Are Today's Fighters Better than Fighters From The Past? Hell Yes

[TheMagicMan]

I just want to address one thing you said.Because i see you saying the same thing in other threads.

Henry Cooper knocked down Cassius Clay.He did this in 1963.Cassius Clay only had 18 pro fights at this time.He was only 21 years old.

1963 was 4 years "before" Muhammad Ali's prime in 1967.

Yes,Cassius Clay beat Sonny Liston 3 years before his prime.

In 1967 Muhammad Ali then had 29 fights and was 29-0-23 KO's.He had defended his title 9 times! And was 25 years old.

He now had alot more experience and was 4 years older.

Heck,Joe Louis got KO'd for the 10 count "before" his prime.

A 1967 Muhammad Ali would have chewed up and spit out a young 21 year old Cassius Clay with only 18 pro fights.In fact,a 24 year old Muhammad Ali won "every round" in a rematch with Henry Cooper in 1966.Cooper never landed a punch!

Almost everybody gets knocked down.Almost every Heavyweight Champion has gotten knocked down,and during there prime.Muhammad Ali never got knocked down in his prime of 1966/67 when he was fighting alot.But you have to go way back to 1963 when he was way before his prime to find a time when he was knocked down.I love how you pick and choose.I can do the same with the Klit brothers! I can do it with almost every Heavyweight Champion!

BTW-Muhammad Ali(Not Cassius Clay)took the best punch of all the Heavyweight Champions! This is unanimous among boxing experts,trainers,boxing writers,and boxing fans.

I have a question for you? Who was voted the ATHLETE OF THE CENTURY by sports illustrated,USA Today,and other sources?

You have a good one......

Wait, so Ali was before his time? So was Wlad when he had his losses and hes been the most dominant of any HW ever. No one can even compete, So Wlad is the best ever. Also the liston fights were fixed, and Ali was in a total draw with Liston the first fight. We all know this. Uhh, how did Ali take a better punch than Vitali, Vits never been down, Ali got dropped by Wepner within 3 months of the Foreman fight. Youre a joke.

[r.burgundy]

I wanted to comment on the ******ity of the article being spammed on this board, unfortunately I am on the posters ignore list. Seriously, who has an ignore list? It just shows willful ignorance. What? He doesnt agree with me? IGNORE!. Coward. Anyways, here is why the article is dumb. It makes assertions that because there were more boxing shows in NYC in the 1900's than today, that back in the 1900's fighters could beat the fighters today....
Under that logic, there were more pro baseball teams in New york during the early 20th century than today, so baseball must have been bigger back then and baseball players were better. However, we can analyze players speed, speed of pitches, average distance of hits etc...from video and tell that the players playing at the time of the earliest recordings, were nowhere close to the players today.

The whole post is idiotic, it also doesnt say how many people are boxing in NYC, or practice boxing, it just says how many shows there are. If it had numbers like, back in 1910 there were an estimated 800,000 people who called themselves boxers living in NYC, today there are a mere 400,000...then it could make an argument, but it doesnt do that. Its argument would still suck, because NYC does not equal the world. In order to make a claim that more people were fighting back then as opposed to today theyd have to add up the whole world, which they dont do. They dont mention the Eastern Euro's the Africans, the Pacific Islanders, nope, the world according to this article is NYC. And I disagree with the whole "numbers" thing and feel there are more factors.

Want to know the quick reason why there are less shows in NYC. Its called tv. Back then there was nothing to do, so they needed live entertainment, also live entertainment suffered if it wasnt in NYC. So everything was in NYC and everything was live entertainment. Now people have tv. They dont go out as much and fights dont have to be in the center of the world.

I also think its hilarious the people supporting this article are Ali fans. According to the article the 60's and 70's should be the worst time for boxing. The world was split in two, which halves the whole pool of fighters, then in the U.S. 15k men who could have been boxers were killed in vietnam, others wounded, others wasted the prime years. NFL and BBall were growing in popularity at record numbers. So if you want to argue that the 60's and 70's were the worst era for boxing, go right ahead.

Also the article fails to mention nutrition, just brings up steroids. The average person lives over a decade longer now than at "boxings prime". Fighters can recover from injuries with medical technology. They no longer implement leaches in medical procedures. People understand protiens, and creatine, and vitamins. They understand the value of certain legal supplements as wel as hydration. Technology has improved, training equipment is much better and you can be scientific. You can also watch and breakdown film, not just your opponents, but yourself (which would be even more important).

People on average are taller and bigger now. Its from being healthier. Also many sports have fallen by the wayside, but yet people still break records in events like the polevault (now banned in many U.S. schools) and the hammer throw.

