Are Today’s Fighters Better Than The Great Fighters Of The Past?

[Barn]

Some of the old greats look downright terrible on film and no-one should refute that. Fitzsimmons looks disastrous. However, Gans, Leonard, Walker, Loughran, Tunney are past greats who looked fantastic on film.

I do believe that fighters did evolve in style, not necessarily in ability during the earlier period. The style that Gene Tunney used with his hands down and relying a lot more on foot speed, has undoubtedly changed. However, ability wise he looks like if he was placed in this era he would still be a terrific counter puncher in the modern game with time to adjust.

The lower weight classes of the earlier period really are something to admire, it is the Heavyweights who were bigger and slower and more importantly, more famous that seem to lag behind in the evolutionary process. To think Fitzsimmons and Jeffries were fighting at the same time is astonishing.

Here's a Mickey Walker highlight I done, I think he looks damn terrific, keep in mind he's fighting 2 weight classes above his prime (OG 8 only) in some of these clips.

[them_apples]

track and field was first popularized in 1894 with the olympics.

42 years later jessie owens ran 201.2 meters in 20.3 seconds, 73 years later bolt ran it in 19.19 seconds.

1.1 second diffrence.

could an increased tack and field population and improved equipment account for this 1.1?

how much time would you lose on 200 meters running with these?



how much time would you lose on 200 meters running on this track?



how much faster would his competition have been had they started offering track and field programs in middle and highschool?

how much harder would he have had to try to beat out roided up competition?

id say the 1.1 second diffrence is more then excusable via the evolution of the sport, not the evolution of people and training.

in comparison, by the time track and field became popular, boxing had allready had more time to evolve then track and field has been around to this date.

yeah but in sprinting thats considered a big number. If those 2 ran side by side that entire second would look like a huge gap.

I bet only a 0.3 difference in speed would look like a huge gap on film in boxing.

I'm not arguing about whos greater, but there are slow and steady athletic advancements in every sport. Everything else in our society has advanced, why would this not be out of the equation?

I like the post on boxing being a skill sport, which i do agree too completely.

[check hook]

Boxing is about skill. It's called the sweet "science" for a reason. Most of today's fighters all fight the same way no matter who they are fighting and always rely on the same punches they are good at no matter who they are fighting.

Someone used Berto as an example, and it's absolutely true, His balance is horrendous and he relies totally on explosive speed and power, and his stamina is crap. Any fighter with a grain of boxing brain would take that away and drown him late in the fight.

Boxers of old were taught the fundamentals better imho. Toney and Hopkins call themselves throwbacks because that is what they are. Bill Miller used to teach Toney by watching old fight film. Guys like Mayweather and Toney were taught by old school trainers.

Take Floyd for example. He knows fighters inside out. Don't believe that crap about him not watching other fighters. It's bull****. I reckon he's seen more black and white fight film than everyone on bscene combined. He examines fighters and applied the science aspect of the sport to beat them. He always uses different tools depending on who is in front of him. Against Cotto and Oscar (converted SP's) he used the sweeping overhand right to get behind the left glove, after jabbing to the head or body. He also used the left uppercut against cotto. Against JMM he favoured the leaping left hook, against Shane a straight right. He even fights's SP differently. Against Judah and Ortiz the big weapon was the str8 right, but he also followed up with left hooks upstairs and downstairs on Judah.....he didn't do that against Ortiz as much because his right hand that leads is his strong arm (ie converted ortho).


- Joe Louis
- Ali
- Frazier
- Foreman
- Norton
- Patterson
- Liston
- Tyson
- Cleveland Williams
etc etc

Can't tell me today's HW's are on par. Hell look the 160-68 division in the 90's.

- McCallum
- Toney
- McLellan
- Eubank
- Benn
- Hopkins
- Jones
- Nunn
- Julian Jackson
- Reggie Johnson


etc etc. These guys would crap on today's 160 and 168 fighters.

