Then n' Now!

Sentimental hogwash.

The new order is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

"Zale had already fought a plethora of good men and rusted in the army before he won the middleweight title. "

Zale was champion before he went in to the army and was in his prime when he won the title.

 

Past eras generated more talent and great fighters than we have nowadays, on sheer activity alone. It's irrefutable.

Wille Pep, Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles were all in their primes at around the same time - all three of these men are rated among the top 10 ever p4p by many people - and when they were active they were very active.

 

I don't really care how some dinosaur had 400 fights against tomato cans. Henry Armstrong fighting a dozen times a year doesn't really impress me that much when he was defending world titles against guys with thirty, forty, fifty losses on their records. Elite guys now would be tarred-and-feathered if they even though of fighting competition like that.

 

as with most opinions in general... there is an element of fact with most opinions on the "past vs. present" debate

yes, some people talk up the oldtimers way too much... some of these guys were never even recorded or recorded very little

yes, some people discount the oldtimers

I call it like I see it regardless of era or popular opinion

sure, we all have our favorites and why not give those fighters every break you can without being ridiculous


Ezzard Charles, Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong? These guys were awesome and I'm sure they would be great in any era. Would they fight 35 times a year in todays game? No, why would they? If they did fight this often, especially vs. top fighters, they would lose more often... and that would be understandable. Some guys did fight good fighters back to back to back... and they had a few losses here and there even during their prime years... again, understandable.

on the other hand we need to realize that there have been great fighters recently as well.

the biggest debate IMO is with the Heavyweights. I must admit, it's hard to imagine Jack Dempsey beating the likes of Foreman, Lewis, Bowe, or either Klitschko. size isn't everything but when it's combined with good overall skill, conditioning, power, etc... it's tough to beat when you're severely outsized.

 

You are right.
If people are going to compare fighters of different eras, the modern fighters need to be measured against the highest standards set in the past.

It's probably better for the modern fighters that we don't compare. They should be appreciated for being the best in their own time regardless.

 

**** off Dads Army

 

I am an admirer of Silver's work, thanks very much for posting this.:good

 

Zale served in the US NAVY.

 

Would say Pacquiao really be a measurably superior fighter if he had squeezed an extra nine or ten fights against cans into his schedule each year? Would that really have "honed his craft" or whatever?