Great boxers of the past, are they really much a better fighter than this era?

Apples and Oranges? That's all you can say when I made an extremely valid point? I say that because Baseball is absolutely different to boxing the movements used are relatively conservative thus making it easier to improve, and it doesn't have the same creativity that boxing does. The aims of each sport are completely different, being athletic in baseball means a lot more than it does boxing so I will stick to my statement of Apples 'n' Oranges. No, Louis and Robinson had better PLACEMENT with their punches, but their fluidity with there punches is nowhere near the level of the standards of today's fights. Of course there are less great fighters for our era, I already touched on that, but average fighters of today would take out the average fighters of then. Not that I agree but having better placement with their punches doesn't help your point. Whats your basis for this? What fighters would you be referring to? I think one thing you're getting terribly confused with is the difference between the fighter themselves and the level of their technique for their time period. Let's say Pep grew up and fought in this era; he'd be much better now than he would be back then, I guarantee it. Given the fact that there are less gyms and fighters nowadays makes a good argument for the fact that it's become "survival of the fittest". Only the best of the best own gyms now (unless it's boxercise) and train fighters. And I failed? Want me to include some names? Whitaker, Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Mayweather, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Lopez, Jones Jr., Pacquiao, Sanchez, Toney, etc. Notice I mention a wide array of fighters, not just defensive, but they have great offensive technical prowess as well. I decided not to include 60's fighters either (prime and relevancy anyway), just fighters in the past 30 years basically. The wild card gym one of the most respected gyms and considered one of the best today does not teach any inside fighting (same with Steward) at all and very little defense (especially defensive footwork), Roach couldn't carry Arcels jockstrap. The only "survival of the fittest" going on is because of the decreasing popularity of boxing, economics plays a much more important factor in a gyms success than quality. I was only asking you to mention fighters around today and none of those you mentioned are on Peps skill level and only a select few are on the level of a Moore or Burley. Getting all politically correct on me? You know what I mean, don't play stupid, the term P4P is almost universal, unless even your terminology is stuck in the past in the spot as your nostalgia. In this case, since you're taking the easy route in avoiding my statement to make an insult, if P4P could relate to technique, that's what I was implying, so thank you sir. I wasn't trying to be offensive it doesn't make sense to me, I only use it as to compare weight thus its called lb for lb and its universally used for that not just boxing. There's plenty of fighters that feint today, are you kidding me? It's not a "lost art", almost every gym I've been to heavily enforces it. The thing is, fighters nowadays don't swat at punches as much as they used to. They use as little defensive movement as possible with their hands for efficiency. And infighters aren't very present because the leniency of hugging and holding nowadays. There's been more holding and hugging as a tactic than there ever was. Every time a fighter gets close, all you have to do is swing your arm over them and, done, nullified. Who are they? I can only think of Hopkins and Mayweather probably a few more, but its much less prominent than it used to be. I disagree with the rest but I don't think either of us can bother to go to the prove the other wrong, so lets just agree to disagree on that part? On the subject of infighting there are a few fighters who still use it successfully without ref interference so it can be done, and hugging and holding has always been present, though your point is certainly valid in Europe were infighting is completely absent since the refs hate it. I'll agree P4P (don't get technical on me for that) the development peaked in the 40's and 50's, because again, we have many depression era people working out of their struggle. But think of who owns gyms nowadays? Those fighters back then are the ones in charge of corners and the behind the scenes development of fighters. And the ones that aren't alive certainly have pupils. :thinking: so we are in fact in agreement? I'm getting confused. Pep did it pretty often, in the only footage we have of Burley, he sure as sh1t did it. Even Robinson would do it pretty often, although his best work he did was technical and perfect, there were plenty of spots where he'd look sloppy, especially on the inside, he tended to load up with uppercuts to the body quite a lot if he was on the inside leaving one side of his face open while he was loading up. The success rate nowadays is extremely low. Winging your shots is an extreme no-no, every trainer will tell you that. Wide swings is something you just can't justify in boxing, success or not, that's bad technique. Keep in mind that most of the footage of Robinson is past prime, I don't care about it being a no-no I care about it being effective and if its effective for whoever I don't care, I don't buy into the mantra that is "textbook" or "technical". You serious? Back then had better footwork? Sure you can mention some names, as can I, but the average fighter back then was notably flat-footed. Fighters like Judah, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Cotto, Donaire, Jones, Khan, Dirrell, etc all have notable footwork. And those are only fighters in the past 2-3 years, there's a WIDE array of great footwork out there. I think because back then, because it was still developing, all fighters aimed for the similar skillset and unconventionality wasn't to common. A lot of what happens nowadays is that styles are so vast that any fighter can make another look stupid and amateurish based on a small little flaw. Pac and Khan (in the Maidana fight he literally ran away) can't fight off the back foot, something most of the old timers could do. Most of those fighters just aren't up to par in terms of footwork with the fighters I named, seriously the lack of good footwork these days is embarrassing. This debate isn't about how many more fighters back in the day were great in comparison to now, my debate was that basically average fighters of today could beat the average fighters of then. You have no basis for this, naturally having a much bigger pool of fighters will make the generally talent greater, the fact that none of the divisions are particularly deep in a historically respect with some of them at the very worst, says a lot about the state of boxing today. Also the lack of the best fighting the best has been apparent in every era but never so much as now, also the number of weight-classes dilutes the talent a lot more than it used to. Wow cudos to you and your argument though I do disagree, you made good points and countered my argument well, my brain hasn't been this stimulated in nsb before.

