Why have modern fighters not evolved to be better than SRR

[mrbig1]

Robinson had a record of 128-1 at one point. 40 straight wins, then a single loss, followed by 88 straight wins.

That's a lot of fights and a lot of victories. To be put in his class you should have to accomplish something equally as impressive, which is why almost no one is considered to be in the same league.

SRR was before my time. I saw him fight very late in his career. His record shows what a great fighter he was. The only issue I have is when people call him the greatest MW of all time. He lost his title 4 times. The MW division has a long rich history. In my lifetime I saw Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins. All 3 defended their title 12 14 17 times without a loss. The champions before Sugar ray were also great. I have no problem calling him the #1 P4P of all time. Just not at MW. Great but not the greatest.

[ShoulderRoll]

SRR was before my time. I saw him fight very late in his career. His record shows what a great fighter he was. The only issue I have is when people call him the greatest MW of all time. He lost his title 4 times. The MW division has a long rich history. In my lifetime I saw Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins. All 3 defended their title 12 14 17 times without a loss. The champions before Sugar ray were also great. I have no problem calling him the #1 P4P of all time. Just not at MW. Great but not the greatest.

A great middleweight but not the greatest.

I see no problem with that. 160 lbs wasn't Robinson's best weight.

[billeau2]

SRR was before my time. I saw him fight very late in his career. His record shows what a great fighter he was. The only issue I have is when people call him the greatest MW of all time. He lost his title 4 times. The MW division has a long rich history. In my lifetime I saw Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins. All 3 defended their title 12 14 17 times without a loss. The champions before Sugar ray were also great. I have no problem calling him the #1 P4P of all time. Just not at MW. Great but not the greatest.

I don't know of many pundits that call Robinson a great middle weight. There is speculation that most of the film we have for him is not even at his best weight... Some who had been around claimed that at lightweight Robinson was even better than as a Welter. I would personally use this argument to butress the idea that Middle weight was not Robinson's true baliwic. BUT, I could see an argument (similar to Tunney being a great heavyweight) for Robinson being a great Middleweight, one of the best...Despite being even better at other weights.

[QueensburyRules]

I don't know of many pundits that call Robinson a great middle weight. There is speculation that most of the film we have for him is not even at his best weight... Some who had been around claimed that at lightweight Robinson was even better than as a Welter. I would personally use this argument to butress the idea that Middle weight was not Robinson's true baliwic. BUT, I could see an argument (similar to Tunney being a great heavyweight) for Robinson being a great Middleweight, one of the best...Despite being even better at other weights.

- - Middle where he made most of his fame and fortune as an aging fighter, losing and then winning rematches against a half dozen evenly matched middles in the day.

[billeau2]

- - Middle where he made most of his fame and fortune as an aging fighter, losing and then winning rematches against a half dozen evenly matched middles in the day.

Lol I am rereading my post... I meant to say that Robinson is not necessarily in the top 5 as compared to Welter and the tales we hear of him coming up as a lightweight.

[them_apples]

Why with modern sports science, nutrition and modern training equipment etc. have modern/today's fighters not evolved to be greater fighters/boxer than Sugar Ray Robinson. It is 65-70yrs since Sugar Ray Robinson ruled the boxing world, yet we have not seen a fighter come close to matching his greatness or his incredible ability. But before Sugar Ray Robinson, we had great fighters like Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong, Harry Grebb who some historians even claimed could have been on a par with Robinson.

because the sport has changed in many different ways. Just like how some olympic competitions change the rules and equipment, the sport becomes a different sport entirely.

It wouldn’t be so simple to just throw Robinson in with a contemporary fighter, because so many things have changed.

couple differences:

less media, less talking, more fighting. Draw rounds ensure nobody can win rounds based off landing 1 jab or “looking in control”.

2-3 big fights a year and 10-15 tuneups against lesser competition(insert any number, some fought more frequently others not) the fighters are much more conditioned mentally by fighting in the ring so often in front of a crowd, even if some opponents were brought in to lose.

the 10 count determines a knockout. As we all know, fighters had to get “beat”. Fighters with no heart often were rejected from cards - forcing anyone who got into boxing to be prepared to fight.

glove size and type have changed. A pair of 8 oz reyes would feel pretty similar to an old pair of fight gloves. Even these are getting phased out though. Horsehair padded gloves can mark the face up and cut due to the knuckles peircing through the cushion. By round 10+ there is hardly any padding left. Hands had to be hardened to take a beating.

it should be made clear that from 1930-1980 gloves would have felt very much the same, being the same weight and similar padding. Obviously there would be some crossover depending on the match. Attached thumbs came along to help prevent thumbing and also eliminated a lot of grapple and parrying type of moves (the sport has changed). Foreman in the 90s adopted the cross arm defense because he could no longer mummy grapple and ride punches with attached thumb gloves. By the 80s heavyweights are starting to use 10 oz as well.

title fights were 15 rounds.

