heres why comparing past greats to todays is nearly impossible.. MUST READ

[DJR005]

Basically I am summing up the old days vs today : my point in doing this is bc I cant stand wyhen people try to say so and so of today is better than so and so of 30s-70s, I am one of these fans,writers who does this so im not innocent in this but after thnking a lot about it recently heres why I think its hard to compare: now that I think we have fighters nowadays who are unbelievably talented and veruspecial to watch but since they fight in an era where money and egos comw first its on;y hurting their legacy imo, but at least they'll be wealthy but it sucks for us the fans

Old Days vs. Today.

1. 15 rd fights. 1. 12 rd fights

2. 8 weight classes 2. 17 weight classes (very watered down)

3. 1 World champ 3. 4 "world champs" or titles per weight class
per weigh class

4. each fighter would fight 4. Nowadays champs fight 1 or 2 times a year
7 times a year and that's
on the low side.

5. Best always fought best 5. between the promoters and fighters
not wanting to face the best or work
together its impossible to compare to the
glory days

[DJR005]

to futher illustrate my point take alook at this article from myboxingcoach website




How can you objectively rate old time fighters against the modern champs? Longevity, multi-weight championships & standard of opposition are just some of the criteria we read about in the boxing press.

On the face of it an old time fighter like Henry Armstrong, who held three belts at featherweight, lightweight & welterweight might not compare favourably with a modern champion like 5-weight world champion Floyd Mayweather Jnr. Floyd has never lost a fight and hardly lost a round in his whole career, Armstrong lost 21 times. So, is that it decided then? Well let’s look a little closer…..

The main difference between old time champs and modern champs is that old time champs were undisputed and modern champs are only partial champs. When Armstrong was champ, he was the only champ at that weight whereas Mayweather Jnr has never been an undisputed champ at any weight. In fact, in Armstrong’s range, between featherweight and welterweight, since 2000 there have only been 3 undisputed champions (Corey Spinks & Zab Judah at welterweight and Kostya Tszyu at light welterweight). Indeed, considering there are 56 recognised ‘world’ titles, since 2000 there have only been 9 undisputed champs (Lennox Lewis, O’Neill Bell, Roy Jone Jnr, Bernard Hopkins, Jermain Taylor, Winky Wright, Cory Spinks, Zab Judah & Kostya Tszyu). So is Mayweather really a world champ like Armstrong was? The answer is, no.

And if we fans are entitled to ask ‘why are these champs not seeking to be undisputed champs’? the answer might be ‘because there is plenty of money to go around and no need to take risks with your title by fighting another championship level opponent. In fact, today’s fighters will pay millions to avoid fighting rival titles just so they can hold onto their belts or give up the high risk belt completely and keep the other belts. Three notable recent example of this:
***9726;Tyson pays Lewis £4m to step aside so Tyson could fight an ‘easier’ opponent in Holyfield
***9726;Riddock Bowe threw his coveted WBC belt in a bin rather than fight Lewis
***9726;Naseem Hamed spending 2 years simply avoiding Juan Manuel Marquez, despite Marquez being the No. 1 contender for the crown that Hamed held.

But Mayweather fought everyone, and beat all the top guys, right? Well, no, not really. Some fighters were refused fights with Mayweather Jnr unless they agreed to fight above or below their natural weight, others were avoided until they were past their peak and others were just avoided at all costs – most notably, Manny Pacquiao who Mayweather refused to fight on a 50/50 purse split (Manny was the biggest draw in the world at the time) and then, when Manny agreed to take a 40% split, Mayweather refused to fight unless Pacquiao agreed to Olympic-style blood testing up to 2 weeks before the fight and ceded to Mayweather the home location, choice of referee & judges (I won’t even mention the Mayweather camps fear of Antonio Marguerito).

Yes, but fighting through partial champs at 5 weight divisions must be pretty impossible anyways, right? Well not as hard as winning undisputed titles at three weights (which would count as 5 weights these days) and holding them all at the same time, defending his crowns each month against the #1 contender.

OK, but at least Floyd is undefeated. Well, yes, I will concede that Floyd is undefeated in 45 fights with 26 KOs. Poor Henry Armstrong lost 21 times by comparison. However let’s look a little closer: Armstrong fought anywhere, anytime against anyone. Floyd has never fought outside of the USA. Armstrong won 150 fights and 101 of those wins were by KO. Armstrong also drew with the undisputed middleweight champ at the time, Ceferino Garcia, over 15 rounds. Interestingly, Armstrong still holds the record for the most welterweight defences when he managed 18 defences of the undisputed welterweight title in a little over two years (this at a time when light-welters, welters and super-welters all fought for one title as there were only 8 championship weights) and it is strange that in all the time since his reign, no welterweight has gotten close to this figure….. not even Mayweather Jnr

from an article titled: Greatest Boxers – New Kids Vs the Old Guard

by Fran on November 26, 2013

[fighter1234]

No offence but the fuk was the point of making this thread? Everyone already knows this...

