View Full Version : Old School vs. New School


tjmoney
03-10-2006, 08:24 AM
Now I know i havent been a member here for too long but I have been reading these forums as well as others for quite sometime and if theres one thing that I've noticed about boxing boards as oposed to other sports is that older fighters are always put in much higher regard than any new fighters. I'm not saying that everyone's guilty of doing this. I'm just saying that it happens in every thread on here. I mean whats the point of having threads about new school fighters vs. old school fighters if everyone uses it as an excuse to trash the new school guys. I mean lets be honest you know something is wrong when you have 20 people not giving the best heavyweight in the last 20 years, Lennox Lewis, even a chance in hell against guys like Foreman and even Marciano. I mean I know the older guys have been gone longer so its easier to forget their faults and glorify their strengths but i mean come on is it that hard to give the Lewis's, Tyson's and Holyfield's their due respect? I know Tyson and Holyfield stayed around a lot longer than they should have, well with Tyson maybe only a couple fights, but damn, Evander still wants to go and enough is enough already. But joking aside almost every great fighter has stayed on well past his prime and i guess with time the sight of seeing their older deteriorated selves has gone from our memory banks but lets not hold this against the guys of today just because their more recent in our heads. Thoughts, Comments?

Da Iceman
03-10-2006, 07:20 PM
that does kinda make since in a *****y sort of way. post some more.

McGoorty
08-07-2011, 06:56 AM
Now I know i havent been a member here for too long but I have been reading these forums as well as others for quite sometime and if theres one thing that I've noticed about boxing boards as oposed to other sports is that older fighters are always put in much higher regard than any new fighters. I'm not saying that everyone's guilty of doing this. I'm just saying that it happens in every thread on here. I mean whats the point of having threads about new school fighters vs. old school fighters if everyone uses it as an excuse to trash the new school guys. I mean lets be honest you know something is wrong when you have 20 people not giving the best heavyweight in the last 20 years, Lennox Lewis, even a chance in hell against guys like Foreman and even Marciano. I mean I know the older guys have been gone longer so its easier to forget their faults and glorify their strengths but i mean come on is it that hard to give the Lewis's, Tyson's and Holyfield's their due respect? I know Tyson and Holyfield stayed around a lot longer than they should have, well with Tyson maybe only a couple fights, but damn, Evander still wants to go and enough is enough already. But joking aside almost every great fighter has stayed on well past his prime and i guess with time the sight of seeing their older deteriorated selves has gone from our memory banks but lets not hold this against the guys of today just because their more recent in our heads. Thoughts, Comments?
I beleive that many old timers were better and WERE tougher then, but there are some who'd go well from our time too ( 1976 - Now in my case. I beleive the talent pool was a lot deeper in the first half of the century.

JAB5239
08-07-2011, 05:10 PM
I beleive that many old timers were better and WERE tougher then, but there are some who'd go well from our time too ( 1976 - Now in my case. I beleive the talent pool was a lot deeper in the first half of the century.

I agree 100% with fighters being tougher back then, but there are plenty of good fighters today who could compete in any era. The difference as you pointed out is the depth of the talent pool between then and now. There were just so many more well rounded and skilled fighters back in earlier era's than today.

I was arguing on another board last week and a poster claimed today's era as much better because boxing is more world wide and Europe's eastern bloc countries are now able to compete professionally. He went as far as to say if Russian's were able to go pro in the 60's and 70's no one would have heard of the Ali's, Frazier's and Foreman's. That was quickly put to rest when the poster Steak put of video's of these fighters beating the best Europeans as amateurs.

The problem with that poster's assumption though was first, boxing may have more countries competing professionally today, but it really isn't anymore worldwide when you look at the numbers of professional fighters from past era's in comparison to today. The invent of cable and satellite tv just make it seem that way because you can find boxing on many more channels around the world as well as the internet. And two, The United States was dominant not because of tougher or more talented fighters (toughness and talent can be found everywhere) but because of the amount of quality trainers that have been developed over years when boxing was the second most popular sport only to baseball. The rest of the world has now caught up because boxing's popularity in the US has fallen off, so has the amount of top notch quality trainers. But even today many of the world's most talented fighters still come here to be trained by the few men left who actually know how to train a fighter in the many skills of boxing rather than just teaching them how to punch and get in shape. THAT, in my opinion, is why fighters are not as good across the board today in comparison to past era's. Less quality trainer's means less quality fighters.

Scott9945
08-07-2011, 08:01 PM
I agree 100% with fighters being tougher back then, but there are plenty of good fighters today who could compete in any era. The difference as you pointed out is the depth of the talent pool between then and now. There were just so many more well rounded and skilled fighters back in earlier era's than today.

