The age old Debate.

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

You're in for a real treat with these two and in ray's case ,that SIZE is irrelevant but then goes on bizarre rants about Lammota's SIZE of being to big and strong for todays lightweight because he was a natural 170 pounder . Oblivious people will simply not acknowledge how modern training benefits a fighter through taking out much guess work and pin point specific needs for each individual ,one because they are not smart enough to think of even that or two they dont want to admit it ! Lennox Lewis's fitness trainer said it perfectly ,in that those old time boxers had limited concept of what over training was and inability to reduce tissue breakdown through diet .

If the body itself is not at full potential to what it can be you simply dont performe at your best ,add in many boxers couldn't dedicate 100% to boxing bc of having jobs its pretty obvious why boxers are training better today which makes them smarter on that alone ,without having access to video footage which would only expand the difference between then and now by a huge margin . The perfect example of video footage is Max Shmelling k.oing Joe Louis when Jack Johnson told Shmelling to throw a couhter over hand right after watching some footage .Back then fighters simply didnt study other fighters and break them down .Iuse Louis because he was considered the best ,flawless fighter but anyone can see he was always open to that punch ,simple common sense like that wouldn't be complicated at all today to pin point such an obvious flaw ,but then footage was rare as was how fighters prepared . Studying someone extensively would have dramatically effected how a fight is played out .

And the other almost equally nutcase thinks Zorra Folley outpoints Vital Klitchko....:wank:

In a division with no weight limit, size becomes a very important issue. Of course you get your Rahman & McCall vs Lewis, Haye vs Valuev (cringe) and a array of knockdowns vs Wlad & Fury. However I think the premise of this thread is getting deflected & you've brought it back in line.

If you were to take old fighters pre-12 rounders and put them in the ring today with none of the modern advantages, how would they cope?. The answer is not very well & one thing for sure is that they would never have been as dominant as they where in the previous era. So if todays fighters are rubbish and have amateurish footwork but can in my opinion defeat them if they stepped in the ring today, what does that say for the old fighters?

Ray started his post by mocking my mention of a gym machine. Something so simple that we take it for granted now, the old timers didn't have the modern 5 kg, 10 kg kettle balls. We know if use the machine or equipment it specifically targets a section of the anatomy. Chances are if you're a full time pro and you've got a full time strength and conditioning coach who can get your body in optimal condition, you'll have a competitive edge over a competitor that hasn't.

Don't even get me started with in-depth footage. R. I. P. Simbros (era).

[juggernaut666]

In a division with no weight limit, size becomes a very important issue. Of course you get your Rahman & McCall vs Lewis, Haye vs Valuev (cringe) and a array of knockdowns vs Wlad & Klitch. However I think the premise of this thread is getting deflected & you've brought it back in line.

If you were to take old fighters pre-12 rounders and put them in the ring today with none of the modern advantages, how would they cope?. The answer is not very well & one thing for sure is that they would never have been as dominant as they where in the previous era. So if todays fighters are rubbish and have amateurish footwork but can in my opinion defeat them if they stepped in the ring today, what does that say for the old fighters?

Ray started his post by mocking my mention of a gym machine. Something so simple that we take it for granted now, the old timers didn't have the modern 5 kg, 10 kg kettle balls. We know if use the machine or equipment it specifically targets a section of the anatomy. Chances are if you're a full time pro and you've got a full time strength and conditioning coach who can get your body in optimal condition, you'll have a competitive edge over a competitor that hasn't.

Don't even get me started with in-depth footage. R. I. P. Simbros (era).

Fight mechanics change from 190 pounds to 230 pounds drastically . Some people simply want the super heavyweights to move like guys who weigh much less and in some cases over 50 pounds more ....this is called being oblivious to reality . A fighter at 210 / 215 simply isnt going to be more effective than a modern 230 /250 pound fighter at heavyweight , 4 out of 5 times they are obviously going to lose.