The whole fighters were better in the past is ridiculous. The average club fighter would beat Dempsey or Johnson. Any hw in the top 15 right now would wax Ali.

your right and wrong on some points.but you gotta realize that majority of this section would rather believe a fairy tale than face facts.some of them say fighters they've never seen fight like harry greb would beat anybody fighting today.they want to believe willie pep really won a round without throwing a punch.they want to believe size doesnt matter.they want to believe every former champ from the 1920's to 50's is greater because theyre were less belts.they want to believe every piece they read on a fighter is written without any bias whatsoever and is an honest assesment of that fighter.they want to believe that the competition joe louis dominated is somehow better than what vitali,and wlad are facing now.ive even had guys tell me,video isnt any real good unless its color.ive just come to realize that alot of them are alot older and this is the only place for them to get a decent debate or dialouge about boxing

as far as right and wrong,theyre were more registered boxers back in those days,but what it doesnt mention is that guys boxed to earn extra money as a side job.not something that they were fully dedicated too.especially during the depression era and video shows this as majority of those fights look like wrestling matches

only top 15 heavys who would stand a chance with ali are the klits.anybody else gets outpointed.in the case of certain fighters,size is irrelevant.case and point,eddie chambers just beat the hell out dimintrenko in a fight he was supposed to get k.od because he's a small heavy with no power.but eddie took him to school.on paper holyfield shouldnt stand a chance in hell againt bowe but that gave us an atg fight.so on paper the klits should win,but fights arent won paper

as for poet though,he is the biggest troll on this board.he contributes nothing but bad jokes and if you talk bad about an old fighter he calls you a troll and puts you on ignore but wll continue to comment to troll your posts and threads for some reason.thats him in my avi so i guess how he behaves kind of makes sense

[Real King Kong]

Again, name calling. The biggest troll act is to make assumptions about who is posting. Especially based on age. You have no clue how old I am or how educated I am. I dont care that I am young and sexy and educated and you are old and dirty and most likely have been ******ed/are a ******or. Quick question how many times have you been ******ed and have you ******ed someone. They say **** sex is a lot like spinache, if youre forced to have it as a kid, youll love it as an adult. So I dont blame you for your activities. I just want you to get the help you need. Making angry insults on a message board...thats no way to live out your old age. Suicide is an option, a very viable one. You should check into it.

You post an article thats sole argument is that less people are boxing today, however, the only proof of that assertion is that "There are fewer boxing events in New York City." Thats not proof. Thats like saying "Football isnt as popular today as it was in the early 90's because there are no teams in LA and back then there were 2."

I get it, youre old and it sucks and youre living onto the past. So is the writer in your threads. Hes so dumb he cant even argue why the 60's-70's would be good udner his own logic when boxing in the U.S. was on the decline and like 30k american men between 18-26 were wounded or killed in Vietnam. Oh and pro football and basketbal were groing at unprecedented rates, and drug use was at historic highs, oh and half the world couldnt compete, but thats the height right there? Under his logic that should be the worst time of all.

I own you.

your rage and obsession with ******ation is really painting a picture here. it wasn't your fault...you didn't do anything wrong. was he a family friend? a sneaky uncle perhaps?

[JAB5239]

You are dumb as ****. First of all cite how many boxers there were in the 30's and cite how many there are today? No cite, **** didnt happen. Wait, there are 100k pros today, so theres more today, you lose.

No, you lose. Do some research instead of making baseless claims and you may learn something.

Also did you read the article you dumb ****, it was talking about the turn of the century, the first televised boxing match was 1939. So how would televison effect the 1920's. Delete your name you just got owned. Also the majority of americans couldnt tune in to watch a boxing fight until the mid 50's. Again you are dumb as ****.

So fights weren't being filmed about the turn of the century? People couldn't see previously filmed fights? You truly are ignorant.

Also its pretty easy to analyze a tape when you know the distance from the mound to the plate and time is a ****ing constant. Its ****ing simple. Analyze what 1 second in the film is compared to one real second, which is easy since they have the ****ing film still, and then analyze the time it takes to get from the mound to the plate, convert and there you have it. Dear god, you are dumb as hell. What do you think, film back then didnt exist in real time?

So tell me, just how do you come to these conclusions when film was at an entirely different speed back then? Dazzle us with your knowledge and expertise on these matters, we're all on the edge of our seats waiting.

End your life.

If I were you I would have already hung myself with my shoelaces.

[JAB5239]

So track relied on technical advancements? marathons rely on technical advancement. People back then thought a 4 minute mile was humanly impossible, now guys run at 3:43....You are dumb as hell. The most simple sport, running...running, all times have been broke.

Why did track times steadily drop from the 50's on...you say steroids? Ok then all boxers today are on steroids and could beat the hell out of people before.

Between more people doing it and the advancements in footwear and track conditions records are bound to be broke...common sense. Unfortunately for you there were more people boxing back then making the talent pool that much deeper.

Also boxers today can go longer, its not sanctioned. Just as UFC fights used to be unlimited time. You think they were in better shape? **** no, that was 8 years ago. The sport changed so itd be more watchable. No one wants to sit through the 1920's boxing, where 2 fat guys stand there punching like bitches, doing nothing. Thats how it used to be, you ever see their technique? Its terrible, their footwork...terrible.

Lol, have you even watched the heavyweights today? And its only 12 rounds today. These guys are huffing and puffing by the 6th round. Please!!

