Why do people compare old time fighters to modern day fighters when they. . .

Well id agree with the thread starter up to a point.
Someone like Jack Dempsey couldnt make it in the modern game with his style.

If he fought like that today,he'd have ended up fighting in tough man competition.

Yet you still get clowns on here saying,he'd beat Tyson and a whole bunch of other fighters.

ALL sports evolve over time. Basterball,baseball,boxing etc.

People get stronger,fitter and more skilled. You wouldnt directly compare the 1955 NBA champs to modern teams would you?

So why compare boxers of the 50s to modern boxers?

It doesnt mean Louis, Dempsey,Gleb etc arent all time greats, they are. You can only judge them on what they did in their era. Going era against era IS JUST STUPID!

Babe Ruth is a legend, he wouldnt make it in the modern era though.

George Best used to smoke cigarettes at half time and drink heavily at night when he played, yet hes still considered a great,and rightfully so. He wouldnt last 1 half in a modern premiership game.

 

He would still be better than half the left wingers in the Prem.

 

No he wouldnt,dont be silly.

He'd be huffing and puffing after 20 minutes.

 

I have been saying this for so long and barely someone listened too me.

a prime jones jr. was simply too fast for todays and PASTS boxer. even back in the days heavyweights like jack johnson or rocky marciano would have had big problems with the speed and agility cruiser or even light heavyweights of the past 20 years had. jones jr. juan carlos gomez, even haye...

bodys change with time. 80 years ago you were very very fast when you made 11 secondes running 100 m, today bolt flashes the 100 m 9:60.

 

now hate

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Only in boxing do people consider pre 50s athletes capable of competing against the best of today's.
When you consider who the all time greats are you need to make allowances for their time, Harry Greb ATG? Yes.
Would he be a great boxer if he was transported through time to today? No.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwQv-NOIcQ8[/ame]

 

Actually a few are enough, and I was being kind not to mention artists like Michael Jackson, Sam Cooke, James Brown, Nina Simon, Earth, Wind, and Fire, Diana Reeves, Prince, and the artist Rappers loves to rip off, Parliment-Funkadelic.:yep
LOL, half of Rock is still chasing Jimmy Hendrix, fifty years later.

Would Mayweather fight better if he fought more often? Which brain surgeon would you select; The one who operates every day, or the one that operates once per year? Personally, I'd take the one who frequently practices his craft.

 

the music analogy is poor and not really applicable to this situation, tastes in music change image has become more important, doesnt mean there arent equally talented musicians, they just arent the ones in the spotlight. plus you only remember the best of yesterdays music and compare it to the worst of today's.

since 1950 we have had 60 years of improving training techniques, diet and genetics to benefit the level of boxer

 

:smoke

 

You don't leave much room for debate.
Any opinion other than yours is "stupid" so what it the purpose of the thread?
Your boxing knowledge goes back as far as 3 years. Like someone already said.."**** off'.

 

this is true, I think its more fair to seperate the times when rating boxers because the its so different nowadays compared to back then.
It be more fair to have a list starting in the 60/70's till now and one before that, that way there would be a fairer ranking.

 

Good post.

 

I somewhat agree, however around the 30s and especially post WWiII ... They pretty much evolved all around, combine that with the amount of fighters(talent pool) ,their experience(as for amount of fights) and for the most part hungrier fighters.. Id say the top guys were on par with todays and some even better(although the top Hws would be top cruisers today not HW champs.

But i do disagree with your statement about them being "So called Great fighters" ,, Make no mistake they should be considered atgs, and were great for their era, some of those guys resumes are nearly impossible to match today.