Were the past greats really that great!?

I wouldn’t listen to Bert sugar ....he is biased beyond words. everything is relevant to there era....if they were leaps and bounds above the all the others in that era then that tells you great they were......if past fighters are judged against modern fighters then modern fighters should also be judged in their era....for instance 15 rounds , nutrition and training not as good as today , fighting every 8 weeks , not so many belts to win etc......I could name the fighters I know over the history of sport who would be greats in any other era . Greb , leonard , Louis , Robinson , Armstrong , Ali , duran , monzon , hagler , Ray Leonard , Chavez etc These fighter would rule their divisions which ever era it was - - Took awhile, but finally you make good sense, more than these noobs can absorb in their misbegotten lifetimes.

The likes of SRR, the cuban hawk and the wil o the wisp are different. Im tlking about older fighters. Ive heard countless interviews with boxing experts say that the older fighters always beat the new. Bert sugar has been quoted saying jack johnson beats many of the new fighters. I wouldn’t listen to Bert sugar ....he is biased beyond words. everything is relevant to there era....if they were leaps and bounds above the all the others in that era then that tells you great they were......if past fighters are judged against modern fighters then modern fighters should also be judged in their era....for instance 15 rounds , nutrition and training not as good as today , fighting every 8 weeks , not so many belts to win etc......I could name the fighters I know over the history of sport who would be greats in any other era . Greb , leonard , Louis , Robinson , Armstrong , Ali , duran , monzon , hagler , Ray Leonard , Chavez etc These fighter would rule their divisions which ever era it was

Well, it's just your opinion, and you're entitled to it. but you picked the top champions of this era. Who else who wasn't a top champion of this era could do it...an...anyone?? I lived through the Joe Louis era and have read the opinions of literally dozens, maybe hundreds of experts. And they all concur that Louis was at least a top 5 ever fighter. I think he'd have eventually carved up Ali and Foreman. Even maybe the Klitschkos, because although they are big, and different, they are vulnerable to a brilliant boxer-puncher like Louis. Tyson I'm not sure because he was so explosive and went hunting right from the bell, and had both a terrific defence and attack. You could say an attacking defence because he used it to get close to his opponent. Johnson, according to all the top experts who saw ALL the champions from Johnson to Ali, said that Johnson was the best or at least #2. Nat Fleischer, Founder of RING who saw them all until he died in 1972, was adamant that Johnson was #1 Charlie Rose an expert of the kind we don't have today, said he was #2. He is reported to have been as fast, both hands and feet, as Ali, with far better skills and defence, could virtually do anything in the ring. He was KNOWN to carry his opponents for many rounds to make a fight of it for the cash customers. He is seen on film dropping opponents but grabbing them before they can fall and holding them up in a clinch until they've recovered. He routinely carried on conversations with ringside observers in many of his fights, including championship ones. He could and did pick off punches in mid-air, and touched up opponents just when they were going to punch, putting them off. Even with the herky-jerky primitive film existing his superiority is very apparent. He rarely was hit clean, and actually boxed until he was about 60. He was KO'd when a kid by Joe Choynski, and then not until Willard about 15 years later. He was also quite a brain. He was a good musician, and led an orchestra, playing very good string bass. He took out several patents, and invented the famous Stiltson wrench which is indispensible today. As you can see I've read a lot about him, and as I was growing up in far off Ireland, they were always talking about him. About your comments on the Willard fight, you saw mainly exerpts and the part leading up to the KO. Unless you know something that I dont. The full fight never released for youtube. What you likely don't know is what led up to all this. The powers that be were determined to get rid of Johnson once and for all. They made the fight for 45 rounds, in other words, really a fight to a finish. Johnson was broke and needed the money so agreed to the 45 rds. They were sure that Willard, 6'6", much younger and fit, would outlast 6'1" 50 lbs lighter, unfit, paunchy (you can see it in the film) 37 year old Johnson. Yet, Johnson according to all the reports I've read, both contemporary and investigative (maybe about 50) drove Willard all round the ring, winning practically every round until the 25th when he wore down, and was KO'd in the 26th. All this under a blazing hot sun. I like to quote Jack Blackburn, who knew Johnson well, having fought for many years in his era, and was the maker, yes the maker of Joe Louis, is on record as having told Louis that Johnson would have beaten him very badly. He even told him why. Joe Gans was as fast and as shifty as the very best of today. The modern "style" was around in those days too, although we seem, for some reason to think not. I think that because of lack of film, closeups, colour, and technology, we are inclined to underestimate rather than the opposite. Joe Walcott was unbeatable in his time. Welterweight, fought much heavier opponents and only 5'2". It's too long a subject for this site, and actually very interesting. And that opinion means nothing saying how joe was top 5 cause its been way more tech skilled people them him your outdated

