Is the "Old vs New" debate unique to boxing?

[Anthony342]

I wonder about Jim Brown as the consensus AT fullback, Tony. He did have good speed and size at 6'2", 228, but he simply did not block--it was beneath the great Jim Brown to block for those who blocked for him. Plus, many of the lineman he was knocking around were the same size as himself and could not even be linemen today. Make Payton the fullback and put Barry Sanders in at halfback, then we can leave a tailback position for Gayle Sayers.

Already a lot of fans know Montana only from film. Brady will no doubt be the next "consensus" choice at AT QB.

Are the gymnasts today any better than the 1960-80?

Track & field is a sport with a history of doping and cheating by record breakers. Usain Bolt has not been caught, but I just have to wonder. He is a mesmerizing performer on the track, but I am positive his best days are behind him in the 100 and 200, though he still might capture those Olympic titles again. The threepeat business does not interest me half as much as my curiosity to see him compete in the 400. That is where I want to see Bolt--trying to crack Johnson's record in the 400.

To some, maybe Brady might be better. But to others, it will still be Montana, because he's 4-0 in Super Bowl games, while Brady is 4-2, which hurts his argument a little. My Giants kind of hurt his legacy in that regard. Hell, he should've been 3-3, if not for Seattle being idiots and not running it in from the 1 yard line, instead of a terribly called pass play the Pats saw coming a mile away. Usually championships are used to make a comparison, as well as MVPs and any other individual accolades. Which is why Michael Jordan is still a lot of people's number 1 pick for NBA GOAT. But Lebron is still playing. So, if he wins more MVPs and titles by the time he retires, a strong argument can be made for James. Track and Field and Swimming is definitely an area where I can see newer being better, as records are broken so often. I heard on WFAN here in New York, one of the radio hosts saying Johnny Weismuller's record setting time in Olympic swimming is regularly broken by high schoolers today.

The thing unique to boxing really is not wins and losses but who someone beats and when they beat them. That's why Mayweather, despite being unbeaten, is not the GOAT to those that study history, because it is said he did not fight some tough opponents and didn't fight others sooner, when they were prime or at least younger.

It really just depends on who someone uses for a comparison. I mean, Mayweather is considered way better than, say, Tony Galento, but Joe Louis would consistently be ranked higher than Lennox Lewis, for instance. So that's what really needs to be considered in the old vs. new debate with boxing.

[juggernaut666]

Well thats what you WISH to believe but where...point it out? Does this sound familiar it should?

[Anthony342]

And yes, the gymnasts today are considered better. So like I said, it depends on the sport and who one is individually naming with these comparisons.

[juggernaut666]

To some, maybe Brady might be better. But to others, it will still be Montana, because he's 4-0 in Super Bowl games, while Brady is 4-2, which hurts his argument a little. My Giants kind of hurt his legacy in that regard. Hell, he should've been 3-3, if not for Seattle being idiots and not running it in from the 1 yard line, instead of a terribly called pass play the Pats saw coming a mile away. Usually championships are used to make a comparison, as well as MVPs and any other individual accolades. Which is why Michael Jordan is still a lot of people's number 1 pick for NBA GOAT. But Lebron is still playing. So, if he wins more MVPs and titles by the time he retires, a strong argument can be made for James. Track and Field and Swimming is definitely an area where I can see newer being better, as records are broken so often. I heard on WFAN here in New York, one of the radio hosts saying Johnny Weismuller's record setting time in Olympic swimming is regularly broken by high schoolers today.

The thing unique to boxing really is not wins and losses but who someone beats and when they beat them. That's why Mayweather, despite being unbeaten, is not the GOAT to those that study history, because it is said he did not fight some tough opponents and didn't fight others sooner, when they were prime or at least younger.

It really just depends on who someone uses for a comparison. I mean, Mayweather is considered way better than, say, Tony Galento, but Joe Louis would consistently be ranked higher than Lennox Lewis, for instance. So that's what really needs to be considered in the old vs. new debate with boxing.

Team sports is hardly ever reasonable to individual combat....come on now....lol...Even bill will preach that!

[joeandthebums]

Holyfield said...

"Look at the statistics. I've achieved more than the fighters before me. People say you can't compare the eras but you can. Improvement is there to be seen.

All my life I've wanted to be the best ever. It is a matter of opinion but gradually I've been rising in public opinion. One recent poll moved me up to third behind Ali and Louis - and, at 36, I believe I get better with every fight.

I admire the old fighters and I've built my skills on the people before me. And I've added more to it.

The training now is much more advanced. The psychological and physical preparations are now sciences which include everything from nutrition to muscular development.

Today's fighters are fitter, faster, stronger and hit harder. We don't have to fight so often because the schedule is geared to television money. So the training is more detailed and dedicated, yet we suffer less wear and tear while gathering our experience."

I said...

My source for that quote is as I said, media interviews prior to Holyfield-Lewis I.