BG_Knocc_Out gotta go now but I will reply tomorrow.

You really get into a big rabbit hole when comparing the eras

. Apples 'n' oranges. Joe Louis and Ray Robinson threw better combos than Mayweather but that doesn't mean anything. Pep had the defensive prowess of a Whitaker and they are the best of the best and one of a kind, the example of Whitaker or Mayweather doesnt conflict with my claims, ofcourse there are some great fighters today but there are considerably less than before. I said that there was noone on the skill level of Pep and a select few on the level of Moore and Burley, and you've faiiled to name anyone to dispute my claim. P4P isn't based on time its based on weight so that doesn't make any sense. How many good infighters are there today? There is only a handful, Its pretty much a lost art but you just ignored that when I brang up that point. How many fighters feint today? Again, only a handful. Boxing reached its peak in the 40s/50s in terms of development my point is that it hasnt developed since then, since you were naming fighters around that era, and it has in fact regressed somewhat. Which fighters of the past are you referring to wing their shots? And so what if they do you can still be successful today with that. Give me examples, the footwork back in the 40s and 50s was generally far greater than today, just look at guys like Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe (there is no fighter today with better footwork than him, if you dispute this tell me who), Holman Williams, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson, Archie Moore, Billy Conn, Lloyd Marshall, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, Kid Gavilan, Panama Al Brown would all have excellent footwork in todays era. Again name some fighters today with better skillsets than them, you won't get very far. There are more great fighters from the 40s/50s then there are today. Since the 90s talent has got considerably worse because the sport was handled **** then to now and we are feeling the effects today. Apples and Oranges? That's all you can say when I made an extremely valid point? No, Louis and Robinson had better PLACEMENT with their punches, but their fluidity with there punches is nowhere near the level of the standards of today's fights. Of course there are less great fighters for our era, I already touched on that, but average fighters of today would take out the average fighters of then. I think one thing you're getting terribly confused with is the difference between the fighter themselves and the level of their technique for their time period. Let's say Pep grew up and fought in this era; he'd be much better now than he would be back then, I guarantee it. Given the fact that there are less gyms and fighters nowadays makes a good argument for the fact that it's become "survival of the fittest". Only the best of the best own gyms now (unless it's boxercise) and train fighters. And I failed? Want me to include some names? Whitaker, Duran, Leonard, Hagler, Mayweather, Holmes, Tyson, Lewis, Lopez, Jones Jr., Pacquiao, Sanchez, Toney, etc. Notice I mention a wide array of fighters, not just defensive, but they have great offensive technical prowess as well. I decided not to include 60's fighters either (prime and relevancy anyway), just fighters in the past 30 years basically. Getting all politically correct on me? You know what I mean, don't play stupid, the term P4P is almost universal, unless even your terminology is stuck in the past in the spot as your nostalgia. In this case, since you're taking the easy route in avoiding my statement to make an insult, if P4P could relate to technique, that's what I was implying, so thank you sir. There's plenty of fighters that