Who thinks fighters now are better then they were in the past?

Most sports have evolved, so why shouldn't boxing?

I have recently read comments stating that fighters good or average fighter now would beat the great fighters of the past, that they have evolved over time and was just wondering your take on this? better athletes, but I would be a liar if I stated they were tougher. TODYS FIGHTERS ARE MUCH WEAKER, BUT BETTER SKILLED, I men they have had time to emulate and learn the fighters of the past styles.

That was a very good try, but it's like this. All of the advancement in nutrition helps (as does training advancement), BUT nothing takes the place of actually fighting. People today train for 2-3 12 rd fights a year. Back in the day they trained for 8-10 fights a yr with the majority being 15rds. That is an inherit advantage for the old timers. That argument negates the Olympic record argument because the playing fields are not the same. In every craft in the world, the more you do it the better you get. End of that. As for bodies, I'm happy to hear you check that out. And if you think muscles mean shit, then frank Bruno would have been champion of the universe. There was planty ripped, hard ass dude back then. Have you ever seen Srr? Hagler? Arguello? Hank? Joe louis?my new favourite poster.

Pretty fascinating(and by that I mean childish arguments but some insightful posts) debates going on in this thread. Really though it's debatable. I mean people TOTALLY overrate past fighters it's pretty much the "things were so much better back then" syndrome. However, although they didn't have the same tools and knowledge of what we have now, there are just some fighters who would reach the top in any time. I wouldn't argue with you, good fighters are good fighters. Nostalgia isn't what it used to be :) As for overrating the old timers, to a point Ithink. We all have our favourites and long after I am ten toes up I can saywith certainty that some young Mayweather fan will be defending him with his last breath against some cocky 17 yo. I think also the more over the top defences will be as a defence against more denegrating comments. Also rating current fighters is a little difficult because to be an ATG you need to be either the best or as near as dammit of your era and the story hasn't finished on current fighters so who knows what the final chapters will bring?

Pretty fascinating(and by that I mean childish arguments but some insightful posts) debates going on in this thread. Really though it's debatable. I mean people TOTALLY overrate past fighters it's pretty much the "things were so much better back then" syndrome. However, although they didn't have the same tools and knowledge of what we have now, there are just some fighters who would reach the top in any time.

Forget that stuff. If they faught in a time paradox(a.k.a time doesn't exist) where a boxer in the 50-60s faught a boxer of the 90-00s and then we see who will win. They both are top tier fighters, not Buster Douglas vs Sonny Liston. I even stated this in another thread somewhere, I think about Tyson-Ali. Problem is that time does exist and we are all products of our time you and I and boxers. To carry on with the analogy, A marine of today would have little or no chance with the sword against a 12th century samurai simply because he would have no need to have ever developed those skills given his reliance on modern warfare. Whereas a soldier from the 17th century would have a better chance, I mean he would still get decapitated in 30 seconds :) but handling a sword would not be as unfamilier to him. It doesn't mean that pro rata he is a better soldier or worse than the modern day marine. Now moving that along to boxers we have seen in the recent Pac Hatton bout that the Pac team totally autopsied Hatton's style and came up with a game plan. Schmelling did very similar in his 1st fight againt Louis but by relying on old film rather than freezeframing DVD. It must be acknowledged that had he have had the modern day technology he would have gleaned even more information and possibly discovered more flaws to beat a superior fighter. So I'm afraid that a time paradox is a bit of a cop out really.

Apparently YOU are the exact type of person who thinks the present is absolutely supreme and nothing else matters. I expose stupidity for what it is: Stupidity. If you don't like having your idiotic pronouncements picked apart by me then I would suggest you keep your mouth shut until you have something intelligent to say.....So far you haven't. Poet I dont see how anything I said was stupid. Well, besides the samurai comment. The thing you dont understand, is that I just tell it like it is. Im not biased like you. Your OBVIOUSLY biased towards anything from the past. They were great fighters but they're not gods. They're not unbeatable. If its a fighter in the present vs a fighter in the past, you will discredit EVERYTHING about the present and only recognize the past. You dont recognize that some of the past fighters were one dimensional or had simple ass gameplans. You just immediately hang onto the past, not even with a valid reason. The problem with you is. You have absolutely nothing to say about the topic at hand. You ONLY discredit what people say. If it doesn't fall in the lines of what you believe then you call them stupid or put them on that dumbass little list you had in your signature a while back. You just came in here and started the bashing, you didn't state why they wont beat them. You just say "your stupid for thinking this". Just like all your other posts in the History subforum. Majority of the people in this thread and reasonable statements. Hell, I even green K'd wmute for his last post. Why? because it made sense. You on the other hand, come in here with nothing relevant to the topic. Trying to sound smart but in reality only bashing people. -Poet revealed for the stupid and biased fuck that he is.

