Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[D-MiZe]

You can only fight what your opposition gives you ,fighter A can beat fighter C soundly while fighter B can struggled with fighter D ,but D was better than C...the fight game is way complex to look at statistics it means nothing in boxing its the quality of opponents that count and thats of opinion so records mean little unlike olympic sports where you go there to break records ,personal records dont mean much either it doesnt mean anything really .

Statistics in sports are used to determine who the favorite is not anything about records being broke ,records that are broke are written in the history books ,how meaningful is it depends on personal opinion this is common sense !

If Fighter A throws 1100 punches in a fight it doesn't matter who his opponent was. I see what you're trying to say but you're being too pedantic about it.

Your original point was;

What records are to be broken in boxing? Its amatter of winning or losing...

What about a record of the most wins without a loss?

[Anthony342]

Even though MMA is controlled environment what you say is basically true , Royce actually changed the rules in his fight with Sakuraba and made the fight longer ,had he not done that he was up on points ,it cost him the fight.

Yeppers. His pride (no pun intended) got the best of him there. This was because he was ticked off at the technical submission being called against brother Royler, when the round was ending in his fight with Sakuraba. The family kept going after Kaz following that fight. Royce smartened up after that and stuck with 3 5 minute rounds to win a UD in the rematch, that time in K-1.

Speaking of which, now Ken Shamrock has called out Royce for a rematch and apparently Bellator is making it happen in February. Talk about battle of the old timers. I guess it'll be like when Larry Holmes rematched both Smith and Weaver at the end of his boxing career.

[Elroy1]

Anthony,

It's obvious what he's already pointed out...

That Louis record THEN means absolutely NOTHING now, since guys not would not even be allowed to face those same size/quality opponents as Louis did.

Even by knocking off all the mathematical bums and sub-HW's from the record it STILL doesn't even account for the background, lack of relevant experience, training, skills and athleticism difference between the eras.

If I won 5 local tennis tournaments at my school in a row, I cannot years later directly compare that to Pete Sampras or Roger Federer's Wimbledon achievements can I? It doesn't make sense!

It's a subjective assessment at worst and a petty broken down objective one at best.

[Anthony342]

As for the topic at hand, yes, athletically they're better. As for fighting skill, it depends on what examples you're using. I mean Wlad I would say is better than, say, Primo Carnera but would say Leonard is better than almost every welter that came after him.

[juggernaut666]

If Fighter A throws 1100 punches in a fight it doesn't matter who his opponent was. I see what you're trying to say but you're being too pedantic about it.

Your original point was;



What about a record of the most wins without a loss?

Again it falls under opposition quality ....

If i fight glass Joe 10 times/Von Kaiser 10 then King Hippo 10 and never lose ....then i fight ..

Sandman 10 times /Super Macho Man 10 times / Bald Bull 10 times and have 5 losses out of 30 fights with far better opposition .......what is the more impressive statistic?

[Anthony342]

Anthony,

It's obvious what he's already pointed out...

That Louis record THEN means absolutely NOTHING now, since guys not would not even be allowed to face those same size/quality opponents as Louis did.

Even by knocking off all the mathematical bums and sub-HW's from the record it STILL doesn't even account for the background, lack of relevant experience, training, skills and athleticism difference between the eras.

If I won 5 local tennis tournaments at my school in a row, I cannot years later directly compare that to Pete Sampras or Roger Federer's Wimbledon achievements can I? It doesn't make sense!

It's a subjective assessment at worst and a petty broken down objective one at best.

No it's not. It just is when it doesn't fit your argument. Not everyone from today is better than those of the past and vice versa. Some better, some not. I wasn't the one who brought up records. It was previously argued that track stars are better because they've shattered all previous records from the past. Yet nobody has broken that record. So by that logic presented, Louis is better.

[Anthony342]

Again it falls under opposition quality ....

If i fight glass Joe 10 times/Von Kaiser 10 then King Hippo 10 and never lose ....then i fight ..

Sandman 10 times /Super Maco Man 10 times / Bald Bull 10 times and have 5 losses out of 30 fights with far better opposition .......what is the more impressive statistic?

Exactly, the second one. Which is why most fans aren't that impressed with Floyd's unbeaten record, because they see his opponents as a bunch of Glass Joes, Von Kaisers and maybe Piston Hondas occasionally.

[D-MiZe]

Again it falls under opposition quality ....

If i fight glass Joe 10 times/Von Kaiser 10 then King Hippo 10 and never lose ....then i fight ..

Sandman 10 times /Super Maco Man 10 times / Bald Bull 10 times and have 5 losses out of 30 fights with far better opposition .......what is the more impressive statistic?

At some point you just need to accept that you can't define boxers as well as you'd like to. The lesser boxer might hold a win over the better boxer etc. A person's batting average is reliant on who they play with. Could even say that a runner's 100m time is dependent on who they run with.

Beating a dead horse now.

[juggernaut666]

At some point you just need to accept that you can't define boxers as well as you'd like to. The lesser boxer might hold a win over the better boxer etc. A person's batting average is reliant on who they play with. Could even say that a runner's 100m time is dependent on who they run with.

Beating a dead horse now.

Runners dont run against anything but the clock..... everything else you stated is the same old rehash i explained to you already.... i dont have to try at anything quality in fighters is the easiest thing to see in sports.

[juggernaut666]

Exactly, the second one. Which is why most fans aren't that impressed with Floyd's unbeaten record, because they see his opponents as a bunch of Glass Joes, Von Kaisers and maybe Piston Hondas occasionally.

Yes that would also fall under opinion ,you simply cant gauge any combat sports with statistics unless theres a huge leap in size which does change the dynamics drastically .

One just has to look at the baseball and basketball ball players ....combat sports like boxing are effected even more since the object is to win via stopping with punches and you have no teammate to help you out in the ring so statistics arent really practical as stated its a L or W, the whole statistics in sports really in boxing is the least relevant out of all of the other sports ,styles make up for what and how a fight will play out, ,and ss what was said quality of opposition .