Why past fighters were greater and deserved to be ranked higher: heavyweight

[Toney616]

it changed in the mid 1990s before that a champion had to defend his title against the No1 contender within 90 days, now a fighter can defend against anyone he wishes and being No1 contender is fairly meaningless. today's champions choose their own opponents.. an example is Alan Minter HAD to defend against Marvin Hagler in 1980, Rid**** Bowe HAD to defend against Lennox Lewis in 1992

Thanks for this, I learn something new everyday

[Greatest1942]

And I also agree with you. But Im not talking h2h fights, but strictly resume where greatness can be argued factually. what do we hold in higher regard, fighter who came back and fought themselves back into the top ten against other ranked fighters or guys who lost and pretty much just fought pretenders and journeyman there after? I know which one makes for a better resume in my humble opinion.

Mind you I am not trying to single out any particular fighter as Im sure you can do this with many fighters from the past. It just stands to reason in my way of thinking.

The point I was trying to make was that if you dont fight often you will never ever have the depth of resume. Look at the number of fights Ray had when he retired first time. Do any of the fighters today fight as often, to have such a resume. The top contenders rarely fight each other.Look at Louis's era the top contenders (not only the champ) fought each other often...Much more so than they do today...thats why their resumes are so varied.

But as I said earlier the people who actually know will never question the depth in their resumes.

I do agree someone can see and watch everyone...Right but do you learn how to feint by seeing? Do you learn how to face adversary by watching others fight? Didn't Ali see Frazier fight before they fought first time...So in that case he should have beaten him easy...He adjusted better later on after the first time.

[JAB5239]

with the exception of maybe 2-3 posters here who are certified trolls, i dont know of any sane, educated boxing fan who supports facts claim that Klitschko, Lewis should be rated higher than Louis or Ali. If in fact that's the case, you're simply focusing your attention on the kind of fans you really shouldnt be wasting your time on, because their mind is already made up, which is fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I should have worded it differently. Looking back this is not what I meant exactly.

The problem is there seems to be lack of a healthy balance when it comes to rankings. You, as well as other posters, have slammed Klitschko brothers numerous times, and you may use an excuse that you were simply responding in kind to the 'trolls', but as ive mentioned before posters like that dont deserve the attention in the first place for you to entertain a biased opinion just for the sake of pissing them off.

I am critical of the bros. because their fans over rate them so badly it sometimes takes an extreme measure to make a point.

Thing is, every fighter in every era has fought 'bums'. In fact when you really think it through, out of all the heavyweight champions, the names with the strongest resumes are ali and holyfield.

This is very true. But if you look at past era's it was much more common for contenders who had been beaten to fight there way back into the top ten.....to fight other fighters still t the top. Today isn't like that and that is my whole point.

Ive written a whole summary about Jack Johnson on another website about his competition, (which after you break it down was nothing special, but Jack is special because he's Jack, and godforbid if anyone argues that) Dempsey captured the imagination of so many fans with his savagery that no one really looks in close into his resume, or his title reign. Out of Marciano's 49-0 there were probably 10 solid names, and the few heads on his record (Louis, Walcott, Charles) that elevated him to the ATG status were fighters who were not only old, but shot. Id pick pretty much anyone on the ATG top 10 lists to go undefeated through Rocky's resume. Holmes' competition was all right but again there's nothing awe about it, not to mention that he got a few close fights that could have been considered gifts, later in his career pre spinks.

Its funny but Johnson was actually the next fighter Iv was going to pick to level out the argument. Im not trying to bash the Klits or todays heavies, I just think past greats have more reasons to be called great in comparison. Would really like to read your piece on Johnson if you still have it.

Point being, you can criticise Klitschkos for their competition, but in truth there's very few, not really anyone, who measures up to ali, or holy in terms of solid competition. As for Louis, he comes in second after Ali on the rankings, which is fair, but his competiton was not the greatest. His years in the office, and the numbers of scalps on his belt are the things that make him deserving of his spot.

I think you missed the point of the thread my friend.I may not have stated it very clearly last night after tipping a few, but my point is that the challengers of past champions more times than not kept fighting top comp and in many cases worked their way back into the top 10 whether they recieved another shot or not. Most of todays challenger fall to the wayside after losing and are content to fight easy fights instead of challenging themselves. In my opinion the is a huge part of what made past greats better than todays fighters.

[JAB5239]

You'd get no argument from me that the talent pool was far deeper in eras gone by. Also that a willingness to fight each other was far greater.

