Modern ATG's will never be accepted

[them_apples]

I have my reasons:

1: Older fighter's had more fights due to lack of health standards and money.

2: If a newer fighter walks though his competition, they call them bums..the ones that he avoids become bigger names, he beats them and they are usually his only big names. sad

3: New fighters are always down rated it doesn't matter how great the performance they give.


I've been arguing with a lot of people lately some with good points some with bad, but I find it foolish when we are doing comparisons with newer vs older fighter's. The times have changed so much the only way we can go about it is if you calculate the advancements given during the time (Hawkins idea).

but anyways, for example:

Roy Jones Jr vs Ali: performance wise Jones is faster, never tires and has one punch KO power. Still Ali is often picked and his competition is said to be better, yet there is no way of proving this, only pure Bias.

Tyson vs Marciano : Tyson is bigger, faster, more aggressive and has sent 240 lbs opponents flying across the ring, yet the comparison is still being made between him and Marciano.

Klitchko vs Foreman : I'm not a fan of klitchko, but if I look at this realistically he hits very hard, he's huge and he's got average skills. Foreman hits hard too but he's very sloppy. People still pick Foreman even with a 30-40 lbs weight disadvantage.

Those are just a few, what does it take for people to even give later fighter's a chance? There seems to be no backing other than Bias. You can't prove that competition was better or worse, because all big name fighter's end up fighting #1 competition sooner or later.

Only looking at number's is a fools way out, in that case John L. Sullivan is better than Larry Holmes, when all you need is one look at them fighting you know who the victor would be.

peace

[Hawkins]

I have my reasons:

1: Older fighter's had more fights due to lack of health standards and money.

2: If a newer fighter walks though his competition, they call them bums..the ones that he avoids become bigger names, he beats them and they are usually his only big names. sad

3: New fighters are always down rated it doesn't matter how great the performance they give.



I've been arguing with a lot of people lately some with good points some with bad, but I find it foolish when we are doing comparisons with newer vs older fighter's. The times have changed so much the only way we can go about it is if you calculate the advancements given during the time (Hawkins idea).

but anyways, for example:

Roy Jones Jr vs Ali: performance wise Jones is faster, never tires and has one punch KO power. Still Ali is often picked and his competition is said to be better, yet there is no way of proving this, only pure Bias.

Tyson vs Marciano : Tyson is bigger, faster, more aggressive and has sent 240 lbs opponents flying across the ring, yet the comparison is still being made between him and Marciano.

Klitchko vs Foreman : I'm not a fan of klitchko, but if I look at this realistically he hits very hard, he's huge and he's got average skills. Foreman hits hard too but he's very sloppy. People still pick Foreman even with a 30-40 lbs weight disadvantage.

Those are just a few, what does it take for people to even give later fighter's a chance? There seems to be no backing other than Bias. You can't prove that competition was better or worse, because all big name fighter's end up fighting #1 competition sooner or later.

Only looking at number's is a fools way out, in that case John L. Sullivan is better than Larry Holmes, when all you need is one look at them fighting you know who the victor would be.

peace

It seems to me, you just do not respect the history of the game - at all. No matter what, any fighter that you deem as old school is unworthy of comparison to newer fighters. If thats what floats your boat then so be it, but I think if you're going to argue any kind of point you need to have a firm grasp on both points.

Just because you don't 'like' alot of the older eras you dismiss them as bums and make the asinine claims they would all get blown out by the modern fighters. Personally I don't have a bias either way BUT I don't like to come to a forum and see alot of the older fighters, who paved the way for all of the guys you so blatantly worship, get made to be irrelevant.

When you do things like that it tells someone that you haven't really studied and watched older fighters to the point that you can make an educated, informed opinion. Your continued degredation of the past greats can be see as your futile attempt at advancing your own agenda of making the modern fighters better than they are.

But to counter one of your points, I give plenty of 'later fighters' more than a chance against the greats of the game. However, I won't watch alot of them get disrespected to the point that they are made out to be no more than club level fighters by less than objective, and bordering on ridiculous, statements.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

I don't like to come to a forum and see alot of the older fighters, who paved the way for all of the guys you so blatantly worship, get made to be irrelevant.

