Great boxers of the past, are they really much a better fighter than this era?

[RubenSonny]

For their time they were great. But I think it's extremely ridiculous when people claim that Dempsey could KO either Klitschko in two rounds. A lot of people forget that boxing, much like every on going thing in this world, has been much more developed since it's beginning stages. You know, the Louis', Burley's, Armstrong's, Pep's, Moore's, etc. all were creators, or partly creators of advancement, to better and more efficient techniques that have to be tested and tweaked for further generations. They didn't have the guidance to the boxing knowledge that your average journeymen has access to now.

But it hasn't got more developed at all, there is no fighter today who has superior skills to Pep, theres a select few on the level of Moore or Burley and no one has the power punching technique of a Lewis. You haven't made a valid point you've simple stated that boxers are more developed now and that they have more access to boxing knowledge which is simply not true. You do realise that theres about 10 times less fighters today than there were 60 years ago, and a lot less gyms too and thus a lot less trainers, you don't learn boxing from youtube or being a poster on boxing scene, boxing is at a lowpoint at the moment and its easy to see, the practice of inside fighting and feinting is undeniably close to being archaic techniques.

[straightleft]

The way to determine how great a fighter is by what they did and who they beat, you can say so andso could beat so and so but proof is solid whereas a prediction is not.

As for the bolded Boxing is completely different, the records that are broken are in sports where their is conservative and repetitive movement and your competing against a time or distance which is objective, boxing is absolutely different in that your trying to outpoint an opponent and this can be done with a variety of styles in a very dynamic motions, and its hugely subjective. Comparing athletics to boxing simply doesn't work, how many times have we seen the unathletic fighter beat the more physically gifted one, its such a complex sport with a ridiculous amount of variables, its extremely difficult to break down.

but I believed that was the closest thing we can do to determine if this great fighter of the past is greater than this fighter in this era. Just for example, Floyd is a better fighter all around than Pac but why Pac still greater than him? It's because not only they are in the same era but also they are at the same weight classes. We can actually gauge them to their resume, their common enemies, the fighters they fought and avoided. The same with past great against the greats of their time.

[BG_Knocc_Out]

But it hasn't got more developed at all, there is no fighter today who has superior skills to Pep, theres a select few on the level of Moore or Burley and no one has the power punching technique of a Lewis. You haven't made a valid point you've simple stated that boxers are more developed now and that they have more access to boxing knowledge which is simply not true. You do realise that theres about 10 times less fighters today than there were 60 years ago, and a lot less gyms too and thus a lot less trainers, you don't learn boxing from youtube or being a poster on boxing scene, boxing is at a lowpoint at the moment and its easy to see, the practice of inside fighting and feinting is undeniably close to being archaic techniques.

Um, yes, I believe it has. How can you say that within over a century that boxing has been around that it hasn't developed? That's like saying Baseball and Football haven't either. Watch how pitchers used to pitch back in the day, even when it was large, to today, even though it's certainly not as big today. You can see much more efficient, consistent results between pitchers now compared to back then. Same goes for boxing in general. It's an insult to say boxing hasn't been developed. You give anything time, and it'll improve. The training methods, tricks to convince your muscle memory. You find me a fighter pre-60's that could throw clean, crisp, combinations with the fluidity of a Mayweather, or a fighter, aside from Archie, with the defensive technical prowess of a Whitaker. If you look at the form these guys use, aside from the unconventionality, you can tell a large difference between them and pre-60's. You can also thank technology and further knowledge of the human body since then that makes it possible for today's boxers to be the elite athletes that they are. You're making a bold statement by saying there is "no" fighter today that is as technical as Pep, Moore, and Burley. For their time, I'd say P4P they are the most technical, but given that a lot of what they taught is now common knowledge amongst gyms, even the most advanced techniques of those ages are pretty common nowadays. Yes, I know, nostalgia can be an addiction, and it can sometimes make people stubborn and delusional, but seriously, to say that boxing hasn't developed since the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's is absolutely ludicrous. I see a fairly high percentage of past fighters who wing their shots on average. Yeah, we get the occasional successful guy here and there, but it appeared much more often then. Even the best footwork of their time would be compared as average for ours. Even Burley, with the only footage we have, wings his shots and would be yelled at consistently by modern corner-men. Guys like Burley and Moore were successful due to their mind, and that can't be taught in any era, but techniques sure can, and that can better a fighter ten-fold given development. It's funny, because it doesn't work out in your favor by stating the fact that there are less gyms and fighters as back in the day. With how large the talent pool was, with all the hungry fighters working their way out of the depression and many other obstacles they faced in those days, you would expect to see many Ali, Mayweather, Jones Jr., Leonard, etc -esque fighters. Note that the fighters mentioned were within that past 20-40 years or so where the technical gap is much slimmer than it would be back then, but I'm comparing them to fighters that could have developed in the time between 1900 to the late 1960's.

