Why is boxing history discussed in the first place?

[The_One77]

I dont understand why fans of the sport constantly discuss and argue old time fights from the 50-80's, everyone knows that they couldn't box for **** in those days.
Its ridiculous to even compare someone like a Rocky Marciano to a David Haye or Monte Barret because Rocky would lose everytime, boxers from the 70's are the equivilent in skill as teenage amateurs on the circuit today.

Its called evolution of the sport, someone like a Muhammad Ali could not defeat fighters of this era. This is why he got outclassed by some dude called Trevor Bercock.
I dont even see fighters like SRL and Marvin Hagler going the distance against Joe Calzaghe despite how good they were in their prime, fighters of today are superiour in terms of boxing knowledge and new nutritional technology.

Another example is Mike Tyson, good in his time but outclassed by a newer superiour althlete in Evander and Lewis. He would of been demolished by Vitali too, too small and too fragile for those guys.

THe boxing history board is utterly hysterical and a waste of space on this website, it should be removed IMO. Nobody cares about old time fighters like Ali, Monzon etc

[Jambo boy]

Didn't you fail with this exact same thread just yesterday?

[sugarshanenas]

[cptroyce]

Strange post..but I'll bite..

>> ..someone like a Muhammad Ali could not defeat fighters of this era.<<

Never like Ali much when he was fighting..however I can't think of any heavyweight today or recent past that would beat him.

>> I dont even see fighters like SRL and Marvin Hagler going the distance against Joe Calzaghe..<<

I love Joe Calzaghe, but he would not fair well against Leonard or Hagler; and certainly could never KO them.

>>THe boxing history board is utterly hysterical and a waste of space<<

Plenty of other forums and threads..if you don't like it here, don't read it and don't post.
You're not paying for the space in any event.

IMHO

[Sugarj]

Amusing post, I hope its not a joke thread!

Boxers from the 70s being of similar skill to teenage amateurs of today! Comedy! Do you honestly think the average teenage amateur benefits much from our increased knowledge of nutricion over the last 30 years, or training technology? No way, most probably get drunk at the weekend and eat fast food, most of the amateur boxers I know do! As for training, boxers still skip rope, punch bags, do pad work and sparring, the game has evolved but not that much! Where do the amateurs of today get this.....apparent to you increased ability from...........probably watching the greats! Duh

Sugar Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali had over 100 amateur fights each, not to speak a gold medal each at the Olympics. Do you honestly think this pedigree and experience didn't elevate them above the average amateur of today?

Would Rocky lose to David Haye? Maybe, but I'll bet the punch that KO'd the similarly weighing (190lb) Walcott could have done the same to the glass chinned Haye.

Ali vs BerBICK!!!!: Hell, Ali was 39 and suffering from the premature effects of Parkinson's syndrome, watch the DVD 'the last hurrah' from Amazon, Ali couldn't speak very clearly even before the fight. Berbick wasn't even that poor a fighter, he went the distance against Larry Holmes and decisioned Pinklon Thomas to win the WBC title. The 80s were really not that long ago, athletes have not evolved that much. In the 50s we were not that much closer to Neanderthal man!!

Sugar Ray Leonard and Hagler ( isn't he your idol? ) probably would have lasted the distance against Calzaghe, even though ( Marvin at least ) fought below Super Middle. Both of these guys had an amazing ability to absorb punches harder than Joes, just watch the Hearns fights!

As for Tyson, yes maybe the peak Tyson may well have lost to peak Holyfield, Lewis and Klitchko. But the guy who fought Lewis and Holyfield was clearly not as fast, did not have his earlier defensive skills or for that matter his earlier 12 round stamina from the 80s. His losses were not down to the evolution of the sport so much as down to his age.

PLUS if the sport has evolved so much how come George Foreman and Larry Holmes, when well past their best ( decades ) were able to do well against modern heavies such as Moorer, Mercer and commendably against Holyfield?

I like the history boards even though some comparisons are crazy! But to say no one cares about Ali and Monzon is ignorant. If it was polled to the site I'm sure your views would be very much in the minority.

