is there any fighter in today's era who....

try explaining to the delivery man, apparently he knows this sport very well, and says that any of today's welterweights would beat the greatest P4P fighter......so he knows the sport well. obviously he also implys that ali would have been beaten by the more conditioned and athletic heavyweights that we have todayYoung people without the perspective of the past, conclude that today's fighters are the best in boxing history. Truth to tell, today's fights and protagonists lack the lustre and drama of a not-so-distant past. The great majority of today's matches seem fairly exciting on paper, but most outcomes don't live-up to fans' expectations. Take Calzaghe vs. Hopkins for example: this match-up promised a hell of a lot more than it actually delivered, which turned out to be a rather lacklustre affair. The problem with today's fighters is that very few exibit any urgency in disposing of their opponents; they're mostly content to place their fate in the hands of judges, then they ***** and moan if they don't get the decision. Consequently, most of today's fights lack the drama of yesteryear.

Your comments are well worth reading Benny. You can always tell a naive boxing fan by their inability to see beyond their own experience of watching live fights. You don't have to be old enough to have seen Benny Leonard or Ray Robinson to understand and respect the brilliance they brought to their craft. Cheers mate! :fing02: Yes, I don't understand it. Certainly that is the case with many fighters from the early nineteen hundreds, but, it is quite wrong in most cases from around the early mid century and after. I don't know how people can watch a guy like Willie Pep and say that todays fighters are more developed....? :ugh: It is simply untrue. He had more tricks up his sleeve than Pernell Whitaker and could also fight like a demon when needed. The majority of those champs from that time have all the tools of any of todays fighters but also have more fighting savvy and skills that come from fighting so much. It is no joke when guys like Hopkins and Toney say they're 'old school' fighters. That is how 'old school' fighters actually fought. They had the defense that came from experience and fighting constantly. They used their shoulders so well and a large amount used all the tricks that only a guy like Hopkins etc uses now. It seems that today that fighters have great training techniques but their actual fighting skills have diminished in great part due to the amateur fighting rules and because of the amount they now fight. So while they may be bigger and even stronger in a sense, it is a strength that is not necessarily what is needed for a fighter. In no way though are todays fighters more skilled, faster, better conditioned or smarter fighters. In any case, I would still bet against most champs today if they were up against a champ from forty years ago. They were tougher, as fast, more skilled and savvy and had more in their overall game than most guys today.

ray leonard?

:lol1: Mate, human evolution takes thousands of years to unfold. :lol1: You really need to go back to your high school biology books mate. Humans evolving into better athletes over a period of 60 years just isn't happening. In fact, I would guarantee that most athletes just thirty years ago in boxing could last longer over and go harder over twelve rounds than most can today. Just go watch a few lightweight fights of thirty years ago and you see what I mean. Fifteen rounds non stop! Very few fighters today can go like that for just twelve rounds let alone fifteen! If you think it's delusional to say the athletes have not evolved from then until now, well, you really need to try and understand exactly what evolution means. It is the actual genes in our bodies making transformations and they most certainly do not take place over a small period of a few decades or more. Training techniques have changed but I would stand by what most older athletes do apart from the obvious techniques that can simply be ruinous, but, the fighters of yesteryear were still better conditioned, fought longer and harder bouts and were generally across the board more skillful. Edit: Oh, I see many people have already said this. It seems I jumped the gun. :fing02: Your comments are well worth reading Benny. You can always tell a naive boxing fan by their inability to see beyond their own experience of watching live fights. You don't have to be old enough to have seen Benny Leonard or Ray Robinson to understand and respect the brilliance they brought to their craft.

Fortunately, the easy answer is the right answer. Easy because I don't have to explain why (or how) any of today's fighters would defeat Robinson. "No" is the right answer simply because it is the truth. In fact, the current crop of fighters are the very worst of any era in boxing. try explaining to the delivery man, apparently he knows this sport very well, and says that any of today's welterweights would beat the greatest P4P fighter......so he knows the sport well. obviously he also implys that ali would have been beaten by the more conditioned and athletic heavyweights that we have today

Fortunately, the easy answer is the right answer. Easy because I don't have to explain why (or how) any of today's fighters would defeat Robinson. "No" is the right answer simply because it is the truth. In fact, the current crop of fighters are the very worst of any era in boxing.

though i don't agree with deliveryman with just about everything,he's right,atheletic evolution happens quicker than,the obvious evolution.