I was arguing on another board last week and a poster claimed today's era as much better because boxing is more world wide and Europe's eastern bloc countries are now able to compete professionally. He went as far as to say if Russian's were able to go pro in the 60's and 70's no one would have heard of the Ali's, Frazier's and Foreman's. That was quickly put to rest when the poster Steak put of video's of these fighters beating the best Europeans as amateurs.

The problem with that poster's assumption though was first, boxing may have more countries competing professionally today, but it really isn't anymore worldwide when you look at the numbers of professional fighters from past era's in comparison to today. The invent of cable and satellite tv just make it seem that way because you can find boxing on many more channels around the world as well as the internet. And two, The United States was dominant not because of tougher or more talented fighters (toughness and talent can be found everywhere) but because of the amount of quality trainers that have been developed over years when boxing was the second most popular sport only to baseball. The rest of the world has now caught up because boxing's popularity in the US has fallen off, so has the amount of top notch quality trainers. But even today many of the world's most talented fighters still come here to be trained by the few men left who actually know how to train a fighter in the many skills of boxing rather than just teaching them how to punch and get in shape. THAT, in my opinion, is why fighters are not as good across the board today in comparison to past era's. Less quality trainer's means less quality fighters.

Good stuff Jab. One thing that makes a big difference for the depth of the boxing business is club fights. Promoters in big cities running weekly shows. That's not happening now, at least not in the US. Boxers used to be able to work as much as they wanted with so many cards around the country. Now they have to wait for a TV date to open. That causes them to get soft and need more conditioning. In the current era the best we can hope for is weekly TV fights (ESPN, Telefutura, etc.) to breed new stars for the sport.

JAB5239
08-07-2011, 08:09 PM
Good stuff Jab. One thing that makes a big difference for the depth of the boxing business is club fights. Promoters in big cities running weekly shows. That's not happening now, at least not in the US. Boxers used to be able to work as much as they wanted with so many cards around the country. Now they have to wait for a TV date to open. That causes them to get soft and need more conditioning. In the current era the best we can hope for is weekly TV fights (ESPN, Telefutura, etc.) to breed new stars for the sport.

I've had this argument on more than one occasion also. Newer fans are fond of claiming fighters who fought that many fights were fighting mostly bums. I see it as fighting many different styles over and over to hone your skills. You just can't get that in the gym sparring with the same guys over and over.

Ziggy Stardust
08-07-2011, 08:27 PM
I've had this argument on more than one occasion also. Newer fans are fond of claiming fighters who fought that many fights were fighting mostly bums. I see it as fighting many different styles over and over to hone your skills. You just can't get that in the gym sparring with the same guys over and over.

And there's a HUGE difference between sparring and lacing 'em up for real.

Poet

Capaedia
08-08-2011, 12:04 AM
Talent pool talent pool talent pool

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

There's just much less chance of us getting another Ray Robinson or Ali out of a much smaller talent pool.

JAB5239
08-08-2011, 12:59 AM
Talent pool talent pool talent pool

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

There's just much less chance of us getting another Ray Robinson or Ali out of a much smaller talent pool.

Have you read that book? I think Im going to look it up and order it right now, looks very interesting.

Capaedia
08-08-2011, 01:04 AM
Have you read that book? I think Im going to look it up and order it right now, looks very interesting.

No, but I will too, at some point.

With a box of tissues :sad:

SCtrojansbaby
08-08-2011, 02:45 AM
This perceived depth is only because there were a lot more fights, guys like Kassim Ouma and Paulie Mallinaggi would have been considered solid B level fighters back then because they were able to pull off a couple of fluke upsets against guys who are going to fight 10+ times a year.

As opposed to modern boxing where for the most part you are fighting 2 or 3x a year against a fully focused opponent.

McGoorty
08-08-2011, 05:12 AM
I agree 100% with fighters being tougher back then, but there are plenty of good fighters today who could compete in any era. The difference as you pointed out is the depth of the talent pool between then and now. There were just so many more well rounded and skilled fighters back in earlier era's than today.

I was arguing on another board last week and a poster claimed today's era as much better because boxing is more world wide and Europe's eastern bloc countries are now able to compete professionally. He went as far as to say if Russian's were able to go pro in the 60's and 70's no one would have heard of the Ali's, Frazier's and Foreman's. That was quickly put to rest when the poster Steak put of video's of these fighters beating the best Europeans as amateurs.

