Are Today's Fighters Better than Fighters From The Past? Hell Yes

[Megamasterking]

The only real thing I hate is when an opponents quantity of wins is used to determine how good he was. That's just childish to me.

Like for Ali, he was good, he fought incredible competition.

But using Robinsons 200+ fights as a reason to determine p4p greatness is a joke. Line up 100 Joes or even average fighters to a guy like Leonard or Pacquiao, and you have the same outcome.

Great list ! i guess Robinson had to fight often to have is chance at the title since he wasnt support by anyboby in the boxing world at that time. He had his first chance at a title when is record was 73 win 1 defeat 1 draw and some of those wins against top fighters...

[StarshipTrooper]

Your right on 1 thing, i speak French but my english is better then your French Now i know why people think your a *******

He's an alt btw, previously banned and no doubt he'll again be banned soon for trolling the serious boxing sections instead of staying in Romper Room where he belongs :grin9:

Poet

[TheMagicMan]

He's an alt btw, previously banned and no doubt he'll again be banned soon for trolling the serious boxing sections instead of staying in Romper Room where he belongs :grin9:

Poet

im not an alt, if I am whats my main?

[The_Demon]

Hush Troll

[Real King Kong]

The only real thing I hate is when an opponents quantity of wins is used to determine how good he was. That's just childish to me.

Like for Ali, he was good, he fought incredible competition.

But using Robinsons 200+ fights as a reason to determine p4p greatness is a joke. Line up 100 Joes or even average fighters to a guy like Leonard or Pacquiao, and you have the same outcome.

you for real? you know how many HOFers robinson fought and beat? pac didn't even make it past 13 fights without getting KOd by a nobody. robinson retired the first time with a record of like 131-3.

[Spartacus Sully]

The fighters of the past were many many many many many many times more skillful then the fighters of today where as the overall technique of the sport and its refinement as far as defense and combos have greatly increased allowing many of the fighters in this day to rely more on technique then overall skill.

[boxing boy]

How is it possible Foreman got a lucky punch and knocked out a guy who wasnt even a real champion, but held one of the belts? I dont know, how was it possible 185 lbs Henry Cooper sent Ali to the floor like a ***** and Ali wobbled to his chair and if held in modern times the fight would have been stopped, much like when the exact same thing happened to Wlad?

How is it possible that Joe Calzaghe beat RJJ, Who Beat Ruiz, Who Beat Holyfield, Who Beat HOlmes Who beat Ali? Joe Calzaghe clearly who beat the hell out of Ali then. You heard it here first, Joe Calzaghe, greatest HW of all time.

Foreman on his comeback got beat to hell by an HIV positive Tommy the machine Gunn. Who then got KO 1'd by a fighter with 11 pro fights.

Notice how Foreman and Holmes didnt touch Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis? Nope, Shannon Briggs, Michael Moorer and Ray Mercer...cause when i think cream of the crop of the HW division over the last 20 years, I think those 3...The HW division has always been top-heavy, it always will be most likely, usually there are 2 or 3 guys way ahead of the rest. So youre criticizing modern boxing for that?

Look, I agree with you, Joe Calzaghe is the greatest of all time. But youre wrong about everything else.

I just want to address one thing you said.Because i see you saying the same thing in other threads.

Henry Cooper knocked down Cassius Clay.He did this in 1963.Cassius Clay only had 18 pro fights at this time.He was only 21 years old.

1963 was 4 years "before" Muhammad Ali's prime in 1967.

Yes,Cassius Clay beat Sonny Liston 3 years before his prime.

In 1967 Muhammad Ali then had 29 fights and was 29-0-23 KO's.He had defended his title 9 times! And was 25 years old.

He now had alot more experience and was 4 years older.

Heck,Joe Louis got KO'd for the 10 count "before" his prime.

A 1967 Muhammad Ali would have chewed up and spit out a young 21 year old Cassius Clay with only 18 pro fights.In fact,a 24 year old Muhammad Ali won "every round" in a rematch with Henry Cooper in 1966.Cooper never landed a punch!

Almost everybody gets knocked down.Almost every Heavyweight Champion has gotten knocked down,and during there prime.Muhammad Ali never got knocked down in his prime of 1966/67 when he was fighting alot.But you have to go way back to 1963 when he was way before his prime to find a time when he was knocked down.I love how you pick and choose.I can do the same with the Klit brothers! I can do it with almost every Heavyweight Champion!

BTW-Muhammad Ali(Not Cassius Clay)took the best punch of all the Heavyweight Champions! This is unanimous among boxing experts,trainers,boxing writers,and boxing fans.

I have a question for you? Who was voted the ATHLETE OF THE CENTURY by sports illustrated,USA Today,and other sources?

You have a good one......