[Smokin'J]

Amusing post, I hope its not a joke thread!

Boxers from the 70s being of similar skill to teenage amateurs of today! Comedy! Do you honestly think the average teenage amateur benefits much from our increased knowledge of nutricion over the last 30 years, or training technology? No way, most probably get drunk at the weekend and eat fast food, most of the amateur boxers I know do! As for training, boxers still skip rope, punch bags, do pad work and sparring, the game has evolved but not that much! Where do the amateurs of today get this.....apparent to you increased ability from...........probably watching the greats! Duh

Sugar Ray Leonard and Muhammad Ali had over 100 amateur fights each, not to speak a gold medal each at the Olympics. Do you honestly think this pedigree and experience didn't elevate them above the average amateur of today?

Would Rocky lose to David Haye? Maybe, but I'll bet the punch that KO'd the similarly weighing (190lb) Walcott could have done the same to the glass chinned Haye.

Ali vs BerBICK!!!!: Hell, Ali was 39 and suffering from the premature effects of Parkinson's syndrome, watch the DVD 'the last hurrah' from Amazon, Ali couldn't speak very clearly even before the fight. Berbick wasn't even that poor a fighter, he went the distance against Larry Holmes and decisioned Pinklon Thomas to win the WBC title. The 80s were really not that long ago, athletes have not evolved that much. In the 50s we were not that much closer to Neanderthal man!!

Sugar Ray Leonard and Hagler ( isn't he your idol? ) probably would have lasted the distance against Calzaghe, even though ( Marvin at least ) fought below Super Middle. Both of these guys had an amazing ability to absorb punches harder than Joes, just watch the Hearns fights!

As for Tyson, yes maybe the peak Tyson may well have lost to peak Holyfield, Lewis and Klitchko. But the guy who fought Lewis and Holyfield was clearly not as fast, did not have his earlier defensive skills or for that matter his earlier 12 round stamina from the 80s. His losses were not down to the evolution of the sport so much as down to his age.

PLUS if the sport has evolved so much how come George Foreman and Larry Holmes, when well past their best ( decades ) were able to do well against modern heavies such as Moorer, Mercer and commendably against Holyfield?

I like the history boards even though some comparisons are crazy! But to say no one cares about Ali and Monzon is ignorant. If it was polled to the site I'm sure your views would be very much in the minority.

You shouldn't post in threads like these you have too much knowledge.
You should know its a troll.

[BKM-]

I'm a troll and utterly hysterical and a waste of space on this website, I should be removed IMO. Nobody cares about trolls like me

I fixed it for you. Now pack your bags and leave. Thank you.

[Xyei]

I dont understand why fans of the sport constantly discuss and argue old time fights from the 50-80's, everyone knows that they couldn't box for **** in those days.
Its ridiculous to even compare someone like a Rocky Marciano to a David Haye or Monte Barret because Rocky would lose everytime, boxers from the 70's are the equivilent in skill as teenage amateurs on the circuit today.

Its called evolution of the sport, someone like a Muhammad Ali could not defeat fighters of this era. This is why he got outclassed by some dude called Trevor Bercock.
I dont even see fighters like SRL and Marvin Hagler going the distance against Joe Calzaghe despite how good they were in their prime, fighters of today are superiour in terms of boxing knowledge and new nutritional technology.

Another example is Mike Tyson, good in his time but outclassed by a newer superiour althlete in Evander and Lewis. He would of been demolished by Vitali too, too small and too fragile for those guys.

THe boxing history board is utterly hysterical and a waste of space on this website, it should be removed IMO. Nobody cares about old time fighters like Ali, Monzon etc

You say this and you have a picture of Marvin Hagler in your avatar? You dumbfuck troll.

[black.ink]

You say this and you have a picture of Marvin Hagler in your avatar? You dumbfuck troll.

.....and SRL and Duran in the sig......but yeah, i took it as a joke.

[Squabbles94806]

cus Boxing's been around for almost 200 years.

It's a civilized way of fighting.

I think boxing matches are so important because they carry historical weight.