Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[joe strong]

And in what way is that different from everyone scambering to get a fight with the 00's TWO headed monster in the K-bro's, as opposed to the 3 headed one of Holy, Tyson and Lewis?

The ONLY difference really is that the 2 headed monster did not fight each other because they were family, whereas the others did, thus giving you that illusion that everybody fought each other more, whereas apart from each other, both the K's together fought and belted up every single HW out there who was worth anything between them.

You are being a very biased poster here Mr. Strong.

the pay was much better in the 90s... there was only 3 belts which were unified by Tyson & lewis on different occasions. The WBO just appeared one day with damiani & duplooy fighting for it's belt when Tyson held all 3 other belts & claimed it was a world title. It helped water down the title picture once it started getting recognized as a world title in 2004. Bias? It didn't seem like it they all did fight each other. you are being bias because you like the klitschkos. Lennox Lewis never took the easy route in voluntaries. whereas champions like the Kbros & wilder have. It's my opinion & i look at Vitali & see he never fought most of the good HWs in his era. I don't regard Vitali the same way I do wladimir. Wladimir is an all time great. Vitali is not. The thing was Lennox fought tyson & holyfield twice. tyson fought holyfield twice. bowe fought holyfield 3 times. Rahman twice lennox, twice maskaev, twice tua. holyfield fought ruiz 3 times. I can go on... I'm on my 4th decade & in my opinion the 90s were the best...I'm not being bias it's just what I think. My favorite fighters were Golota, Toney, Botha & lennox Lewis. there were great fights in the 90s...

[Elroy1]

the pay was much better in the 90s... there was only 3 belts which were unified by Tyson & lewis on different occasions. The WBO just appeared one day with damiani & duplooy fighting for it's belt when Tyson held all 3 other belts & claimed it was a world title. It helped water down the title picture once it started getting recognized as a world title in 2004. Bias? It didn't seem like it they all did fight each other. you are being bias because you like the klitschkos. Lennox Lewis never took the easy route in voluntaries. whereas champions like the Kbros & wilder have. It's my opinion & i look at Vitali & see he never fought most of the good HWs in his era. I don't regard Vitali the same way I do wladimir. Wladimir is an all time great. Vitali is not. The thing was Lennox fought tyson & holyfield twice. tyson fought holyfield twice. bowe fought holyfield 3 times. Rahman twice lennox, twice maskaev, twice tua. holyfield fought ruiz 3 times. I can go on... I'm on my 4th decade & in my opinion the 90s were the best...I'm not being bias it's just what I think. My favorite fighters were Golota, Toney, Botha & lennox Lewis. there were great fights in the 90s...

STOP right there!

Klitschko certainly did not take the easy route in voluntaries, same as Lennox to be fair. They BOTH fought the best of the best.

Sure, Wlad sometimes took a less than desirable opponent, like LEapai for instance, who was a MANDATORY. It is not Wlad's fault LEapai beat Boytsov.

LEnnox too chose to fight guys like MAvrovic who was exclaimed to have fought nobdoy relevant in the day.

There is an equivalence here with LEnnox and Wlad, which I am promoting, unlike yourself trying to slam one over the other.

Who is biased?

I "like" no fighter in a fan boy way. I promote Klitschko because he is so good. I in fact give Lennox nearly similar dues also.

And please don't tell me Holyfield and specially Tyson fought the best availale opponents ALL the time. THey ALSO have great resumes to be sure but if your trying to say they never took an easy fight you'd be wrong.

[Anthony342]

well some of them for sure would hold their own in any era but the world title belts would be a lot tougher for them to get and in some eras they simply would not win the world title but that is not due to their abilities maybe, if they are entertainers well they would get title shots, if they wanna dance a lot then they got no chance, you had to be a crowd pleaser to get title shots

Well Golovkin and Kovalev are definitely crowd pleasers and want to fight everyone available in their weight classes.

[McGoorty]

I would take Hagler over SRR...I thought SIZE didn't matter? Now you are complaining that Jones who fought 160/170...and so did SRR is a size disadvantage?




