heres why comparing past greats to todays is nearly impossible.. MUST READ

comparing old fighters to new fighters is like comparing Wilt Chamberlin to Shaq...or Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds..2 different eras but all were great in their eras period I disagree somewhat with this. Boxing may be about the only sport you can try to do fantasy matchups because it's all based on weight. If you can fight you can do it against any era against someone the same size. I guess the only advantage today's fighters might have are advanced training and diet techniques but it's not like the older eras didn't train. I do respect the old timers a hell of lot more because they would all fight each other. Also, I have no idea how prevalent PEDs are among today's fighters. You guys who actually box or train could shed some light on this.

Gloves don't protect the chin of the person being hit. It protects the hands of the person throwing the punch. Gloves prevents a lot of cuts but it doesn't prevent brain trauma (concussion). If heavyweights were using gloves from the 1910s they would be breaking their hands much more often if they were using the same techniques they use now. Tell that to Maidana fans!

Question: Would anyone survive a power punch from Wladimir with the gloves they wore in say, 1910? I just can't see it. The guy starches guys with the modern day pillows, imagine what he would do with like an MMA size glove. That's ridiculous.[/QU Wladimir hit no harder then Willard or Carnera..that's because they were just as strong as him..Don't believe it?? Well believe it..Willard was a circus strongman ..He killed a man with a uppercut..He probably punched harder then Wladimir....When a guy like Dempsey punched it was an act of moving his bodyweight..So he would launch his body forward with his fist in front..Every punch is like dropping a 190 ibs on the top of your head..Thats a pure punch..The Klitschkos are impure punchers..They are unable to launch their body weight because they don't have the strength to keep their balance that causes impure punching..When Dempsey fought Willard he was at his peak as a fighter..His body was moving like lightning....Even though Willard was a lot bigger and stronger then him he was unable to take a 190 lbs constantly being dropped on him.. We did see Wladimir fight back then. Actually we saw a version of Wladimir that was every bit as good but with the advantage of being able to take a punch easily 5 times what Wladimir can take today!! We saw those punches of Sanders that took Wladimir out..They wouldn't have taken Willard out...Outside of a ring like a no glove anything goes fight...Guys like Klitschko's would twist a 200lb guys head off..But gloved against a 200lb guy that knows how to move their bodyweight fast like a Dempsey ..They get starched like Willard and all those 6'4"-6'6 250lb+ white hopes Dempsey starched on his way to the top...It was fast moving little guys that were not as strong as Dempsey who could beat him..Sanders was nowhere near Wladimirs strength Yet I never seen a fighter get owned like Sanders owned him..Wladimir will always be Sander's little *****..he was helpless

Yes indeed, nothing new is said but still great article and great argument to be used against today's boxers groupies when their idols claim that they are "the best ever" The main difference between old time champs and modern champs is that old time champs were undisputed and modern champs are only partial champs. Great explanation

You evaluate boxers style and form by understanding Methods & Techniques not looking at gloves or titles or records, that's for the fans to see and cackle over! Watching how a fighter moves and sets up punches and delivers and then finishes tells you what type of talent he has. You have to know what your looking at to decide, that's why fans don't decide which fighter to sign to a promotion company. Fans don't know **** about the actual art form!!! :killyou: Sorry but you don't!!! Ray.

multiple title belts were around long before 1980, read this: http://slipthejab.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/320/ This myth that there has always been general consensus to who the champion was in a division pre the modern age is just wrong. Of course, since teh edition of the IBF in the 80s and then the WBO and then extra weight divisions and the nsuper, interim, gold, silver, marmaduke belts, champions per weight division have gotten out of hand. oh ffs, not eveyrthing has to do with the klits, get over it I'm not saying there was only title holders between 1920 (or so) and 1980 (or so). But in those 60 years there were relatively few instances where there was much dispute and very little time where people "sat" on their belts and didn't fight. Cus D'Amato talks about how he avoided Sonny Liston for as long as possible (he was managing Floyd Patterson). You go and look at Patterson's record and you see an 18 mth period (and one fight) between the Johansson and Liston fights. I like the article and it clearly shows that there were points of contention (especially when fraud was suspected or there was inactivity on the part of the champion). It's true that the NY Athletic Commission disagreed (perhaps competed with the NBA). Were there points of contention? Yes. Were there times where they were multiple crowns? Yes. But the situation was way different than today. Case in point. Who's the LightHeavy champion? Stevenson or Kovalev? Who's the Middleweight champion? Today (for the last 20 years) we rarely, if ever, have a division champion. Often times the best fighters in a division don't fight each other - each are protecting their own belt. Imagine if Fullmer never fought Robinson and each held a "belt" proclaiming themselves the WBA/WBO/IBF/whatever middleweight champion. That didn't happen. (Can we point out exceptions to the rule. Yes). Today we have champions who don't fight each other (Pac and Mayweather) each with their own fanclubs saying their fighter is the GOAT.

