''We don't want to admit it, but athletes gets better'' ...& Mike Tyson Mysteries

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Console Command, Nov 2, 2014.


  1. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,421
    Aug 22, 2004
    The biggest problem with the "modern fighters must be better because they expand upon what others did in the past and elevate it" argument is that such a theory assumes that this passing along of information and expounding on it and improving it actually happens. Not all information gets used in any walk of life. Think of your own daily lives and how much comes and goes without being acted upon. In the case of boxing, not much of it does.

    There are many things that come and go through the ages and deteriorate despite there being huge amounts of past work to draw upon.

    Let's call this what it is. The "modern is better" school simply don't like being told their era is crap, so they rebel against it by trying this argument to bolster their view, however illogical it may be. Like every generation before them, they just don't like being patted on the head and chuckled at when they try to show you what they're all about. No one does.

    This argument is nothing but a generational battle, played out in a million ways every day. Some of them actually have to do with boxing.
     
  2. Azzer85

    Azzer85 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,283
    469
    Mar 13, 2010
    This. :deal

    "We know our era is ****, so lets **** on previous eras and make them look just as bad."

    If modern athletes have improved, someone please explain Khans chin to me?

    Or Malignaggis punch power?
     
  3. STB

    STB #noexcuses Full Member

    15,486
    41
    Mar 26, 2014
    Isnt Willie Pep considered one of the greatest of all time and he had no punch power?
     
  4. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,421
    Aug 22, 2004
    No offense, but those are dreadful examples. Chins and power have nothing to do with skill and ring savvy.
     
  5. purephase

    purephase Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,740
    89
    Jan 14, 2011
    This is the key point and knowledge loss in boxing is something that actually happens thanks to older trainers dying out and not passing on their knowledge. This dynamic is also why an apparent decline in skill has complemented the athletic advancements in the last 20 years. "Well guys these days have videos to study" is not a valid response, since that implies anyone can simply become a competent boxing trainer by just sitting in front of the TV all day. It's not a coincidence that the most decorated trainer from this generation was mentored by Futch.
     
  6. MN_Logan

    MN_Logan Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,513
    2
    Sep 26, 2014
    There are exceptions in other sports too, look at guys like Babe Ruth, Lou Gherig, Harmon Killebrew and Tony Oliva compared to the great "modern" baseball players. In general though, Tyson is right.
     
  7. IntentionalButt

    IntentionalButt Guy wants to name his çock 'macho' that's ok by me

    401,394
    83,260
    Nov 30, 2006
    Mike also recently said he "ain't got no time for bird ***".
     
  8. cslb

    cslb Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,648
    9,867
    Jan 27, 2014
    lol I was wondering whether Tyson said this on his cartoon show.
     
  9. Beatle

    Beatle Sheer Analysis Full Member

    9,270
    269
    Apr 12, 2009
    Mike Tyson is now a promotor. Everything he says from now is garbage.
     
  10. lencoreastside

    lencoreastside Obsessed with Boxing banned Full Member

    20,213
    5,012
    Dec 27, 2010
    People claiming that boxers today are automatically better due to advances in sports science are being far too narrow in their view. This shows a serious lack of understanding of boxing in my opinion.

    Boxing is about far more than just "sports science".

    It's a bit like saying "michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci are overrated. They wouldn't even get into Art College these days..with all the advances in Art Science and paints and sculpting tools ..there's better work done by graffiti artists on bus shelters todaythan they produced...etc etc"

    Boxing is complex and multi-faceted and can't be simplified down to a simple matter of Sports Science.
     
  11. Gneus7

    Gneus7 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,277
    495
    Mar 29, 2007
    :deal

    :good
     
  12. Ivo

    Ivo Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,351
    81
    Jul 20, 2004
    No to all questions!

    Limerick! Frank McCourt's town.:good
     
  13. miniq

    miniq AJ IS A BODYBUILDING BUM Full Member

    47,850
    27,805
    Oct 23, 2011
    PEDS
    diet

    But fck i'd give my left nut for pre a 2000 even pre 1990 heavyweight division...

    Current heavyweights are a joke.
     
  14. ribtickler68

    ribtickler68 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,985
    131
    Apr 27, 2013
    I agree with you. I don't think Khan would have got near a title shot in the 70's for instance. People are not factoring in the competition factor. Would Floyd be undefeated in the 50's for example? I don't think that he would.
     
  15. Azzer85

    Azzer85 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,283
    469
    Mar 13, 2010
    the point im trying to make us, people claim boxing has evolved, however i dont see it?

    some fighters still have no chin, some are big punchers etc, no different to previous generations

    ring savvy and skills? The only skilled fighter that are elite are Mayweather and Hopkins..

    if skill had evolved, wed see a whole lot more sugar rays, alis etc. But we don't.

    i dont think skill has evolved at all, each generation has always had its elite fighters who wer above the rest