And no ....Holyfield would most likely defeat Joe Louis.there is absoulutly no video of ANYONE he fought that says otherwise. If Conn was out boxing holyfield he would the end to all ends that no one could win an argument that Holyfield was overatted.you have guys like Braddock with enough power to drop Louis but then claim not holyfield?lol ....The LEGENDS game can only take it so far...of course unless you actuall think the skill sets of Louis were better than holyfield..which would be ridiculous...really. Holyfield would be a murderous puncher at even 200 pounds in the Louis era,louis wouldn't even be able to k.o half the guys holyfield did as a HW.

I did not say that Holyfield didn't have the power to do that at heavyweight but I doubt he did at cruiser and yes no matter how you look at it Roy Jones is naturally bigger than SRR but hell, I do think SRR the better fighter for sure. I only try to compare fighters head to head if they are of the same weight and size and yes size does matter...... but if we do put Jones against Robinson in the ring together I just cannot see Jones able to knock Robinson out as Ray fought so many big hitters and survived Jones would just be another... I have to go back and watch Graziano vs Robinson to check but I am sure Graziano did manage to land a bomb or two on SRR yet still Ray handled it so if you can take Grazianos best shots and stand then Roy ain't gonna hit any harder than Rocky

[McGoorty]

I'm curious: Those other decades where boxers/boxing were better than today... how far back are we talking? The 40s, the 20s... or can we go even further back?

Hard to say, earlier than the 1910's....... I can say that that far back they were ten times tougher, don't know how the skills of those guys would translate to today but I suspect that put them in todays pillows we call gloves now, and have idiot referees of today who would unfairly break them up the moment they start infighting and also give the only 12 rounds to try and stop the guys today who run like a Mayweather and I doubt they would do well but that would also be totally unfair... why not make todays guys fight with 6 oz gloves with old school refs and make the fights 20 rounds and I reckon they win easily over todays guys..... so much has changed now from a hundred years ago comparisons head to head from a Les Darcy to a guy today is just silly.... all these factors are why I can't tolerate the total lack of knowledge of a poster like Elroy1 who really shouldn't comment about anything except about whats going on today,,,, posters like him DO NOT BELONG IN THE HISTORY SECTION AS THAT TYPE OF POSTER DOESN"T KNOW ANY HISTORY AND ACTUALLY HATES ALL HISTORICAL FIGHTERS... now I got that off my chest I feel better cos I'd rather not reply to that Elroy jerk off anymore

[Elroy1]

Hard to say, earlier than the 1910's....... I can say that that far back they were ten times tougher, don't know how the skills of those guys would translate to today but I suspect that put them in todays pillows we call gloves now, and have idiot referees of today who would unfairly break them up the moment they start infighting and also give the only 12 rounds to try and stop the guys today who run like a Mayweather and I doubt they would do well but that would also be totally unfair... why not make todays guys fight with 6 oz gloves with old school refs and make the fights 20 rounds and I reckon they win easily over todays guys..... so much has changed now from a hundred years ago comparisons head to head from a Les Darcy to a guy today is just silly.... all these factors are why I can't tolerate the total lack of knowledge of a poster like Elroy1 who really shouldn't comment about anything except about whats going on today,,,, posters like him DO NOT BELONG IN THE HISTORY SECTION AS THAT TYPE OF POSTER DOESN"T KNOW ANY HISTORY AND ACTUALLY HATES ALL HISTORICAL FIGHTERS... now I got that off my chest I feel better cos I'd rather not reply to that Elroy jerk off anymore

Hey there Mr. McGoorty..

And while we're at it Ray..

And while we're at it, ATTENTION ALL CASUAL viewers.

Some casuals may be confused here who truly aren't familiar with the history of the sport. And given Ray and McGoorty are representatives of the old time nut bags, it might occur that these gits could be telling the truth.

Sadly, sadly however, it turns out that McGoorty and Ray.. And many many more, TOTALLY neglect the history of the sport..

Most casual viewers today would have no idea who Joe Louis was for example, this guy whom both Ray and McGoorty have gone on record promoting as the best. The epitome of skill, "better than Holyfield".