feint today, are you kidding me? It's not a "lost art", almost every gym I've been to heavily enforces it. The thing is, fighters nowadays don't swat at punches as much as they used to. They use as little defensive movement as possible with their hands for efficiency. And infighters aren't very present because the leniency of hugging and holding nowadays. There's been more holding and hugging as a tactic than there ever was. Every time a fighter gets close, all you have to do is swing your arm over them and, done, nullified. I'll agree P4P (don't get technical on me for that) the development peaked in the 40's and 50's, because again, we have many depression era people working out of their struggle. But think of who owns gyms nowadays? Those fighters back then are the ones in charge of corners and the behind the scenes development of fighters. And the ones that aren't alive certainly have pupils. Pep did it pretty often, in the only footage we have of Burley, he sure as sh1t did it. Even Robinson would do it pretty often, although his best work he did was technical and perfect, there were plenty of spots where he'd look sloppy, especially on the inside, he tended to load up with uppercuts to the body quite a lot if he was on the inside leaving one side of his face open while he was loading up. The success rate nowadays is extremely low. Winging your shots is an extreme no-no, every trainer will tell you that. Wide swings is something you just can't justify in boxing, success or not, that's bad technique. You serious? Back then had better footwork? Sure you can mention some names, as can I, but the average fighter back then was notably flat-footed. Fighters like Judah, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Cotto, Donaire, Jones, Khan, Dirrell, etc all have notable footwork. And those are only fighters in the past 2-3 years, there's a WIDE array of great footwork out there. I think because back then, because it was still developing, all fighters aimed for the similar skillset and unconventionality wasn't to common. A lot of what happens nowadays is that styles are so vast that any fighter can make another look stupid and amateurish based on a small little flaw. This debate isn't about how many more fighters back in the day were great in comparison to now, my debate was that basically average fighters of today could beat the average fighters of then.

unfortunately money has ruined alot of sports not only boxing and it has turned them into businesses. after watching bradley and alexander fight im pretty sure the fighters of the past are much better than the ones we have today. even pacquaio and mayweather dont wanna fight anyone Boxing has always been a business, and money has always affected it. In the past, especially the 1950s, there was the huge Mafia/Jim Norris/IBC involvement. Heavyweight champions were well-paid, so most of them pre-Louis didn't defend their titles often. They got paid really well for exhibitions so they did those instead. A lot of fighters, particularly black ones, were too high-risk/low-reward so they didn't get title shots or took forever to get one (Moore, Charles, Black Murderers Row). The main difference regarding money is that fighters fought more often before because they had to in order to make money. They didn't have a nice HBO contract that paid them big dollars to fight soft touches.

unfortunately money has ruined alot of sports not only boxing and it has turned them into businesses. after watching bradley and alexander fight im pretty sure the fighters of the past are much better than the ones we have today. even pacquaio and mayweather dont wanna fight anyone

not to mention the talent pool for boxing today is sooo much smaller than it used to be

