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

[aaron.king]

And you've never seen me post that there are NO great fighters anymore. Floyd Mayweather is clearly an ATG and I think Pacquiao probably makes the cut too. Marquez is borderline and probably just misses. Ward POTENTIALLY could be an ATG but isn't there yet.

You see, the problem I have with Fl0mos isn't that they claim Floyd is an ATG. He is. The problem is they don't stop there: If they did no one would have an argument with them. The problems arise when they make statements like "Floyd would whitewash that crude bum Robinson" and "Floyd would make that no-skill Ray Leonard look like a fool" and "Floyd beats Duran, Hearns, and Hagler like they were amateurs". That's where the problems come from. Yes Floyd is an ATG fighter, but NO he's not some sort of transcendent GOAT that leaves all previous ATGs in the dust.

It's that simple really. And you can change the fighters' names in that paragraph and apply it to any deranged pack of nuthuggers.

First of all, thanks for bumping. It's a great read, especially on the third time through.

I appreciate your sentiment re: Mayweather. Too many of n00bs believe "historian" types to be as close-minded as they, indeed, are. I agree with the general spirit of your post and Mr. Cox's essay. That said, I tend to think some of Cox's points are a little overstated. To be sure, many fighters from older generations gained a standard of guile, craft, and intelligence that is unmatched today based upon their extraordinary (by modern times) experience levels. On the other hand, some greats like Greb, Tiger Flowers, Pete Herman, Kid McCoy, Freddie Miller, etc. had their primes (if not careers) cut short due to their rate of activity. All those fights could have negative repercussions. I, for one, believe that Greb never reached his full potential, due in large part to the extensive damage to his eyesight, which began when he was only about 27. Furthermore, many of these earlier greats didn't have the extensive amateur background that some (albeit not most) current champions have. Thus, we see timeless craft in guys like Pernell Whitaker, Andre Ward, and Guillermo Rigondeaux despite their low professional fight counts.

My point, more broadly, is that Cox is sometimes guilty of treating modern fighters with the sort of blanket criticisms against which he defends older fighters. Insofar as this is a counterweight against the legions of dopes who claim that everything prior to 1960 was a hug-filled bear fight, I don't have a huge problem with it. Again, I agree with him on the whole. Nonetheless, he isn't quite fair to the modern greats.

[Anthony342]

A few of today's fighters are, the rest aren't, to answer the original question.

[sabor]

Maybe more defensive minded if anything.

[jackgalveston]

Bump...to remind myself its here. Monte is on point.

[jas]

Today's welterweight division has way more strength in depth

Apart from that though, no.

[fight_professor]

Really comparisons across eras are odious. The best you can be is the best in your era and everyone should be judged in context of his time.

[billeau2]

It is of course no contest...todays heavyweights are big...and I mean BIG. They are so big and strong that they are almost as big and strong as ButterBean! Nobody here is silly enough to believe anybody could beat the bean are they?

Ok Ok sept maybe that Chinese big big guy...whats his name? if he fought Butterbean it would be billed as the chop suey battle: The Chinese Long Bean versus the Michigan ButterBean. But chinese long beans are in fact vegetables while butter beans are legumes....oh dear....

[E. O. Wilson]

Boxers get better and better through the years but most people have some national/ethnic/religious/blahblah agenda and of course, it's easier to worship a historical era when that group dominated than it is to kick a can on the modern sidelines.

[jackgalveston]

Hippie Beater: I'm genuinely curious about what you wrote and have some questions. That said, I wouldn't consider it fair to ask you to explain to me, random internet guy, if I didn't offer my thoughts first to give you background.

I think there have been truly great fighters in every decade. I don't necessarily believe any one particular decade as a whole is untouchable by another. I also think technique in boxing has regressed even during my lifetime. I've seen the poster child for modern training, Evander Holyfield, struggling to keep his mouth piece in after throwing a hundred punches.

You wrote that boxers have gotten better and better over time. I would just like you to go deeper into that. I've heard every modern (bigger, faster) vs classic (smarter, tougher) argument but I don't think ive read that today's fighters are "just better", blanket statement.

Care to help me with this?

[Wuckoo]

It's tricky to say. I would say that the old time fighters had more appreciation for defense. But the old style was more flat footed when you see it.

I think the style of fighting today is more varied in the sense that footwork can make a BIG difference. There also seems to be stronger guys nowadays. But that may be down to differences in technique. Footwork has a huge place in that because fighters need to use footwork to get into the specific place to land a shot on the button. The best example for me is nunn vs kalamby. He quickly gets his foot outside the opponents front foot which let's him throw an accurate straight left to the chin.

But I would say that fighters in the 80s and 90s were some of the strongest around technically not just physically. A lot of them could box from the outside or fight on the inside. The one big difference in fighters nowadays is that they aren't as well conditioned. Even when they had just introduced 12 rounders fighters were better conditioned than fighters today.

All in all I'd say fighters are stronger and in some cases more technically proficient than fighters of day the 50s but they aren't as well conditioned.