Take a look at this video of the great Joe Louis. After some pathetic bag work (which in and of itself is enough to immediately dismiss the 2 nutags above), we have some measuring, a light skip reminiscent of an elementary school student at "health hustle", and then at 1:57 we hit the speed bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0yqDswICM

Pay attention to the mighty evolution of skills ladies and gentlemen, the pinnacle of the "modern era" of boxing that no current/recent era fighter could hold a candle to.

Case closed!

You and your ignorant friend Ray are exposed!

[McGoorty]

We know your opinion, keep it! There's no reason to explain anything you don't have the base knowledge of the most basic skills.
If your ever in Florida by all means give me a shout and in one day I can explain things to you that you will never learn in your life time. Especially if you continue to be an "internet warrior" hahahaha.....

Nothings been dismantled junior the ATG comment was to further the point that the "current" era isn't as strong as other times. Keep your panties on Gertrude!

"Where were there skills then"?...............there you go ypou can't see them and that proves what I've said since you got here!!! You know NOTHING

Now go tell mommy you love her so she'll take care of you, jackazz!
Ray

Hey Ray don't invite that dickhead to your place mate, after all he is a very scary guy, he can beat Jack Dempsey dontcha know, he is so good he knows everything and we... well we must be just dumb....... at least in his world. The guy is a complete ratbag, he needs medication and admission into a mental hospital, besides who would ever wanna meet or know someone as arrogant as that dickhead.

[McGoorty]

Hey there Mr. McGoorty..

And while we're at it Ray..

And while we're at it, ATTENTION ALL CASUAL viewers.

Some casuals may be confused here who truly aren't familiar with the history of the sport. And given Ray and McGoorty are representatives of the old time nut bags, it might occur that these gits could be telling the truth.

Sadly, sadly however, it turns out that McGoorty and Ray.. And many many more, TOTALLY neglect the history of the sport..

Most casual viewers today would have no idea who Joe Louis was for example, this guy whom both Ray and McGoorty have gone on record promoting as the best. The epitome of skill, "better than Holyfield".

Take a look at this video of the great Joe Louis. After some pathetic bag work (which in and of itself is enough to immediately dismiss the 2 nutags above), we have some measuring, a light skip reminiscent of an elementary school student at "health hustle", and then at 1:57 we hit the speed bag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0yqDswICM

Pay attention to the mighty evolution of skills ladies and gentlemen, the pinnacle of the "modern era" of boxing that no current/recent era fighter could hold a candle to.

Case closed!

You and your ignorant friend Ray are exposed!

But you know nothing of boxing history, not a jot of it and I never did say Joe Louis was the best heavyweight, I think that is probably Cassius Clay so there you go again, being a total goose.

[Elroy1]

But you know nothing of boxing history, not a jot of it and I never did say Joe Louis was the best heavyweight, I think that is probably Cassius Clay so there you go again, being a total goose.

Joe Louis Cassius Clay what's the difference, neither would even make pro ranks today in reality.

I would wager I know as much about Louis as you do unless you are 100 years old and as for Clay, the fact you might have been there 1st hand makes you LESS objective not more.

I have studied this sport as hard as I have professional subjects, not in a "fan boy" way, in an "evidence based" manner, so don't tell me I don't know its history, in my expereience it's precisely the "historians" who neglect the history of the sport the most!!

But you and Ray can continue the charade if you like, I've said my bit in this thread really.

One more thing...

The guy is a complete ratbag, he needs medication and admission into a mental hospital

^ You have no idea how ironic this statement is LOL

[Bundana]

Hey Ray don't invite that dickhead to your place mate, after all he is a very scary guy, he can beat Jack Dempsey dontcha know, he is so good he knows everything and we... well we must be just dumb....... at least in his world. The guy is a complete ratbag, he needs medication and admission into a mental hospital, besides who would ever wanna meet or know someone as arrogant as that dickhead.

You do realize Elroy is only yanking your (and Ray's) chain, right? He must be laughing his ass off, every time you guys respond to his nonsense!