Um, yes, I believe it has. How can you say that within over a century that boxing has been around that it hasn't developed? That's like saying Baseball and Football haven't either. Watch how pitchers used to pitch back in the day, even when it was large, to today, even though it's certainly not as big today. You can see much more efficient, consistent results between pitchers now compared to back then. Same goes for boxing in general. Apples 'n' oranges. It's an insult to say boxing hasn't been developed. You give anything time, and it'll improve. The training methods, tricks to convince your muscle memory. You find me a fighter pre-60's that could throw clean, crisp, combinations with the fluidity of a Mayweather, or a fighter, aside from Archie, with the defensive technical prowess of a Whitaker. Joe Louis and Ray Robinson threw better combos than Mayweather but that doesn't mean anything. Pep had the defensive prowess of a Whitaker and they are the best of the best and one of a kind, the example of Whitaker or Mayweather doesnt conflict with my claims, ofcourse there are some great fighters today but there are considerably less than before. You're making a bold statement by saying there is "no" fighter today that is as technical as Pep, Moore, and Burley. I said that there was noone on the skill level of Pep and a select few on the level of Moore and Burley, and you've faiiled to name anyone to dispute my claim. For their time, I'd say P4P they are the most technical P4P isn't based on time its based on weight so that doesn't make any sense. but given that a lot of what they taught is now common knowledge amongst gyms, even the most advanced techniques of those ages are pretty common nowadays. How many good infighters are there today? There is only a handful, Its pretty much a lost art but you just ignored that when I brang up that point. How many fighters feint today? Again, only a handful. Yes, I know, nostalgia can be an addiction, and it can sometimes make people stubborn and delusional, but seriously, to say that boxing hasn't developed since the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's is absolutely ludicrous. Boxing reached its peak in the 40s/50s in terms of development my point is that it hasnt developed since then, since you were naming fighters around that era, and it has in fact regressed somewhat. I see a fairly high percentage of past fighters who wing their shots on average. Yeah, we get the occasional successful guy here and there, but it appeared much more often then. Which fighters of the past are you referring to wing their shots? And so what if they do you can still be successful today with that. Even the best footwork of their time would be compared as average for ours. Give me examples, the footwork back in the 40s and 50s was generally far greater than today, just look at guys like Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe (there is no fighter today with better footwork than him, if you dispute this tell me who), Holman Williams, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson, Archie Moore, Billy Conn, Lloyd Marshall, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, Kid Gavilan, Panama Al Brown would all have excellent footwork in todays era. Even Burley, with the only footage we have, wings his shots and would be yelled at consistently by modern corner-men. Guys like Burley and Moore were successful due to their mind, and that can't be taught in any era, but techniques sure can, and that can better a fighter ten-fold given development. Again name some fighters today with better skillsets than them, you won't get very far. It's funny, because it doesn't work out in your favor by stating the fact that there are less gyms and fighters as back in the day. With how large the talent pool was, with all the hungry fighters working their way out of the depression and many other obstacles they faced in those days, you would expect to see many Ali, Mayweather, Jones Jr., Leonard, etc -esque fighters. There are more great fighters from the 40s/50s then there are today. Note that the fighters mentioned were within that past 20-40 years or so where the technical gap is much slimmer than it would be back then, but I'm comparing them to fighters that could have developed in the time between 1900 to the late 1960's. Since the 90s talent has got considerably worse because the sport was handled **** then to now and we are feeling the effects today.

I think the adage is in the old days they fought more. They spent more time actually fighting. Whereas today they spend more time actually training, so they probably know the art more but just dont use it as much, not competing as much to use their knowledge. Someone like Floyd for instance. I bet he spends his whole life in the gym with no fight at the end of it.

"These guys today, they’re bums! Today, their managers look after them too much; they’re all faggots. There ain’t no fighters like there used to be, man." - Iran "The Blade" Barley "What’s up with these guys? Have they no pride? Today’s fighters are not as hungry as they used to be. They don’t seem to sacrifice as much as we did. When we fought, it was straightforward, you fought the best, no ducking, no playing games. The only question afterwards was ‘who’s next?’ Some of these guys have had, what, 12 fights? And they are fighting for a title and if they lose that, they can go for another title. I call them pretenders, not contenders. They are an embarrassment to real champions like Ali, Frazier and the guys I fought." - "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler "If you don't want to fight then why y'all in boxing?" - Paul "The Punisher" Williams (speaking to his own generation) in conclusion todays fighters are protected, and bcuz of that they dont grow. u learn more from your losses than u do your wins, u evolve as a fighter by testing yourself and guys today dont want to do that. guys back in the day fought more and better fighters and became better for it. they had to, there were so many killers around u had to be on top of your game to stay relevant, today only you promoter needs to be on top of his game for a fighter to stay relevant. and its not just fighting, its training. guys today win a fight then they take 2 months of and go on vacation. back in the day fighter went straight back to the gym and worked on their skills between fights, they didnt sit arund and get fat. tommy hearns, mike mccallum, mark breland, milton mccrory.. same size, same gym, same time. sparring every fukking day no matter if they had a fight coming up or not. constantly getting better, those guys knew how to fight to a degree that very few modern fighters do. they were just hungrier and were willing/forced to pay a much higher prise to reach the top and they became better fighters for it. Good post and you got a point there!

