Why are boxers of the past always the greatest?

Good info, thanks

 

In 50´ or 60´ a pro-boxer fought more bouts in general than fighters these days.

From which it´s obvious that there´s more pro-boxers nowadays.

In the old days there were also weaker opponents (guys who just "hobbied" boxing and had their day-jobs). The fact is that there is way more real professionals in this sport today than there was for example in 50´, 60´ or 80´.

And also countries that have deep and vast boxing culture (Eastern Bloc) have began producing great pro´s in the scene since 90´.

 

so this statistic actually tells us that the belief that there are less fighters today than in yesteryears is a myth or that fighters today fight less than their counterparts in yesteryears is a myth as well

 

Basically.

The elite from pre 60's fought more often, no doubt about that. But look at some of their opposition (I am not opposed to this sort of approach). The talent pool today is not all that bad. If we had 8 weight classes we could better see that.

 

Guys there were bums back then and there are bums today. Taxi drivers, cooks, janitors, and pizza delivery guys that take up boxing. Only thing thats changed is the diet and exercises. Like.the old saying goes if its not broken dont fix it. Dont forget they went 15 not 12. Fighters like Robinson and Leonard didnt just set the standard they exceeded it so throw that oldies bias out the window. Babe Ruth and Aaron did it the hard way not like those bozos McWire and Bonds. Real greats didnt use nutritionists or make history using bums like Pacman and Floyd are doing. Fighting bums and has beens shouldnt be for belts and ppv.

 

Because they fought more than 2 times a year.

And don't talk to me about quality of opposition, because even today you see top fighters fighting bums. Boxing was better back then, when we had all sorts of trilogies and long series, and the fight everyone wanted to see almost always happened. Today, it's almost unthinkable to see Pacman vs Floyd, or Bradley vs Khan, or Martinez vs Pirog. 70 years ago, these fights would have been inevitable.

 

Those boxrec stats are useless. We have more fighters today - who cares? They don't fight each other! They fight once or twice a year each and avoid the big fights. We had to wait for Wlad to be 35 years old for him to finally fight Haye, and we still haven't seen Pac vs Floyd (and these guys are getting old too). I could go on forever... Marquez vs Morales....

 

^ Half those fights will probably happen this year.

Because nobody ducked each other back in the day and the sport was so clean and proper.

Go cry somewhere else.

 

Clean ?, i agree with everything else you said, loved the old school guys, hard as nails, one title, they all for the most part thought the best, but clean mate ?, so many mafia controlled fights and fighters back then (im sure still now as well), but back then boxers had no choice as for most the money was so small, for the average boxer, you had to do what they told you, if they said dive in the 5th then that what you did

 

nobody can actually say, its all theoretical. But if you're going to base on the rules and regulations in those days, its easy to say that past boxers were badass, they didnt care so much about safety, and fought multiple times in a year. Say what you want about the competition, but its still badass! Now, to say that the talents of today are weaker is as stupid as saying the past ones are better. I believe we have present boxers that beats the past fighters. Due to a more "learned" fighter, there are textbooks and better trainings based on actual experiences passed on from the past and actually improved. Even the conditioning of today's fighters are better. Fighters of today are actually bigger too.

 

This is it. Guys, remember nothing can beat will and desire.

 

rose tinted glasses, people forget that while there have been amazing boxers in years gone by, they were still human and even some of the greats made really fatal mistakes at times.

 

The argument that fighters fought more in the past is not supported by the numbers.
Compare todays fighters with the socalled greats from the 70's.

Muhammad Ali: 20 year career (17 active) 61 fights
Wladimir Klitschko: 13 year career 58 fights.

Joe Frazier: 13 year career 37 fights
Vitali Klitschko: 13 year career (10 avtive) 45 fights

Ken Norton: 13 year career 50 fights
Tomasz Adamek: 12 year career 45 fights

And you can do this with all day long. It's just a myth that fighters fought more in the past..

 

Like I said, the only thing working against this evolution is the success of old guys like Hopkins and foreman (him only because of power though, without power he never would have won at his advanced age) while clearly sucky fighters like rios and caballero can win titles. Just like Dickens said, this is the best of times and the worst of times: our greatests are better or on par with the stand outs of the past, but our crap champions seem even worse than mediocre champs of the past.

Maussa had a title in this "athletically superior age" He's one of the worst fighters IN HISTORY. So its not all about athleticism.

But for real, Hopkins is one of the greatest fighters of all time, you just don't see that technique and type of ring smarts in nearly any old fights.

I think MAB/Morales/Pac/Marquez on their best night can hang with ANY featherweight/lightweight in history on THEIR best night, just as the heavies of the seventies at the top have a chance against anyone, and the welters of the 80s have a chance against anyone, because the intangibles in boxing sometimes trump athletic progression (Maussa HAS good intangibles) and those guys had it ALL.
.

 

It was SARCASM, mate.