I think one thing you fail to point out is the impact of money and marketing in todays game.

Keeping the "0" in the loss column equates not just to legacy but also earning ability in todays game. With that pressure, and remembering how tough
the game is, fighters are less likely to put in on the line and risk future earnings.

Hence Haye fights A Farce, Floyd fights JMM and so on and so on.

None of this is good for the fans but its how it works for many top names. Their careers builds up to one mega fight rather than it being the norm.

I honestly believe that the genuinely elite fighters of the modern era (80's onwards) at worst hold their own in bygone eras. I also beliveve that there are some size based advantage when coupled with skills. Whilst I'd always favour a Louis or a Dempsey with Lewis/Klit I wouldn't be betting the house on it.

Only my thoughts of course.

Good points!

[Tiozzo]

Lot of controversy on these boards on who should be ranked higher between past and present greats. Got me to thinking and doing a bit of research. Mind you Im not trying to slam any fighter and only using the two examples I looked at to make this comparison.

Many on here would like us to believe fighters like Wlad or Lennox should be ranked higher than a Joe Louis or Ali. I disagree vehemently. Besides what I know about the actual fighters I've taken the time to look at their resumes and the biggest thing that stands out to me is how little todays comp has done after losing their title shots against their respective opponents. In Louis' era fighters kept fighting top fighters and kept themselves in the mix whether or not they were ever worthy of a title shot again or not. Today challengers seem to be one and done after they lose their title shot and are seldom facing other top fighters. In my opinion this should go towards the greatness of a fighters resume.

People like to throw around the phrase "bum of the month club". Have we actually taken the time to look at the resumes of many of todays top fighters and how their comp came into prominence? When ranking fighters Im of the opinion resume counts more than any fantasy aspect. Now I vdon't know if it holds true for all past fighters or even the top fighters today, but from what I've seen yesteryears fighters have more than earned their place while todays fighters are just (pardon the expression) the flavor of the month. Opinions welcome but please keep it civilized.

this is very erratic as a demonstration to make a point

politics, money, ppv, overall changes in the game and high profile fights are the reason why fighters who fail in their first attempt to win a title are sometimes left out of the mix

today, you're automatically branded as a bum when you pile up defeats, regardless of who you lost to, so the fighters have to make all the risks they take worthwhile

it depends on your performances too

who would want to see Kevin queenpin Johnson back in the mix (if he ever been there to begin with) ? and How did he get his title shot is still a mystery...

your name and value will determine whether you stay in the mix or not

some fighters get undeserved title shots time and times again, some have to wait

the game has just changed so much...

so if you compare the challengers of Ali/Louis to the ones of Lewis/Wlad for instance, what's your point in the end ? many Lewis/Wlad challengers kept themselves in the mix after losing and actually deserved their title shots in the first place, so I don't where you're going with this...

[JAB5239]

this is very erratic as a demonstration to make a point

politics, money, ppv, overall changes in the game and high profile fights are the reason why fighters who fail in their first attempt to win a title are sometimes left out of the mix

today, you're automatically branded as a bum when you pile up defeats, regardless of who you lost to, so the fighters have to make all the risks they take worthwhile

it depends on your performances too

who would want to see Kevin queenpin Johnson back in the mix (if he ever been there to begin with) ? and How did he get his title shot is still a mystery...

your name and value will determine whether you stay in the mix or not

some fighters get undeserved title shots time and times again, some have to wait

the game has just changed so much...

so if you compare the challengers of Ali/Louis to the ones of Lewis/Wlad for instance, what's your point in the end ? many Lewis/Wlad challengers kept themselves in the mix after losing and actually deserved their title shots in the first place, so I don't where you're going with this...

My point is boxers today take a safety first approach to making fights where as fighters of the past more often tried to fight the best fights to get to the bigger pay days. You talk about name and value. Beating the best fighters is what gets you that. That game has changed some what because you accept that there are no other choices. There obviously are though and thats why I hold the comp of past (not all) champions in higher regard than those of today.

[SBleeder]

Great thread, but you're not going to convince people who think that today's fighters are somehow "more advanced", even though the training routines of many old-time fighters display far more hard work than modern fighters. Then you have people who throw out the word "evolution", a process which occurs over thousands of years, not a few decades.

Finally, people seem to think that "modern nutrition" makes the difference. To me all this protein shake pandamonium has produced is slow muscle-bound bodybuilder types.