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

[tonyjones]

People in this thread are a lot more eloquent when debating their point then me but I can never understand how people can't see how the sport clearly evolves over time with it reaching a high standard late 70s and make smaller steps of improvement up to the present.

Every other globalsport improves (soccer,rugby,athletics,tennis) but yet somehow people in this sport harp on on about how Marciano could compete with wlad,gimme a break.....boxing fans are absolute nutcases only in this sport would people rate a fighter that no footage exists of as 1 of the greatest fighters ever

[joeandthebums]

Joe you already KNOW that Holyfield was required to make that statement VERY differently in favour of the nut bag elite who scripted him.

I do not, that is why I asked for more information regarded some script that he was meant to have read from.

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.

[juggernaut666]

I do not, that is why I asked for more information regarded some script that he was meant to have read from.

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.

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 !

[billeau2]

I've done this sort of blind survey before, and anybody can repeat it.

It falls in line with what any honest man can see immediately with their own eyes..

PRIOR to the 80's boxing looked like complete and I DO MEAN complete garbage. It was almost unwatchable, 2 drunken looking feeble bodied, abysmally skilled men winging each other with no regard to tactics or defences etc.

AFTER the 80's- we see elite atheltes, we see strength, we see tactial gameplans and highly refined skills.

The boxers LOOK completely different. Muscular, tough, like actual men, not like children anymore.

I would claim that after this time there was most certainly a surge.

Repeat the blind poll, take 100 ordinary everyday people, show them random clips of boxers before and after, GEE I wonder which ones they will indicate are better!

Myth busted!

This is utter BS. Anyone can see from film and from the written narratives of peoplelike Dempsey, as well as the oral culture in the gyms that this is utter bS, you are an idiot

[billeau2]

Alright Bill, here's a post Shilstone example for you, among many many other examples...

Evander Holyfield!!!

Evander was once at an interview which was held in an aura of nutbaggery, kind of like the 1933 Reichstag election was the powers that be wrote him a script and required that he read it. It spoke about the greatness of Ali and how things were much worse today (Evanders day) and he or nobody could hold a candle to him and the greats of his era.

But Evander decided to buck the script, and for good reason too. Instead he spoke about how the modern boxer does not have to fight as often anymore but because of the minute attention and scientific application to every aspect of his training that todays boxers were doubly effective. He went on to tell that he could of beaten ALL that came before him, and I for one believe him!!

Evander is one of the boys of the game who helped combat nut-baggery even at these early stages at the dawn of truly professional boxing.

Don't even TRY to tell me that his success was not due to his revolutionary mode of training and definitely don't try to tell me that his HW career was absolutely dependant on it!!

How what the hell do you think the general public are gonna believe??

YOUR nut bag argument with more holes than a North Korean submarine? OR my water tight argument and very prominent example?

Keep walker kid.. You are in way WAY over your depth here pal!

You are once again confusing opinions as facts.

Do you know anything about the use of twins in studies trying to control for nature in the nature versus nurture debate? Its done because the twins are useful coming from the same genetic base. Twins are invaluable in this respect.

In boxing the best opinions, when opinions are used anecdotally are from trainers and fighters who are still cogent and have been in the fight game long enougn to have seen fighters, training from several generations. This is because these men can compare through actual experience, techniques, training, etc. Like the twins, there is a reason these men can control for factors that affect standards...

Holyfield is a fighter. he is not a particularly bright guy either, Mike Tyson is a lot more of a student of the game, and has looked at and studied fighters from the past and present. You are just grasping at straws...You put no thought into who you are quoting for an opinion.

[billeau2]

People in this thread are a lot more eloquent when debating their point then me but I can never understand how people can't see how the sport clearly evolves over time with it reaching a high standard late 70s and make smaller steps of improvement up to the present.

Every other globalsport improves (soccer,rugby,athletics,tennis) but yet somehow people in this sport harp on on about how Marciano could compete with wlad,gimme a break.....boxing fans are absolute nutcases only in this sport would people rate a fighter that no footage exists of as 1 of the greatest fighters ever

There is also plenty of footage and analysis available. Any halfwit (not calling you a halfwit here) can go on Utube and put in a fighter's name and find footage...yes sadly not all fighters, but many. Certaily enough to study their methods and fights.

The reason people often don't do this is because, much like a first look in a microscope, people often do not know what to look for. Corbett looks Horrible! until one realizes that in his time most of the fight and exchanges took place at a different distance and punches were done differently cause of the gloves. Instead of educating though people like Elroy make assumptions. One such assumption is that because many sports seem to progress, boxing must also progress. Well there are many reasons why this is not necessarily so. Like most things there are things that have improved, but there are, in fight sports, other things that may have regressed.

[billeau2]

I do not, that is why I asked for more information regarded some script that he was meant to have read from.

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.

Elroid has taken to telling us at times what we "really know." just say thank you...ok?

[joeandthebums]

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 !

[The Old LefHook]

Baseball is huge on history. Not always which player was better or matchups though, but sometimes. More about which eras were better, which teams were best, etc.

Basketball's big on it too, as there are plenty of one on one matchups in the sport during games.

NFL football somewhat, especially when a great player is talked about, they'll compare him to one of the same position of past eras.

In all cases, some will say a modern or more recent is the GOAT, some will say one from the past. Boxing is unique in the sense that not many think someone better than Robinson has come along. Yet in baseball, you can say say outfielder is better than a Dimaggio or Mantle, like Griffey, some say Bonds in football Montana is the consensus GOAT QB, although many old timers still love Johnny Unitas. For receivers, probably Jerry Rice, running backs, most likely Jim Brown, maybe Walter Payton and Lawrence Taylor would usually be the pick for outside LB. Then in baseball, you'll have picks like Schmidt or maybe Gehrig for infield, pitchers like Ryan, Clemens or Maddux get high praise, so there's a good mix of old and new.

The thing unique to boxing is that a lot more historians and die hard fans lean towards the earlier eras, with a few exceptions, like a Tyson, Holyfield. De La Hoya, Jones, Mayweather or Pacquiao, maybe Andre Ward in the future.

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.

[Anthony342]

No, it's not unique to boxing, it's just more commonly talked about, except baseball. Both sports have books, documentaries, and discussions on the long history of their sports.

And every generation has a small percentage of D bags that think everything before their generation stinks and everything during, and sometimes after, is better.

The same crap is said with fans of TV and movies. Some people don't like earlier stuff just because it's old or not in color aka before their time while true hardcore fans will look at everything objectively from every generation. Didn't even watch current shows until a few years ago and then usually crime dramas. Now I'll catch an occasional sitcom and sci-fi show, as some more recent shows have had better quality and originality. With movies and video games, I only catch about a handful of new ones per year as I find most of that content horrid.

It's like sci-fi fans that think sci-fi didn't exist until Star Trek or Star Wars came along, or slasher fans that don't acknowledge anything before Halloween or Friday the 13th, depriving themselves of classics like Logan's Run, Alien, Clockwork Orange, Black Christmas or Last House on The Left. They just assume "nope, too old" and disregard it.