It's called human evolution, which has been documented and proven. Not "opinion". So no, Robinson is not as fast nor as strong as fighters today. Do you think Jim Brown probably the greatest running back to ever live, playing in today's NFL, would even have close to the same numbers he did when playing in the '50s? If you were match-up Brown physically with someone like Tomlinson, I mean, it's not even comparable. For further proof, do you know what the men's 100 meter dash record was in 1950? 10.4 seconds, which is slower than todays Women's record. :lol1: Mate, human evolution takes thousands of years to unfold. :lol1: You really need to go back to your high school biology books mate. Humans evolving into better athletes over a period of 60 years just isn't happening. In fact, I would guarantee that most athletes just thirty years ago in boxing could last longer over and go harder over twelve rounds than most can today. Just go watch a few lightweight fights of thirty years ago and you see what I mean. Fifteen rounds non stop! Very few fighters today can go like that for just twelve rounds let alone fifteen! If you think it's delusional to say the athletes have not evolved from then until now, well, you really need to try and understand exactly what evolution means. It is the actual genes in our bodies making transformations and they most certainly do not take place over a small period of a few decades or more. Training techniques have changed but I would stand by what most older athletes do apart from the obvious techniques that can simply be ruinous, but, the fighters of yesteryear were still better conditioned, fought longer and harder bouts and were generally across the board more skillful. Edit: Oh, I see many people have already said this. It seems I jumped the gun. :fing02:

Fighters today are bigger, faster, stronger, and more technically sound and evolved. It's like saying Wilt Chamberlin would have the same amount of success or even more if he played in the NBA today. Which is retarded. You can only compare Ray Robinson to other fighers that fought in his era. There is so much wrong with this statement that I don't even know where to start. Though, I'll say a few things. :) Firstly, to say that fighters today are more evolved is such complete tripe it really makes me wonder whether the folk who say that have ever actually watched the older guys fight. Fighting is about actually fighting. The old guys used to fight constantly in real fights. They learned defense the hard way, like Toney, Mayweather, Duran etc etc. They learned it by being in the ring non stop and fighting all the time. If you actually took the time to go and watch guys from yesteryear fight you would see the range of skills the majority of the really good guys have out weighs what todays fighters do by quite a lot. How many heavies today do you see beating Ali? How many were fitter, stronger, and faster? What about the others that fought then? Frazier and Foreman? He was peaking in the sixties. That's going before your Chamberlan theory. What about the lightweights of the same time and just after? They would have quite simply dominated the lightweights of today. Going back even further to the forties and fifties you see guys predominantly use what morons today call the 'Mayweather' style of defense which was in use by the majority of good fighters back then. Ezzard Charles was a master. Johnny Famechon, Lionel Rose, Ray Robinson used it well, Pep and most of the in-fighters used it as much as most of todays counter punchers try to use it!...it goes on and on. To say that todays fighters are better is so daft and is due, I guess, to just being able to see the moves better. When you see them in what looks like real life you think "wow they're amazing." Just because you haven't seen much of the older guys fighting or actually looked at how they fought doesn't mean they don't fight well. Todays fighters, if anything, have actually dropped off quite dramatically in terms of fighting skill that it's quite staggering. This is due to not fighting very much. You look at the guys who fought constantly from a young age and they have the most skills. Your Mayweathers and Toneys, Hopkins' and then going a little bit further back guys like Duran, Ortiz, Charles, Robinson, Locche etc they were fitter, stronger, faster and much more skilled. Go back and look at some old footage of as many good fighters as you can get and you'll see after getting past the bad quality that what you think is just simply BS. The older guys were generally all better skilled fighters. It's quite rare you see a fighter today able to go the twelve rounds needed at full pace. Just looking back only thirty or so years you see the heavyweights were able to go fifteen rounds throwing as many punches as most much, much lighterweights do now!!! Please, explain how this is evolution of a better fighter? Go and look at Robinson fight all his available fights and you'll see just how freakin' skilled the guy was. What about Willie Pep? Have you watched anything of his? That guy was just a freak. It's not some old myth either. He was genuinely a freakishly brilliant fighter! He would of had no trouble with anyone from today as would Benny Leonard, Ganz or Hammerin' Hank. Heres a question for you? What about when you have the best trainers of today saying that the fighters of yesterday were all much more skilled than the fighters of today? Ray Arcel and Muhammad Ali both called Benny Leonard the greatest boxer ever. Eddie Futch called Charley Burley the most complete fighter he had ever seen. These guys saw everyone, from yesteryear to today in full and complete action!

