Old Fighters vs Modern Fighters

im inclined to think the old ones have been lucky to be in an era when it was tougher... the bragging rights in terms of competing in more difficult circumstances belong to them...

So? We are talking if the two groups went head to head. Duran would beat both Pacquiao and Mayweather.

Funny how you select the two worst fighters out of the ones I mentioned. Gomez would have beaten the others too!

Duran wasn't a career WW either. Regardless, if they are fighting there, they are WW's. Duran fought more elite competition than either of the other two though.

Mosley could be dangerous for Hearns. Hearns would outbox him, but Shane is fitter and has the power to knock Hearns out, and he would keep coming and have a strong chance of scoring a late KO Yes, he could be dangerous. I acknowledged that, but the other poster acted as if Mosley was odds on to win.

It had Gomez, Pintor and Zarate yeah, But Izzy-Rafa produced 3 great fights, Juanma was an upcoming champ, Caballero was/is a titlist, and a few years before that Morales and Barrera were titlists there. Yes, but Gomez, Pintor and Zarate are greater than Juanma and Caballero!!

a 36 year old mosley is defienetly a prime mobile mosley isn't it? mosley even now at 38 is fighter top competition, and not just that, men that are 10+ younger than him prime mosley is fast and ferocious and will bomb you, tommy hearns barely had defence, that whole ''keep him at a distance with my jab'' shit would'nt have worked for long No he isn't. If Forrest could flatten Mosley, why wouldn't Hearns. He hit harder and faster.

If Cotto could outbox Mosley, Hearns certainly could. He had too many advantages. Go and watch some of his fights before making such comments! a 36 year old mosley is defienetly a prime mobile mosley isn't it? mosley even now at 38 is fighter top competition, and not just that, men that are 10+ younger than him prime mosley is fast and ferocious and will bomb you, tommy hearns barely had defence, that whole ''keep him at a distance with my jab'' shit would'nt have worked for long

It goes both ways. 122 was a red hot division until Izzy-Rafa declined and Juanma moved up etc and it was great before that with Morales and Barrera. Was it that good ever before that? nope. Wilfredo Gomez?

But you just picked a complete shit fighter compared to those two!!! Middleweight is trash now. I would argue they could be. I don't see any great divide in terms of skill and abilities between Hearns, Leonard, Duran, Curry etc and Mosley, Clottey, Pacquiao, Floyd, Margarito, Williams etc etc Sure the former are for the most part better fighters in regards to achievments but head to head the guys of today would compete. 1. Yes I did pick Pavlik as an example of how shit MW is. It certainly wasn't before! Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, Nunn, Toney, McCallum, Hopkins, Jones etc etc. 2. There is a big divide between those fighters and todays. Pacquaio and Mayweather are the obvious standouts, but these aren't career WWs are they? Floyd is yet to face an elite fighter at the weight and one fight for Pacquiao against top competition does not make him the new SRL! Leonard, Hearns, Duran > Cotto, Margarito , Williams in terms of resume and skill.

Jack Dempsey was a VERY good fighter, but i shudder to think what would have happened to him if Vitali fought him. :boxing: True, but Dempsey was a small HW! Anyway, this thread is about skill not Head-to-Head matchups with much bigger fighters!!

Yes, I'm not disputing that, there were far more fighters even 30 years ago, what I am disputing is boxing haven taken a backward step skillwise, it certainly hasn't. You're missing the point though. Irrespective of how many fighters there were 30 years ago, the average boxer was better. E.g. Is Pavlik the same level as Hagler or Monzon? No! Are the current crop of WWs (arguably the most talent rich division) as good as they were in the 1970s/1980s? No. Are any of the lightweights as good as Duran, Whitaker, Chavez etc etc. No!

I know this topic has been covered before, but it'll be nice to talk about something other than the Pac/May affair.... Disregarding modern training methods and nutrition, how do you compare old fighters to more modern fighters (not sure where the line is drawn - draw your own conclusion!). I personally feel fighters these days are far more one dimensional and lack many of the talents of older guys. E.g. JCC was, primarily, an offensive fighter, yet the guy was old-skool with regard to his defensive abilities, which were very good. They're very underrated and people who've only seen the Taylor I / Whitaker fights would not have witnessed them. "Come forward" fighters these days lack the defence he had. Older fighters had more "tricks" in their arsenal, IMO. I'm sure the greater ring experience had a huge effect though! Hopkins Vs Hagler Lamotta Vs Joe Calzaghe....those would be fights and halfs ;)

yea yea, and barkley dropped hearns, leonard dropped hearns, aload of people dropped hearns, actually alot of people straight knocked out hearns also barkley and leonard do not punch as hard as sugar shane shane in his prime had the feet, he lost to opponents bigger, and i mean actually bigger not just taller If Cotto could outbox Mosley, Hearns certainly could. He had too many advantages. Go and watch some of his fights before making such comments!

Why not? Mosley has struggled with boxers with a great jab, which Tommy certainly had. Also, Forrest dropped Mosley and Hearns punched far harder. Hearns was a magnificent boxer and could punch like a cruiserweight. He had all of the tools! As long as he'd use his physical advantages to stay away from Mosley's straight right, he'd be the favourite. yea yea, and barkley dropped hearns, leonard dropped hearns, aload of people dropped hearns, actually alot of people straight knocked out hearns also barkley and leonard do not punch as hard as sugar shane shane in his prime had the feet, he lost to opponents bigger, and i mean actually bigger not just taller

Jack Dempsey was a VERY good fighter, but i shudder to think what would have happened to him if Vitali fought him. :boxing:

old fighters they had more heart,they had too work hard to even get a title shot instead of these days where titles are just given away. it actually use to mean something to be the no.1 contender,and fighters use to give it their all,not knowing if they would get another shot or even another big payday

tommy hearns would not beat shane mosley, what kind of crack are you smokin? Why not? Mosley has struggled with boxers with a great jab, which Tommy certainly had. Also, Forrest dropped Mosley and Hearns punched far harder. Hearns was a magnificent boxer and could punch like a cruiserweight. He had all of the tools! As long as he'd use his physical advantages to stay away from Mosley's straight right, he'd be the favourite.

Not necessarily true, just because there aren't any notable pros today with a style like Duran's, doesn't mean the whole sport has taken a backward step. Miguel Cotto and Manny Pacquiao are both aggressive fighters with good skill bases and decent defence. Floyd can do it all when he chooses. Bradley puts on pressure combined with excellent headmovement, Winky of a few years ago combined excellent defence with the ability to swap punches at a high workrate, Kostya Tszyu was a power puncher but also a thinker with a good skillbase. That's because there was more fighters each decade you go back, in say the 1920's there were many, many fighters fighting all over the United States, and even the top ones were fighting each other every month or two. You've unwittingly demonstrated my point. You've only named a handful of fighters there, but going back each decade the number of quality fighters increases greatly. When I mentioned "older fighters" I wasn't just thinking of those from the 1920s, but also those from the 1970s.

I think if you matched the old fighters against the fighters of today.....there will be more old fighters winning than losing!!!....Hagler, the former MW king would beat the hell outta today's king of the division, Pavlik......the WW version of Tommy Hearns would beat Shane, Floyd, Cotto, and Clottey in the same year!!!......no top HW from this day and time would beat ANY of those top HW's of the Jack Johnson, or Jack Dempsey eras.....those were some tough SOB's back then.....today's HW's wouldn't stand a chance in those days.....as you can see, I like the old-school more than the new school!!!......:boxing: tommy hearns would not beat shane mosley, what kind of crack are you smokin?