Where Is The Disconnect Between the General & Classic Forum?

Now this is idle speculation, but maybe the posters on the Classic Forum are more literate and articulate than many on the General Forum. Beyond that, those Classic contributors who have familiarity with current happenings may enjoy the advantage of historical oversight which could be lacking in those who largely confine themselves to the General Forum. Many Classic posters are not hampered by the sort of "only the present" myopic tunnel vision that could be permeating the General Forum.

Bigger, stronger, faster does not always equate to success in boxing. Experience and intelligence can certainly trump those advantages, as can superior technique.

Is the greatest high jumper of all time the individual who holds the current record, or is it Dick Fosbury, who completely revolutionised high jumping technique for all time?

Over four decades ago, Bob Hayes played in the National Football League, complete with 4.1 speed in the 40 yard dash. Not only did he fail to dominate the league, he's not even in the Pro Football HOF. The first wide receiver to catch a pass in 100 straight games was Danny Abramowicz, a contemporary of Hayes who ran the 40 in only 5.1 seconds.

When the Denver Broncos won back to back Super Bowls, they did it with the smallest (and best) offensive line in the league.

In the 1995-1996 NBA Eastern Conference finals against the Orlando Magic, 6'8" Dennis Rodman of the Chicago Bulls slammed the door on a young Shaq defensively, and the Magic was wiped out in four games. Rodman gave an updated demonstration of how Bill Russell was able to win so many championships against Wilt.

Bigger and stronger is always better? Muggsy Bogues had a very creditable 14 year career in the NBA. At 5'3," he is the smallest player in NBA history. No, he didn't play during the late 1940s, but from 1987 to 2001.

"Newer is always better" is a constant declaration of the young and uninitiated, though there are plenty of exceptions.

Larry Holmes was old and fat when he upended previously unbeaten Ray Mercer, prompting Mecer to concede: "I guess I'd better learn how to box!" What do you suppose a peak Holmes might have done to Mercer? OR, could it be that Larry had an additional advantage through sheer weight of accumulated experience an intelligence which he successfully exchanged for his earlier youthful athleticism?

Perhaps today's performers are indeed bigger, stronger and faster, but do they know how to jab properly? Do they understand ring generalship, or would they get schooled by old maestros of previous generations, as Mercer was by Holmes, and Foreman was by Ali?

SRR, Pep, and Moore, weren't merely prodigies, but they possessed tremendous experience against first rate opposition by the time they were peaking. Having over 200 or even 300 professional outings by age 30 was not unknown.

Boxing, along with baseball and horse racing used to be one of the big three sports, one which could attract the very best athletes of all sizes.

No heavyweight using more modern training methods has eclipsed Ali, somebody who employed a more traditional approach to conditioning.

 

... and that's that.

 

Bigger, stronger and faster isn't anything, but it is a lot. I like watching older boxing more (especially ca 1940-1980), but I favour the best boxers of today (especially heavyweights) over the past greats. Even if they often were greater in their own era. I think Lewis would beat Louis, but I have Louis as the greater fighter.

I still favour Ali in almost all h2h scenarios, but he was a freak of nature IMO and those doesn't come along to often. That I'm a huge Ali fan may also play it's part.

 

I sure hope no one thinks boxers suddenly got quicker or stronger after some magical post 80s cutoff point...one which always tends to coincide with when they started watching the sport of course.

 

What happened was that they started with weight-lifting and also steroids to some extent. That might have made them better, but also more boring to watch. At least the HWs. Personally I enjoy watching boxing pre 80s the most.

When did nutrition start to become a big thing? In the 70's?

 

i'll argue that, i dont think that crap applies to boxing all this about modern athletes being superior. i think elite fighters years ago who had like 100, 200+ fights, fightin champions who have also had over 100 fights are gunna be better boxers because of the experience and the experience of the opposition, compared to elite fighters nowadays who have had like 30, 40, 50 fights. also these fighters years ago trained for 15 round fights, n fought on a more regular basis so were probably fitter too, as long as they arent punch drunk. i think someone above briefly mentioned this point, glad someone else could see it! oh and there werent as many weight classes, so many fighters had to overcome more physical disadvantages, and also boxing was a more popular mainstream sport back then, so the talent pool was probably larger which makes it harder to rise to the top. think ive made a decent case! i dont post often, some things just annoy me.

 

oh it was my first post lol