There were boxers back then smoking between rounds...yep, they were in better shape. Dear god, end your life.

And they easily went 15 round plus. What does that say about fighters today with all their advancements in nutrition? You're a joke son.

[joe strong]

other then lennox who he lost too,he never faced anyone who could really punch other then corrie sanders who was out of shape...I'm not hacking on vitali but he's only been hit by 2 good punchers....lennox turned his face into a pizza...I wont say he has a bad chin buy to say it's the best of alltime is going a little overboard.he never faced maskaev,Rahman,Tyson,Briggs when they were younger....he fought guys like Byrd,purrity,donald,kingpin,sosnowski,& several other light hitting boxers...his chin has never been tested other then the lennox fight.it held up ok for 5.5rounds but his face was screwed.

[Real King Kong]

other then lennox who he lost too,he never faced anyone who could really punch other then corrie sanders who was out of shape...I'm not hacking on vitali but he's only been hit by 2 good punchers....lennox turned his face into a pizza...I wont say he has a bad chin buy to say it's the best of alltime is going a little overboard.he never faced maskaev,Rahman,Tyson,Briggs when they were younger....he fought guys like Byrd,purrity,donald,kingpin,sosnowski,& several other light hitting boxers...his chin has never been tested other then the lennox fight.it held up ok for 5.5rounds but his face was screwed.

not to mention he was visibly wobbled by corrie sanders.

[TheMagicMan]

other then lennox who he lost too,he never faced anyone who could really punch other then corrie sanders who was out of shape...I'm not hacking on vitali but he's only been hit by 2 good punchers....lennox turned his face into a pizza...I wont say he has a bad chin buy to say it's the best of alltime is going a little overboard.he never faced maskaev,Rahman,Tyson,Briggs when they were younger....he fought guys like Byrd,purrity,donald,kingpin,sosnowski,& several other light hitting boxers...his chin has never been tested other then the lennox fight.it held up ok for 5.5rounds but his face was screwed.

Sam Peter wasnt a good puncher? Sam Peter would knock the hell out of Shavers, Peter KO Shavers in 1. Im waiting for the one clown to cite anything, he hasnt, no citations=didnt happen.

Vitali has never been knocked down, never, unlike the coward and most likely ****sexual, ali who was knocked down by light heavies, Vitali doesnt get knocked down. Since Ali fans make tons of excuses, how about mentioning the fact that Vitali took the Lewis fight on 12 days notice. Literally less than 2 weeks to prep for a HW championship fight. And the major mark on his face was a gash that was causes by a missed punch and opened by a Lewis headbutt.

Also how is Vitali going to fight a young Tyson, what was he supposed to do? Time travel.

Oh and its freaking easy when you have the film to see what speed the people in the film are moving at. Take a film study course. Or for the genius, another way to do it, with boxing, rounds were timed, hence you can compare 3 minutes to 3 minutes today. Or in baseball anytime there was a clock in the film, you could compare time. Its really not difficult at all, at least not for someone who understands breathing.

So Vitali was knocked back in 1 heavyweight fight? OMG, holy hell. Ali didnt go 3 years in his career without getting knocked down. Chuck Wepner hurt him more than Sanders hurt Vitali. Chuck Wepner mind you was fighting in a YMCA and Sanders was a HW champ.

[TheMagicMan]

And again until you cite that more people were boxing back then rather than now, its not true. America isnt the world. Between east europe, Latin America, asia, africa etc...id venture to say more people are boxing, theyre just not American. So Cite or it didnt happen.

[JAB5239]

Sam Peter wasnt a good puncher? Sam Peter would knock the hell out of Shavers, Peter KO Shavers in 1. Im waiting for the one clown to cite anything, he hasnt, no citations=didnt happen.

Vitali has never been knocked down, never, unlike the coward and most likely ****sexual, ali who was knocked down by light heavies, Vitali doesnt get knocked down. Since Ali fans make tons of excuses, how about mentioning the fact that Vitali took the Lewis fight on 12 days notice. Literally less than 2 weeks to prep for a HW championship fight. And the major mark on his face was a gash that was causes by a missed punch and opened by a Lewis headbutt.

Also how is Vitali going to fight a young Tyson, what was he supposed to do? Time travel.

Oh and its freaking easy when you have the film to see what speed the people in the film are moving at. Take a film study course. Or for the genius, another way to do it, with boxing, rounds were timed, hence you can compare 3 minutes to 3 minutes today. Or in baseball anytime there was a clock in the film, you could compare time. Its really not difficult at all, at least not for someone who understands breathing.

So Vitali was knocked back in 1 heavyweight fight? OMG, holy hell. Ali didnt go 3 years in his career without getting knocked down. Chuck Wepner hurt him more than Sanders hurt Vitali. Chuck Wepner mind you was fighting in a YMCA and Sanders was a HW champ.

You have now taken over Piss******, Frankenfrank, Rolling Stones and r.burgundy as the most idiotic poster to grace this section. Congratulations!!!