Were the past greats really that great!?

[NChristo]

I agree, because Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali have loss on their record.

Must be bums then.

[Boxingtech718v2]

Lets talk about a subject that becomes very heated amongst the old school and new of boxing fans. How do the old legends of boxing stand up to the new breed?

Im not talking about fantasy matchups between duran and pacquiao, the pugilistic art hasnt changed that drastically in that space of time. Im talking about the likes of gene tunney, jack johnson etc......All are are ring legends, and deserve to be, but how would they fare against the modern era?

The reason i ask this is because i have been a boxing fan for 9 years now, there is only so many archived fights i can watch until i wound up looking up these guys that so many boxing historians talk about. And i know im going to get blasted for this....but i was not impressed.

Jack Johnson, who many historians believe would have beaten any heavyweight from any era is one that stands out. In the fight i watched with jess willard i wasnt overly impressed. Its not that its in black and white and old grainy footage. Ijust dont see the skill shown by the older boxers. Wheres the head movement? the bobbing and weaving? the defense!?!?! most of the time the 2 fighters are winging punches from the waist and dont have their hands up to defend themselves.

Dont get me wrong, i respect the hell out of these guys, youd have to respect fighters that have hundreds of fights back in those days, with the small gloves etc...It just seems to me that it was more fighting back then as opposed to boxing. It was about hard as nails men who could punch and take a punch. When you look at the likes of mayweather jr, with his impeccible defense, fast as lightning hands. is it logical to assume that these primitive fighters would have beaten our new breed??

Maybe im being stupid and am missing something. But isnt it just a case of boxing has evolved? A 1920s manchester united would be dumbfounded by the 2011 squad. Is boxing much different???

Too Long

[SplitSecond]

Bernard Hopkins is a perfect example of today's lack of talent, Pavlik couldn't decipher what went on in that ring. Atlas said it best, though some saw it as back handed compliments when Atlast seemed to have discredited Hopkins' recent wins, although he was 100% on point but this is what he said,

Jump to 1:30



Teddy Atlas brought up what was lacking in the sport and attributed Hopkins' success to that, Bernard disagreed, but from 3:28 on he was in more of an agreement. Atlas was right in saying that "You have fighters from today who would be surprised (By what Hopkins brings) but fighters from the golden era, the fighters back from a little bit more of a solid era...they wouldn't be surprised by that.

really? pavlik is/was a hyped up bum, i said all the time, same thing with abraham, these guys are hyped up bums, there were no hyped up bums in the past?

[Ra Amun Tehuti]

If you scaled them to modern times.

Ali with modern nutrition and training

Jack johnson with modern training

joe louis

etc etc.
Think about it
You would still have to say they would be great because they were motivated and skilled fighters regardless of their era.

[nomadman]

History can't be erase, don't matter how much anybody tries. The Great ones will remain GREAT.

That's the trouble. It makes any discussion involving them and modern fighters rather pointless.

[FirePunch]

really? Pavlik is/was a hyped up bum, i said all the time, same thing with abraham, these guys are hyped up bums, there were no hyped up bums in the past?

hopkins was schooled twice by taylor . Case closed

[BennyST]

The updates in conditioning and nutrition mean that yesterday's greats would get dominated by the average fighters of today. The same is true of all sports.

You can only really judge a fighter against those of his own era.

No, it ****ing well doesn't! How long do people have keep repeating the same thing again and again, whilst not having the slightest clue about this stuff. Boxing isn't about nutrition and conditioning alone.

The same is not true of boxing. It's a completely different type of sport. How many times does an average athlete have to come along and win for this to sink in with people. Conditioning and nutrition doesn't determine chin, it doesn't determine heart, it doesn't determine your power and it doesn't determine your fighting instincts.

If it were true that it is only about conditioning and nutrition and modern advances then only the best athletes would win fights. That's what happens in normal sports. Boxing isn't a normal sport. You don't get punched in the face in a race. You don't have to get up after taking a liver shot and try to fight through agonising leg numbing pain.

Go watch Gatti/Ward and tell me about modern advances in nutrition and conditioning and tell me what difference it made to them if they were in 1960 or 2005?

****ing dumb ****s on this board. From 1900-30 or so yes, there were significant advances in technique and strategy, especially as the rules changed etc. But from the era of Joe Louis onward, there has been very little change in technique, training methods and the fights have gotten easier. They aren't as long, the gloves are bigger and better padded and the competition has decreased enormously due to double the divisions, quadruple the titles and less pro fighters in the US than there were in New York 70 years ago.

It is very, very possible for something to devolve due to numbers declining in the sport. Numbers alone make up a big reason for the decline in skill of boxing. If you have one hundred people to fight to get a title, the ones at the top are going to have to be bloody good. If you halve that number, then divide it into four, it's going to be pretty ****ing easy to get to the top and stay there.

As for this theory of new guys learning off old guys, it's true in some sense but only a small amount. I remember Hloyfield saying he had an advantage over guys from the 60's and 70's because he know all the techniques from the 20's, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and thus was a more evolved fighter. So, why was he slower than Ali, less powerful than Foreman, didn't have the boxing savvy of Walcott, or the short compact punches of Joe Louis? Because that's not how boxing works.

I just laugh that anyone can look at today's fighter and think they are more evolved because of conditioning and nutrition than the fighters from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

So Roberto Duran would lose to Marquez, Rios, and Juan Diaz? Carlos Monzon would lose to Martinez, Pavlik and .... Williams? Ezzard Charles would lose to Jean Pascal? Dawson? A fight with Hopkins would be good....the old prime Hopkins anyway.

Come on people, pick up the slack.

[NoLove]

I think were steering off the topic here. Im not talking about diets and fitness training, as im pretty sure the older fighters were freaks of nature when it came to fitness. Im talking about the sweet science, head movement, defense, ring generalship e.t.c......

Basically how boxing technique has evolved, not fitness methods

You dont think SRR knew how to slip a punch?

[nutz_n_ya_face]

Name me one olden day fighter ( from before the 50s ) that fights like floyd with the philly shell defense, the shoulder rolling, the pot shotting.

lol you need to stop acting like you know boxing. shoulder rolls and philly shell guard been around even before the 50's in the midwest. google it or ask floyd sr where he learn or resemble his style. if you think floyd jr or james toney created shoulder rolls then you need to do your research.

[bojangles1987]

Yawn......

Obviously they were great fighters. But just like todays fighters they get overrated.

Just because Bob Cousy couldnt guard Chris Paul doesnt mean he wasnt a great basketball player.

I hate this argument, it just makes me angry. Boxing is completely different from any team sport, where athletes are getting bigger, stronger, and more athletic. That's not really happening in boxing, and whatever minor difference in athleticism might exist today compared to the 1950s or so is completely offset by the massive lack of fundamentals and competition compared to that time period.

People need to actually watch some of these greats that they disparage, they would realize they are every bit as skilled as the greatest fighters today, and in many cases more so. You won't find anyone in the sport as skilled at pressuring fighters as Roberto Duran, as offensively diverse as Joe Louis, as fleet of foot or quick with his hands as Muhammad Ali, as fierce an inside fighter as Joe Frazier, etc.

They weren't great because of the time period, they were actually great fighters, plenty capable of destroying anyone who isn't great themselves in modern boxing history.