When do you think Boxers stopped...

Ok then prove me wrong. If I'm being condescending then please use your vast knowledge of the era to explain why it's silly, instead of just dismissing it because of superficial similarities with opinions you disagree with.

 

How can I possibly prove you wrong? You have your opinion, and nothing I can say, will change that.

It's like when you made that ridiculous claim, that there probably were just as many pro boxers in 1891, as there are today. No matter how stupid that is, no one can actually prove you wrong.

 

I look forward to you changing the subject again next time you've clearly lost the argument.

For the record, what I said is that the records from then are extremely incomplete, which there is plenty of evidence they are, so you couldn't just look at the number recorded and assume it was an accurate reflection of the number of professional boxers.

But making things up is a lot easier than actually backing up your claims.

 

Yes, we all know, the records are very incomplete... but you used this to argue, that there may have been as many as 25,000 active boxers in 1891 (as opposed to the 996 KNOWN boxers for that year in BoxRec's database). Is this not correct?

 

Great answer

 

I could ask where you think I said that, or I could ask what actual argument do you have against that being possible.

Instead I'll ask why are not answering not using all your vast knowledge of boxing in 1883, that you must surely have, that allowed you to dismiss a contemporary opinion as "silly". Because surely you are not so much of a moron that you just decided it must be silly because it looked a bit like a modern opion that you disagreed with, with no knowledge of the things it was discussing.

 

90's

 

I think I've already answered that - in post #85.

Yes, you could ask me, where I think you said that - so why don't you?

 

You're contradicting yourself. You were the one who introduced the opinions of others. You went deep into comparing the opinions of "fans" against "boxers" .You name-dropped the Mayweather gym and claimed the views there would be the opinion in most boxing gyms. You make a false dichtomy between "fans" and "boxers/trainers" and privilege the views of "boxers/trainers". You assume a hierarchy of opinion, you talk from the view that boxers/trainers know more than people on the internet (of which you are one, btw), based on their experience. You make sweeping generalizations about what "modern boxers" think of "old time boxers". You introduced what they think into the discussion.

If you don't care what others say, why else would you bring up what you heard people say in the gym or whatever ? You always seem to be using what you heard "boxers" said against the opinions of people who rate old-timers, so you clearly believe their opinions hold some weight.

I don't actually care that much what Emanuel Steward says or thinks. I certainly don't base my opinion on his. Like you say, it's just his opinion. I don't agree with everything he says. BUT Emanuel Steward would be considered by most people to be a great example of the "modern boxing trainer". He trained/worked with Thomas Hearns, Lennox Lewis, Wladimir Klitschko, Gerald McClellan, Mike McCallum, Jimmy Paul, Gaby Canizales, etc. ........... so he's not just some ignorant "fan", or some old guy with no credentials. He's precisely a proven expert in training "modern" boxers". He's trained the boxers who you would say were superior to the old-timers of the 1940s and '50s.

Steward based his opinion on his real life experience, right ? So if you're going to elevate some "MMA guy" to some level above the rest of us (and many of us have boxed and trained here too, in boxing, if you think that matters) because of, I dunno, he does MMA or whatever .. ....... then you have to accept that Emanuel Steward sits higher on the pecking order.

You pretend now that you don't care about others' opinions but your whole argument is based on what (you claim) some "modern" fighters said.

 

Honestly, if we can't all agree that "SRR was wild swinging and only won because he was fighting short Italians." is a very stupid and ill-informed opinion, what's the point in any of us ever have a conversation about boxing again ?

I mean, is anyone here going to stand by such a stupid statement ?
If anyone even going to suggest such a statement isn't necessarily stupid ?

If any of the fighters I know said such a thing in seriousness, and I credited them with any degree of knowledge or intelligence, I'd prompty advise them to book themselves a brain scan.

 

There's pros and cons between coming up in an earlier era and coming up in today's era.

Obviously, the less fights you have, the less punishment you take. So the fighters of the past didn't have great longevity due to fighting sometimes hundreds of fights. But at the same time, those older fighters came up against every single style of fighter, which gave them invaluable experience and sharpened their skills.

Fighting less, strength training and taking PEDS hasn't made boxers better in terms of overall ability.

There's fighters of today who had less ability than many of the greats of the past.

I don't think that Benny Leonard, Jack Dempsey and Harry Greb etc, would be destroyed by their modern peers at their respected weights.

That's a bold claim to make that isn't really based on anything other than an assumption.

It doesn't matter what era a guy fought in. The only relevant thing is how they'd have matched up stylistically.

If you had a tournament with today's guys and the greats of the past, you'd see mixed results based upon how they'd have matched up.

 

Sparring can never replicate fighting.

Most fighters will spar with the same guys from their own stable, where they only occasionally bring in guys from outside. And that's good because it keeps them sharp and it preserves their longevity. But the guys of the past honed their skills and gained invaluable experience by fighting professional fighters from all over the country.

They fought every type of fighter from all different backgrounds who shared different characteristics. They fought: southpaws, pure boxers, box-fighters, fighters, brawlers and swarmers etc. Which meant that by the time they got a title shot, they'd fought pretty much every type of guy out there.

Unless fighters are going to have extremely high quality sparring with guys of varied styles and levels, and on a regular basis, they'll never gain anywhere near the experience that the guys from the past did.

The advantages for those old guys was both psychological and physical.

 

You don't think that the MMA guy was being completely ignorant?

 

You can practice your skills over and over, but you'll eventually reach a ceiling without gaining further knowledge and experience.