Why don't some classic boxing fans and historians give modern fighters credit?

It's the same guy dude.
It's not two different people.
How much punch resistance can you really gain throughout your career?

Foreman took some of Morrisons shots better than any other fighter Tommy faced.
And unlike guys we're calling iron chinned like Ruddock, Foreman never collapsed from a punch like Razor did.

Now you're saying Old Foreman was like a totally different guy?
What, does evolution happen during one lifetime now?

 

70's Foreman and 90's Foreman are two entirely different specimens.
Evolution happens even quicker than we thought.

 

People have been throwing jabs and combos centuries before Gaileo learned how to count.

 

Wait, so you think we can see what is going on right now billions of light years away?

 

I'll give a lot of credit to whoever wins tonight. I think Golovkin is an incredible fighter anyway. I'm not so sold on Alvarez yet but that can obviously change.
It's a good fight. The winner establishes himself as a very legitimate middleweight champion.

 

It's all about giving credit to fighters who earn it in the ring.

 

just ASK the Question "Would RJJ, BHop, PBF, GGG, LL or ANY Modern Day Fighters..,

STILL Be on Top,

IF they had to compete that often against Top & Good Opposition, or would they have Lost or worse Fallen Away SOONER and altogether???"

Old Film WASN'T capable of capturing movement, the movement was too fast for 'Exposure' that's why 'most' old film usually only sees fighters clinching - combos, repeated jabs, 1,2, 3's, defensive slipping was rarely ever seen, the technology of the time couldn't capture it... so a lot of hugging & clinching is what we are left with.

Occasionally some footage caught it better, got it right. so when you see 'some' early footage looking somewhat normal, well do you really believe all the other TOP fighters were s hi t... don't be stupid.

People have moved, ran, worked, fought and screwed quite normal since the dawn of time.

 

Nope....holyfiled whacking 220 foreman with 10/15 combos at once as well as any where in between fro 12 rnds is not going to go so good for foreman. Rewatch the J.young fight as well as others,where foreman stummbles . no one can seriously tell me its the same guy. Foreman in the 90's arguably had the best chin ever even if he avoided most of the heavy hitters ,fights dont lie.

Ruddock was not iron chinned but in the tyson fight was iron minded and hell bent on winning.Had it been prime tyson the fights both of them wouldnt go past 5 rnds.We know this bc Tyson nearly ended him early in 1991.Foreman was NEVER hit by a Mike Tyson level punch so to suggest Ruddock cant take a punch ( did you see the Morrison fight????? Come on now) is more than far fetched.Considering also Morrison was on the same level as Mike Tyson in raw power.

 

I time travel all the time,as amatter of fact im living my 5th alternate reality ,i wish to stop . i should have gotten oof the last one. oh well.

 

Again a jab isnt anything magical,however even louis had to actually be taught how to throw simple ones bc it was not used correctly in those days.Its not technique ...its refinement and better usage of them with certain fighters.

 

Answer the question. Do you actually think we have technology that allows us to see what is going on right now billions of light years away? Because you just said:

 

I'm telling you. It's him dude.

 

That makes absolutely no sense. How can they teach Joe Louis how to throw a simple jab if they didn't know how to throw it "back in those days"?

 

I know what you mean by refinement, and those subtleties are very important. But don't ignore the depth of refinement those guys displayed, some of them in different ways. And how refinement, often shown in subtle ways, can be difficult to pick up with old footage. The depth is still there.

 

Foreman saying he never hit the 90s fighters as hard as he did the 70s fighters

This content is protected