Holyfield was out of character at that particular time as he predicted "A good fight but a short night" on the upcoming contest with Lewis.

His statement was made with his standing in the sport and his legacy at the forefront of his mind, so there is an case that he had an agenda when making those comments.

You said...

How is that an agenda stating up until Lewis he overcame the modern era ? He never stated he was the best ever he simply said he had to deal with better fighters !

I responded with...

You said...

Well thats what you WISH to believe but where...point it out? Does this sound familiar it should?

To close, I reply with...

[juggernaut666]

Holyfield said...



I said...



You said...



I responded with...



You said...



To close, I reply with...

So basically for the FIRST time you have no real answer....maybe your avatar may have something that gets in the away? smh

[juggernaut666]

So were clear here Joe decided to directly avoid the convo and go for confusion default win....he states this and that...I simply stated what was PRIOR to the Lewis interview...see how this works joe, your actually the most intelligent pretzel twister on here .For one you are actually smart...and two when you know you have no answer but know the answer you bait and switch well good for you...guess what ? you still didn't say where the agenda was b/c well...you know there is none....lmao....

[BennyST]

The 1980's marks the birth place of modern boxing. It was here that we can see that boxers looked qualitatively different than any other era. Skills and defence were developed, suddenly there were athletic and agile boxers. Fighters hit upon the idea that they could move their head, feet and body and come to avoid punches instead of just taking them on their head, and training modes began to reflect that which is actually required of a boxer and not that which hampers performance.

In short the 1980's was the first time sports science was actually applied to boxing and when boxing started to actually become a "professional" sport.

I completely agree. I remember seeing this fighter in the late 1960's and 1970's called Roberto Duran, and he really exemplified what you are talking about. He had no 'science' to his boxing at all. Ezzard Charles also highlights this in particular.

No feints, no head movement, no upper body movement, no aggressive counter punching, no transition from defense to offence...Duran basically just waded in with his face and head butted the guy. Anyone even making the hint of a suggestion that he might be the perfect example of the sweet science in its most ferocious form should be wittily and unmercifully mocked.

If I look at today's lightweights, I see fighters that are scientific in their boxing in comparison. Their feinting for instance...Duran just had no feints. Just didn't know what they were or even how to use them! Whereas today...today! Well, the lightweights feinting the feint out of each other is amazing to watch. In fact, they've gotten so good at it in comparison it almost looks as if none of them use it.

Footwork and upper body movement, again we could talk about Duran lacking all this in comparison to today's fighters but let's talk about that short ass bum Pep. No footwork, no head movement. A pure face first club fighter. What about Benton and Locche?! El! Oh! El!

When you look at how much more evolved this generations champions like Gatti, Margarito, Hatton etc are, it really exemplifies and highlights your excellent point.

Nowadays, you see champions like Wlad Klitschko who are typical of this evolution you talk about. They have taken everything good from the past fighters, and have developed all their best skills and honed them into the much more evolved fighters you see today while leaving behind all their weaknesses. He basically has the offence of Louis, the movement and speed of Ali, the aggression of Tyson and the defense of Walcott...He has a huge range of skills and styles he can draw upon that previous fighters didn't have. He doesn't look stiff, panicked and flaily when someone throws a punch at him, he doesn't freeze up when someone uses basic footwork against him, rather than just walking into him, and he has a huge arsenal and variety of styles in his style bank to choose from, rather than just a clinch, grab, jab, grab game and if that gets taken away then he has nothing to fall back on...I mean, as if anyone would ever say something like that is the pinnacle of evolution from all the greatness that has come before.

Just look at the science in this offensive flurry from the current heavyweight champion of the world. The best fighter on the planet today. The pinnacle of our sport's history combined into one fighter. This is the combination of Tyson, Louis, Frazier, Foreman, Dempsey all rolled into one refined, evolved, peak of offensive skill and excellence. Watch and marvel. Go to 3.40.

[NChristo]

Always a good clip to drop in these discussions

[BennyST]

I was just thinking of the run at 140, jr welter, that led to the modern scientific fighter from 1980 onward. You can see the clear run of evolution that led to the more modern evolved fighter in the 80's. From guys in the 60's and 70's like Carlos Ortiz, Duilo Loi, Nicolino Locche, Antonio Cervantes, Wilfred Benitez to the modern, scientifically evolved fighter Aaron Pryor onwards.

Even at 135 it shines through as obvious as Elroy's intelligence.

Look at the crude, barbaric, unskilled 60's and 70's to the more evolved, scientific fighter in the 80's. You have the neanderthals of the ancient crude boxing method such as Joe Brown, Carlos Ortiz, Ismael Laguna, Ken Buchanan, Mando Ramos, Esteban De Jesus, Roberto Duran to the pinnacle of the sweet science that exemplified modern, scientific training and the combination of previous skills into highly evolved modern fighters like Ray Mancini, Arturo Frias, Edwin Rosario, Jose Luis Ramirez, Julio Cesar Chavez etc.