[DJR005]

No offence but the fuk was the point of making this thread? Everyone already knows this...

because I must have missed the articles where people say these things, I go to diff websites and read about how boxers of today would dismantle the fighters of olden days so I just wanted to point out a few facts but I didn't know this site already had known this

[soul_survivor]

Look, great fighters from any era, in most cases, would match up well with each other.

Imagine Robinson v Leonard at welterweight, no way is that a blow out for either guy.

So it's not automatically guys from the black and white age are better than latter day fighters.

What I will say is that they had more balls and would often fight the best, multiple times and take big risks by moving up in weight and fighting for legitimate championships...or as legitimate a championship can be. What we have to remember is that boxing pre-1980 didn't always have a single divisional champion, it's a sad myth.

Just read this extract from a great article:

"One can see this confusion right at the start of modern boxing history. Today we look back and consider the transition to be relatively smooth; John L. Sullivan to James J. Corbett to Bob Fitzsimmons. But if we look at reports from the time the picture is far more cloudy. At the time the likes of Peter Maher, Frank Slavin, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, and Fitzsimmons (before beating Corbett) all won bouts for the “world heavyweight championship” and were all backed by respectable organisations and bodies. Who was the champion in 1895… Corbett who held the lineal title? Fitzsimmons who had beaten Maher, who himself had won a version of the heavyweight title when Corbett announced his retirement and gave his blessings to the Maher-O’Donnell winner as his successor? Peter Jackson, who took over the Police Gazette’s claims after beating Frank Slavin (remembering that at the time the Police Gazette was viewed as being able to determine the world champion)? If one were to track down reports of the eventual Fitzsimmons vs Corbett bout you’ll find the newspapers and scribes almost equally divided with regards to who was “the” champion going in… and after Sullivan announced his retirement in 1891 then there were a large number who thought the “champ” was Peter Jackson after he defeated Slavin for Police Gazzette recognition."

[bklynboy]

Look, great fighters from any era, in most cases, would match up well with each other.

Imagine Robinson v Leonard at welterweight, no way is that a blow out for either guy.

So it's not automatically guys from the black and white age are better than latter day fighters.

What I will say is that they had more balls and would often fight the best, multiple times and take big risks by moving up in weight and fighting for legitimate championships...or as legitimate a championship can be. What we have to remember is that boxing pre-1980 didn't always have a single divisional champion, it's a sad myth.

Just read this extract from a great article:

"One can see this confusion right at the start of modern boxing history. Today we look back and consider the transition to be relatively smooth; John L. Sullivan to James J. Corbett to Bob Fitzsimmons. But if we look at reports from the time the picture is far more cloudy. At the time the likes of Peter Maher, Frank Slavin, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, and Fitzsimmons (before beating Corbett) all won bouts for the “world heavyweight championship” and were all backed by respectable organisations and bodies. Who was the champion in 1895… Corbett who held the lineal title? Fitzsimmons who had beaten Maher, who himself had won a version of the heavyweight title when Corbett announced his retirement and gave his blessings to the Maher-O’Donnell winner as his successor? Peter Jackson, who took over the Police Gazette’s claims after beating Frank Slavin (remembering that at the time the Police Gazette was viewed as being able to determine the world champion)? If one were to track down reports of the eventual Fitzsimmons vs Corbett bout you’ll find the newspapers and scribes almost equally divided with regards to who was “the” champion going in… and after Sullivan announced his retirement in 1891 then there were a large number who thought the “champ” was Peter Jackson after he defeated Slavin for Police Gazzette recognition."

Boxing, until 1920 or so, was illegal. So that made it difficult as well. I break up boxing periods into the following three sections. The dates are approximate as there is no clear demarcation.

pre 1920 (illegal, official scorecards, neutral corner)
1920-1980
1980-present (multiple title orders).

1980 is generally when multiple belts became the norm.

[No bueno]

to futher illustrate my point take alook at this article from myboxingcoach website




How can you objectively rate old time fighters against the modern champs? Longevity, multi-weight championships & standard of opposition are just some of the criteria we read about in the boxing press.