very few fighters were business savvy or knew anything about money. Many were poor and uneducated. Those that got celeb status usually made friends that helped them, those that didn’t generally blew all the money or got ripped off unknowingly. Fighters simply fought all the time. Many outside the ring as well. Carlos Zarate for example, was fighting professionally as a boxer and also fighting gloveless at events in small pubs in mexico, sometimes 5 days a week.

fighters did use peds, just different ones. They used stimulants of all sorts, numbing creams, asphma pills, amphetamines and even adrenaline shots (Duran when he got sick said Don King had docs come in a shoot them with a blast of adrenaline).

if a fighter today shows ability often there is an entire team behind him trying to position him in a way to make the most money. Padding records, developing his media personality (look how bad at acting some of these new fighters are, take Keith Thurman for example) they have all become poor mans Ali’s.

many fighters took serious damage by taking hard fights too soon after a beating and not being recovered enough. Fighters were so conditioned to fight anyone they wouldn’t know the difference.

The good things about the sport changing are mainly:

fighters get paid more and take less damage, more weight classes to ensure a more even playing field and fights are stopped if the outcome looks to be heading in one direction only.

As for nutrition thats up for debate, many fighters today and yesterday either lived very clean or lived very hard. Lots of fighters today party and drink/take drugs all the same.

if you look at Hopkins and Mayweather they both ate very clean with personal chefs, perhaps this is going to give them an advantage. They both had long careers.

[them_apples]

SRR was before my time. I saw him fight very late in his career. His record shows what a great fighter he was. The only issue I have is when people call him the greatest MW of all time. He lost his title 4 times. The MW division has a long rich history. In my lifetime I saw Monzon, Hagler, Hopkins. All 3 defended their title 12 14 17 times without a loss. The champions before Sugar ray were also great. I have no problem calling him the #1 P4P of all time. Just not at MW. Great but not the greatest.

in all fairness Robby looked good against everyone even in losing. Even at 175 against maxim (extremely tough fight to be expected to win) he looked good before heat exhaustion took over.

[them_apples]

What I agree with is that today's boxers would be better (and so would the trainers) if they had the experience of 200+ pro fights.

In your praise for long amateur careers you seemed to give less value to professional experience, when pro experience would in fact be superior for turning out professionals. In my opinion.

Yes, Amateur matches is completely different. A different skillset altogether.

shorter fights (a sprint, less thinking)
scored differently (volume not effectiveness)
bigger foam filled gloves and headgear
8 counts very common
same day weigh in

also horrendous scoring, you could be beating someone from lamppost to lamppost and still lose in the ams.

you can tell when a pro fighter had way too many am fights. They usually can’t relax and save energy, they are often perpetually wound up and tight throwing all their punches at maximum speed. A seasoned pro would be throwing a lot more bait punches and saving the explosive fast shots for when it counted.

[them_apples]

Why is it so hard for you to say that... yes, in some recent cases, with a backgroung in a long, distinguished amateur career, we have seen some boxers shoot to the top of the pro game in record time. Something that would surely not have happened with Loma, Rigondeax, Usyk, etc., if they had turned pro at an early age, with no spectacular amateur career behind them. How can anyone disagree with that?

What historical evidence makes you think, that today's boxers would be better with the experience of 200+ pro fights?

They absolutely could have. Canelo turned pro very early and has many pro fights. If they were brought up properly they would take all that talent in the pros. Loma worked hard his entire career, had he been focused more on the pros he may have been even better. Theres lots of fighters with 100s of am fights like Loma, I know some personally - loma is good because he’s loma and his dad was a student of boxing.

Duran turned pro at 16, and by his late 20s fought like a seasoned vet. This is an example of a talented fighter who focused on the pro game.

[Bundana]

There's this idea out there... that the oldtimers were these brave warriers, who fought all the time, bettering themselves in tough fights and gaining experience, that modern fighters can only dream of!

Let's go back to boxing's "Golden Age" - the roaring 1920s. Smack in the middle of the ND era, where many boxers had a much busier schedule than today. But how much do we really know, about what was going on during that time?

In BoxRec's database there are more than 330,000 fights from that decade. How many of those can we watch on YouTube today? I don't know - but possibly less than 1%, would be my guess. As I said, I don't know - so I'm prepared to be corrected on that one!

Anyway, whether it's 1% or 2%, or whatever... what we have access to seems to be the absolute cream of the crop from that time. I can't find any down-the-bill 4 or 6 rounders between two journeymen, who would never amount to anything. Again, there may be some on YouTube - I just haven't come across any!

So my question is... what happened in the 98-99% of the (lower-level) fights, we can't examine? Is it too outlandish to think that, this being the ND era, some (certainly not all!) of these many fights between journeymen could have been "exhibition style" bouts... where the emphasis was more on getting to the finish line relatively unscathed, that it was on knocking each other's head off? I mean, they were all just trying to make a buck during hard times - so no reason to go all out on each other. Especially not, if they had another fight coming up just around the corner... which they of course sometimes had.

Yes, it's great to fantasize, that our heroes of yesteryear were all these courageus, tough men, who always came to fight. A nice thought indeed - but how close to reality is it?

What do you guys think?