Your opinions: Has boxing progressed or regressed:Modern vs 60's-80's

[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.

[Barnburner]

About the same...

[onetwopunch]

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..

[Earl Hickey]

It's regressed

A guy like mayweather would have multiple losses in the 80s and 90s

Fans back then didn't appreciate ducker and people that fought like cowards were called cowards, not "slick G's"

If you can't see its dropped off I feel sorry for you, go watch hagler hearns and then watch mayweather v cotto

[Barnburner]

Originally Posted by Earl Hickey

It's regressed

A guy like mayweather would have multiple losses in the 80s and 90s

Fans back then didn't appreciate ducker and people that fought like cowards were called cowards, not "slick G's"

If you can't see its dropped off I feel sorry for you, go watch hagler hearns and then watch mayweather v cotto

It's in terms of skill level.

Not excitement or the actual politics of the sport.

If it was I'd agree with you.

[croz]

It's progressed. They were saying boxing had regressed back in the 60s. It's just a myth that lingers about boxing and some fans seem to pick it up and hold onto it, I don't know maybe to make themselves stand out.

You know they're saying the same thing about football right now. There's a big debate on about whether Messi is better than Pele and people side with Pele. It works exactly like boxing, the older they are the more renowned they become. Their myth grows and people willingly choose to believe it. Look at the pattern it runs: Ronaldo is better than Messi, Pele is better than Ronaldo. The larger the myth the larger the support, and boxing feeds on that sort of thing. Saying boxing is dead or devolving is just part of boxing culture which has been around since the year dot.

[WolfGirl]

Originally Posted by onetwopunch

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..

Good post, but I have to disagree about the Lennox part. Lennox and Wlad are in part victims of their size when it comes to dissecting their overall chances against the smaller guys of the 60's-70's era. Some people mistakenly think that because they are bigger, they are naturally slower or have less boxing skills and just rely on strength.

Lewis is not a slow lumbering 6'5-6'6 245 pound fighter that only have one style. Lennox is a very agile 6'5-6'6 245 pound supreme boxer/puncher/jabber with an array of styles that make him a nightmare for most ATG'S when he is firing on all cylinders.

Lewis can bomb you out via Golota/Ruddock/Grant, imposing his shocking strength and immense powers or he can outbox you 10-2 against a still elite version of Holyfield or toy with the likes of p4p puncher Tua.

Lennox's jab is a thing of beauty to watch in that it is not a straight jab but it comes in variations. Wlad's jab is probably more powerful and Holme's is more accurate but neither have the sheer follow ups of Lewis.
He will jab than quickly convert that very jab into a hook or straight left/right. He will jab than quickly turn it into a body combination.

Lewis had underrated defense as well, he is a masterful counter puncher and against Briggs the entire shoulder roll was on display.
Lennox slipping/shoulder rolling Brigg's punches than smiling at him and following that up with a massive KD was beautiful.

He's inside fighting might not be on par with Bowe's but it was still very very lethal and he throws that upper cut with vicious intent.

With all due respect to Frazier/Norton I just don't think they can over come someone of Lennox' size,strength,power,and boxing skills.

He was a great technican as well and that is actually what the main criticisms was when it comes to Lewis.

NY TIMES repeatly bashed Lennox during his fighting days calling him

"a giant who boxes instead of slugs' and 'why can't we see more Golota Lennox displays, why does he have to be so tactical'

Lewis is truely a very very unique heavyweight and Wladimir comes from that same mold of agile fast moving boxing giants who also happen to have power and ring generalship.

[AntonTheMeh]

i think the growth level peaked and plateaued around that duran leonard era, with the lewis and the klitscko's as the aberrations in there division.

[WolfGirl]

Originally Posted by AntonTheMeh

i think the growth level peaked and plateaued around that duran leonard era, with the lewis and the klitscko's as the aberrations in there division.

Short post but I really like it.

I wanted to say it too.. Lewis and the Klitschos are the 'aberrations' not the norm. If you look at the other super heavys like Price,Wilder,Fury... even Pulev whos actually the most agile out of the four, they are noticably slower and less skilled than the smaller HW'S.

I think Lennox and K2 is just something out of the ordinary when it comes to super heavys.

[Rk16]

It's around the same,yet again nostalgia is getting the better of people
For example the four kings in the 80's is regarded as the golden era of boxing but their fights are spread over 6 or 7 years
So what if over the next 2 years Floyd,Manny,Cotto and Sergio all fight each other
It will in about ten years time be remembered as a great time for boxing
It seems to be generating as much interest now as it ever did
Plus there are some great young fighters now started to progress and the cycle continues