Why todays era is better than past eras. Discussion.

[BattlingNelson]

Well I think you should find more reliable stats because these are clearly wrong, I have seen other stats that say the exact opposite, in fact I posted them somewhere. The idea that todays crap is better than from some of the other decades (some truly great) I find hilarious. I am not used to you saying stuff like this.

Well Mcgoorty. I'm surprised thats all. Or should I say shocked beyond belief? My world has been rocked. I always thought there was more fighters fighting more often back in the old days. That was my foundation for generally saying that past eras was better. Why? Simply because competition raises quality. Simple as that.

I don't particularly like it, but that is what my argument used to be.



My take on infighting: Yes it does not seem as prevalent today as it was just 20-30 years ago. It is my unfounded belief that that is due to the referees not allowing it. So I don't think it's missing because fighters are not as skilled. I think it is not used because it is so rarely allowed. Some of this might be contributed to legendary (Yes) referees such as Richard Steele.

[Elroy1]

So infighting is no longer utilised because it is no longer needed?

An entire phrase of the sport has been eliminated?

You cited Mike Tyson as a mid-range boxer, he often found himself up close with an opponent - but never became efficient at the range. Do you not feel he would of benefited from possessing those skills in contests such as that against Bonecrusher Smith?

Actually, on the contrary, I feel that this inability of Mike Tyson represents not a fault of Mike, more of a sign of the times. Mike at 5'10 or whatever he was against a very tall and heavy fighter like Smith who when up close seeks to constantly spoil, was unable to maintain his effectiveness because of Smith's strategy, not from lack of his own.

Had that been one of your olden day infighters in there, like I dunno, FRAZIER or something, they could only have performed worse imo. And of course, the most famous example of a spoiler is W.Klitschko and look where it has taken him. Of course the nostalgic view would LIKE to promote it as a lack of infighting skill from the competition, but most people really know that it's a result of the formers concerted efforts to halt such a situation from occurring.

And it is easy to see why. A fight can be controlled and dictated at length or on the edge, whereas up close, it's more of a test of mettle and involves a great amount of luck also.

[Elroy1]

So many holes in your argument and mostly it is because of opinion not facts, would Holyfield really beat Joe Louis ??? I really doubt it, I think Joe wins and it could be a massacre and RJJ is MUCH bigger than SRR so to hell with that comparison but at least it would be by far the best opponent RJJ ever faced.

How about this...

- Size doesn't matter to McGoorty UNTIL his own fighters are faced with a disadvantage..

- Joe Louis would be one of the worst opponents Holyfield ever faced.

- RJJ would never even have been allowed to KO SRR

I will invoice you for the free lesson McGoorty!

[Elroy1]

I stick to Heavyweights & as most know I posted over 2000 fights here a few years ago. I won't compare eras before my time but since the late 80s I have followed most of the Heavyweights before youtube. I bought my fights overseas so I had fights many had no way of seeing unless they lived in Europe. In my opinion todays HW era doesn't come close to touching the 90s where everyone fought each other to get that big payday from the 3 headed monster... Holyfield, Tyson or Lewis...

And in what way is that different from everyone scambering to get a fight with the 00's TWO headed monster in the K-bro's, as opposed to the 3 headed one of Holy, Tyson and Lewis?

The ONLY difference really is that the 2 headed monster did not fight each other because they were family, whereas the others did, thus giving you that illusion that everybody fought each other more, whereas apart from each other, both the K's together fought and belted up every single HW out there who was worth anything between them.

You are being a very biased poster here Mr. Strong.

[Ray Corso]

There are no individuals today that are ATG boxers! The contenders in every weight class are not deep regarding highly skilled men and the ones that have talent are held back from competing with rival federations contenders.
One of the biggest problems is the best from today rarely get challenged by the best their division has to offer. That's the business end stinking up the progression of young fighters.

If you recognize the best 3 men from each weight class none of the current day competitors show up. That's a small sample size but The best fighter today as a reigning welter king would be beaten regularly in other era's. The welter division has been the chronicled the most because of the amount of competitors competing from 135 thru 154.
Mayweather, Pacman, Marquez, Hatton, Gurerro, Cotto, Alvarez, Rios, Maidana
Broner back to Oscar, Shane, Margarito, Tito etc etc...............
The 140 thru 154 has been featured the majority of the time to the public.
Their all pretty good but past men in that same weight area might have something to say about "who era was strongest and most talented".......
Robinson, Gavalin, Basilo, Armstrong, Cerdan.......to.....Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Palamino, Cuevas, Weston, Prior .......to........Curry, Starling, McCrory, Breland, then Whitaker etc etc...............
I left a few out I'm sure from each era but you get the drift. To me Robinson is clearly the most talented feature all aspects of skills at the highest level.
Every division has gone through depleted times and that's an expected phase when you have over a 125 year history.
My best at each weigh, I'm not discussing who can beat who I'm talking about skill levels
heavy-Joe Louis
lyHvy- Mike Spinks
Middle-Sugar Ray
welter- Sugar Ray
lightweight-Ike Williams
feather--Willie Pep
bant-- Carlos Zarate'
fly--Roman Gonzales

So my picks at the base weights lifts one modern day fighter that I think is the best.
Now theres other fighting today who aren't finished and have the talents to be considered on my list. I think Rigo is terrific same with Lomo fellows like Koval & GGG can improve but their appeal is from power and thats ok because today that's a rare option in a fighters arsenal.

The best today has to offer aren't bad but the divisions are NOT deep and this topic really should be on the trainers of today not being as well versed as some from the past. Its easy to teach a well coordinated kid with the capacity to learn how to box. How are you making out teaching the awkward kid who is "willing" to learn but isn't going to be a Ray Leonard on the move.
Can they teach "steps", crossover, pivots, bob & weaving as you pressure with quick steps? Inside work once you get there, what about that kid who wants to learn?
Golden Era beginning to 1920
Modern Era 1925 to 1995 (and actually right now too)
Current Era well the current times. Modern Era begins with Johnson passing some knowledge off to Blackburn and the rise of lateral movement instead of circling stalking. Tunney to Conn with Benny Lenard in the mix. The early rise of the "boxers"!

Dinner time, think about it! Ray

[Elroy1]

Every single line, paragraph and word of it Ray..

COMPLETELY delusional!

1930's Louis the most skilled HW?

1950's Robinson the most skilled WW?

And so on..

The subject of the ATG has been completely dismantled in another thread. It is literally a meaningless concept.

These guys were human punch bags at times. Where were there skills then?

AUGMENT:

You claim the modern era began in 25? What are you crazy? You really think the sport was modern then? LOL

The modern era began circa 1980's.

- This is when defensiveness developed at the expense of punch baggery and fighters became more guarded and cautious.

- This is when the Cruiser divisions were introduced and later, the junior and super divisions of limit weights

And most importantly...

THIS is when sports science FIRST began to be applied to boxing.

And it was ushered in imo by Spinks vs Holmes..

PLEASE google the HBO coverage of that 1st fight and listen to the prologue for Spinks.

It details that in over a hundred years, nothing much changed, but that that is all set to change.

FAR more compeling than a conversation with Blackurn in the year 1925!

[Ray Corso]

We know your opinion, keep it! There's no reason to explain anything you don't have the base knowledge of the most basic skills.
If your ever in Florida by all means give me a shout and in one day I can explain things to you that you will never learn in your life time. Especially if you continue to be an "internet warrior" hahahaha.....

Nothings been dismantled junior the ATG comment was to further the point that the "current" era isn't as strong as other times. Keep your panties on Gertrude!

"Where were there skills then"?...............there you go ypou can't see them and that proves what I've said since you got here!!! You know NOTHING

Now go tell mommy you love her so she'll take care of you, jackazz!
Ray

[juggernaut666]

There are no individuals today that are ATG boxers! The contenders in every weight class are not deep regarding highly skilled men and the ones that have talent are held back from competing with rival federations contenders.
One of the biggest problems is the best from today rarely get challenged by the best their division has to offer. That's the business end stinking up the progression of young fighters.