[JAB5239]

I wanted to comment on the stupidity of the article being spammed on this board, unfortunately I am on the posters ignore list. Seriously, who has an ignore list? It just shows willful ignorance. What? He doesnt agree with me? IGNORE!. Coward. Anyways, here is why the article is dumb. It makes assertions that because there were more boxing shows in NYC in the 1900's than today, that back in the 1900's fighters could beat the fighters today....
Under that logic, there were more pro baseball teams in New york during the early 20th century than today, so baseball must have been bigger back then and baseball players were better. However, we can analyze players speed, speed of pitches, average distance of hits etc...from video and tell that the players playing at the time of the earliest recordings, were nowhere close to the players today.

Just how can you analyze players speed and pitches by looking at film that was nothing like the film of today?

The whole post is idiotic, it also doesnt say how many people are boxing in NYC, or practice boxing, it just says how many shows there are. If it had numbers like, back in 1910 there were an estimated 800,000 people who called themselves boxers living in NYC, today there are a mere 400,000...then it could make an argument, but it doesnt do that. Its argument would still suck, because NYC does not equal the world. In order to make a claim that more people were fighting back then as opposed to today theyd have to add up the whole world, which they dont do. They dont mention the Eastern Euro's the Africans, the Pacific Islanders, nope, the world according to this article is NYC. And I disagree with the whole "numbers" thing and feel there are more factors.

In the 1930's the were more than 60,000 licensed pro's today ther isn't near that amount. You do the math.

Want to know the quick reason why there are less shows in NYC. Its called tv. Back then there was nothing to do, so they needed live entertainment, also live entertainment suffered if it wasnt in NYC. So everything was in NYC and everything was live entertainment. Now people have tv. They dont go out as much and fights dont have to be in the center of the world.

NYC was used as an example because it was the epicenter of boxing. and as far as I know there was tv in the 40's and 50's. We aren't talking the 17th century here.

Also the article fails to mention nutrition, just brings up steroids. The average person lives over a decade longer now than at "boxings prime". Fighters can recover from injuries with medical technology. They no longer implement leaches in medical procedures. People understand protiens, and creatine, and vitamins. They understand the value of certain legal supplements as wel as hydration. Technology has improved, training equipment is much better and you can be scientific. You can also watch and breakdown film, not just your opponents, but yourself (which would be even more important).

Why is it fighters routinely fought more rounds back than? Answer: because they were better trained. Unlike nearly every other sport boxing doesn't rely on technological advancements.

People on average are taller and bigger now. Its from being healthier. Also many sports have fallen by the wayside, but yet people still break records in events like the polevault (now banned in many U.S. schools) and the hammer throw.

Equipment and steroids.

The whole fighters were better in the past is ridiculous. The average club fighter would beat Dempsey or Johnson. Any hw in the top 15 right now would wax Ali.

Unfortunately you cannot be taken seriously with ridiculous statements like these. In fact your whole argument is weak and crude.

[TheMagicMan]

Unfortunately you cannot be taken seriously with ridiculous statements like these. In fact your whole argument is weak and crude.

You are dumb as ****. First of all cite how many boxers there were in the 30's and cite how many there are today? No cite, **** didnt happen. Wait, there are 100k pros today, so theres more today, you lose.

Also did you read the article you dumb ****, it was talking about the turn of the century, the first televised boxing match was 1939. So how would televison effect the 1920's. Delete your name you just got owned. Also the majority of americans couldnt tune in to watch a boxing fight until the mid 50's. Again you are dumb as ****.

Also its pretty easy to analyze a tape when you know the distance from the mound to the plate and time is a ****ing constant. Its ****ing simple. Analyze what 1 second in the film is compared to one real second, which is easy since they have the ****ing film still, and then analyze the time it takes to get from the mound to the plate, convert and there you have it. Dear god, you are dumb as hell. What do you think, film back then didnt exist in real time?

End your life.

[TheMagicMan]

Unfortunately you cannot be taken seriously with ridiculous statements like these. In fact your whole argument is weak and crude.

So track relied on technical advancements? marathons rely on technical advancement. People back then thought a 4 minute mile was humanly impossible, now guys run at 3:43....You are dumb as hell. The most simple sport, running...running, all times have been broke.

Why did track times steadily drop from the 50's on...you say steroids? Ok then all boxers today are on steroids and could beat the hell out of people before.

Also boxers today can go longer, its not sanctioned. Just as UFC fights used to be unlimited time. You think they were in better shape? **** no, that was 8 years ago. The sport changed so itd be more watchable. No one wants to sit through the 1920's boxing, where 2 fat guys stand there punching like bitches, doing nothing. Thats how it used to be, you ever see their technique? Its terrible, their footwork...terrible.

There were boxers back then smoking between rounds...yep, they were in better shape. Dear god, end your life.