There;s no doubt technique was better old school. My thing is anyone can turn on ESPN Classic and watch a million fights where guys were in great shape and throwing crisp shots for 15 rounds. Sure we can go back to mythical legendary greats and doubt the authenticity of their abilities, but there are plenty of old fights out there showing guys with as much skill and will as anyone today. The trolling is funny saying how they had to better tech then 70s-90s when they didn't

Like who? Name me some Historians who think Jack Johnson would beat any Heavyweight from any era. You talk about old school fighters being 'primitive' and 'fighters instead of boxers' then how does that explain the likes of Charley Burley, Kid Gavilan, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep the list goes on and on who are frankly anything but that? stop trolling cause they all are stiff and slow compared to 70s-90s its easy to see do you watch matches or need glasses

Yawn...... Obviously they were great fighters. But just like todays fighters they get overrated. Just because Bob Cousy couldnt guard Chris Paul doesnt mean he wasnt a great basketball player. I hate this argument, it just makes me angry. Boxing is completely different from any team sport, where athletes are getting bigger, stronger, and more athletic. That's not really happening in boxing, and whatever minor difference in athleticism might exist today compared to the 1950s or so is completely offset by the massive lack of fundamentals and competition compared to that time period. People need to actually watch some of these greats that they disparage, they would realize they are every bit as skilled as the greatest fighters today, and in many cases more so. You won't find anyone in the sport as skilled at pressuring fighters as Roberto Duran, as offensively diverse as Joe Louis, as fleet of foot or quick with his hands as Muhammad Ali, as fierce an inside fighter as Joe Frazier, etc. They weren't great because of the time period, they were actually great fighters, plenty capable of destroying anyone who isn't great themselves in modern boxing history.

I think were steering off the topic here. Im not talking about diets and fitness training, as im pretty sure the older fighters were freaks of nature when it came to fitness. Im talking about the sweet science, head movement, defense, ring generalship e.t.c...... Basically how boxing technique has evolved, not fitness methods You dont think SRR knew how to slip a punch?

The updates in conditioning and nutrition mean that yesterday's greats would get dominated by the average fighters of today. The same is true of all sports. You can only really judge a fighter against those of his own era. No, it ****ing well doesn't! How long do people have keep repeating the same thing again and again, whilst not having the slightest clue about this stuff. Boxing isn't about nutrition and conditioning alone. The same is not true of boxing. It's a completely different type of sport. How many times does an average athlete have to come along and win for this to sink in with people. Conditioning and nutrition doesn't determine chin, it doesn't determine heart, it doesn't determine your power and it doesn't determine your fighting instincts. If it were true that it is only about conditioning and nutrition and modern advances then only the best athletes would win fights. That's what happens in normal sports. Boxing isn't a normal sport. You don't get punched in the face in a race. You don't have to get up after taking a liver shot and try to fight through agonising leg numbing pain. Go watch Gatti/Ward and tell me about modern advances in nutrition and conditioning and tell me what difference it made to them if they were in 1960 or 2005? ****ing dumb cunts on this board. From 1900-30 or so yes, there were significant advances in technique and strategy, especially as the rules changed etc. But from the era of Joe Louis onward, there has been very little change in technique, training methods and the fights have gotten easier. They aren't as long, the gloves are bigger and better padded and the competition has decreased enormously due to double the divisions, quadruple the titles and less pro fighters in the US than there were in New York 70 years ago. It is very, very possible for something to devolve due to numbers declining in the sport. Numbers alone make up a big reason for the decline in skill of boxing. If you have one hundred people to fight to get a title, the ones at the top are going to have to be bloody good. If you halve that number, then divide it into four, it's going to be pretty ****ing easy to get to the top and stay there. As for this theory of new guys learning off old guys, it's true in some sense but only a small amount. I remember Hloyfield saying he had an advantage over guys from the 60's and 70's because he know all the techniques from the 20's, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and thus was a more evolved fighter. So, why was he slower than Ali, less powerful than Foreman, didn't have the boxing savvy of Walcott, or the short compact punches of Joe Louis? Because that's not how boxing works. I just laugh that anyone can look at today's fighter and think they are more evolved because of conditioning and nutrition than the fighters from the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. So Roberto Duran would lose to Marquez, Rios, and Juan Diaz? Carlos Monzon would lose to Martinez, Pavlik and .... Williams? Ezzard Charles would lose to Jean Pascal? Dawson? A fight with Hopkins would be good....the old prime Hopkins anyway. Come on people, pick up the slack.