The problem with that poster's assumption though was first, boxing may have more countries competing professionally today, but it really isn't anymore worldwide when you look at the numbers of professional fighters from past era's in comparison to today. The invent of cable and satellite tv just make it seem that way because you can find boxing on many more channels around the world as well as the internet. And two, The United States was dominant not because of tougher or more talented fighters (toughness and talent can be found everywhere) but because of the amount of quality trainers that have been developed over years when boxing was the second most popular sport only to baseball. The rest of the world has now caught up because boxing's popularity in the US has fallen off, so has the amount of top notch quality trainers. But even today many of the world's most talented fighters still come here to be trained by the few men left who actually know how to train a fighter in the many skills of boxing rather than just teaching them how to punch and get in shape. THAT, in my opinion, is why fighters are not as good across the board today in comparison to past era's. Less quality trainer's means less quality fighters.
Good reply Jab,.. the one thing I overlooked was this,.. The U.S. had so many great fighters then, because of A-- the things we have already discussed, and B-- Poverty, is the no. 1 reason fighters take up boxing. Ex-Australian WW champ, Tommy Burns actually hated the idea of boxing until one day, when he asked his mate a simple question, " Umm, how much money did you say boxers make from a fight ?", upon hearing the reply, Tommy Burns started training and became a National superstar with Hollywood looks and an all action Boxer/Puncher style.................. the point is that America was once full of large slums, and 90 % of the world's greatest fighters came from places like those in the states....... poverty is NO option,... not for a tough guy.

McGoorty
08-08-2011, 05:14 AM
This perceived depth is only because there were a lot more fights, guys like Kassim Ouma and Paulie Mallinaggi would have been considered solid B level fighters back then because they were able to pull off a couple of fluke upsets against guys who are going to fight 10+ times a year.

As opposed to modern boxing where for the most part you are fighting 2 or 3x a year against a fully focused opponent.
I can't agree less with that, mate, there was nothing percieved about the depth back then, it is a fact,...... opinions don't beat FACTS.

McGoorty
08-08-2011, 05:23 AM
Talent pool talent pool talent pool

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

"Today there are less than half the number of professional fighters that there was in 1955. In the 1920's there were more professional fighters licensed in New York city than there are licensed in the entire world today."

There's just much less chance of us getting another Ray Robinson or Ali out of a much smaller talent pool.
too true mate, I stated on another thread somewhere that in Australia in 1950 there were EIGHTEEN times as many Welterweights in Australia then there are now. There was over 360 WW's in a population of about 5 million. Now in Australia there are less than 20 at last count, Population of Australia now,.... 21 million, so boxing in Australia was at least 100 times more popular. Boxing is not amongst the top 20 sports here now, it was only behind Cricket, Rugby League and Australian Rules Football (aerial ping-pong), in the old days.

JAB5239
08-08-2011, 11:49 AM
I can't agree less with that, mate, there was nothing percieved about the depth back then, it is a fact,...... opinions don't beat FACTS.

............Bingo!!..............

fitefanSHO
08-08-2011, 12:32 PM
Boxing, like any other discipline, is always evolving and getting better.

It's a process that can be seen from John L Sullivan to Jack Johnson; all the way to Floyd Mayweather, and into the future with guys like Nonito Donaire. The sport evolves and so do the fighters. Evolution is a process of improvement, not decline.

A case can easily be made that fighters today are "better" than the old fighters because they have more evolved skills, better training, and benefit of learning from those who came before them. But the case can also be made that older fighters were tougher because the circumstances they fought under were tougher and more demanding, with far less reward.

It's a matter of perspective, like all things.

That's my 2 cents. :boxing:

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 01:02 PM
Boxing, like any other discipline, is always evolving and getting better.

It's a process that can be seen from John L Sullivan to Jack Johnson; all the way to Floyd Mayweather, and into the future with guys like Nonito Donaire. The sport evolves and so do the fighters. Evolution is a process of improvement, not decline.

A case can easily be made that fighters today are "better" than the old fighters because they have more evolved skills, better training, and benefit of learning from those who came before them. But the case can also be made that older fighters were tougher because the circumstances they fought under were tougher and more demanding, with far less reward.

It's a matter of perspective, like all things.

That's my 2 cents. :boxing:

The problem is that evolution (biological or otherwise) isn't a process of improvement per se.....it's a process of change but those changes aren't always for the better. The vast majority of changes that you see evolving in practically every field are lateral changes: Neither better nor worse, just different.

There is also the problem of the limitations of any given field of endeavor: You essentially max out the potential improvements that can be made. There's only so many ways you can throw a left hook and those were figured out long ago. It's not like technology which is pretty opened ended (though it certainly has it's share of dead ends in certain specific fields).....but even technology has historically gone backwards at times (remember the Dark Age?).