"These guys today, they’re bums! Today, their managers look after them too much; they’re all faggots. There ain’t no fighters like there used to be, man." - Iran "The Blade" Barley "What’s up with these guys? Have they no pride? Today’s fighters are not as hungry as they used to be. They don’t seem to sacrifice as much as we did. When we fought, it was straightforward, you fought the best, no ducking, no playing games. The only question afterwards was ‘who’s next?’ Some of these guys have had, what, 12 fights? And they are fighting for a title and if they lose that, they can go for another title. I call them pretenders, not contenders. They are an embarrassment to real champions like Ali, Frazier and the guys I fought." - "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler "If you don't want to fight then why y'all in boxing?" - Paul "The Punisher" Williams (speaking to his own generation) in conclusion todays fighters are protected, and bcuz of that they dont grow. u learn more from your losses than u do your wins, u evolve as a fighter by testing yourself and guys today dont want to do that. guys back in the day fought more and better fighters and became better for it. they had to, there were so many killers around u had to be on top of your game to stay relevant, today only you promoter needs to be on top of his game for a fighter to stay relevant. and its not just fighting, its training. guys today win a fight then they take 2 months of and go on vacation. back in the day fighter went straight back to the gym and worked on their skills between fights, they didnt sit arund and get fat. tommy hearns, mike mccallum, mark breland, milton mccrory.. same size, same gym, same time. sparring every fukking day no matter if they had a fight coming up or not. constantly getting better, those guys knew how to fight to a degree that very few modern fighters do. they were just hungrier and were willing/forced to pay a much higher prise to reach the top and they became better fighters for it.

:kiss:Good post and I agree most of the part what you said but one thing is bothering me. In my opinion, if someone was so great in the past...somewhere along the way someone will be born and possible will be greater than this man but the problem it is almost impossible to prove other than take a cue from others opinion. Which it has many flaws around it. I think the best way is we should look into other sports to determine the greats of the past if someone can be greater than them in this era. In other sports like the Olympic, past great world records were shattered by athletes in this era. If that were possible boxing should be no different regardless of what any reasons. i agree with you.:kiss:

Back then the best fought the best. How do we know how good the Mayweathers or the Pacquiaos are if they NEVER fight the best? My grandma says back then even the old fighters got criticized but they all fought eachother. Now she thinks the sport has become a complete joke. Where the fighters only care about the stardom and money instead of leaving a legacy behind. Which is why she's a big fan of De La Hoya. Criticize him all you want but in his biggest fights he fought the best.

No they werent greater. In the past there were weak divisions and eras just like now or potentially anytime. Some divisions weaker than others, its just how it is. But todays fighters are as dedicated and train as hard. You get what you put in. There might have been more similar level ability fighters or pools of talent. But the very best today are as good or better. Everyone seems to be boxing now. You can learn from books and everything is so accesible.

