Where Is The Disconnect Between the General & Classic Forum?

............Interesting question.

Age mostly. When you're a kid, you don't wanna hear about the old days, by and large. Oh some do, we have them here, but it's far more common for them to get wrapped up in the here and now. We get more wistful and remember everything as better as we age though, and the kids get tired of hearing about it.

 

I just hate it when ol' timers overrate fighters from the past.

Human beings evolve. Athletes get more athletic as generations pass. Today, in every professional sport you can think of, the athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, better. There are more people fighting professionally than ever before.. more tough competition = easier to lose. Fighters today are also better prepared to succeed. Training methods are more complex, physical therapy/medical technology is 10x more advanced.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the legends of our sport but I usually call BS when I hear some ol' timer ranting about how a great fighter from the past would destroy all the fighters in the same division today.. Some folks will not let go of the past..

 

Oh there are idiots...dreamers...the unknowledgeable...the uneduacted...the huggers and haters in...those well versed....articulate..well researched in both forums...

I believe many here in the classic forum have a balance between knowing the past, and appreciating the present. I enjoy a good Cotto/Mosley fight just as well as a mancini/Camacho and a Charles/Walcott or dempsey/Williard. the problem comes when nothing can touch the past and the disconnect on the other side that if it was 25+ years ago it was inferior. Usually in trying to justify our opinion we go to far in under valuing the other side.

For the most part I enjoy good boxing conversation on both forums...although my strong preference is here as I feel more people (or a higher percentage) can appreciate both the past and present.

 

..............Incorrect. Boxing is one HUGE exception to this rule, and I don't understand how anyone can intelligently argue that.

Boxing isn't a 100 yard sprint or a relatively even playing field like the old days, like the length of a basketball or football season. The road to the top is the same there as it always was, as well.

Boxing is different. Today, fighters fight less. Hence, they learn less. It's simple math. I'd also like to know some stats or proof of any sort that fighters of today are faster or stronger. Good luck providing it.

 

Rewind to 100-200 years back. The average height for a male was around 5 ft or less. Christopher Columbus was a midget. What's the average height for an adult male these days? 6 ft?

Look at the NBA. Compare the speed and jumping ability of the NBA players in the 60's and 70's to players today. Look at the NFL. The average offensive or defensive lineman was around 250 pounds. Nowadays, you barely see ANY linemen under 300 pounds. And we're not talking about 300 pound fat guys.

Human beings evolve.. are you arguing against that?


I do agree with you on one point.. that boxing is not like the other sports. Being athletic doesnt mean youll be a good boxer. It's not about how high you jump or how fast you run.. it's more of a thinking man's sport..

But the training and the preparation fighters get today is definitely better.. conditioning and physical therapy.. recovery time.. it's all better now.. are you seriously going to argue that?

 

Does that mean that Shaq was taller than wilt the stilt too!!!

PS your average height figures are slightly (LOL) off!

 

Wilt is the exception. He was a freak of nature. A man amongst boys...

Funny you bring up Shaq, because I'd like you to name another player in history who's 7 foot and 300 pounds and can run and jump and do the things Shaq does..

 

...........A five foot man playing linebacker is at a disadvantge. A five foot man fighting is called a flyweight and has no such problems.

How is the training better today? Specifically. If conditioning is so much better now, why are so many guys gassed at the end of fights now? I mean, if their training is all that, you'd think they could all fight 12 hard rounds without drawing a breath.

 

For all of his greatness...Shaq could never run and jump like Wilt! More physical yes..without a doubt. The point is there is alway an exception...one in the past and yes one in the present. In your vigor to promote today in the face of those who devalue it...you have in turn done the same thing in justifying today and undervaluing yesterday...appreciate both..Peace

 

I agree with mcnasty..Look at this video and you`ll see a a perfect example
of what is still acquiring today.Old timers are stubborn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy3SG91KvXg

 

Are you trying to say there have been no technological advancements in the field of sports medicine? That training methods aren't more complex now? That athletes don't heal and recover faster from an injuries?

Some athletes today are poorly-conditioned. You're right. But that is completely their fault. The technology is there. It's up to the athletes to use it to their full advantage. You can have the best trainers in the world, but if you don't have the work ethic to train, what good is it? I think today, there are more things that distract athletes and more variables that mess up their training (unhealthy foods, drugs, etc.)

 

...........Out of consideration for ACB's wishes, I won't continue this debate here. We can do this on another thread sometime.

 

5ft or less 100 years back? Are you serious?

It is a very bad example (as is swimming, running etc) NBA players in th 60s and 70s did not train anything like modern pros. In contrast, Modern boxers (except for some exceptions) do not train anything like or anywhere near as hard as some of the old time boxers.

I am sure there are some advances, with better health, nutrition etc, but i guess this should be ballanced with other areas such as ease of access to junk food, lack of hunger from a generally pamperred life (and boxings best fighters are nearly always from a hard lifestyle).

the level of quality in a sport will be indirectly attributable to a number of things. How hard someone is prepared to apply themself ie how hard they will train, dig deep etc. and how big the talent pool to choose from is. The problem with the 'evolution' theory, is that it does not take into account the fact that the world is evolved. The world heavyweight champion is no longer the dream of everyone. Baseball, basketball etc is usually a far better goal for most kids. In facteven the best fighters, nowadays, will often prefer kickboxing or MMA to boxing. The pool gets reduced too much, so in many ways to be the best of the current boxing world, could be said to be no different to being the best of say one state in some of the earlier times, because participation is dropped so much. That is just common sense and surely noone can argue against that.

If you want proof that records can stand forever, look no further than Walter Lindrum. His training feats will never be matched (because billiards is simply not important enough to anyone to train as hard as him). But there can be no arguing (unlike running swimming etc) that the measure of scoring in billiards is as objective across the ages as is possible (even though there have probably still been some technological advances with time).

facilities are better. Physiotherapy and recovery treatment is better. But no one can seriously argue that the modern fighters train as hard as many of the best older fighters. Interestingly, there is some argument as to whether weight training (which is largely concentrated on today) is more effective than stamina training which was more prevalant in older days (if so, is this due to rule changes?). one thing that i do think is common among newer fighters is that while much slower, they do hit very hard (even the "average" fighters). I would not be the least bit surprised if many atg fighters would suffer some losses to lesser fighters in upset knockouts, just like Lennox was beaten by two lesser fighters, during his career. Saying that, I wouldnt be surprised if many good modern fighters were outpointed and outslicked by many of the unknown older fighters as well, so i guess it cuts both ways.

In reality, the only thing that one can do is judge a fighter for how good they were in their own time and assume that a good fighter in one era is a good fighter in another.