[Thread Stealer]

Great fighters of the past/present aren't necessarily better or worse, every fighter is different.

As a whole, though, I don't think especially high of the talent level in boxing today compared to previous eras. But fighters like Mayweather & Pacquiao would do well in pretty much any era, I pick them to beat some of the greats of the past and to lose to some of the others.

[straightleft]

Um, yes, I believe it has. How can you say that within over a century that boxing has been around that it hasn't developed? That's like saying Baseball and Football haven't either. Watch how pitchers used to pitch back in the day, even when it was large, to today, even though it's certainly not as big today. You can see much more efficient, consistent results between pitchers now compared to back then. Same goes for boxing in general. It's an insult to say boxing hasn't been developed. You give anything time, and it'll improve. The training methods, tricks to convince your muscle memory. You find me a fighter pre-60's that could throw clean, crisp, combinations with the fluidity of a Mayweather, or a fighter, aside from Archie, with the defensive technical prowess of a Whitaker. If you look at the form these guys use, aside from the unconventionality, you can tell a large difference between them and pre-60's. You can also thank technology and further knowledge of the human body since then that makes it possible for today's boxers to be the elite athletes that they are. You're making a bold statement by saying there is "no" fighter today that is as technical as Pep, Moore, and Burley. For their time, I'd say P4P they are the most technical, but given that a lot of what they taught is now common knowledge amongst gyms, even the most advanced techniques of those ages are pretty common nowadays. Yes, I know, nostalgia can be an addiction, and it can sometimes make people stubborn and delusional, but seriously, to say that boxing hasn't developed since the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's is absolutely ludicrous. I see a fairly high percentage of past fighters who wing their shots on average. Yeah, we get the occasional successful guy here and there, but it appeared much more often then. Even the best footwork of their time would be compared as average for ours. Even Burley, with the only footage we have, wings his shots and would be yelled at consistently by modern corner-men. Guys like Burley and Moore were successful due to their mind, and that can't be taught in any era, but techniques sure can, and that can better a fighter ten-fold given development. It's funny, because it doesn't work out in your favor by stating the fact that there are less gyms and fighters as back in the day. With how large the talent pool was, with all the hungry fighters working their way out of the depression and many other obstacles they faced in those days, you would expect to see many Ali, Mayweather, Jones Jr., Leonard, etc -esque fighters. Note that the fighters mentioned were within that past 20-40 years or so where the technical gap is much slimmer than it would be back then, but I'm comparing them to fighters that could have developed in the time between 1900 to the late 1960's.

Great post indeed! Majory of the boxing fans here fixed the idea that there is only one GOAT and no other than SSR. When you ask them "why?" they will simple tell you he beat a lot of good fighters. Then the first thing will pop out in your mind. The fighters in this era are **** compared to the past? that is what it seems. You think it is possible someone in this era could be the new GOAT by surpassing the achievements of current GOAT? but according to these so called boxing experts here...it's impossible.

[hugh grant]

No they werent greater. In the past there were weak divisions and eras just like now or potentially anytime. Some divisions weaker than others, its just how it is.
But todays fighters are as dedicated and train as hard. You get what you put in. There might have been more similar level ability fighters or pools of talent. But the very best today are as good or better.

