View Single Post
#1
Old 11-21-2012, 05:15 PM
WolfGirl
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Rep Power: 0 WolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond reputeWolfGirl has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 63,037.78
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 63,037.78
Default Your opinions: Has boxing progressed or regressed:Modern vs 60's-80's

I'm not talking about black and white days. Forget that. Let's just start from the 60's.
60's-80's vs Modern (90's era to current)
Do you think boxing has progressed since the 60'-80's era? In terms of skill level?
I want more of an overall comparison, the cream of the crop(Lennox,Floyd,Roy,Evander) will always be the cream of the crop. Regardless of eras.

I'm talking like comparing the Froch/Cotto/Haye to fighters of their standings/rankings during the older days.



Please don't ever bring the 'track and field' logic into any boxing debate. Running in a straight line have literally nothing to do with two men fighting.
Track rarely deal with the intangibles boxing deal with, so it's a horrid comparison.


My personal view:
The best of the best for the modern era:
Lennox,RJJ,Floyd,Hopkins,Pacquiao,Holyfield,Tyson, Whitakker, is equal to the older days of the 60's70's and early 80's.

But the 2nd tier have fallen off dramatically.

Last edited by WolfGirl; 11-21-2012 at 05:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
WolfGirl is offline
Advertisements
>>>TO REMOVE THESE ADS, PLEASE REGISTER HERE FOR FREE<<<