Question: Would anyone survive a power punch from Wladimir with the gloves they wore in say, 1910? I just can't see it. The guy starches guys with the modern day pillows, imagine what he would do with like an MMA size glove. That's ridiculous. Gloves don't protect the chin of the person being hit. It protects the hands of the person throwing the punch. Gloves prevents a lot of cuts but it doesn't prevent brain trauma (concussion). If heavyweights were using gloves from the 1910s they would be breaking their hands much more often if they were using the same techniques they use now.

Boxing, until 1920 or so, was illegal. So that made it difficult as well. I break up boxing periods into the following three sections. The dates are approximate as there is no clear demarcation. pre 1920 (illegal, official scorecards, neutral corner) 1920-1980 1980-present (multiple title orders). 1980 is generally when multiple belts became the norm. multiple title belts were around long before 1980, read this: http://slipthejab.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/320/ This myth that there has always been general consensus to who the champion was in a division pre the modern age is just wrong. Of course, since teh edition of the IBF in the 80s and then the WBO and then extra weight divisions and the nsuper, interim, gold, silver, marmaduke belts, champions per weight division have gotten out of hand. Question: Would anyone survive a power punch from Wladimir with the gloves they wore in say, 1910? I just can't see it. The guy starches guys with the modern day pillows, imagine what he would do with like an MMA size glove. That's ridiculous. oh ffs, not eveyrthing has to do with the klits, get over it

Question: Would anyone survive a power punch from Wladimir with the gloves they wore in say, 1910? I just can't see it. The guy starches guys with the modern day pillows, imagine what he would do with like an MMA size glove. That's ridiculous.

Why is the focus of this article on Mayweather??

comparing old fighters to new fighters is like comparing Wilt Chamberlin to Shaq...or Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds..2 different eras but all were great in their eras period

Great thread and point TS, I also have been waging this war for years. It's why I laugh and roll my eyes and don't bother arguing with people who have RJJ/Floyd/Pacman in the top 10 all time, and I am a huge Floyd fan. They just aren't educated in the history and it's not my job to teach them, it's their own responsiblility for doing their own research. I completely disagree with soul survivor, even the best modern day champions would easily be reduced to club fighters depending on the era, it's not an absolute, but there is a far greater chance that they would be just another fighter back then than someone great.

to futher illustrate my point take alook at this article from myboxingcoach website How can you objectively rate old time fighters against the modern champs? Longevity, multi-weight championships & standard of opposition are just some of the criteria we read about in the boxing press. On the face of it an old time fighter like Henry Armstrong, who held three belts at featherweight, lightweight & welterweight might not compare favourably with a modern champion like 5-weight world champion Floyd Mayweather Jnr. Floyd has never lost a fight and hardly lost a round in his whole career, Armstrong lost 21 times. So, is that it decided then? Well let’s look a little closer….. The main difference between old time champs and modern champs is that old time champs were undisputed and modern champs are only partial champs. When Armstrong was champ, he was the only champ at that weight whereas Mayweather Jnr has never been an undisputed champ at any weight. In fact, in Armstrong’s range, between featherweight and welterweight, since 2000 there have only been 3 undisputed champions (Corey Spinks & Zab Judah at welterweight and Kostya Tszyu at light welterweight). Indeed, considering there are 56 recognised ‘world’ titles, since 2000 there have only been 9 undisputed champs (Lennox Lewis, O’Neill Bell, Roy Jone Jnr, Bernard Hopkins, Jermain Taylor, Winky Wright, Cory Spinks, Zab Judah & Kostya Tszyu). So is Mayweather really a world champ like Armstrong was? The answer is, no. And if we fans are entitled to ask ‘why are these champs not seeking to be undisputed champs’? the answer might be ‘because there is plenty of money to go around and no need to take risks with your title by fighting another championship level opponent. In fact, today’s fighters will pay millions to avoid fighting rival titles just so they can hold onto their belts or give up the high risk belt completely and keep the other belts. Three notable recent example of this: ***9726;Tyson pays Lewis £4m to step aside so Tyson could fight an ‘easier’ opponent in Holyfield ***9726;Riddock Bowe threw his coveted WBC belt in a bin rather than fight Lewis ***9726;Naseem Hamed spending 2 years simply avoiding Juan Manuel Marquez, despite Marquez being the No. 1 contender for the crown that Hamed held. But Mayweather fought everyone, and beat all the top guys, right? Well, no, not really. Some fighters were refused fights with Mayweather Jnr unless they agreed to fight above or below their natural weight, others were avoided until they were past their peak and others were just avoided at all costs – most notably, Manny Pacquiao who Mayweather refused to fight on a 50/50 purse split (Manny was the biggest draw in the world at the time) and then, when Manny agreed to take a 40% split, Mayweather refused to fight unless Pacquiao agreed to Olympic-style blood testing up to 2 weeks before the fight and ceded to Mayweather the home location, choice of referee & judges (I won’t even mention the Mayweather camps fear of Antonio Marguerito). Yes, but fighting through partial champs at 5 weight divisions must be pretty impossible anyways, right? Well not as hard as winning undisputed titles at three weights (which would count as 5 weights these days) and holding them all at the same time, defending his crowns each month against the #1 contender. OK, but at least Floyd is undefeated. Well, yes, I will concede that Floyd is undefeated in 45 fights with 26 KOs. Poor Henry Armstrong lost 21 times by comparison. However let’s look a little closer: Armstrong fought anywhere, anytime against anyone. Floyd has never fought outside of the USA. Armstrong won 150 fights and 101 of those wins were by KO. Armstrong also drew with the undisputed middleweight champ at the time, Ceferino Garcia, over 15 rounds. Interestingly, Armstrong still holds the record for the most welterweight defences when he managed 18 defences of the undisputed welterweight title in a little over two years (this at a time when light-welters, welters and super-welters all fought for one title as there were only 8 championship weights) and it is strange that in all the time since his reign, no welterweight has gotten close to this figure….. not even Mayweather Jnr from an article titled: Greatest Boxers – New Kids Vs the Old Guard by Fran on November 26, 2013 This seems like a thinly veiled F*CK Mayweather thread .