Everyone seems to be boxing now. You can learn from books and everything is so accesible.

[Marchegiano]

I dunno I'm a bit of a record *****. This is exactly how I got into older fighters: I'm 24 (now) I mostly watched Tyson to Lennox era until the internet took over. So while the Klitschko's are coming up ( and Ibeabuchi!) I was supplementing the present fights with DL's of old Tyson or Holyfeild you know **** I missed back when you had to buy everything to see it even once. Eventualy I found Rocco. I said to my best friend " **** man that little white ***** hits like Tyson!" It wasn't until after I had appreciated his style and the crouch that I relized he was undefeated. This record sparked the question we all know the answer to. "Were there any others with all KO's and no losses? Had there been a truly perfect run?" Given my falling short for what I thought of as the perfect fighter I started to look for other guys who have a standing record. Quickly I ran into Joe Louis, and the 12 reign, Archie Moore and the KO's, Ray Robinson and the most fights. Andy Bowen and Jack Burke longest fight. I started to noticed that the Golden Age is when people stopped seting records that I thought of as cool. It was simple because I was young, but has stuck with me. Simply put if a present guy held the record for most career ending KO's it'd be his real name for my pseudonym, but all of the present HW have fallen short, and there is no hopful for me to watch and say to myself " I think this guys could go 50-0 with 50 KO's ". I had felt maybe Ike could go 50-0 his own way, but the world will never know. For me it's the ungodly records they left for us to try to beat. Ain't no ****ing 155 going to do what Langford did.

[Las Vegas,]

Back then the best fought the best. How do we know how good the Mayweathers or the Pacquiaos are if they NEVER fight the best?

My grandma says back then even the old fighters got criticized but they all fought eachother. Now she thinks the sport has become a complete joke. Where the fighters only care about the stardom and money instead of leaving a legacy behind. Which is why she's a big fan of De La Hoya. Criticize him all you want but in his biggest fights he fought the best.

[dnjk]

Good post and I agree most of the part what you said but one thing is bothering me. In my opinion, if someone was so great in the past...somewhere along the way someone will be born and possible will be greater than this man but the problem it is almost impossible to prove other than take a cue from others opinion. Which it has many flaws around it. I think the best way is we should look into other sports to determine the greats of the past if someone can be greater than them in this era. In other sports like the Olympic, past great world records were shattered by athletes in this era. If that were possible boxing should be no different regardless of what any reasons.

i agree with you.

[#1Assassin]

"These guys today, they’re bums! Today, their managers look after them too much; they’re all faggots. There ain’t no fighters like there used to be, man."

- Iran "The Blade" Barley


"What’s up with these guys? Have they no pride? Today’s fighters are not as hungry as they used to be. They don’t seem to sacrifice as much as we did. When we fought, it was straightforward, you fought the best, no ducking, no playing games. The only question afterwards was ‘who’s next?’

Some of these guys have had, what, 12 fights? And they are fighting for a title and if they lose that, they can go for another title. I call them pretenders, not contenders. They are an embarrassment to real champions like Ali, Frazier and the guys I fought."

- "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler


"If you don't want to fight then why y'all in boxing?"

- Paul "The Punisher" Williams (speaking to his own generation)



in conclusion todays fighters are protected, and bcuz of that they dont grow. u learn more from your losses than u do your wins, u evolve as a fighter by testing yourself and guys today dont want to do that. guys back in the day fought more and better fighters and became better for it. they had to, there were so many killers around u had to be on top of your game to stay relevant, today only you promoter needs to be on top of his game for a fighter to stay relevant.

and its not just fighting, its training. guys today win a fight then they take 2 months of and go on vacation. back in the day fighter went straight back to the gym and worked on their skills between fights, they didnt sit arund and get fat.


tommy hearns, mike mccallum, mark breland, milton mccrory..

same size, same gym, same time. sparring every ****ing day no matter if they had a fight coming up or not. constantly getting better, those guys knew how to fight to a degree that very few modern fighters do. they were just hungrier and were willing/forced to pay a much higher prise to reach the top and they became better fighters for it.