Past Fighters

[SCtrojansbaby]

Originally Posted by Anthony342

I mean, who now is considered great? Mayweather, Pacquiao, maybe Marquez, Cotto, Mosley?

How about Hopkins, Wonjongjam, Morales, Calderon, Donaire, Martinez?

Years ago, you could rattle off so many names like Holyfield, Tyson, De La Hoya, Whitaker, Jones, Lewis, Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Leonard and so on.

You just named fighters who's career's have spanned over 50 years. Pick a single date in history and there are just as many active fighters considered great on that date as their are on October 19th 2012.

[raf727]

Originally Posted by Capaedia

We only remember the best 'old school fighters'.

This is a long period of time, so obviously there are going to be a larger quantity of great fighters over a span of say, 90 years, than there are going to be fighting in the present.

Therefore it's fully possible, maybe likely, that the best talents are going to be one of these men that we still remember, not one fighting today. Not because of a bias towards old-school fighters.

It's just simple math.

Again, we don't remember the no-hopers. They have always existed and always will. And very seldom will one of them be remembered. In fact, I can only think of one. Joe Grim. That's solely because of all the dudes he fought and didn't get KO'd.

^I copied this from when I posted it in another thread. Sue me

I am almost positive Grim was KO'd a couple times my man.

[Anthony342]

Originally Posted by SCtrojansbaby

How about Hopkins, Wonjongjam, Morales, Calderon, Donaire, Martinez?



You just named fighters who's career's have spanned over 50 years. Pick a single date in history and there are just as many active fighters considered great on that date as their are on October 19th 2012.

Okay then, if that's true, what's your answer to the topic question of why fighters from the past are considered better or more revered than ones from today? And do you think they were more skilled?

[raf727]

Also remember though that the level of competition was most likely higher back in the days due to the fact that in the 1920s there was double the amount of pro boxers licensed in NYC than there are in the entire world today.

I read an article found in someones signature on here.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Originally Posted by Anthony342

Okay then, if that's true, what's your answer to the topic question of why fighters from the past are considered better or more revered than ones from today? And do you think they were more skilled?

The old guys like Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong who retired before 99% of this board was born are more revered because every fighter sounds amazing when you only read about them and here stories from your grandfather as opposed to actually watching them fight.

I also think that for whatever reason boxing fans just have trouble coming to terms that athletes have evolved over time.

[Anthony342]

But there's film of these guys, so since then others have seen them fight. And so you're saying then that today's boxers are better than those of yesteryear?

[studentofthegam]

I do believe the new generation (2000's) gets a really bad rap. The past ten years Ive seen a lot of awesome fights and fighters. Its human I guess for a person to eat exaggerations and lies until they taste like a porter house. These are specific things that frustrate me with fight fans when comparing the old and new.
1. Grebs sparring session is no better than the goofy **** Chavez Jr does in some of his old training vids. Laugh it up at Jr and make excuses for Greb.
2. Hagler-Hearns was very exciting and entertaining while it lasted but it was a fukin mess of a fight that had all the appeal of the UFC in the early nineties. Just watch it yourself. Its trash to me. Two of the most skilled boxers ever having a bar fight. Pacquiao-Morales 1 is a quality action fight from two greats.
3. Joe Louis. Great fighter but very beatable by more than a few fighters since his reign. Lenox would absolutely pepper him. Im not even a fan of his.
4. "We have to consider the change in training and diet" No the fuk we dont. You train and you fight. Mufukas been having two arms and two legs since history has been recorded. Vegetables, Protein, sparring, running and weights have been available. Even a drunken boxer in 1920 knew vodka and pall mall's wasnt good for camp.
5. "Fighters today arent as tough" No fool. The problem is that no one should fight 20 or 30 damn rounds in summer's heat. Its dumb as hell and boxing decided to fix it.
6. "Well they fought 1.....2 hundred fights, these fighters couldnt do that." Is it me or does it seem better for a fighters health and pockets to have full recovery and some kind of build up to a fight? There is a pattern. Marciano, Ali, Holyfield, SRR, Tyson, Cinderella Man and many more all went damn broke. May it be from there own vices or snake promotions, the point is get your money and keep your health.
7. "These fighters are spoiled and arrogant" Uh umm. Does Ray Robinson ring a bell. Many close to him say he was a ***** to negotiate with. Verdict: His ass thoroughly kiss for the next 100 years by the same people that hate Mayweather, De la Hoya and Broner.
8. Last but not least is this notion that old fighters were "fine upstanding gentlemen" outside the ring. Nope. Womanizers, felons, wife beaters, drunks, dope heads, hot heads and some even murderers. Very few choir boys. Just like today.

[Japanese Boxing]

Originally Posted by Anthony342

I've only been watching for about 20 years so what I've read and heard from journalists and analysts and even on local radio is that there's a loss of technique, nobody bobs and weaves or parrys, etc. or few do and there were better trainers in the old days that passed on their teachings to other fighters who then passed them down themselves, which seems to be less common now. So this probably has something to do with it. I mean, we only remember the greats, but there were so many more years ago then now. I mean, who now is considered great? Mayweather, Pacquiao, maybe Marquez, Cotto, Mosley?

Years ago, you could rattle off so many names like Holyfield, Tyson, De La Hoya, Whitaker, Jones, Lewis, Hagler, Hearns, Duran, Leonard and so on. These type of skilled and exciting fighters seem to be fewer and further between and the few out there don't get as much TV airtime as they would've 20 years ago. Now, it's pretty much whatever few guys HBO or Showtime decides to show or ESPN 2.

Parries are almost dead in current boxing...

I'm bringing em back!

[kendom]

Originally Posted by SCtrojansbaby

The old guys like Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong who retired before 99% of this board was born are more revered because every fighter sounds amazing when you only read about them and here stories from your grandfather as opposed to actually watching them fight.

I also think that for whatever reason boxing fans just have trouble coming to terms that athletes have evolved over time.

But we have footage of Robinson and Armstrong and people stil rate this fighters as some of the best in history, its not like we're going by newspaper accounts. It's plain as day on film that Robinson had brutal two- handed power, boxing skill and great athletic ability, and we can SEE on film that Armstrong was a master of the bob and weave and was one of if not the greatest inside fighter of all time.

[Japanese Boxing]

I think it's two completely different worlds. In the older fights guys didn't have months to prepare for fights (at least not a lot) so guys were more fighters, and they had to be more well rounded. They didn't make entire training camps around their opponents. Being smarter in the ring meant more than being smarter in the gym.

But this topic is so overdone.... I personally think the guys from the past would be competitive today and viceversa.