Um, yes, I believe it has. How can you say that within over a century that boxing has been around that it hasn't developed? That's like saying Baseball and Football haven't either. Watch how pitchers used to pitch back in the day, even when it was large, to today, even though it's certainly not as big today. You can see much more efficient, consistent results between pitchers now compared to back then. Same goes for boxing in general. It's an insult to say boxing hasn't been developed. You give anything time, and it'll improve. The training methods, tricks to convince your muscle memory. You find me a fighter pre-60's that could throw clean, crisp, combinations with the fluidity of a Mayweather, or a fighter, aside from Archie, with the defensive technical prowess of a Whitaker. If you look at the form these guys use, aside from the unconventionality, you can tell a large difference between them and pre-60's. You can also thank technology and further knowledge of the human body since then that makes it possible for today's boxers to be the elite athletes that they are. You're making a bold statement by saying there is "no" fighter today that is as technical as Pep, Moore, and Burley. For their time, I'd say P4P they are the most technical, but given that a lot of what they taught is now common knowledge amongst gyms, even the most advanced techniques of those ages are pretty common nowadays. Yes, I know, nostalgia can be an addiction, and it can sometimes make people stubborn and delusional, but seriously, to say that boxing hasn't developed since the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's is absolutely ludicrous. I see a fairly high percentage of past fighters who wing their shots on average. Yeah, we get the occasional successful guy here and there, but it appeared much more often then. Even the best footwork of their time would be compared as average for ours. Even Burley, with the only footage we have, wings his shots and would be yelled at consistently by modern corner-men. Guys like Burley and Moore were successful due to their mind, and that can't be taught in any era, but techniques sure can, and that can better a fighter ten-fold given development. It's funny, because it doesn't work out in your favor by stating the fact that there are less gyms and fighters as back in the day. With how large the talent pool was, with all the hungry fighters working their way out of the depression and many other obstacles they faced in those days, you would expect to see many Ali, Mayweather, Jones Jr., Leonard, etc -esque fighters. Note that the fighters mentioned were within that past 20-40 years or so where the technical gap is much slimmer than it would be back then, but I'm comparing them to fighters that could have developed in the time between 1900 to the late 1960's. Great post indeed! Majory of the boxing fans here fixed the idea that there is only one GOAT and no other than SSR. When you ask them "why?" they will simple tell you he beat a lot of good fighters. Then the first thing will pop out in your mind. The fighters in this era are sh!t compared to the past? that is what it seems. You think it is possible someone in this era could be the new GOAT by surpassing the achievements of current GOAT? but according to these so called boxing experts here...it's impossible.

Great fighters of the past/present aren't necessarily better or worse, every fighter is different. As a whole, though, I don't think especially high of the talent level in boxing today compared to previous eras. But fighters like Mayweather & Pacquiao would do well in pretty much any era, I pick them to beat some of the greats of the past and to lose to some of the others.

But it hasn't got more developed at all, there is no fighter today who has superior skills to Pep, theres a select few on the level of Moore or Burley and no one has the power punching technique of a Lewis. You haven't made a valid point you've simple stated that boxers are more developed now and that they have more access to boxing knowledge which is simply not true. You do realise that theres about 10 times less fighters today than there were 60 years ago, and a lot less gyms too and thus a lot less trainers, you don't learn boxing from youtube or being a poster on boxing scene, boxing is at a lowpoint at the moment and its easy to see, the practice of inside fighting and feinting is undeniably close to being archaic techniques. Um, yes, I believe it has. How can you say that within over a century that boxing has been around that it hasn't developed? That's like saying Baseball and Football haven't either. Watch how pitchers used to pitch back in the day, even when it was large, to today, even though it's certainly not as big today. You can see much more efficient, consistent results between pitchers now compared to back then. Same goes for boxing in general. It's an insult to say boxing hasn't been developed. You give anything time, and it'll improve. The training methods, tricks to convince your muscle memory. You find me a fighter pre-60's that could throw clean, crisp, combinations with the fluidity of a Mayweather, or a fighter, aside from Archie, with the defensive technical prowess of a Whitaker. If you look at the form these guys use, aside from the unconventionality, you can tell a large difference between them and pre-60's. You can also thank technology and further knowledge of the human body since then that makes it possible for today's boxers to be the elite athletes that they are. You're making a bold statement by saying there is "no" fighter today that is as technical as Pep, Moore, and Burley. For their time, I'd say P4P they are the most technical, but given that a lot of what they taught is now common knowledge amongst gyms, even the most advanced techniques of those ages are pretty common nowadays. Yes, I know, nostalgia can be an addiction, and it can sometimes make people stubborn and delusional, but seriously, to say that boxing hasn't developed since the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's is absolutely ludicrous. I see a fairly high percentage of past fighters who wing their shots on average. Yeah, we get the occasional successful guy here and there, but it appeared much more often then. Even the best footwork of their time would be compared as average for ours. Even Burley, with the only footage we have, wings his shots and would be yelled at consistently by modern corner-men. Guys like Burley and Moore were successful due to their mind, and that can't be taught in any era, but techniques sure can, and that can better a fighter ten-fold given development. It's funny, because it doesn't work out in your favor by stating the fact that there are less gyms and fighters as back in the day. With how large the talent pool was, with all the hungry fighters working their way out of the depression and many other obstacles they faced in those days, you would expect to see many Ali, Mayweather, Jones Jr., Leonard, etc -esque fighters. Note that the fighters mentioned were within that past 20-40 years or so where the technical gap is much slimmer than it would be back then, but I'm comparing them to fighters that could have developed in the time between 1900 to the late 1960's.

