Why is boxing the only sport where the older greats are always better?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by chimba, Jul 6, 2009.


Page 6 of 6
  1. doomeddisciple

    doomeddisciple Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,001
    8
    Jul 19, 2004
    Who's the real champ Farm? Wlad or Vitali?

    I've asked you that question I reckon 40 times in recent threads and I've not read you be able to seperate the two men once.

    Nor have I heard how in any era of boxing dating back to the advent of the Sport in Ancient Greece in the first Olympiad where boxing was a tag team sport.
     
    doomeddisciple, Jul 6, 2009
    doomeddisciple, Jul 6, 2009
    #76
  2. Farmboxer

    Farmboxer VIP Member Full Member

    86,106
    4,096
    Jul 19, 2004
    I have answered it before. You did not read it? Why?
     
    Farmboxer, Jul 6, 2009
    Farmboxer, Jul 6, 2009
    #77
  3. doomeddisciple

    doomeddisciple Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,001
    8
    Jul 19, 2004
    I got lost in the 6 threads about underrated Klits last Friday alone I guess...
     
    doomeddisciple, Jul 7, 2009
    doomeddisciple, Jul 7, 2009
    #78
  4. Farmboxer

    Farmboxer VIP Member Full Member

    86,106
    4,096
    Jul 19, 2004
    Vlad kept fighting while Vitali retired with injuries, so right now Vlad should be considered #1, but Vitali is stronger fighter. Vitali loves to fight. Was Vitali, now Vlad, at least for now. Vitali is very underrated fighter, he brought Vlad into boxing at a young age. YOu should have seen Vitali as kickboxer, he did both at same time period!!!!!!!
     
    Farmboxer, Jul 7, 2009
    Farmboxer, Jul 7, 2009
    #79
  5. HyperBone

    HyperBone Silverback Gorilla Full Member

    7,152
    0
    Oct 30, 2008
    vitali is more badass than his younger brother
     
    HyperBone, Jul 7, 2009
    HyperBone, Jul 7, 2009
    #80
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,016
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007
    A couple of things -

    1 - The talent pool now is smaller.

    2 - Our sport stresses heart and intensity to a far greater degree than all other sports. Soci-economic factors are involved here.

    3 - Fighters now train for 12 rather than 15 or even 50 rounds.

    4 - Fighters fight less now. Doing something less tends to make you less good at it.

    5 - Certain skills have become eroded from fighting skillsets. Feinting is utilised less and footwork is deteriorating (very generally).

    6 - Mediocraty is rewarded now in a way it never was in past generations.


    But basically, boxing is very different from other sports. It's not the same as running very fast in a straight line at all - that's not a reasonable comparison, it's like comparing rain to a bookshelf. Bringing it all together is horrifically difficult. This is the main reason boxing hasn't advanced as a sport, that and it's "civilization".

    And it's clear that it hasn't advanced as a sport. Anyone that doubts this just needs to watch Pep, Robinson or Monzon. These guys were better than what we have now. It's not hard.
     
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    #81
  7. chimba

    chimba Off the Somali Coast Full Member

    20,005
    7
    Mar 8, 2007

    Very good points. By my point is..I cant dismiss JMMs chances against Arguello for example as most of the posters here if you did a poll. JMMs faster and more fluid than Arguello who as technical as he is, is a bit robotic sometimes.

    I also cannot dismiss Floyds chances against Duran at LW like so many people would.

    I do agree that there were truly great fighters from any era that you can make a case for h2h.
     
    chimba, Jul 7, 2009
    chimba, Jul 7, 2009
    #82
  8. chimba

    chimba Off the Somali Coast Full Member

    20,005
    7
    Mar 8, 2007

    Very good points but again..the faster, stronger theory holds up in other athletic sports. Boxing should be no exception. Toughness is an intangible that cannot be measured.

    My point is faster and stronger with the x factor of being skilled should plain and simple produce a better fighter from the onset. Now I do understand that ring smarts, styles and toughness plays a part but these are the traits that a modern athlete can also possess.
     
    chimba, Jul 7, 2009
    chimba, Jul 7, 2009
    #83
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,016
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007
    To paraphrase Damon Runyon - once a fighter gets hit the fundamentals go out of the window. What is inside is what counts.

    Ring smarts, style and toughness are things that tend to be developed during tough matchmaking over a number of fights. Armstrong's 1937 and 1930 constitutes an entire career these days...of course modern fighters do have other advantages.

    But again, bottom line, i will go with what i SEE on film. Robinson, Pep, Louis, better than anything we have today, though Pacquiao and Marquez and Hopkins are sure as **** in that type of class. I just don't see a lot of differences by way of era's.

    Consider this though. Post WW2 in Britain, alone, there were 40,000 pro-boxers active. In 2001 there were an estimated 10,000 in the entire world.
     
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    #84
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,016
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007
    I agree with you. I pick Marqez. But every era has it's robotic fighters - check the #1 HW, I think that's a reasononable thing to say of him.

    "Dismiss", no definitely not, but i'd be pretty confident in picking Duran. Nothing to do with era's though - more what i've seen with my eyes!
     
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    #85
  11. charlievint

    charlievint Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,338
    1
    Jul 22, 2004
    It's not the case at all. If you think of how many boxers there are and how many are 40+ yrs of age who are still competing at a high level it's less than one percent. The guys that are able to fight and still compete at this level who are older defy odds.

    Nard and Shane are the only OLD boxers who are top in the sport and Nard I think retired. You have guys who are 35+ yres in age, but most of them are BOXERS who aren't really in the wars that other boxers thrive on. Floyd mayweather could probably box for anther 15 yrs with how little he's been hit. Most of his injuries are training camp related and less in actaul fights.
     
    charlievint, Jul 7, 2009
    charlievint, Jul 7, 2009
    #86
  12. chimba

    chimba Off the Somali Coast Full Member

    20,005
    7
    Mar 8, 2007
    Very good points McGrain, I never argued about the number of greats we have now, theres only a handful compared to even 20 years ago. I never picked Abraham and insinuated that hed beat Monson. I am only stating that a proven modern great fighter like a Bernard has to be given a fighting chance against Monzon in a hypothetical matchup. Its great against great isnt it?.

    The problem that I have is the there seems to be a bias against todays greats as compared to yesteryears greats when we already established that we are comparing apples with apples. It is possible to be great today isnt it? even with the shallow talent pool were just not producing as much.

    Thats a staggering stat of British fighters btw
     
    chimba, Jul 7, 2009
    chimba, Jul 7, 2009
    #87
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,016
    48,121
    Mar 21, 2007
    You make a valid point about some folks favouring old timers just because they are old timers. That's a fair shout. But I also feel that boxing "as a sport" hasn't moved on in the way you've suggested.

    Robinson would clean house in this era. And I mean clean house. Not because he fights in black and white, but because he was awesome.
     
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    McGrain, Jul 7, 2009
    #88
Page 6 of 6