History can't be erase, don't matter how much anybody tries. The Great ones will remain GREAT. That's the trouble. It makes any discussion involving them and modern fighters rather pointless.

If you scaled them to modern times. Ali with modern nutrition and training Jack johnson with modern training joe louis etc etc. Think about it You would still have to say they would be great because they were motivated and skilled fighters regardless of their era.

Bernard Hopkins is a perfect example of today's lack of talent, Pavlik couldn't decipher what went on in that ring. Atlas said it best, though some saw it as back handed compliments when Atlast seemed to have discredited Hopkins' recent wins, although he was 100% on point but this is what he said, Jump to 1:30 Teddy Atlas brought up what was lacking in the sport and attributed Hopkins' success to that, Bernard disagreed, but from 3:28 on he was in more of an agreement. Atlas was right in saying that "You have fighters from today who would be surprised (By what Hopkins brings) but fighters from the golden era, the fighters back from a little bit more of a solid era...they wouldn't be surprised by that. really? pavlik is/was a hyped up bum, i said all the time, same thing with abraham, these guys are hyped up bums, there were no hyped up bums in the past?

I agree, because Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali have loss on their record. Must be bums then.

I agree, because Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali have loss on their record.

Bernard Hopkins is a perfect example of today's lack of talent, Pavlik couldn't decipher what went on in that ring. Atlas said it best, though some saw it as back handed compliments when Atlast seemed to have discredited Hopkins' recent wins, although he was 100% on point but this is what he said, Jump to 1:30 Teddy Atlas brought up what was lacking in the sport and attributed Hopkins' success to that, Bernard disagreed, but from 3:28 on he was in more of an agreement. Atlas was right in saying that "You have fighters from today who would be surprised (By what Hopkins brings) but fighters from the golden era, the fighters back from a little bit more of a solid era...they wouldn't be surprised by that.

Personally I think Bolt could run barefoot and still break Jesse's records. Tracksters werent built like that during WW1. Track is the closest thing we have to proving athletic prgression over time. Things that were thought to be impossible like the 4min mile we've found out over time that its very possible and not as hard as we thought for the supreme runners of the modern era. Boxing is much tougher to debate. Bolt may very well have always been faster, Im not even trying to argue that. But put him on a dirt track with no starting block, on canvas running shoes and his time drops BIG TIME. Owens ran a 10.2 100 meters under these conditions, give him the favorable conditions of today and he runs with the very best today even if he isn't the very best himself.

Nowa days, we get mentally weak fighters, fighters who can't fight from all ranges (Mostly inside), fighters who gas out, one-handed fighters, fighters with bad punching technique; no coordination, fighters who can't cut off the ring. The sport is in a bad state in my opinion, and to top it off Mayweather and Pacquiao get way too much media attention. The worst part is how we have to wait 3-4 months for fights that SHOULDN'T have gotten 'so much build up, Alexander, Bradley, Khan, Peterson...neither of them accomplished anything that should have warranted that much waiting. To hear Bradley at one time say "I wanted to build up the Alexander fight" I mean, are you fucking serious?. I see I'm getting off-topic a bit, but that's how I feel about the sport right now.

Jab you're contradicting yourself a bit by saying a change in a track and shoes make a difference. I say that because we've had numerous conversations about how the advancement in technology does make an athlete any more effective. More effective yes, not better. Put all athletes under the same kind of circumstances and suddenly things wouldn't look so different. I don't see where the contradiction is as I have always stated this. Can ANYONE on this forum tell me Bolt wouldn't be slower had he had to run under the same conditions as Jess Owens?

That is not true. Yes it is. If it isn't than supply some evidence. If fighters back in the day were allowed to weigh in 36 hours before the fight middleweights would have been dehydrating and re-hydrating themselves like today. Bring back same day weigh ins and you would see a massive end to this.

Yawn...... Obviously they were great fighters. But just like todays fighters they get overrated. Just because Bob Cousy couldnt guard Chris Paul doesnt mean he wasnt a great basketball player.

Can someone explain and breakdown the drastic differences in diet and training regimes between Floyd Mayweather Jr and Sugar Ray Robinson. What does Mayweather, possibly the most gifted fighter of the last few decades, do differently that makes him so much more modern and evolved than Robinson? Chin ups? Jump rope? Heavybag? Pads? What about diet? What's in Mayweather's diet that makes him so much more evolved than Robinson? Meat? Vegetables? I too would like an answer to this. I could understand being more advanced in skills; techniques maybe, if we're going back to Jack Johnson, but better conditioned, nope :nonono: