Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[Bundana]

I think there is great talent in every era. To me though it's how you master that talent. I'm of the opinion fighting more often is the best way to succeed at this. Boxing is pretty basic. If you do things over and over, against solid fighters you are going to be a better fighter than if you only do it two or three times a year. There are always exceptions though in any era.

Yes, this makes good sense. To excel at something physical, you need to practice over and over again... whatever it is you're trying to be good at.

However, there's a difference between trying to be the best at, say, golf and boxing. The top golfers take part in a new tournament every week, where they play 4 days in a row (those who make the cut after the first 2 days, that is!). This may seem like a busy schedule, but a golf tournament is of course nowhere near as taxing on the body as a grueling 12-rounder (or 15 rounds back in the day).

As we all know, the top boxers fought much more often in previous decades than today. 5-6 times as often, on average, if we go all the way back to the 20s and 30s (see post #5 in this thread). This resulted in lots and lots of 100+ fight careers, which naturally looks rather impressive today. But a new fight every month (or every other week, in some cases), is that really the optimum way to bring the best out of you? Just like a marathon runner, boxers need time to recuperate between fights.

Anyway, when discussing a boxer's standing (in an ATG sense) shouldn't we first and foremost look at how good he actually was - rather than how many fights he had? I certainly don't subscribe to the notion (post #264) that you can't compare today's boxers with less than 50 career fights with the greats of the past!

[GhostofDempsey]

Yes, this makes good sense. To excel at something physical, you need to practice over and over again... whatever it is you're trying to be good at.

However, there's a difference between trying to be the best at, say, golf and boxing. The top golfers take part in a new tournament every week, where they play 4 days in a row (those who make the cut after the first 2 days, that is!). This may seem like a busy schedule, but a golf tournament is of course nowhere near as taxing on the body as a grueling 12-rounder (or 15 rounds back in the day).

As we all know, the top boxers fought much more often in previous decades than today. 5-6 times as often, on average, if we go all the way back to the 20s and 30s (see post #5 in this thread). This resulted in lots and lots of 100+ fight careers, which naturally looks rather impressive today. But a new fight every month (or every other week, in some cases), is that really the optimum way to bring the best out of you? Just like a marathon runner, boxers need time to recuperate between fights.

Anyway, when discussing a boxer's standing (in an ATG sense) shouldn't we first and foremost look at how good he actually was - rather than how many fights he had? I certainly don't subscribe to the notion (post #264) that you can't compare today's boxers with less than 50 career fights with the greats of the past!

There are other things to take into account besides the volume of fights. Quality of opposition is big--did he fight the best at their best, or fight them past their prime? Losses--did most of them of come at the end of their career after hanging around too long such as Ezzard Charles and Emile Griffith, or was he just an inconsistent journeyman like Glen Johnson?

To be an all time great you need to beat some all time greats and do it while they are in their prime. Not sure how many fights it takes to quantify that, I guess it is all subjective. Very difficult to set a standard. We also have to consider how did he win? Convincingly or by the skin of his teeth in close fights and favorable judging?

Sugar Ray Leonard is considered an ATG with just 40 fights, but how do we rank him alongside Sugar Ray Robinson with 200 fights? How do you quantify that? This is why it is difficult to compare fighters across different generations. Would SRL have the durability and stamina to go 100 or more fights? Likely not, since he had retina and eye issues.

Oscar De La Hoya; 45 fights w/6 losses--ATG or not? Some would say yes, others would say no.

[The Old LefHook]

Good points about the human body's recovery time. I have always felt that modern fighters are fighting at absolute physical peak, whereas the oldsters were not even fully recovered from injuries received in prior fights before they were thrust back into the fire. They fought right through hangnails that would get a major fight canceled these days.

In the older era they would never have called someone with 40 fights an ATG. The fighter would have just gotten started on his career. They might have thought of Ray Leonard as someone surely headed for ATGness cut down before his time. We would love to see Leonard plopped down in that era to find out what he could do against the likes of Robinson, Burley, Cerdan, Lamotta and Gavilan et al.

[Anthony342]

It is not what is being sold at all. Of course you can have special crops from time to time. Its all meant in a general sense. The argument is that the more competition you have, the greater you perform. As in real business life.

More competition does no good if they don't actually compete near as often.

[Bundana]

There are other things to take into account besides the volume of fights. Quality of opposition is big--did he fight the best at their best, or fight them past their prime? Losses--did most of them of come at the end of their career after hanging around too long such as Ezzard Charles and Emile Griffith, or was he just an inconsistent journeyman like Glen Johnson?

To be an all time great you need to beat some all time greats and do it while they are in their prime. Not sure how many fights it takes to quantify that, I guess it is all subjective. Very difficult to set a standard. We also have to consider how did he win? Convincingly or by the skin of his teeth in close fights and favorable judging?

Sugar Ray Leonard is considered an ATG with just 40 fights, but how do we rank him alongside Sugar Ray Robinson with 200 fights? How do you quantify that? This is why it is difficult to compare fighters across different generations. Would SRL have the durability and stamina to go 100 or more fights? Likely not, since he had retina and eye issues.

Oscar De La Hoya; 45 fights w/6 losses--ATG or not? Some would say yes, others would say no.

You're right... it takes a lot more than just the raw numbers to make a proper assessment of a fighter's career.

How do we rank 40-fight Leonard alongside SRR? Well, how do we rank ANY fighter alongside Robinson - who, quite possibly, is the greatest fighter who ever lived? Leonard's career is of course nowhere near as impressive as Robinson's... but it's still good enough to make him worthy of the ATG label, imo. I don't think many would disagree with this.

As for DLH... now there's a guy, where you REALLY have to scrutinize his career very carefully to judge him fairly.

Scanning down his record, what immediately hits the eye, is the fact that he never faced an opponent, who didn't have a winning record... not at the beginning of his career, not EVER! Is that a big deal? Well, only a handful of champions (and none with as many fights as Oscar) throughout history, have been able to retire with that proud claim... so yes, that does mean something.

Another thing you notice, is that his 6 defeats came against opponents that are all, or soon will be, in the IBHOF. In a few years time, his record will show 9 different HOFers - which, again, is quite something these days. How far back do we need to go, before we find a boxer who met more than 9 HOFers? Pretty far, actually. All the way back to, yeah you guessed it... Sugar Ray Robinson!

Also, what the numbers don't tell us, is that DLH never ducked anyone. Always prepared to fight the best available opposition out there. He didn't have to go all the way up to middleweight to take on Hopkins, but he did... just couldn't resist the challenge.

So yes, in my book he's an ATG!

[The Old LefHook]

The numbers also do not tell us that Hoya won in at least two of the losses on his record, and that they were big, important fights. Trinidad and the second Mosley fight should be victories on his ledger.

[Bundana]

More competition does no good if they don't actually compete near as often.

Fighters like SRR and Pep didn't become greats because they had 200 pro fights. They became some of the best in history, because they were supremely talented.

If your first 50 pro fights are against opposition, that will really test you, including in multiple world title fights... how much better will an additional 50 fights make you?

Do you really think, that boxers like Leonard, Whitaker, DLH, Mayweather, Ward, etc. would come up short against past greats... because they aren't experienced enough?

[joeandthebums]

Also, what the numbers don't tell us, is that DLH never ducked anyone. Always prepared to fight the best available opposition out there.

I know of one;

Genaro Hernandez, February 5th 1994.

Day after Narciso Valenzuela dropped him the fight was called off.

Don't want to add more to this as I think my memory could be off, but what I remember from looking into De La Hoya's run, he certainly could of fought better competition/different schedule to what he did - but not too sure "real world" feasibility without spending time looking into promotional issues and so forth of each fighter during period.

[The Old LefHook]

I know of one;

Genaro Hernandez, February 5th 1994.

Day after Narciso Valenzuela dropped him the fight was called off.

Don't want to add more to this as I think my memory could be off, but what I remember from looking into De La Hoya's run, he certainly could of fought better competition/different schedule to what he did - but not too sure "real world" feasibility without spending time looking into promotional issues and so forth of each fighter during period.

Without searching for promotional details and other mitigating factors, who do you at least feel Hoya might have fought that he didn't, or could have fought in a more timely fashion, besides Hernandez?

[bender2000]

Fighters of past eras were up against better competition and fought way more often. They employed all of the nuances of boxing that we don't see as much of today. The current era of fighters just don't fight often enough to measure them against the ATGs of past generations. Today champions fight twice per year. Robinson and LaMotta fought one another twice in one month. How do you compare Robinson and Moore's 200 fights to 40 or 50 fights of today's boxers?

this is exactly right the fighters then were more experienced and hardened with the desire and drive to fight the best and often , even fighters from the 80s era were better , old skills such as rolling with head punches taking the power off punches is a dying art fighters like duran who could stand right in front of someone in close being aggressive and still hard to hit is not as commen.