The way to determine how great a fighter is by what they did and who they beat, you can say so andso could beat so and so but proof is solid whereas a prediction is not. As for the bolded Boxing is completely different, the records that are broken are in sports where their is conservative and repetitive movement and your competing against a time or distance which is objective, boxing is absolutely different in that your trying to outpoint an opponent and this can be done with a variety of styles in a very dynamic motions, and its hugely subjective. Comparing athletics to boxing simply doesn't work, how many times have we seen the unathletic fighter beat the more physically gifted one, its such a complex sport with a ridiculous amount of variables, its extremely difficult to break down. but I believed that was the closest thing we can do to determine if this great fighter of the past is greater than this fighter in this era. Just for example, Floyd is a better fighter all around than Pac but why Pac still greater than him? It's because not only they are in the same era but also they are at the same weight classes. We can actually gauge them to their resume, their common enemies, the fighters they fought and avoided. The same with past great against the greats of their time.

For their time they were great. But I think it's extremely ridiculous when people claim that Dempsey could KO either Klitschko in two rounds. A lot of people forget that boxing, much like every on going thing in this world, has been much more developed since it's beginning stages. You know, the Louis', Burley's, Armstrong's, Pep's, Moore's, etc. all were creators, or partly creators of advancement, to better and more efficient techniques that have to be tested and tweaked for further generations. They didn't have the guidance to the boxing knowledge that your average journeymen has access to now. But it hasn't got more developed at all, there is no fighter today who has superior skills to Pep, theres a select few on the level of Moore or Burley and no one has the power punching technique of a Lewis. You haven't made a valid point you've simple stated that boxers are more developed now and that they have more access to boxing knowledge which is simply not true. You do realise that theres about 10 times less fighters today than there were 60 years ago, and a lot less gyms too and thus a lot less trainers, you don't learn boxing from youtube or being a poster on boxing scene, boxing is at a lowpoint at the moment and its easy to see, the practice of inside fighting and feinting is undeniably close to being archaic techniques.

For their time they were great. But I think it's extremely ridiculous when people claim that Dempsey could KO either Klitschko in two rounds. A lot of people forget that boxing, much like every on going thing in this world, has been much more developed since it's beginning stages. You know, the Louis', Burley's, Armstrong's, Pep's, Moore's, etc. all were creators, or partly creators of advancement, to better and more efficient techniques that have to be tested and tweaked for further generations. They didn't have the guidance to the boxing knowledge that your average journeymen has access to now. Indeed. To be realistic, boxers of today have better access to everything they need to excel in this sport. Better coaches, gym, training equipments, nutritions, technique and many more compared to the past. Just like Floyd and the others who benefited from the enviroment they grew into.