On the face of it an old time fighter like Henry Armstrong, who held three belts at featherweight, lightweight & welterweight might not compare favourably with a modern champion like 5-weight world champion Floyd Mayweather Jnr. Floyd has never lost a fight and hardly lost a round in his whole career, Armstrong lost 21 times. So, is that it decided then? Well let’s look a little closer…..

The main difference between old time champs and modern champs is that old time champs were undisputed and modern champs are only partial champs. When Armstrong was champ, he was the only champ at that weight whereas Mayweather Jnr has never been an undisputed champ at any weight. In fact, in Armstrong’s range, between featherweight and welterweight, since 2000 there have only been 3 undisputed champions (Corey Spinks & Zab Judah at welterweight and Kostya Tszyu at light welterweight). Indeed, considering there are 56 recognised ‘world’ titles, since 2000 there have only been 9 undisputed champs (Lennox Lewis, O’Neill Bell, Roy Jone Jnr, Bernard Hopkins, Jermain Taylor, Winky Wright, Cory Spinks, Zab Judah & Kostya Tszyu). So is Mayweather really a world champ like Armstrong was? The answer is, no.

And if we fans are entitled to ask ‘why are these champs not seeking to be undisputed champs’? the answer might be ‘because there is plenty of money to go around and no need to take risks with your title by fighting another championship level opponent. In fact, today’s fighters will pay millions to avoid fighting rival titles just so they can hold onto their belts or give up the high risk belt completely and keep the other belts. Three notable recent example of this:
***9726;Tyson pays Lewis £4m to step aside so Tyson could fight an ‘easier’ opponent in Holyfield
***9726;Riddock Bowe threw his coveted WBC belt in a bin rather than fight Lewis
***9726;Naseem Hamed spending 2 years simply avoiding Juan Manuel Marquez, despite Marquez being the No. 1 contender for the crown that Hamed held.

But Mayweather fought everyone, and beat all the top guys, right? Well, no, not really. Some fighters were refused fights with Mayweather Jnr unless they agreed to fight above or below their natural weight, others were avoided until they were past their peak and others were just avoided at all costs – most notably, Manny Pacquiao who Mayweather refused to fight on a 50/50 purse split (Manny was the biggest draw in the world at the time) and then, when Manny agreed to take a 40% split, Mayweather refused to fight unless Pacquiao agreed to Olympic-style blood testing up to 2 weeks before the fight and ceded to Mayweather the home location, choice of referee & judges (I won’t even mention the Mayweather camps fear of Antonio Marguerito).

Yes, but fighting through partial champs at 5 weight divisions must be pretty impossible anyways, right? Well not as hard as winning undisputed titles at three weights (which would count as 5 weights these days) and holding them all at the same time, defending his crowns each month against the #1 contender.

OK, but at least Floyd is undefeated. Well, yes, I will concede that Floyd is undefeated in 45 fights with 26 KOs. Poor Henry Armstrong lost 21 times by comparison. However let’s look a little closer: Armstrong fought anywhere, anytime against anyone. Floyd has never fought outside of the USA. Armstrong won 150 fights and 101 of those wins were by KO. Armstrong also drew with the undisputed middleweight champ at the time, Ceferino Garcia, over 15 rounds. Interestingly, Armstrong still holds the record for the most welterweight defences when he managed 18 defences of the undisputed welterweight title in a little over two years (this at a time when light-welters, welters and super-welters all fought for one title as there were only 8 championship weights) and it is strange that in all the time since his reign, no welterweight has gotten close to this figure….. not even Mayweather Jnr

from an article titled: Greatest Boxers – New Kids Vs the Old Guard

by Fran on November 26, 2013

This seems like a thinly veiled **** Mayweather thread .

[LoadedWraps]

Great thread and point TS, I also have been waging this war for years. It's why I laugh and roll my eyes and don't bother arguing with people who have RJJ/Floyd/Pacman in the top 10 all time, and I am a huge Floyd fan. They just aren't educated in the history and it's not my job to teach them, it's their own responsiblility for doing their own research.

I completely disagree with soul survivor, even the best modern day champions would easily be reduced to club fighters depending on the era, it's not an absolute, but there is a far greater chance that they would be just another fighter back then than someone great.

[Larry the boss]

comparing old fighters to new fighters is like comparing Wilt Chamberlin to Shaq...or Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds..2 different eras but all were great in their eras period

[Larry the boss]

Why is the focus of this article on Mayweather??