are old school fighters better than present day fighters??

[Barry Halls]

Good posts BennyST.

So what magical event happened in 1960?

Color-tv breakthrough and steroids.
Because apparently the lack of color removes some of the skills involved according to recent discussions over at NSB.

[IronDanHamza]

The most comical thing is people are only hearing what they want to.

They have this idea that all the regular's in here have this ideology that "ALL older fighters are superior solely because they are older"

When asked to show examples of ANYONE saying, or even implying this I get nothing.

My favourite era is the 60's. So, that somehow translates into me thinking all old shool fighters are superior Yet, at the same time Floyd Mayweather is one of my 5 all time favourite fighters. An active fighter


Not only that, but people like Larry are so dense, that they take comments like "Mayweather and Pacquaio woudn't be the best of the best in Hearn's and Leonards WW era" and takes that as people saying "Mayweather and Pacquaio are inferior because they're active!!!!"

It's really sad.

[Barry Halls]

The advancements in "strength and conditioning" would show the largest impact among the heavyweights. This is due to the theory of "athletes getting bigger and stronger" = is more suited if there is no weight limit.

It's interesting that almost none of the droolers (relatively) would even dare to suggest that Wladimir Klitschko is superior to the past greats.
Maybe that should give them a hint as to why that argument is lacking in substance when it comes to boxing.

Not to mention: You could just go back and watch the damn film. It's out there. Then draw your own conclusions from what you see but don't disregard things you know nothing about.

I won't go out and say that "American Gangster" is better than "The Godfather" if i haven't seen the latter.

[IronDanHamza]

The advancements in "strength and conditioning" would show the largest impact among the heavyweights. This is due to the theory of "athletes getting bigger and stronger" = is more suited if there is no weight limit.

It's interesting that almost none of the droolers (relatively) would even dare to suggest that Wladimir Klitschko is superior to the past greats.
Maybe that should give them a hint as to why that argument is lacking in substance when it comes to boxing.

Not to mention: You could just go back and watch the damn film. It's out there. Then draw your own conclusions from what you see but don't disregard things you know nothing about.

I won't go out and say that "American Gangster" is better than "The Godfather" if i haven't seen the latter.

Exactly. That's what get's me.

It's abundantly clear that a lot of the fighters being talked about by these idiots they have not watched. Atleast not excessively.

It's mainly just skimming through Boxrec and forming an opinion. Which is just stupid.

Larry's comments on "Wilfred Gomez was in his prime 10 years into his career?" when trying to discredit Nelson's win over him was obviously a Boxrec job. And the funny part about it was he forgot that his favourite fighter was in his prime 10 years into his career.

The same applies for his "Morales and Barrera aren't ATG's" thread. The guy actually said that Morales' only notable wins are Pacquaio and Barrera I mean, seriously?

And it's the case with a lot of people in NSB. Who are simply ignorant to past era's and form an opinion without even going out there way to watch some fights that are easily accessible.

We never had Youtube when we were younger. Hell, we never had it 15 years ago. I wish we did!

I wasn't born when Harold Johnson was fighting but I gurantee you I can tell you more about him than anyone else on this site. Even the select few on here who were around to see him fight.

It's really not hard to go back and learn about guys before your time. I just can't fathom why people form an opinion and talk is as if they know something they clearly know nothing about. Especially when there's people who do.

And as for your comment on American Gangster and The Godfather. Anyone who claims that American Gangster is better than The Godfather would be outright wrong.

[rorymac]

1. As many have mentioned, NSB sorts make assumptions that the History lot automatically discredit modern fighters.

2. The same NSB sorts get worked up about this whole "head to head" thing. Of course nobody can prove that Mayweather would beat Leonard head to head, and vice versa. When I rank an old fighter above a new one, I'm not trying to say "A WOULD BEAT B H2H NO QUESTION". I'm looking at the relative achievements of their career. For example, did Greb fight more frequently than Mayweather? Yes. Relatively, if not absolutely, tougher competition? Yes.

3. There are 'clues' dotted about boxing history that suggest old-timers have what it takes against the new guys. Think of Foreman-Moorer for example.

4. Experience is so crucial. You learn by doing. The best fighters way back would have 80-150 fights in their career. They could go further in terms of rounds and, despite what people say, keep up a good work rate.

5. Boxing back in the day was objectively more competitive. There was one belt in each division, and far fewer weight classes than there are today. There were more registered boxers blah blah blah. To become a champ in those days really took some doing. You didn't have champs like Kotelnik and Ruiz slipping through the net.

[The Iron Man]

Could we change the thread title to: How long is a piece of string?

[Anthony342]

1. As many have mentioned, NSB sorts make assumptions that the History lot automatically discredit modern fighters.

2. The same NSB sorts get worked up about this whole "head to head" thing. Of course nobody can prove that Mayweather would beat Leonard head to head, and vice versa. When I rank an old fighter above a new one, I'm not trying to say "A WOULD BEAT B H2H NO QUESTION". I'm looking at the relative achievements of their career. For example, did Greb fight more frequently than Mayweather? Yes. Relatively, if not absolutely, tougher competition? Yes.

3. There are 'clues' dotted about boxing history that suggest old-timers have what it takes against the new guys. Think of Foreman-Moorer for example.

4. Experience is so crucial. You learn by doing. The best fighters way back would have 80-150 fights in their career. They could go further in terms of rounds and, despite what people say, keep up a good work rate.

5. Boxing back in the day was objectively more competitive. There was one belt in each division, and far fewer weight classes than there are today. There were more registered boxers blah blah blah. To become a champ in those days really took some doing. You didn't have champs like Kotelnik and Ruiz slipping through the net.

That last one is what makes me prefer the earlier days of boxing more than the modern era, because it was easier to tell who the best fighter in each weight class was. I can't stand protected paper alphabet champions. Either fight for all the major belts or fight the top contender to win the Ring title belt or why even bother being a boxer? The purpose of any fighter's career should be to beat the best and become the champ. Most guys these days don't seem to have that same passion and are just in it for the money, at least most American fighters I've seen. Andre Ward, maybe someone like a Tim Bradley might be exceptions. I stick with the true greats and the exciting warriors and I couldn't care less about the rest.