I cant see it.

Robinson was the greatest fighter ever. He was 73-1-1 in his first 75 fights, and the guy he lost to (Lamotta) was MUCH bigger than him AND he defeated him 5 out of the 6 times they fought. No one today comes close.

you comparing 2 different sports man, and it shows that you're still new to the sport of boxing. and it's fine you just gotta know what you're talking about before you make posts. i remember you, you also wrote: "Generally speaking, whites are inferior boxers. Gentically blacks are more athletic than whites, and gentically, whites are more intelligent than blacks." you base your opinion on logic that you think fits all the description you wrote you opinion and i disagree big time, as im sure most other posters would after seeing what you wrote. sorry bro, end of convo Oh and by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530 http://library.flawlesslogic.com/iq.htm http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-15point.htm http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=778014 http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

im not gonna re-write what's already written above. i see that it's pointless, and it's a complete waste of my time. you can think whatever you want, cuz quite frankly i dont really care, just as much as you dont about what i think. so lets go our separate ways. i enjoy having a discussion or debate with someone who knows this sport and can provide legit arguements and points which i dont think you can do either. bye Sounds like the talk of a beaten man. What exactly in your previous posts directly addresses my argument? There is no rebuttal, hell there isn't even an argument from your end. All there is, is a bunch fallacious attacks and borderline name-calling. bye.

im not gonna re-write what's already written above. i see that it's pointless, and it's a complete waste of my time. you can think whatever you want, cuz quite frankly i dont really care, just as much as you dont about what i think. so lets go our separate ways. i enjoy having a discussion or debate with someone who knows this sport and can provide legit arguements and points which i dont think you can do either. bye

im just saying cuz it shows in you posts just how well you know it I just edited. Waiting for a legitmate response.

I know the sport very well.im just saying cuz it shows in you posts just how well you know it

your opinion......but you should really get to know the sport first I know the sport very well. And instead of just saying "oh that's your opinion, you don't know boxing", why don't you actually give a rebuttal to the argument I just made? So here it is again: I was using examples to prove that Robinson, if he fought today, would not be seem to be nearly as fast or strong as he was, when he fought in the 40's, which is absolutely true. I never said once, that he would be thrown around like a ragdoll in the ring. All that I'm implying is that, he would not have the same advantages over fighters today than when he had in the 40's. Which would make him a lot more beatable today than when he was back then. Let's hear it.

Perhaps you should use a little logic when analyzing my posts. I wasn't comparing football and track to boxing as a sport. I was using examples to prove that Robinson, if he fought today, would not be seem to be nearly as fast or strong as he was, when he fought in the 40's, which is absolutely true. I never said once, that he would be thrown around like a ragdoll in the ring. All that I'm implying is that, he would not have the same advantages over fighters today than when he had in the 40's. Which would make him a lot more beatable today than when he was back then. your opinion......but you should really get to know the sport first

i already told him that, and he calls it evolution, and compares boxing to football, and track lol :lol1: Perhaps you should use a little logic when analyzing my posts. I wasn't comparing football and track to boxing as a sport. I was using examples to prove that Robinson, if he fought today, would not seem to be nearly as fast or strong as he was, when he fought in the 40's, which is absolutely true. I never said once, that he would be thrown around like a ragdoll in the ring. All that I'm implying is that, he would not have the same advantages over fighters today than when he had in the 40's. Which would make him a lot more beatable today than when he was back then.

Maybe Haglar at middleweight that's about it