Busting The Modern Myth!

[kendom]

And those are all new era players,i am discrediting pre 1965,can you really say guys like Chamberlin would have been a force in todays nba or how about bill russell,i just cant see how people rate highly these guys with little to no footage and rely only on what the press said because i have seen many times where the press goes with the fan favorite like all 3 marquez pacquiao fights i need to see it with my eyes and what i have seen of some of the supposed best to ever fight wasnt awe inspiring if you get my drift,did Louis for instance ever have a dominate run like Tyson or hold the title as long as Holmes.as for the nfl you should have said john elway cause montana was highly overrated anyone looks good with a pro bowl team just saying and in my opinion Peyton Manning is the far better qb alltime then Montana and he is creeping on Marino.

WHAAAAT?? Louis held the title for 11 years, much longer than Holmes and defended it 25 times. If thats not a dominant run then what is?. Holmes held it for 7 years defended it 20 times and he didnt unify the belts, Tyson held the linear title from 1988-1990. How do any of their runs come close to the dominance of Louis. Do you really know what you're talking about?

[SBleeder]

WHAAAAT?? Louis held the title for 11 years, much longer than Holmes and defended it 25 times. If thats not a dominant run then what is?. Holmes held it for 7 years defended it 20 times and he didnt unify the belts, Tyson held the linear title from 1988-1990. How do any of their runs come close to the dominance of Louis. Do you really know what you're talking about?

My grandmother knows that Joe Louis was heavyweight champ for over a decade.

Just sayin'.

[StarshipTrooper]

Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson >>>>>>>>>> Kobe, LeBron, Nash, ect.

OK :thinking9:

[LoadedWraps]

Dude, Hagler fought over 20 years ago. The sport has evolved sooooooooo much since then with all the modern training and nutrition and macroevolution within the human race and all.

Sergio Martinez would annihilate both of them in 30 seconds. On the same night. And then he'd go resurrect Harry Greb and Carlos Monzon and re-kill both of them.

Wrong. Nutrition and conditioning methods, sure. NOT the sport itself. Boxing has, and will continue to pedal backwards.

Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson >>>>>>>>>> Kobe, LeBron, Nash, ect.




Joe Montana, Walter Peyton, Jerry Rice >>>>>>>>> Peyton Manning, Jones-Drew, Larry Fitzgerald

Just sayin'

Coming from you who I consider a great poster this is surprising. Enough to the point I am su****ious of sarcasm.

For one, people like MJ and Montana are legends, arguably the best to do it. That's hardly proof of one era being better than another. Players like them only come across once every so often in history. If 50 years from now a player comes through the NBA that is twice as good as Jordan, is that era better? NO. It just means, we have discovered the next "goat" contender.

People trying to draw comparisons to other sports is laughable. I get tired of saying it so many times, boxing can NOT be compared to other sports, because it has been declining for years. All the other sports that I am familiar with = Futbol, Football, Basketball, and baseball, have made progress since the gold ages of boxing. Progress, versus recession? I just don't understand how people can sit there and make ignorant statements comparing other sports to boxing when they cannot, then mocking those of us who know the history when we try and educate them otherwise.

Anyway, even if you mean to prove boxing was all around more talented, and better in the golden ages, you still bring an invalid comparison, because as I mentioned above, the players you bring up are not your average player of the time, they stand apart, and alone. Legends like this are timeless, therefore this comparison proves nothing.

So I guess the above is more pertained to the mark guy you quoted, but I can't find his two nfl/nba comments anywhere in here and I have read each of his posts 4 times already. I hope you didn't bring those in from another thread, that would be dissapointing and slightly immature and uncalled for, or am I just missing them?
Anyway what I said in the second to last paragraph still applies to you, horrible example of naming the greatest of each sport to prove anything.

[StarshipTrooper]

Coming from you who I consider a great poster this is surprising. Enough to the point I am su****ious of sarcasm.

For one, people like MJ and Montana are legends, arguably the best to do it. That's hardly proof of one era being better than another. Players like them only come across once every so often in history. If 50 years from now a player comes through the NBA that is twice as good as Jordan, is that era better? NO. It just means, we have discovered the next "goat" contender.

People trying to draw comparisons to other sports is laughable. I get tired of saying it so many times, boxing can NOT be compared to other sports, because it has been declining for years. All the other sports that I am familiar with = Futbol, Football, Basketball, and baseball, have made progress since the gold ages of boxing. Progress, versus recession? I just don't understand how people can sit there and make ignorant statements comparing other sports to boxing when they cannot, then mocking those of us who know the history when we try and educate them otherwise.

