Vitali Klitschko vs. Rocky Marciano

[Spray_resistant]

Which of today's middleweights would have taken out Hagler or Hearns? or Nino Benvenuti or Emile Griffith? or SRR?

All props to Martinez but is he head and shoulders above the men I just mentioned? Hell no. Is Pavlik? Sturm? Oh, how about JCCJr? How would he do?

They don't qualify as old timers, I consider them modern.

[Barn]

They don't qualify as old timers, I consider them modern.

When do you consider them "Modern"?

[RubenSonny]

Don't know where I would get any solid footage of something like that unless there is a time machine you know of that I don't with which I could use to take a modern fighter and pit him against an old timer.

Ah, so you were just blowing hot air.....again.

[Spray_resistant]

Ah, so you were just blowing hot air.....again.

Only as much as anyone in threads about FFs.

[RubenSonny]

Only as much as anyone in threads about FFs.

Deflecting...great poster, right here

[Spray_resistant]

Deflecting...great poster, right here

I answered your question what do you want, can you prove old timers are better than modern fighters? If so can I use your time machine to try and set up some fights?

[RubenSonny]

I answered your question what do you want, can't you prove old timers are better than modern fighters? If so can I use your time machine to try and set up some fights?

Yeah and your answer was a cop out, I never made any such claim, I think there has been special fighters in every year that would be special or competitive any other era, in fact I probably wouldn't favor anyone against the 'modern' Whitaker at lightweight (I think I'd put even money with Duran). Having said that, I definately think the talent pool of today is smaller and some techniques are almost extinct, barely anyone has skills on the inside, people called friggin' Hatton a top infighter, I also see that feinting is rarely used as well. Its clear you've come to talk **** again without backing any of it up, unless you will tell me your reasons for believing fighters of today are better...

[bklynboy]

I answered your question what do you want, can you prove old timers are better than modern fighters? If so can I use your time machine to try and set up some fights?

In one sense we can't PROVE anything. I think Muhammad Ali is better than Eddie Chambers but perhaps humanity has evolved so much over the years that even an also-ran of today is better than the greats of yesterday.

OK - that was a bit snarky, but if Hagler is modern and "good" than how can Carlos Monzon (who I forgot in my earlier post) Nino Benvenuti and Emile Griffith not be "modern" fighters?

I can see you saying that it's much harder to judge earlier fighters. We have less film, usually only one camera, much lower resolution, sometimes (as in the 1920s) it's hand-cranked and jerky. So. When do we start "old-timers."

I would say the line is in the 1920s. Boxing became legal. We had decisions - not "newspaper" accounts. We got away from the fight-until-KOed 45 round fights; the neutral-corner rule began to be required and enforced; the "illegal" tactics began going away.

[Spray_resistant]

Yeah and your answer was a cop out, I never made any such claim, I think there has been special fighters in every year that would be special or competitive any other era, in fact I probably wouldn't favor anyone against the 'modern' Whitaker at lightweight (I think I'd put even money with Duran). Having said that, I definately think the talent pool of today is smaller and some techniques are almost extinct, barely anyone has skills on the inside, people called friggin' Hatton a top infighter, I also see that feinting is rarely used as well. Its clear you've come to talk **** again without backing any of it up, unless you will tell me your reasons for believing fighters of today are better...

Back it up with what? Its all just opinions like VK vs Rocky no one has anything to back any of it up with.

When I watch old fighters who are classified as the best ever I am pretty unimpressed usually.

[Spray_resistant]

In one sense we can't PROVE anything. I think Muhammad Ali is better than Eddie Chambers but perhaps humanity has evolved so much over the years that even an also-ran of today is better than the greats of yesterday.

OK - that was a bit snarky, but if Hagler is modern and "good" than how can Carlos Monzon (who I forgot in my earlier post) Nino Benvenuti and Emile Griffith not be "modern" fighters?

I can see you saying that it's much harder to judge earlier fighters. We have less film, usually only one camera, much lower resolution, sometimes (as in the 1920s) it's hand-cranked and jerky. So. When do we start "old-timers."

I would say the line is in the 1920s. Boxing became legal. We had decisions - not "newspaper" accounts. We got away from the fight-until-KOed 45 round fights; the neutral-corner rule began to be required and enforced; the "illegal" tactics began going away.

I guess its all opinion where you cut off modern from different eras but even the early 80's isn't so far away from today that it couldn't be comparable.