Originally Posted by WolfGirl
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.
Lennox,Floyd,Roy,Evander , I agree with all 3 except for Lenox. Just my opinion but i dont see Lenox being able to win againts guys like Foreman, Norton, Frazier, Liston..I just dont see it, Evander as a Light heavy but not as a heavy and Roy as a middle and super middle would be a force in anytime, Floyd as a LW, not as a welter or anything above that. Overall I think its regressed a little, back then guys were hungrier and had more heart were talking 15 rd fights..smaller gloves..