Poet

McGoorty
08-08-2011, 01:44 PM
The problem is that evolution (biological or otherwise) isn't a process of improvement per se.....it's a process of change but those changes aren't always for the better. The vast majority of changes that you see evolving in practically every field are lateral changes: Neither better nor worse, just different.

There is also the problem of the limitations of any given field of endeavor: You essentially max out the potential improvements that can be made. There's only so many ways you can throw a left hook and those were figured out long ago. It's not like technology which is pretty opened ended (though it certainly has it's share of dead ends in certain specific fields).....but even technology has historically gone backwards at times (remember the Dark Age?).

Poet
Good reply ( AGAIN ),... I agree with the lot,... Sure evolution is always occuring, but as you say Poet, not always better. Human beings have evolved over the Millennia and are SMARTER than the Dinosaurs by miles (thousands of them),.... But how would Sam Langford go in a fight with SpineOSaurus (for those of you who don't know,... Spineosaurus is the greatest land predator to ever roam the earth, it is the No. 1 Big Daddy of them all, bigger and better than the No. 2 Big Daddy, Giganotosaurus, which could DEVOUR the one time No. 1 but now No. 3,...... I ain't just a boxing fan !!!!!),.... well this mean bugger with the over a foot long claws and teeth.......... well Y'all get my drift, dont'cha,..... this one critter would slaughter every single HW in history in about an hour or so,............................................... ...........AND Mark this "Golden Age Bashers" ---- The Old Timers WERE SPINEOSAURUS !!!! to today's guys ( I still think a handfull or so of todays fighters could be great in most era's,... But only a handfull...................... Oops. I forgot to "lol"

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 01:50 PM
Good reply ( AGAIN ),... I agree with the lot,... Sure evolution is always occuring, but as you say Poet, not always better. Human beings have evolved over the Millennia and are SMARTER than the Dinosaurs by miles (thousands of them),.... But how would Sam Langford go in a fight with SpineOSaurus (for those of you who don't know,... Spineosaurus is the greatest land predator to ever roam the earth, it is the No. 1 Big Daddy of them all, bigger and better than the No. 2 Big Daddy, Giganotosaurus, which could DEVOUR the one time No. 1 but now No. 3,...... I ain't just a boxing fan !!!!!),.... well this mean bugger with the over a foot long claws and teeth.......... well Y'all get my drift, dont'cha,..... this one critter would slaughter every single HW in history in about an hour or so,............................................... ...........AND Mark this "Golden Age Bashers" ---- The Old Timers WERE SPINEOSAURUS !!!! to today's guys ( I still think a handfull or so of todays fighters could be great in most era's,... But only a handfull...................... Oops. I forgot to "lol"

The thing with biological evolution is it takes place over hundreds of thousands or eve millions of years.....not a few short decades. Genetically (were biological evolution takes place) we are no different today then we were 4,000 years ago. Give us another hundred thousand years and maybe we'll have picked up some genetic differences by then.

Poet

jabsRstiff
08-08-2011, 02:02 PM
I'd say there are better better athletes throughout sports today than there were years back, but....

At the top level, the best athletes have gone beyond that to being "investments". The risks that used to be taken no longer are being taken, and boxers are certainly no exception. There's a coddling of the elite that wasn't happening decades ago. Pitchers have f*cking "pitch counts", for Christ's sake!

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 02:04 PM
I'd say there are better better athletes throughout sports today than there were years back, but....

At the top level, the best athletes have gone beyond that to being "investments". The risks that used to be taken no longer are being taken, and boxers are certainly no exception. There's a coddling of the elite that wasn't happening decades ago. Pitchers have f*cking "pitch counts", for Christ's sake!

I HATE pitch counts.....I hate starting pitchers who can't pitch past 6 innings cuz of their delicate wittle arms :frustrated9:

Poet

jabsRstiff
08-08-2011, 02:07 PM
I HATE pitch counts.....I hate starting pitchers who can't pitch past 6 innings cuz of their delicate wittle arms :frustrated9:

Poet

I don't believe it's the pitchers themselves...it's coming from management. They don't want to risk the "investment" I spoke of.

Just like with fighters.....Fighters will fight anyone. It's the people behind them who keep them from fighting everyone they should. They fear losing their cash cow.

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 02:08 PM
Pitchers used to pitch out of 4 man rotations and would get 40+ starts a year, 30+ of which would be complete games.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 02:11 PM
I don't believe it's the pitchers themselves...it's coming from management. They don't want to risk the "investment" I spoke of.

Just like with fighters.....Fighters will fight anyone. It's the people behind them who keep them from fighting everyone they should. They fear losing their cash cow.

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: Big money eventually ruins sports. Ever notice how the quality of play in sports is usually at it's best BEFORE the big money starts rolling in? And how it starts declining once it becomes a cash-cow?