Look, great fighters from any era, in most cases, would match up well with each other. Imagine Robinson v Leonard at welterweight, no way is that a blow out for either guy. So it's not automatically guys from the black and white age are better than latter day fighters. What I will say is that they had more balls and would often fight the best, multiple times and take big risks by moving up in weight and fighting for legitimate championships...or as legitimate a championship can be. What we have to remember is that boxing pre-1980 didn't always have a single divisional champion, it's a sad myth. Just read this extract from a great article: "One can see this confusion right at the start of modern boxing history. Today we look back and consider the transition to be relatively smooth; John L. Sullivan to James J. Corbett to Bob Fitzsimmons. But if we look at reports from the time the picture is far more cloudy. At the time the likes of Peter Maher, Frank Slavin, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, and Fitzsimmons (before beating Corbett) all won bouts for the “world heavyweight championship” and were all backed by respectable organisations and bodies. Who was the champion in 1895… Corbett who held the lineal title? Fitzsimmons who had beaten Maher, who himself had won a version of the heavyweight title when Corbett announced his retirement and gave his blessings to the Maher-O’Donnell winner as his successor? Peter Jackson, who took over the Police Gazette’s claims after beating Frank Slavin (remembering that at the time the Police Gazette was viewed as being able to determine the world champion)? If one were to track down reports of the eventual Fitzsimmons vs Corbett bout you’ll find the newspapers and scribes almost equally divided with regards to who was “the” champion going in… and after Sullivan announced his retirement in 1891 then there were a large number who thought the “champ” was Peter Jackson after he defeated Slavin for Police Gazzette recognition." Boxing, until 1920 or so, was illegal. So that made it difficult as well. I break up boxing periods into the following three sections. The dates are approximate as there is no clear demarcation. pre 1920 (illegal, official scorecards, neutral corner) 1920-1980 1980-present (multiple title orders). 1980 is generally when multiple belts became the norm.

Look, great fighters from any era, in most cases, would match up well with each other. Imagine Robinson v Leonard at welterweight, no way is that a blow out for either guy. So it's not automatically guys from the black and white age are better than latter day fighters. What I will say is that they had more balls and would often fight the best, multiple times and take big risks by moving up in weight and fighting for legitimate championships...or as legitimate a championship can be. What we have to remember is that boxing pre-1980 didn't always have a single divisional champion, it's a sad myth. Just read this extract from a great article: "One can see this confusion right at the start of modern boxing history. Today we look back and consider the transition to be relatively smooth; John L. Sullivan to James J. Corbett to Bob Fitzsimmons. But if we look at reports from the time the picture is far more cloudy. At the time the likes of Peter Maher, Frank Slavin, Peter Jackson, Tom Sharkey, and Fitzsimmons (before beating Corbett) all won bouts for the “world heavyweight championship” and were all backed by respectable organisations and bodies. Who was the champion in 1895… Corbett who held the lineal title? Fitzsimmons who had beaten Maher, who himself had won a version of the heavyweight title when Corbett announced his retirement and gave his blessings to the Maher-O’Donnell winner as his successor? Peter Jackson, who took over the Police Gazette’s claims after beating Frank Slavin (remembering that at the time the Police Gazette was viewed as being able to determine the world champion)? If one were to track down reports of the eventual Fitzsimmons vs Corbett bout you’ll find the newspapers and scribes almost equally divided with regards to who was “the” champion going in… and after Sullivan announced his retirement in 1891 then there were a large number who thought the “champ” was Peter Jackson after he defeated Slavin for Police Gazzette recognition."