You don't like using those standards? Well, you don't get to have it both ways. Either the modern fights back then or the old-timer fights today. You don't get to make these things up in a vacuum. It's as idiotic as saying "of course Rommel would beat Lee: Rommel had tanks and machine guns." The sad thing is you're utterly clueless as to how moronic you sound and how rediculous your argument is. Guess what Sunshine? YOU don't get to set the paramaters of the debate. Leave that to you intellectual betters. Poet Your the exact type of person who thinks the past is absolute supreme and nothing else matters. I wont even argue with you because I seen what you do. You pick apart someone's post and degrade them, not explaining your own thoughts just simply commenting on how stupid or dumb someone's opinion is.

I believe that's called "take a potshot then run like fvck". If that's modern "technique" then..... Poet Hahaha, so what? Still wins you a fight.

Knowledge of past and present. Still a bad analagy though. I admit it, I used something too far in the past. Should have used Vietnam--Iraq instead Ok I got you. My point is simply that fighting is a great training for fighting. Fighting is not lifting a weight, relaxing in the ring is hard, and that's the only way to perform to the max. That's what oldtimers have against modern fighters. They fought a lot more, plus even amateurs wore no headgear back then. A lot of today's fighters are great athletes, but on average their skill level is *pathetic*.

The point I was making was a fighter now going back in time would have to fight in the conditions of the time if we are talking say the 1920s. So same day weigh ins, extra rounds, lots more fights against dangerous tough fighters to get in a position to challenge for the one title. No junior weights, in fact no weight between middle and HW if you want to go back a bit further. No video footage to chop down and analyse etc etc. No quick flight and time to aclimitise nice long boat journey. No you fight the samurai with just your sword so to speak. I don't doubt that the great fighters of today would still be great i'm just saying that its not as clear cut as it seems. Also the past fighters moving to present day get all that stuff, the laser night sights so to speak. No, I dont like using those standards. Put a fighter back then and see how they do or put a fighter in the present. Forget that stuff. If they faught in a time paradox(a.k.a time doesn't exist) where a boxer in the 50-60s faught a boxer of the 90-00s and then we see who will win. They both are top tier fighters, not Buster Douglas vs Sonny Liston. I even stated this in another thread somewhere, I think about Tyson-Ali.

Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't serious. A toddler can handle a gun. You cant dodge a bullet, no amount of spartan armor can block a bullet, a 20yr old Marine with an M16A4 will PWN, OWN, Rape and Pillage any and every Spartan. Also, GJC, I understand what you mean. No marine alive or in the past would beat a samurai with just swords. Still, bad analagy on my side. I admit it. The point I was making was a fighter now going back in time would have to fight in the conditions of the time if we are talking say the 1920s. So same day weigh ins, extra rounds, lots more fights against dangerous tough fighters to get in a position to challenge for the one title. No junior weights, in fact no weight between middle and HW if you want to go back a bit further. No video footage to chop down and analyse etc etc. No quick flight and time to aclimitise nice long boat journey. No you fight the samurai with just your sword so to speak. I don't doubt that the great fighters of today would still be great i'm just saying that its not as clear cut as it seems. Also the past fighters moving to present day get all that stuff, the laser night sights so to speak.

How is your point relevant to boxing then? Knowledge of past and present. Still a bad analagy though. I admit it, I used something too far in the past. Should have used Vietnam--Iraq instead

I have recently read comments stating that fighters good or average fighter now would beat the great fighters of the past, that they have evolved over time and was just wondering your take on this? some of the modern fighters like Pac, Mosley, Mayweather, JMM etc would have been good in any era, but the heavyweights are real poor compared to the past though.

Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't serious. A toddler can handle a gun. You cant dodge a bullet, no amount of spartan armor can block a bullet, a 20yr old Marine with an M16A4 will PWN, OWN, Rape and Pillage any and every Spartan. How is your point relevant to boxing then?

I'd pick one of the biker mice from mars to drop a beat down on a thundercat. They didn't have the technology back in the day to breed good quality alien animals.

So... in a fight, would you pick a marine who never saw anything but modern training at age 20, or a Spartan of the same age who was in say 5 real battles on top of whatever form of training was fashionable in Sparta? Are you serious? Please tell me you aren't serious. A toddler can handle a gun. You cant dodge a bullet, no amount of spartan armor can block a bullet, a 20yr old Marine with an M16A4 will PWN, OWN, Rape and Pillage any and every Spartan. Also, GJC, I understand what you mean. No marine alive or in the past would beat a samurai with just swords. Still, bad analagy on my side. I admit it.

lol, nah, if they both used their favored weapons. TheMachine, you will be surprised by how many posts I have seen about guys in the 60s beating guys from now-a-days without trouble. I think you miss my point

Im not saying they beat everyone but its rediculous for people to constantly say people from back then wont get beat by people now-a-days. Its like saying an army of Samurai or Spartans would kill an army of US Marines or Royal Marines(UK). Just rediculous. :nonono: So... in a fight, would you pick a marine who never saw anything but modern training at age 20, or a Spartan of the same age who was in say 5 real battles on top of whatever form of training was fashionable in Sparta?

No but if I was to say I would favour a Samurai over a present day marine if only swords were available for weapons, would you say that is an unreasonable assumption? lol, nah, if they both used their favored weapons. TheMachine, you will be surprised by how many posts I have seen about guys in the 60s beating guys from now-a-days without trouble.