why can't boxing fans get with the times?

atsch please. im not just speaking about toughness dummy. fighters had more skill as well. because they actually could fight. i used to watch street fights when i was a kid and dudes would go at and actually knew how to throw a proper punch. go to a highschool nowadays and look @ how these kids fight nowadays.

Floyd would not be undefeated if he was top fighter in the 80's. no doubt he'd have a positive record and win a belt or two though but not the best. Bhop and Floyd are always referred to as a "throwback" fighters by boxing experts. ever wonder why the term "throwback" is used so positively? because fighters from back in the day were visibly alot better.

 

are you telling me that we produce better fighters than we did back in the day? u think these lil dudes are hard compared to the older generations?

im not sayin americans suck now. im saying it aint the same.

mother****ers couldnt even make it passed the first round in the olympics.

 

You can say the same about any Country...

Don't just **** with ours..

At least we're still producing more fighters than anybody else...and the gap between our past fighters and todays isn't as wide as other nations.

 

Good points..

The bob and weave style is GONE from boxing...so is the right hook...inside fighting is also on the outs..

 

we still produce great fighters, just at a slower rate than we used to. but the same goes for most other countries too. look at mexico and puerto rico. their current fighters are nothing compared to their past fighters either.

but all in all USA still #1, so it's all good :deal

 

tell me about it. seems like there arent many well rounded fighters any more. it's like nowadays, you're either a pure outside boxer or just a mindless pressure fighter. fighters used to be balanced out.

 

You think they dont train while they are not in training camp?

Modern fighters train all the time too.

**** just gets more intensive and specific when they are in training camp/near fight time

 

But back in the olden days Olympic boxing and professional boxing were quite alike. Now they are almost two different sports.

 

Source on the number of boxers in NY being greater than today's number of boxers?


Also, back then fighters often had several different ring names to hide the fact that they were tomato cans so the number back then could be misleading.

The number of US boxers may have decreased but on the professional level I imagine since the former USSR is now involved the number of professional boxers has gone up worldwide.

 

I stopped reading after that sentence...

 

By and large boxing took a huge leap in the 20's and hasn't significantly improved since then. I mean can anyone honestly tell me richard abril would beat benny leonard?

Or that dawson would beat tunney?

Martinez-greb impossible to say due to lack of footage but greb certainly achieved more and beat greater opposition.

Walker v pac? Bearing in mind walker would go on to beat the lhw champ in his career and hold a hw champ to a draw.

I'm not sure who the bw champ was from top of my head, herman? Lynch? Either way i'd probably favour neither to beat moreno who's very talented.

The flyweight champ I can't remember, surely it weren't still pancho villa in the 20's but the current flyweight division is weak as **** so I doubt our champ today would be favoured over many other's.

The ONLY significant difference between boxing now and the 20's is that people are bigger. That's evolutionary fact. The great super heavyweights like lewis, bowe, foreman and wlad would be favourites over a lot of guys who came before them because by and large a good big un beats a good little un. I wouldn't give dempsey, corbett, fitz, walcott, rocky nor any cruiserweight much chance against lewis, bowe, wlad or foreman. The size difference is too much and the skill disparity is too little. They might well beat them in reality but i'd make all an underdog.

 

One of the worst thread ever.

started by one of the biggest idiots in this forum history.

 

Re: heavyweights again

Proponents of the "today's era is better" theory often point to two things: the rise of the former Soviet and Eastern European boxers, and the advances in modern training and conditioning. This seems a little contradictory to me. I don't know how the average EE boxer trains or what his background is like, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were very similar to an old-school American fighter, crushing poverty, teak tough upbriging, fighting early and often, training without luxuries of any sort, etc. Maybe that's stereotyped ignorance on my part, but outside of the Klits none of these guys screams cutting-edge training and conditioning programs. Essentially they owe their success to the fact that they're not lazy, overweight and mentally fragile. Nothing really cutting edge there.

 

Khan would **** on the hawk, get with the times. That **** was way back in the 80's and look at the advancements. Khan's chin only seems like glass because of the great advancements, in the 80's he would be an iron chinned warr:nutior.

 

Man, this subject has been argued to death. The same thing with each generation. "John L. Sullivan wouldn't last 3 rounds with Jack Johnson", "Jim Jeffries and Jack Dempsey would be murdered by Joe Louis. No contest.", Ezzard Charles was too small to compete against Muhammad Ali or George Foreman". Yadda yadda yadda!

You can't prove any of these pointless assertions! It makes as much sense as saying Joe Gans could knock out Wladimir Klitschko! You can say whatever you want. It means nothing!

Go build me a time machine so we can bring these guys back to the present and then you're talking.

...