[JAB5239]

Boxing is about skill. It's called the sweet "science" for a reason. Most of today's fighters all fight the same way no matter who they are fighting and always rely on the same punches they are good at no matter who they are fighting.

Someone used Berto as an example, and it's absolutely true, His balance is horrendous and he relies totally on explosive speed and power, and his stamina is crap. Any fighter with a grain of boxing brain would take that away and drown him late in the fight.

Boxers of old were taught the fundamentals better imho. Toney and Hopkins call themselves throwbacks because that is what they are. Bill Miller used to teach Toney by watching old fight film. Guys like Mayweather and Toney were taught by old school trainers.

Take Floyd for example. He knows fighters inside out. Don't believe that crap about him not watching other fighters. It's bull****. I reckon he's seen more black and white fight film than everyone on bscene combined. He examines fighters and applied the science aspect of the sport to beat them. He always uses different tools depending on who is in front of him. Against Cotto and Oscar (converted SP's) he used the sweeping overhand right to get behind the left glove, after jabbing to the head or body. He also used the left uppercut against cotto. Against JMM he favoured the leaping left hook, against Shane a straight right. He even fights's SP differently. Against Judah and Ortiz the big weapon was the str8 right, but he also followed up with left hooks upstairs and downstairs on Judah.....he didn't do that against Ortiz as much because his right hand that leads is his strong arm (ie converted ortho).


- Joe Louis
- Ali
- Frazier
- Foreman
- Norton
- Patterson
- Liston
- Tyson
- Cleveland Williams
etc etc

Can't tell me today's HW's are on par. Hell look the 160-68 division in the 90's.

- McCallum
- Toney
- McLellan
- Eubank
- Benn
- Hopkins
- Jones
- Nunn
- Julian Jackson
- Reggie Johnson


etc etc. These guys would crap on today's 160 and 168 fighters.

Very good post...even from a Mayweather fan!

[Spartacus Sully]

yeah but in sprinting thats considered a big number. If those 2 ran side by side that entire second would look like a huge gap.

I bet only a 0.3 difference in speed would look like a huge gap on film in boxing.

I'm not arguing about whos greater, but there are slow and steady athletic advancements in every sport. Everything else in our society has advanced, why would this not be out of the equation?

I like the post on boxing being a skill sport, which i do agree too completely.

yes its a huge diffrence, but more so to the point, lets say you sprinted 200 meters on a track, rested for 10 mins or what ever, and then did a 200 meter sprint in the grass, what kind of diffrence do you think you would see?

and i guess also what im trying to say is everything has a prime, nothing just keeps getting better and better, and while track and field is reaching its prime now baseball and boxing allready had their primes nearly 100 years ago.

[BoxingGenius27]

Someone please paraphrase that.

[StarshipTrooper]

Bumped as it's topical atm.....

[Welsh Jon]

Bumped as it's topical atm.....

Yeah cheers for bumping that 8 missed I'd missed that first (and second) time around! Great read.

[joseph5620]

Bumped as it's topical atm.....

Nope. Many of them are not as good. But that doesn't mean there are no great fighters today. That belief has gotten ridiculous and I'm usually arguing for the fighters of the past because they get disrespected by NSB idiots.

The greatest fighters from the past still rank over fighters from the past twenty years if you look at the resume.

Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, Leonard, Pep, Greb, Charles, off the top of my head have better resumes than any of the current fighters.

Head to head is another issue.

[SBleeder]

Nope. Many of them are not as good. But that doesn't mean there are no great fighters today. That belief has gotten ridiculous and I'm usually arguing for the fighters of the past because they get disrespected by NSB idiots.

The greatest fighters from the past still rank over fighters from the past twenty years if you look at the resume.

Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, Leonard, Pep, Greb, Charles, off the top of my head have better resumes than any of the current fighters.

Head to head is another issue.

Head to head, there isn't a single active fighter I'd pick to beat Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, Leonard, Pep, Greb, or Charles at those fighters' best weight class.