Poet

jabsRstiff
08-08-2011, 02:11 PM
Pitchers used to pitch out of 4 man rotations and would get 40+ starts a year, 30+ of which would be complete games.

Poet

You know, there's such an obsession with weight/strength training today...yet pitchers seemed to have more stamina when they spent all of their time pitching balls instead of pumping iron.

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 02:13 PM
You know, there's such an obsession with weight/strength training today...yet pitchers seemed to have more stamina when they spent all of their time pitching balls instead of pumping iron.

Because everything is a trade-off. To boost one thing you have to sacrifice another. People think they can have it all but the truth is that's just a fantasy. Everything in life is a trade-off.

Poet

jabsRstiff
08-08-2011, 02:13 PM
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: Big money eventually ruins sports. Ever notice how the quality of play in sports is usually at it's best BEFORE the big money starts rolling in? And how it starts declining once it becomes a cash-cow?

Poet



...and that's why MMA fans should revel in what they have today, because it's gonna wind up a lot like boxing.


P.S. - Once the way MMA is run starts to go downhill, people will see how it's really an inferior sport to boxing.

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 02:15 PM
...and that's why MMA fans should revel in what they have today, because it's gonna wind up a lot like boxing.

P.S. - Once the way MMA is run starts to go downhill, people will see how it's really an inferior sport to boxing.

Maybe. Some fans are just violence freaks though and MMA is perceived as more violent then other sports. The violence freaks will still watch it devotedly. It's kind of like boxing fans who only watch because they want to see someone get KTFO.

Poet

McGoorty
08-08-2011, 03:03 PM
Boxing, like any other discipline, is always evolving and getting better.

It's a process that can be seen from John L Sullivan to Jack Johnson; all the way to Floyd Mayweather, and into the future with guys like Nonito Donaire. The sport evolves and so do the fighters. Evolution is a process of improvement, not decline.

A case can easily be made that fighters today are "better" than the old fighters because they have more evolved skills, better training, and benefit of learning from those who came before them. But the case can also be made that older fighters were tougher because the circumstances they fought under were tougher and more demanding, with far less reward.

It's a matter of perspective, like all things.

That's my 2 cents. :boxing:
I disagree, Boxing has been in decline since Sugar Ray Robinson,... please refer to some of my above posts so I don't repeat myself............ Your theory does not always testify to the Facts,,.. I don't know if you know anything about Cricket,.... but if you do you will know that, even though the game has gotten bigger, the best player of all-time was Don Bradman, who played his first test in 1928 and his last in !948, and he was so damn good that to this day, he is TWICE as good as the second best Player,.... probably Jack Hobbs,..... and 100 % of all Cricket fans say that this is indisputable.....SO HOW CAN This HAPPEN ??????,,. how does your Blanket view of SPORT fit this in,.......... Bradmans career BLOWS The MIND,.... no Sportsman comes near the guy,... unless you count Invincible Billiards all-time GOAT, Walter Lindrum,,,, the best Cueist to ever live,... and where did you think his career fitted in, ??? 1920's to the 1940's.................. Lindrum used to make Billiards breaks of 4000 and keep his opponent (the second best ever player) off the table for days at a time ......I'm sorry to veer off from boxing but you are the one to bring up this todays Sportsmen are more brilliant from the guys five minutes ago JIVE !!!!!!! Don't jive wit me bud

Barn
08-08-2011, 03:33 PM
Boxing, like any other discipline, is always evolving and getting better.

It's a process that can be seen from John L Sullivan to Jack Johnson; all the way to Floyd Mayweather, and into the future with guys like Nonito Donaire. The sport evolves and so do the fighters. Evolution is a process of improvement, not decline.

A case can easily be made that fighters today are "better" than the old fighters because they have more evolved skills, better training, and benefit of learning from those who came before them. But the case can also be made that older fighters were tougher because the circumstances they fought under were tougher and more demanding, with far less reward.

It's a matter of perspective, like all things.

That's my 2 cents. :boxing:

Yeah, new equipment like the jump rope and heavy bag.

fitefanSHO
08-08-2011, 03:38 PM
OK, I'm wrong, I'll STFU now. :sad6:

SCtrojansbaby
08-08-2011, 04:42 PM
I can't agree less with that, mate, there was nothing percieved about the depth back then, it is a fact,...... opinions don't beat FACTS.

There is nothing factual about depth.

RubenSonny
08-08-2011, 04:46 PM
There is nothing factual about depth.

There absolutely is, since it can be measured dip****.

JAB5239
08-08-2011, 05:06 PM
There is nothing factual about depth.

