleton, Nelson, Nazario, Jones, Diaz, Paez, Pineda, McGirt (x2), Chavez*, Vasquez, Rodriguez, Rivera (x2), Hurtado, De La Hoya, Trinidad (20)

Julio Cesar Chavez 26-4-2 (14) *26-5-1 (14)
Martinez, Castillo, Mayweather (x2), Rojas, Lockridge, Porte, Cruz, Rosario, Ramirez, Fuentes, Taylor (x2), Duplessis, Smith, Hernandez, Camacho, Haugen, Ali, Whittaker*, Randall (x3), Lopez, Parisi, Kamau, De La Hoya (x2), Gamache, Gonzalez, Tzsyu, Robinson (27)

or Roberto Duran Roberto Duran: 19-11-0 versus Sugar Ray Leonard 16-3-1.

A lot of contemporary fighters have as many wins against top ten contenders as the greats of the past. Mayweather, Pacquiao and Marquez are all somewhere in the low twenties like Jake LaMotta, Jose Napoles, Joey Maxim, Kid Gavilan, and Carlos Ortiz were when they retired.