Why do people judge the old time fighters so harshly?

If you assume that professional athletes are at least somewhat rational then the answer is quite simple: Strategies changed and skills evolved as individual fighters demonstrated the superiority of the new over the old. Otherwise, some fighters would have continued to dominate with the old-school methods of lunging and grabbing, not jabbing, and not using the modern fighting stance and footwork.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

I would say its the modern fighters who are more than usual the ones who get discredited...boxing is actually the only sport that somehow hasn't advanced by the majority who follow it,which is scary in that many cant see the obvious lesser talents from past eras.Boxing fans simply are more like comic book collectors,in the fact they place guys on superman levels and its simply false. factors in like how they fought,who and what era has to be included for a reasonable comparisaon,this simply is usually absent from the discussions and therefor you have many myths,beleifs and nonsensical opinions found over more logical ones.

 

Galento bathed?

 

those comic book champs of old

 

Nothing changes. A left hook has always been a left hook, and always will be. The same as every other punch has always been what it is today and always will be. Similarly the idiocy that comes with youth has always been the same and always will be. They believe that they, and they alone created, s.e.x., drugs, rock and roll and every sport they either follow or play, and that the " stars " of said sports from their era are superior to any of their predecessors.

This is usually based on the spurious " sprinters / runners have become faster " so every other sport must have evolved in exactly the same way.

 

foxy, I don't think the young people of today think they alone created *** drugs and rock and roll etc etc,,,,,that's just not true dude :think

Tysons left hook was faster and more powerful than his predecessors and it always will be foxy. You can argue and create a fuzz about it all you want dude :deal

You still drinking before you post foxy?

 

The old time fighters fought with less protection, more rounds and in unforgiving weather at times, if you were knocked down, there was no 'neutral corner' for your opponent to wait, they stood near you and will finish you the second the ref gives the signal.

It was brutal, the fighting styles reflected the rules and conditions of the time.

And as for punching power, Dempsey's punches at 180lbs would still cause more hurt than many of the basket ball tank top wearing HWs of today.

A 1900's Jack Johnson had the power, size, mental attributes and skill to be competitive in any era, but his style was for the 'patient' kind and would split opinion.

 

If I want the opinion of nonce cases I will tell them. Your man love for Tyson though better than your love of equating children and adult male genitalia, is of even less consequence than you.

You might want to take up your worthless opinions with some Joe Louis fans as to who had the faster and more powerful left hook, of the 2.

You still having those perverted thoughts of kids and men, btw?:deal

Just in case you forget, these are the thoughts I am referring to.

 

Technique HAS gotten better.

Look at Jack Johnson, and then look at Larry Holmes.

 

They are different, but why is Larry Holmes necessarily better?

Jack Johnson seems to be as good at not getting hit as anyone.

 

Skills and styles changed before the rules did. And the facts that you mention about the brutality of early boxing suggest that modern skills would have been especially valuable back then!

 

Infinitely easier to avoid getting hit when you're fighting tons of guys who haven't really mastered jabbing and combination punching with balance.

The greats of that era had trouble dealing with Joe Jeannette's lunging, one-punch-at-time 74-inch-reach jabs. How on earth would they deal with Larry Holmes, who used his 81-inch reach to fire off multiple jabs while moving and keeping his balance?? They wouldn't. Any other answer is pure fantasy, comic book stuff--not real boxing ana lysis.

 

The world population was 1.5 billion in 1900 without global access to information. There are more than five times as many people today and information spreads overnight. Top athletes back then weren't the same as now. It's a math problem. Take the top 100 athletes today and they'll look like Gods next to the top 100 from 1900.