Because you choose to remain blind does not mean there is no factual evidence. Of course it is all in books and you seem to have an aversion to books if there is no video to support it. Capaedia has given an excellent link which talks about it, you should read it..

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Tyler012010.htm

Scott9945
08-08-2011, 07:17 PM
Pitchers used to pitch out of 4 man rotations and would get 40+ starts a year, 30+ of which would be complete games.

Poet


Cy Young had about 750 complete games. I'll be happy to blow my brains out if anyone ever even approaches that record.

Ziggy Stardust
08-08-2011, 07:18 PM
Cy Young had about 750 complete games. I'll be happy to blow my brains out if anyone ever even approaches that record.

I ain't holding my breath :boxing:

Roy Keane
08-09-2011, 10:56 AM
Good reply ( AGAIN ),... I agree with the lot,... Sure evolution is always occuring, but as you say Poet, not always better. Human beings have evolved over the Millennia and are SMARTER than the Dinosaurs by miles (thousands of them),.... But how would Sam Langford go in a fight with SpineOSaurus (for those of you who don't know,... Spineosaurus is the greatest land predator to ever roam the earth, it is the No. 1 Big Daddy of them all, bigger and better than the No. 2 Big Daddy, Giganotosaurus, which could DEVOUR the one time No. 1 but now No. 3,...... I ain't just a boxing fan !!!!!),.... well this mean bugger with the over a foot long claws and teeth.......... well Y'all get my drift, dont'cha,..... this one critter would slaughter every single HW in history in about an hour or so,............................................... ...........AND Mark this "Golden Age Bashers" ---- The Old Timers WERE SPINEOSAURUS !!!! to today's guys ( I still think a handfull or so of todays fighters could be great in most era's,... But only a handfull...................... Oops. I forgot to "lol"

Spinosaurus was a fish eater, compare its thin jaw like that of a gharial to thats of a saltwater crocodile (T-rex) T-rex had the most powerful jaws ever & longest teeth plus its brain was twice the size of gigantosaurus so to be honest its T-rex >>>>>>> Spinosaurus & giganto :boxing:

Welsh Jon
08-09-2011, 11:31 AM
There is nothing factual about depth.

I hate to agree because I believe the depth of competition today is far inferior than what it used to be, but depth is not factual. If you are comparing the talents of boxers from different eras it is ALWAYS subjective, no matter how obviously true it may appear to be.

McGoorty
08-09-2011, 12:21 PM
Spinosaurus was a fish eater, compare its thin jaw like that of a gharial to thats of a saltwater crocodile (T-rex) T-rex had the most powerful jaws ever & longest teeth plus its brain was twice the size of gigantosaurus so to be honest its T-rex >>>>>>> Spinosaurus & giganto :boxing:
Giganotosaurus would have eaten T. Rex,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Rex is yesterdays HERO,...... T.Rex came tens of millions of tears after and it may have been evolved but I don't think it was no. 1, there is some doubt about T. Rex's capability,.... SPINO ??/ you must have watched different shows than me, it's hands were the best killing weapon ever on land, they tested the sickle claws and they could slice anything almost half in two, the claws could make a single cut of about 8 feet long,... And don't knock the Fish and sea creatures, they were more wicked than anything ever seen on the land. There is not a single land creature that could stand up to those Disembowelers,,.... there is a lot of conflicting opinions,.... One things for sure T. Rex was maybe the most DISGUSTING creature that ever lived, AND lt preferred to scavenge dead things,.. or steal a kill,..... and the thing must have stunk like a Giant skunk, but far worse,

McGoorty
08-09-2011, 12:43 PM
Spinosaurus was a fish eater, compare its thin jaw like that of a gharial to thats of a saltwater crocodile (T-rex) T-rex had the most powerful jaws ever & longest teeth plus its brain was twice the size of gigantosaurus so to be honest its T-rex >>>>>>> Spinosaurus & giganto :boxing:
BUT you are obviously a very smart guy, I am led to believe that GNTOSRS had longer teeth, it's head was quite a bit bigger. When more of the GIGO's are found (there's a lot of Rex's out there) I think some of the specimens will be truly awesome, every thing on that continent was Supersized, the Vegetarians were the biggest Sauropods ever, it stands to reason that unlike Rex who wanted to kill with one bite, these big buggers aren't gonna be killed quickly. The Gigo's teeth were like steak knives and 6 or 8 slasshes would be all it needs to bleed it's prey to death,........ Bigger prey equals bigger predator,. simple really.