If you recognize the best 3 men from each weight class none of the current day competitors show up. That's a small sample size but The best fighter today as a reigning welter king would be beaten regularly in other era's. The welter division has been the chronicled the most because of the amount of competitors competing from 135 thru 154.
Mayweather, Pacman, Marquez, Hatton, Gurerro, Cotto, Alvarez, Rios, Maidana
Broner back to Oscar, Shane, Margarito, Tito etc etc...............
The 140 thru 154 has been featured the majority of the time to the public.
Their all pretty good but past men in that same weight area might have something to say about "who era was strongest and most talented".......
Robinson, Gavalin, Basilo, Armstrong, Cerdan.......to.....Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Palamino, Cuevas, Weston, Prior .......to........Curry, Starling, McCrory, Breland, then Whitaker etc etc...............
I left a few out I'm sure from each era but you get the drift. To me Robinson is clearly the most talented feature all aspects of skills at the highest level.
Every division has gone through depleted times and that's an expected phase when you have over a 125 year history.
My best at each weigh, I'm not discussing who can beat who I'm talking about skill levels
heavy-Joe Louis
lyHvy- Mike Spinks
Middle-Sugar Ray
welter- Sugar Ray
lightweight-Ike Williams
feather--Willie Pep
bant-- Carlos Zarate'
fly--Roman Gonzales

So my picks at the base weights lifts one modern day fighter that I think is the best.
Now theres other fighting today who aren't finished and have the talents to be considered on my list. I think Rigo is terrific same with Lomo fellows like Koval & GGG can improve but their appeal is from power and thats ok because today that's a rare option in a fighters arsenal.

The best today has to offer aren't bad but the divisions are NOT deep and this topic really should be on the trainers of today not being as well versed as some from the past. Its easy to teach a well coordinated kid with the capacity to learn how to box. How are you making out teaching the awkward kid who is "willing" to learn but isn't going to be a Ray Leonard on the move.
Can they teach "steps", crossover, pivots, bob & weaving as you pressure with quick steps? Inside work once you get there, what about that kid who wants to learn?
Golden Era beginning to 1920
Modern Era 1925 to 1995 (and actually right now too)
Current Era well the current times. Modern Era begins with Johnson passing some knowledge off to Blackburn and the rise of lateral movement instead of circling stalking. Tunney to Conn with Benny Lenard in the mix. The early rise of the "boxers"!

Dinner time, think about it! Ray

'I'm not discussing who can beat who I'm talking about skill levels"

[Elroy1]

We know your opinion, keep it! There's no reason to explain anything you don't have the base knowledge of the most basic skills.
If your ever in Florida by all means give me a shout and in one day I can explain things to you that you will never learn in your life time. Especially if you continue to be an "internet warrior" hahahaha.....

Nothings been dismantled junior the ATG comment was to further the point that the "current" era isn't as strong as other times. Keep your panties on Gertrude!

"Where were there skills then"?...............there you go ypou can't see them and that proves what I've said since you got here!!! You know NOTHING

Now go tell mommy you love her so she'll take care of you, jackazz!
Ray

It is obvious that in an era with many ATG's, that none of them were really that great otherwise they would not have allowed many others to arise. Further the entire notion of an "ATG" is a closed viewpoint in which nothing that comes later can affect it.

As for your second, even more ridiculous rebuttal, the fact that I can see Louis and Roinson get pasted, utilise sloppy technique and lack a proper defence as compared to modern era fighters- that you see as my having a lack of insight instead, is a very convenient excuse for you to use..

MY retort to this is that statements like yours, prior to the 00's, MIGHT have seemed plausile to the general public..

BEFORE Boxrec or uploaded fight video!!

Now days, such nut baggery is totally exposed by technology and open acess, something you serve to keep down with your elitist attitudes!

[Elroy1]

'I'm not discussing who can beat who I'm talking about skill levels"

Yes, another idiotic statement.

Unsurprisingly!