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

why would any judge anyone off boxrec tho? it's just a database with no context.

plus records are incomplete and some fights are listed incorrectly. one big example is the draw between corbett and jackson.

for fighters that old it's best going off articles, books and clippings from the day IMHO

 

I happen to agree to an extent.
That's why when compiling P4P lists I always adjust the old fighter to modern times, ESP HW's. Take Marciano for example, Top 10 ATG but H2H vs modern HWs he gets eaten alive.
There are exceptions though, SRR needs no adjustment, he's a champion whatever era he's in.

 

Describe modern era.

 

too easy to compare an evolving sport with a big money, professional showcase.
alfa romeo drivers use to stop and take tea breaks during formula one equivalent races many moons ago because their lead was so big - it's a different era and you can only compare them relative to those times.

 

It really bugs me when people compare boxers through the era's ( or any sport for that matter ) it can't be done ! So called experts get things wrong predicting current fights so to try and say things like Pacman would beat Duran is stupid !!!!

 

there you go Old Footage done right - big dif too the Greb training videos - these guys were great, don't be so naive. Strong fit, skillful athletes are for real no matter the time in history...

don't be confused by shitty poor film footage - it's the Film thats crap NOT the fighters!!!

 

the way I see it, as time goes on,

training gets better, nutrition gets better, coaches get better, techniques get better, boxers get stronger, faster and more aware due to these constant improvements.

Its like natural selection (evolution) but in boxing.
Its something that will always happen as time goes on, its undeniable and unavoidable.

not saying the oldtimers were ****, cos they obvisouly werent, but if you look at it with common sense, then the chances are that the older champs would be inferior to most of the newer champs.

 

I disagree, sports can also decline over time and have its high and low points. I would put the 80s celtic or lakers in with any team today. atheletes may have gotten better, new techniques in training may have come into play but the skill level have declined over the past generation. the same has happened inthe heavyweight division of boxing. people who give this argument usually have no idea how great this sport was in the past

 

yeah I see what your saying, maybe my take on it is dictated by my inexperience of pre 90's boxing.

 

Dear God even with the PROPER film footage some of you can't bring yourselves to except in Boxing the Past IS BETTER and by a long shot...

hell if modern fighters even dared to fight as often that too would change the script, as some protected chumps would fall by the wayside and others would be better suited for the more active busier scheduals and step up.

Boxing was once great - NEVER to be known again!!!

 

bump

 

you misread his post and call him a ****in idiot. hahaha, that's not what I gather from his post at all. He said it has been around for 2000 years and has not changed much since the 40's, seemed obvious. Somebody needs to learn how to read comprehensively hahaha.