Anyway, even if you mean to prove boxing was all around more talented, and better in the golden ages, you still bring an invalid comparison, because as I mentioned above, the players you bring up are not your average player of the time, they stand apart, and alone. Legends like this are timeless, therefore this comparison proves nothing.

So I guess the above is more pertained to the mark guy you quoted, but I can't find his two nfl/nba comments anywhere in here and I have read each of his posts 4 times already. I hope you didn't bring those in from another thread, that would be dissapointing and slightly immature and uncalled for, or am I just missing them?
Anyway what I said in the second to last paragraph still applies to you, horrible example of naming the greatest of each sport to prove anything.

I was responding very specifically to these assertions>>>>>

Nba-Better athletes then old era

Nfl-better athletes then old era

My response was to give examples which refute those very sweeping assertions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Poet

[IronDanHamza]

I still don't think past greats were any better...only nod I'll give on that is fought tougher oppents with more grit and determination also harder punchers but even then it's a stretch on the harder punching

They aren't greater by default.

It just so happens that a lot of old timers have stronger resume's than more modern fighters.

They aren't greater because they're older.

A modern fighter could come along at anytime and string a resume together that could put him amongst the Top 10 fighter of all time.

[New England]

Wrong. Nutrition and conditioning methods, sure. NOT the sport itself. Boxing has, and will continue to pedal backwards.


Coming from you who I consider a great poster this is surprising. Enough to the point I am su****ious of sarcasm.

For one, people like MJ and Montana are legends, arguably the best to do it. That's hardly proof of one era being better than another. Players like them only come across once every so often in history. If 50 years from now a player comes through the NBA that is twice as good as Jordan, is that era better? NO. It just means, we have discovered the next "goat" contender.

People trying to draw comparisons to other sports is laughable. I get tired of saying it so many times, boxing can NOT be compared to other sports, because it has been declining for years. All the other sports that I am familiar with = Futbol, Football, Basketball, and baseball, have made progress since the gold ages of boxing. Progress, versus recession? I just don't understand how people can sit there and make ignorant statements comparing other sports to boxing when they cannot, then mocking those of us who know the history when we try and educate them otherwise.

Anyway, even if you mean to prove boxing was all around more talented, and better in the golden ages, you still bring an invalid comparison, because as I mentioned above, the players you bring up are not your average player of the time, they stand apart, and alone. Legends like this are timeless, therefore this comparison proves nothing.

So I guess the above is more pertained to the mark guy you quoted, but I can't find his two nfl/nba comments anywhere in here and I have read each of his posts 4 times already. I hope you didn't bring those in from another thread, that would be dissapointing and slightly immature and uncalled for, or am I just missing them?
Anyway what I said in the second to last paragraph still applies to you, horrible example of naming the greatest of each sport to prove anything.

one of the history section's finest jokers.

[New England]

They aren't greater by default.

It just so happens that a lot of old timers have stronger resume's than more modern fighters.

They aren't greater because they're older.

A modern fighter could come along at anytime and string a resume together that could put him amongst the Top 10 fighter of all time.

are you saying that floyd mayweather jr is not the best boxer of all time?
but 43 have tried and 43 have failed!

[JAB5239]

They aren't greater by default.

It just so happens that a lot of old timers have stronger resume's than more modern fighters.

They aren't greater because they're older.

A modern fighter could come along at anytime and string a resume together that could put him amongst the Top 10 fighter of all time.

Its all a matter of activity. I have no doubt someone like Mayweather, who I abhor, could be amongst the top 10 had he cleaned out 135, 140 and 147. Unfortunately for they're legacies many fighters only concentrate on the money instead of greatness. I don't think most of the history buffs think they can't be greater, they just choose not to be active enough to achieve that level of greatness. Seems many younger fans think we should penalize past fighters to allow greatness for today's talent just because the game has changed. I just can't see doing that and I don't think any reputable historian would either.

[MRBOOMER]

They aren't greater by default.

It just so happens that a lot of old timers have stronger resume's than more modern fighters.

They aren't greater because they're older.

A modern fighter could come along at anytime and string a resume together that could put him amongst the Top 10 fighter of all time.

That's not my reasoning

Just that fighters that did so well in that era were freaks of nature for there time they were stronger faster and smarter only thing is they new there craft more fighters today have all those things except for the craft part and even some of them have a pretty good grasp of that also
With out those advantages that they had they wouldn't stand out as much today as they did which I my mind doesn't make them. As great just my thought but no doubt there great because of what they accomplished