No offence but the fuk was the point of making this thread? Everyone already knows this... because I must have missed the articles where people say these things, I go to diff websites and read about how boxers of today would dismantle the fighters of olden days so I just wanted to point out a few facts but I didn't know this site already had known this

No offence but the fuk was the point of making this thread? Everyone already knows this...

to futher illustrate my point take alook at this article from myboxingcoach website How can you objectively rate old time fighters against the modern champs? Longevity, multi-weight championships & standard of opposition are just some of the criteria we read about in the boxing press. On the face of it an old time fighter like Henry Armstrong, who held three belts at featherweight, lightweight & welterweight might not compare favourably with a modern champion like 5-weight world champion Floyd Mayweather Jnr. Floyd has never lost a fight and hardly lost a round in his whole career, Armstrong lost 21 times. So, is that it decided then? Well let’s look a little closer….. The main difference between old time champs and modern champs is that old time champs were undisputed and modern champs are only partial champs. When Armstrong was champ, he was the only champ at that weight whereas Mayweather Jnr has never been an undisputed champ at any weight. In fact, in Armstrong’s range, between featherweight and welterweight, since 2000 there have only been 3 undisputed champions (Corey Spinks & Zab Judah at welterweight and Kostya Tszyu at light welterweight). Indeed, considering there are 56 recognised ‘world’ titles, since 2000 there have only been 9 undisputed champs (Lennox Lewis, O’Neill Bell, Roy Jone Jnr, Bernard Hopkins, Jermain Taylor, Winky Wright, Cory Spinks, Zab Judah & Kostya Tszyu). So is Mayweather really a world champ like Armstrong was? The answer is, no. And if we fans are entitled to ask ‘why are these champs not seeking to be undisputed champs’? the answer might be ‘because there is plenty of money to go around and no need to take risks with your title by fighting another championship level opponent. In fact, today’s fighters will pay millions to avoid fighting rival titles just so they can hold onto their belts or give up the high risk belt completely and keep the other belts. Three notable recent example of this: ***9726;Tyson pays Lewis £4m to step aside so Tyson could fight an ‘easier’ opponent in Holyfield ***9726;Riddock Bowe threw his coveted WBC belt in a bin rather than fight Lewis ***9726;Naseem Hamed spending 2 years simply avoiding Juan Manuel Marquez, despite Marquez being the No. 1 contender for the crown that Hamed held. But Mayweather fought everyone, and beat all the top guys, right? Well, no, not really. Some fighters were refused fights with Mayweather Jnr unless they agreed to fight above or below their natural weight, others were avoided until they were past their peak and others were just avoided at all costs – most notably, Manny Pacquiao who Mayweather refused to fight on a 50/50 purse split (Manny was the biggest draw in the world at the time) and then, when Manny agreed to take a 40% split, Mayweather refused to fight unless Pacquiao agreed to Olympic-style blood testing up to 2 weeks before the fight and ceded to Mayweather the home location, choice of referee & judges (I won’t even mention the Mayweather camps fear of Antonio Marguerito). Yes, but fighting through partial champs at 5 weight divisions must be pretty impossible anyways, right? Well not as hard as winning undisputed titles at three weights (which would count as 5 weights these days) and holding them all at the same time, defending his crowns each month against the #1 contender. OK, but at least Floyd is undefeated. Well, yes, I will concede that Floyd is undefeated in 45 fights with 26 KOs. Poor Henry Armstrong lost 21 times by comparison. However let’s look a little closer: Armstrong fought anywhere, anytime against anyone. Floyd has never fought outside of the USA. Armstrong won 150 fights and 101 of those wins were by KO. Armstrong also drew with the undisputed middleweight champ at the time, Ceferino Garcia, over 15 rounds. Interestingly, Armstrong still holds the record for the most welterweight defences when he managed 18 defences of the undisputed welterweight title in a little over two years (this at a time when light-welters, welters and super-welters all fought for one title as there were only 8 championship weights) and it is strange that in all the time since his reign, no welterweight has gotten close to this figure….. not even Mayweather Jnr from an article titled: Greatest Boxers – New Kids Vs the Old Guard by Fran on November 26, 2013