Old School vs. New School

[Roy Keane]

Its a fact the T-rex had the longest teeth 12inch designed for crushing bone etc Gsaurus teeth were smaller and used for slicing, and largest found Gsaurus head was 1.7m and T-rex's 1.5m so not much in it plus T-rex's head was more powerfully built & bite was stronger, Gsaurus head although longer was more slender. But the biggest factor i think is brain size with T-rex's being twice the size of the Gsaurus and the largest of any tyrannosaurid. But alot of it is subjective and you never know when the next skeleton will be found and a dinosaur could be bigger then previously thought. I personally dont think that T-rex was mainly a scavenger, its like the hyena thought of as a scavenger but in reality it hunts more then lions do.

[JAB5239]

I hate to agree because I believe the depth of competition today is far inferior than what it used to be, but depth is not factual. If you are comparing the talents of boxers from different eras it is ALWAYS subjective, no matter how obviously true it may appear to be.

It is a fact that greater numbers produce greater competition. Take away nearly 10 weight classes and 30 paper titles and you have a greater depth.

[JAB5239]

Giganotosaurus would have eaten T. Rex,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Rex is yesterdays HERO,...... T.Rex came tens of millions of tears after and it may have been evolved but I don't think it was no. 1, there is some doubt about T. Rex's capability,.... SPINO ??/ you must have watched different shows than me, it's hands were the best killing weapon ever on land, they tested the sickle claws and they could slice anything almost half in two, the claws could make a single cut of about 8 feet long,... And don't knock the Fish and sea creatures, they were more wicked than anything ever seen on the land. There is not a single land creature that could stand up to those Disembowelers,,.... there is a lot of conflicting opinions,.... One things for sure T. Rex was maybe the most DISGUSTING creature that ever lived, AND lt preferred to scavenge dead things,.. or steal a kill,..... and the thing must have stunk like a Giant skunk, but far worse,

Its a fact the T-rex had the longest teeth 12inch designed for crushing bone etc Gsaurus teeth were smaller and used for slicing, and largest found Gsaurus head was 1.7m and T-rex's 1.5m so not much in it plus T-rex's head was more powerfully built & bite was stronger, Gsaurus head although longer was more slender. But the biggest factor i think is brain size with T-rex's being twice the size of the Gsaurus and the largest of any tyrannosaurid. But alot of it is subjective and you never know when the next skeleton will be found and a dinosaur could be bigger then previously thought. I personally dont think that T-rex was mainly a scavenger, its like the hyena thought of as a scavenger but in reality it hunts more then lions do.

Boxing history turns to paleontology to make it's point!

I thought I would be aggravated by this but Im actually liking this little back and forth of dino facts.

[McGoorty]

Its a fact the T-rex had the longest teeth 12inch designed for crushing bone etc Gsaurus teeth were smaller and used for slicing, and largest found Gsaurus head was 1.7m and T-rex's 1.5m so not much in it plus T-rex's head was more powerfully built & bite was stronger, Gsaurus head although longer was more slender. But the biggest factor i think is brain size with T-rex's being twice the size of the Gsaurus and the largest of any tyrannosaurid. But alot of it is subjective and you never know when the next skeleton will be found and a dinosaur could be bigger then previously thought. I personally dont think that T-rex was mainly a scavenger, its like the hyena thought of as a scavenger but in reality it hunts more then lions do.

Yeah I agree to an extent, great subject isn't it !!!, It doesn't really matter, all 3 were unchallenged champions. Maybe GIGO and SPINO were scavengers too, it all depends on situations, these guys were BIG and chasing prey needed instant reward or they would just take the easier option. Those Hyenas are great predators but are in no way, a likeable creature. The one thing that's for certain, Gigonotosaurus is bigger than T. REX and that's one REX title down the tubes. You know, I always suspected that there were bigger nasties out there that we hadn't found yet and we may be in for bigger surprises than expected,......................................... ...... And I still say that SPINO would kill any boxer and MMA or even SAMURAI that ever lived,.... dispute THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!! lol, lol.

[McGoorty]

Boxing history turns to paleontology to make it's point!

I thought I would be aggravated by this but Im actually liking this little back and forth of dino facts.

I'm glad you liked it JAB,... I do go on a bit sometimes,... but I liked the Boxer Vs Spinosaurus analogy......... He's a smart guy the other bloke, ain't 'ee..... How are you goin' anyway, Jabster ???

[JAB5239]

I'm glad you liked it JAB,... I do go on a bit sometimes,... but I liked the Boxer Vs Spinosaurus analogy......... He's a smart guy the other bloke, ain't 'ee..... How are you goin' anyway, Jabster ???

Doing fantastic! Hope you and everybody else here is as well!!

[GJC]

It is a fact that greater numbers produce greater competition. Take away nearly 10 weight classes and 30 paper titles and you have a greater depth.

I think that it is in the middle ranking opponents that it really tells. I wouldn't argue that the worst of say a Greb's opponents were no more than the local tough guy from the local bar. The best is subjective and with the colour bar etc the champion didn't always fight the best. But I think the middle range opponents who could trouble on their best nights there was far more depth. There was no jockeying into a title shot in those days you used to have to climb over the bodies of a lot of tough fighters

[BritishBoxing92]

boxing in the old days was more or less imo more simpler but more crooked i.e. fixed fights or controversies but old school fighters had more heart and determination and were more willing and you didnt have this ppv non sense or negotiation fallouts all the time because fighter a thought he deserved more then fighter b, but in the old days it was harder as well because of the rules and rounds which used to be 15 rounds and more enduring in the old days boxing used to get more viewers and followings because everyone used to love watching the fights on tv or go to them live.

boxing in present day has fallen has gone more softer, 12 rounds drop from 15 rounds is good however IMO because most fighters nowadays could never go full 15 rounds they are just not as conditioned as used to be, nowadays as well the whole PPV nonsense and purse arguments along with venues and also things like twitter where people trash talk more has shown you what it has become, boxing has lost interest in majority of the the public because it does not interest them any more because people dont want to pay from $/£ 15.00 to $/£50.00 just to watch a fight and also with the whole sanctioning bodies and interim belts along with super belts and being 5 weight belts per each division makes people lose interest but creates more oppurtunity for more champions to be made, also alot of fighters do not fight like how they used to or have the heart or willingness and determination to make them like how previous fighters used to be instead alot of safety and defensive fighters and also in higher divisions going on from middleweight with the exception of super middleweight do not have as much competition or any real threats around anymore.

[GJC]

Won't comment on the dinosaur bit, still have bad memories being chased by them as a boy

[Welsh Jon]

It is a fact that greater numbers produce greater competition. Take away nearly 10 weight classes and 30 paper titles and you have a greater depth.

But if you take depth to mean a greater number of quality fighters then it is subjective and not fact. If you believe that todays fighters are superior than the fighters of 70 years ago then it doesn't matter if there were more fighters 70 years ago if you believe that there are a higher number of better quality fighters today.

The arguement put forward by some is that improvements in nutrition, conditioning, training etc. means that the boxers of this era are superior than previous era. I don't agree with this, but it can't be proven to be untrue.

I seem to be defending an arguement I don't believe in, but it's just that I don't like it when people try to claim opinion as fact.