However, I won't watch alot of them get disrespected to the point that they are made out to be no more than club level fighters by less than objective, and bordering on ridiculous, statements.

That proves your opinions are biased.

[them_apples]

Just because you don't 'like' alot of the older eras you dismiss them as bums and make the asinine claims they would all get blown out by the modern fighters. Personally I don't have a bias either way BUT I don't like to come to a forum and see alot of the older fighters, who paved the way for all of the guys you so blatantly worship, get made to be irrelevant.

Did you ever stop to wonder why I don't like older era's? I have told you many times before why, so I'm not going to say it again. You seem to think I don't like the 40's because I'm just an ignorant young blood who lacks knowledge.

I am not disrespecting them, I have frequently also said "during their day" they were great, what I don't like is the blind comparisons, often made by you towards newer better fighter's. The Marciano vs Tyson thread is what did it.

Who in their right mind can come to the conclusion that Marciano would be the victor in that scenario.

EDIT:I don't want to come across as harsh to you Hawkins, But you keep saying the same thing about me and ignoring my reasons. I don't dislike the 40's and 50's without cause.

[Hawkins]

That proves your opinions are biased.

Please explain how that 'proves' my opinions are baised? Because I won't stand by and watch you two make completely asinine statements? If it proves my biasness then please elaborate.

[sleazyfellow]

Roy Jones Jr vs Ali: performance wise Jones is faster, never tires and has one punch KO power. Still Ali is often picked and his competition is said to be better, yet there is no way of proving this, only pure Bias.

Tyson vs Marciano : Tyson is bigger, faster, more aggressive and has sent 240 lbs opponents flying across the ring, yet the comparison is still being made between him and Marciano.

Klitchko vs Foreman : I'm not a fan of klitchko, but if I look at this realistically he hits very hard, he's huge and he's got average skills. Foreman hits hard too but he's very sloppy. People still pick Foreman even with a 30-40 lbs weight disadvantage.

Only looking at number's is a fools way out

Ali would destroy jones period, jones chin would not hold up to ali period. Of course theres no way to prove anything, but here you are trying to prove something.

Tyson/marciano has been done to death, who cares? you say looking at numbers is a fools way out, but there you go stating "hes sent 240 pound men to the canvas". Marciano would lose but you go as far to discredit louis, ezzard, walcott, and archie moore (who has the record for the most kos period) as bums, which is complete bull****.

Foreman/klit is just a ****** thing to say. I quote the end of ur statement again, "only looking at numbers is a fools way out" but you go another step further and say "klitchko realistically hits hard" well no ****, but is there anyway to prove he hit harder than foreman? just cause he weighs more doesnt mean **** either when it comes to power.

[them_apples]

sleazy fellow, that was the point of my thread..?? lol

you can't realistically prove it no, yet people automatically pick older fighters based on records.

I held my breath, coming from you usually you don't contribute anything.

you did prove my point though...Ali would destroy Jones period?? lol haha like what reasoning do you have?? Other than A massive Bias. I never said ether fighter would win..i left it up to you.

[sleazyfellow]

well whats the point in posting in the boxing history forum if your only going to show ur biased toward "modern" heavyweights? The point of all ur post is that every heavyweight before tyson wouldnt match up.

[them_apples]

well whats the point in posting in the boxing history forum if your only going to show ur biased toward "modern" heavyweights? The point of all ur post is that every heavyweight before tyson wouldnt match up.

how was I biased, I stated what i have seen, never once said the newer fighter would win in the scenario

My question was why do people automatically think the older fighter is better, even when all odds are against them?

NO BIAS

[Jim Jeffries]

you did prove my point though...Ali would destroy Jones period?? lol haha like what reasoning do you have?? Other than A massive Bias.

You're right, a single mediocre performance by RJJ at heavyweight against one of the worst champs ever (I guess you missed a prime Ruiz lasting 19 seconds versus Tua) MUST mean he could beat arguably THE best heavyweight of all time. You're a genius.