Modern ATG's will never be accepted

[Jim Jeffries]

If that meant anything, he should have KO'd Marciano.

If Archie Moore's 131 KOs meant anything, he should have KO'd a guy that was never knocked out in 49 fights, that makes sense. By the way, Archie was 39 years old at the time, so you're argument is even less than meaningless.

[Hawkins]

If Archie Moore's 131 KOs meant anything, he should have KO'd a guy that was never knocked out in 49 fights, that makes sense. By the way, Archie was 39 years old at the time, so you're argument is even less than meaningless.

Save the typing. It's of no use.

[JC Warrior]

in case the dead horse isn't dead..lol. I think there are a handful of modern-ish fighters who would get due consideration. The thing that I think holds them up is that so few of them retire near the top of their game so that when they're still "modern" people tend to remember their last performances more than the brilliant career beforehand....Chavez quitting vs DelaHoya, Roy Jones getting Knocked out in consecutive fights by guys he would've probably destroyed only a handful of years before, Morales stayng on the floor vs Pac-man....in five years or so these guys who were semi modern era will probably have those end of career faults removed consideration when rendering all-time opinions on them.

I'd imagine none of Alexis Arguello's critics hold it against him that he lost to Scott Walker, but at the time Alexis probably wouldn't have been given as much consideration as maybe he is today. Just my 2 cents though, I think in ten years many people will hail Roy Jones as one of the best ever because then he will be history, but now he is still too modern

[The Iron Man]

I think you have a good point there Warrior. Many greats done the same, but it seems its brought up in discussion more because we remember it soo well. No one comments about Louis fighting for many or Ali not stopping till it was too late. They are both definatley greats, but those faults arnt spoken about, neither should they be!

[Hawkins]

I think you have a good point there Warrior. Many greats done the same, but it seems its brought up in discussion more because we remember it soo well. No one comments about Louis fighting for many or Ali not stopping till it was too late. They are both definatley greats, but those faults arnt spoken about, neither should they be!

I'm not sure that comes into play, not with true students of the game anyway. I think, in essence, one of the underlying reasons most older fighters are placed on such a pedestal is the fact they were usually better for longer stretches and were able to showcase their abilities against a wider range of opponents.

When you have a guy that has 50 fights by the time he's 24, compared to a guy that has a career total of 40, it's a lopsided comparison and sometimes its hard to do fairly.

[them_apples]

When you have a guy that has 50 fights by the time he's 24, compared to a guy that has a career total of 40, it's a lopsided comparison and sometimes its hard to do fairly.

Fighters aren't given that many fights anymore. Fighters train a lot more in preparation for their fights. They are much bigger occurances than in the past.

A fighter could be given tomato cans 3 times a month which would bump his wins up significantly, because they would be fighting so many people in their primes.

[wpink1]

JC Warriorr... Great points. Too many times we think fighters of yesteryear are legends because they are history and we do not credit fighters today or appreciate what we are seeing. I think that very few athletes have forced us to recognize currently what we are seeing. Tiger woods, Micheal Jordan, Sugar Ray Leoanrd, Roy Jones...Ali after he came back.

In the future Mayweather, Jones both will be idolized for what they are accomplishing, but now many hate on em because it is fun too.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

If Archie Moore's 131 KOs meant anything, he should have KO'd a guy that was never knocked out in 49 fights, that makes sense. By the way, Archie was 39 years old at the time, so you're argument is even less than meaningless.

That was meant to sound ridiculous because using stats should never be used entirely to argue a boxers position. I'll word it different next time.

[C.Y.]

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

Great Post

[Sweet Pete]

If Archie Moore's 131 KOs meant anything, he should have KO'd a guy that was never knocked out in 49 fights, that makes sense. By the way, Archie was 39 years old at the time, so you're argument is even less than meaningless.

Somewhat similar to say saying a Hopkins loss at 39 is meaningless. Moore was a late bloomer, and a long laster.