are old school fighters better than present day fighters??

[jabsRstiff]

Don't know if the fighters are better, but I am certain the sport itself was better.

Having fights on free television and being the top sports stories was absolutely better than today's world of cable, ppv, and limited media coverage. Yes, we have all of these websites devoted to boxing, but those are for the hardcore fans to seek out. It was definitely better to have the game covered more by the mainstream- shows it's healthier.

[IronDanHamza]

ever heard of the "bum of the month club"

Tell us about that, Larry.

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Yes and No.


They're are fighters from today that could dominate back then and they're are fighters from back then that could dominate now.

Some boxers would be damn good in any era.

[McGrain]

They are neither better, nor worse in my opinion. Certain things have worked in the modern fighter's favuor, certain things have worked against. All in all, fighters like Mayweather & Pacquiao, Jones & Whitaker, Tyson and Ricardo Lopez would be competitive in any era at all. Equally, every era only kicks up three or four such fighters. The forties was special - Charles, Louis, Saddler, Pep, Moore, Burley etc. all having a say in the thing at one time or another and perhaps boxing has fallen off from its absolute peak, but basically a fighter is a fighter is a fighter.

[IronDanHamza]

Yes and No.


They're are fighters from today that could dominate back then and they're are fighters from back then that could dominate now.

Some boxers would be damn good in any era.

I agree.

Older fighters aren't superior because they're older, neither are modern ones because they're modern

There's many older fighters who were great and many modern ones who are great. And a certain list of modern greats could well compete in an older era's and vice versa. Obviously not all of them.

There just seems to be a lot more greater fighter in older era's in comparison to newer ones. But still, that doesn't change the fact that a modern fighter can be just as great as the older fighters.

Who knows, one day a fighter may come along and build a resume that's worthy of a Top 5 ATG. It's certainly possible.

This has been stated over and over and over.

Yet, Larry translates it to "They're saying older fighters are automatically better!"

It is strange, to say the least.

[Roman Moreno]

ever heard of the "bum of the month club"

Explain that bum of the month club to me.

[NChristo]

Leah Larry, educate us on a part of the sport which you have so thoroughly lived.

[raf727]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Please sir, explain to me how nutrition and sports science hasn't gotten better over the past 100 years.

[Japanese Boxing]

I think that the experience level of older boxers would give them the advantage. I think it's interesting that older boxers would do the same training as modern guys, just in a different way. The journymen back in the day I feel would be better. The top guys? Who knows?

Please sir, explain to me how nutrition and sports science hasn't gotten better over the past 100 years.

Because of the preservatives and **** in food makes it almost worse. Back then they ate clean. The difference in food is ridiculous. As for science? Boxers are doing the same workouts for the last 100 years. So obviously, nothing has changed much.

[StarshipTrooper]

In practically every major sport skill trumps athleticism. Of the major sports boxing is the sport where athleticism has the LEAST impact. This isn't track and field.

Poet