Roy Keane
08-09-2011, 08:10 PM
Its a fact the T-rex had the longest teeth 12inch designed for crushing bone etc Gsaurus teeth were smaller and used for slicing, and largest found Gsaurus head was 1.7m and T-rex's 1.5m so not much in it plus T-rex's head was more powerfully built & bite was stronger, Gsaurus head although longer was more slender. But the biggest factor i think is brain size with T-rex's being twice the size of the Gsaurus and the largest of any tyrannosaurid. But alot of it is subjective and you never know when the next skeleton will be found and a dinosaur could be bigger then previously thought. I personally dont think that T-rex was mainly a scavenger, its like the hyena thought of as a scavenger but in reality it hunts more then lions do.

JAB5239
08-09-2011, 08:59 PM
I hate to agree because I believe the depth of competition today is far inferior than what it used to be, but depth is not factual. If you are comparing the talents of boxers from different eras it is ALWAYS subjective, no matter how obviously true it may appear to be.

It is a fact that greater numbers produce greater competition. Take away nearly 10 weight classes and 30 paper titles and you have a greater depth.

JAB5239
08-09-2011, 09:06 PM
Giganotosaurus would have eaten T. Rex,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Rex is yesterdays HERO,...... T.Rex came tens of millions of tears after and it may have been evolved but I don't think it was no. 1, there is some doubt about T. Rex's capability,.... SPINO ??/ you must have watched different shows than me, it's hands were the best killing weapon ever on land, they tested the sickle claws and they could slice anything almost half in two, the claws could make a single cut of about 8 feet long,... And don't knock the Fish and sea creatures, they were more wicked than anything ever seen on the land. There is not a single land creature that could stand up to those Disembowelers,,.... there is a lot of conflicting opinions,.... One things for sure T. Rex was maybe the most DISGUSTING creature that ever lived, AND lt preferred to scavenge dead things,.. or steal a kill,..... and the thing must have stunk like a Giant skunk, but far worse,

Its a fact the T-rex had the longest teeth 12inch designed for crushing bone etc Gsaurus teeth were smaller and used for slicing, and largest found Gsaurus head was 1.7m and T-rex's 1.5m so not much in it plus T-rex's head was more powerfully built & bite was stronger, Gsaurus head although longer was more slender. But the biggest factor i think is brain size with T-rex's being twice the size of the Gsaurus and the largest of any tyrannosaurid. But alot of it is subjective and you never know when the next skeleton will be found and a dinosaur could be bigger then previously thought. I personally dont think that T-rex was mainly a scavenger, its like the hyena thought of as a scavenger but in reality it hunts more then lions do.

Boxing history turns to paleontology to make it's point!

I thought I would be aggravated by this but Im actually liking this little back and forth of dino facts.

McGoorty
08-10-2011, 09:01 AM
Its a fact the T-rex had the longest teeth 12inch designed for crushing bone etc Gsaurus teeth were smaller and used for slicing, and largest found Gsaurus head was 1.7m and T-rex's 1.5m so not much in it plus T-rex's head was more powerfully built & bite was stronger, Gsaurus head although longer was more slender. But the biggest factor i think is brain size with T-rex's being twice the size of the Gsaurus and the largest of any tyrannosaurid. But alot of it is subjective and you never know when the next skeleton will be found and a dinosaur could be bigger then previously thought. I personally dont think that T-rex was mainly a scavenger, its like the hyena thought of as a scavenger but in reality it hunts more then lions do.
Yeah I agree to an extent, great subject isn't it !!!, It doesn't really matter, all 3 were unchallenged champions. Maybe GIGO and SPINO were scavengers too, it all depends on situations, these guys were BIG and chasing prey needed instant reward or they would just take the easier option. Those Hyenas are great predators but are in no way, a likeable creature. The one thing that's for certain, Gigonotosaurus is bigger than T. REX and that's one REX title down the tubes. You know, I always suspected that there were bigger nasties out there that we hadn't found yet and we may be in for bigger surprises than expected,......................................... ...... And I still say that SPINO would kill any boxer and MMA or even SAMURAI that ever lived,.... dispute THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!! lol, lol.

McGoorty
08-10-2011, 09:04 AM
Boxing history turns to paleontology to make it's point!

I thought I would be aggravated by this but Im actually liking this little back and forth of dino facts.
I'm glad you liked it JAB,... I do go on a bit sometimes,... but I liked the Boxer Vs Spinosaurus analogy......... He's a smart guy the other bloke, ain't 'ee..... How are you goin' anyway, Jabster ???

JAB5239
08-10-2011, 10:02 AM
I'm glad you liked it JAB,... I do go on a bit sometimes,... but I liked the Boxer Vs Spinosaurus analogy......... He's a smart guy the other bloke, ain't 'ee..... How are you goin' anyway, Jabster ???

Doing fantastic! Hope you and everybody else here is as well!!

GJC
08-10-2011, 10:57 AM
It is a fact that greater numbers produce greater competition. Take away nearly 10 weight classes and 30 paper titles and you have a greater depth.
I think that it is in the middle ranking opponents that it really tells. I wouldn't argue that the worst of say a Greb's opponents were no more than the local tough guy from the local bar. The best is subjective and with the colour bar etc the champion didn't always fight the best. But I think the middle range opponents who could trouble on their best nights there was far more depth. There was no jockeying into a title shot in those days you used to have to climb over the bodies of a lot of tough fighters

BritishBoxing92
08-10-2011, 11:41 AM
boxing in the old days was more or less imo more simpler but more crooked i.e. fixed fights or controversies but old school fighters had more heart and determination and were more willing and you didnt have this ppv non sense or negotiation fallouts all the time because fighter a thought he deserved more then fighter b, but in the old days it was harder as well because of the rules and rounds which used to be 15 rounds and more enduring in the old days boxing used to get more viewers and followings because everyone used to love watching the fights on tv or go to them live.

boxing in present day has fallen has gone more softer, 12 rounds drop from 15 rounds is good however IMO because most fighters nowadays could never go full 15 rounds they are just not as conditioned as used to be, nowadays as well the whole PPV nonsense and purse arguments along with venues and also things like twitter where people trash talk more has shown you what it has become, boxing has lost interest in majority of the the public because it does not interest them any more because people dont want to pay from $/ 15.00 to $/50.00 just to watch a fight and also with the whole sanctioning bodies and interim belts along with super belts and being 5 weight belts per each division makes people lose interest but creates more oppurtunity for more champions to be made, also alot of fighters do not fight like how they used to or have the heart or willingness and determination to make them like how previous fighters used to be instead alot of safety and defensive fighters and also in higher divisions going on from middleweight with the exception of super middleweight do not have as much competition or any real threats around anymore.

GJC
08-10-2011, 11:44 AM
Won't comment on the dinosaur bit, still have bad memories being chased by them as a boy :)

Welsh Jon
08-10-2011, 12:35 PM
It is a fact that greater numbers produce greater competition. Take away nearly 10 weight classes and 30 paper titles and you have a greater depth.

But if you take depth to mean a greater number of quality fighters then it is subjective and not fact. If you believe that todays fighters are superior than the fighters of 70 years ago then it doesn't matter if there were more fighters 70 years ago if you believe that there are a higher number of better quality fighters today.

The arguement put forward by some is that improvements in nutrition, conditioning, training etc. means that the boxers of this era are superior than previous era. I don't agree with this, but it can't be proven to be untrue.

I seem to be defending an arguement I don't believe in, but it's just that I don't like it when people try to claim opinion as fact.

McGoorty
08-10-2011, 12:36 PM
boxing in the old days was more or less imo more simpler but more crooked i.e. fixed fights or controversies but old school fighters had more heart and determination and were more willing and you didnt have this ppv non sense or negotiation fallouts all the time because fighter a thought he deserved more then fighter b, but in the old days it was harder as well because of the rules and rounds which used to be 15 rounds and more enduring in the old days boxing used to get more viewers and followings because everyone used to love watching the fights on tv or go to them live.

boxing in present day has fallen has gone more softer, 12 rounds drop from 15 rounds is good however IMO because most fighters nowadays could never go full 15 rounds they are just not as conditioned as used to be, nowadays as well the whole PPV nonsense and purse arguments along with venues and also things like twitter where people trash talk more has shown you what it has become, boxing has lost interest in majority of the the public because it does not interest them any more because people dont want to pay from $/ 15.00 to $/50.00 just to watch a fight and also with the whole sanctioning bodies and interim belts along with super belts and being 5 weight belts per each division makes people lose interest but creates more oppurtunity for more champions to be made, also alot of fighters do not fight like how they used to or have the heart or willingness and determination to make them like how previous fighters used to be instead alot of safety and defensive fighters and also in higher divisions going on from middleweight with the exception of super middleweight do not have as much competition or any real threats around anymore.
Very good post man, and a very good argument,... "I dips me lid".

McGoorty
08-10-2011, 12:40 PM
Won't comment on the dinosaur bit, still have bad memories being chased by them as a boy :)
Gee Mate, Those must have been some scary MOVIES Man. lol

Roy Keane
08-10-2011, 03:31 PM
I think modern history makes some fighters seem greater than they are, moving from lightweight-middleweight there is 20 belts possible (well more with ring super wba etc etc) ! So moving up 5 divs instead of only being able to be 5 time champ there is the possiblity you can be a 20 time champ which is stupid as hell ! Plus these days who the hell is the champion of any division ???