As for the debate of going longer with less padded gloves ...well i dont see any past time fighter pre 70's lasting long at all to guys off the top of my head like Klitchkos /Lewis /Fury /Joshua /Ruddock/Morrison/ Haye / Tyson/ Bowe /Wilder /Golota / Foreman etc etc ....all those guys were /are huge punchers who actually had boxing talent , the least skilled one was Foreman that i listed but im pretty sure one shot from him in 5/6 OZ horse hair gloves is not going to go good for anyone weighing under 210 pounds which was considered big at one time .

You also mentioned Rahman but he was 6'2 6'3 and he was near 235/240 pounds i think and possibly outweighed Lewis the first time? Its still guys over 230 k.oing each other regardless its not like some old 190 pounder flattened him ! McCall was Tysons sparring partner .How many guys pre 70's would be qualified or have the physical attributes to let him go of like he did to McCall ?Answer:ZERO He would literally k.o everyone unless he took his power down to at least 30%. And Haye is very skilled and while was light he was still 220 pounds and has power ,Valuev is basic and slow though i would bet the house he would k.o Carnera bc he could at least take a punch .And yes when anyone down plays current HW's they certainly are doing it to there own preffered one . CERTAIN members havent figured that out either..lol

Thread Answer

The end of the day i watch video of the "BETTER" footwork of the past ,the problem is i see flat footed 190 /200 pounders mostly ,. 90%of the time they are stationary sluggers or slow methodical plodders in comparison.You have fighters who are praised as legends for boxing brilliant with footwork ,HW's like Billy Conn who weighed 170 pounds and everyone acts someone that light shouldn't be able to move around a slow footed Louis who was losing going into rnd 13th? That fight will tell you just how this thread plays out just add 4 inches to conn and 70 pounds to him....do you think Louis wins? Because you basically have Wlad Klitchko ,the old time guys simply dont fare well here ,to much skill and physical attributes which is the main problem they would have to overcome . Advancements make the better fighter not how tough you were or had to stop someone taking your lunch money growing up etc ,etc ,the more athletic /smarter, stronger fighter will almost always win.

This is why ATG status has to be on each fighters era so you dont take away from what they accomplished away and give past time fighters credit they earned !

[The Old LefHook]

This is the age old debate, I'll wait for Ray to respond. You seem like a nostalgic bigot if you fail to realise the size difference between Wlad & Louis or Fury & Louis. If you were to have taken a lot of the old timers from the past in to the present, they'd come up short.

A new category of bigot. The nostalic bigot. Recognize a size difference? Of course I recognize a size difference, I also recognize a skill difference, which you apparently do not.

The argument only applies to heavyweights because they are so much larger now than in days of yore. There is no special training available today that would make contemporary fighters superior to former eras. A stairmaster? A weight machine? Some fitness trainer reading your mineral levels off a chart and ordering more orange juice in your diet?

Because there is no other argument, you keep coming back to this one. What these advanced training techniques are keeps being asked but there is no answer. From which well of secret knowledge only developed since then do the superior techniques come. NO answer.

In lower weight divisions the fighters cut more weight than today, and would probably have to fight in a higher division.

The huge stylistic difference between eras amounts to today's fighters running and tapping more, fighting like amateurs to score a points win. That does not make them superior at all. Good fighters used to understand and practice cutting off the ring on mobile opponents. Guys like Tommy Loughran and Billy Conn always existed. In your mind they only existed as a minute minority. Well, their fights were not exciting and were not filmed as often in the days when it was an expensive chore to film fights for public consumption. When a Billy Conn fought a Joe Louis, then it got filmed. People moved on their feet. The fights you see got filmed because people expected a war and got one. Not a lot of movement was expected in those fights. Did not Robinson move a lot in the ring? Did Pep not move enough for you? Conn? Ali? Loughran? Tunney? How many does it take?

The Gibbons' boxing school in Minnesota was a busy place, cranking out guys who understood the scientific side of boxing. Many fighters trained and refreshed there, including Tunney. Boxers with deep defensive skills were not as rare as you think. They did not get filmed as often in an era when it was a big job to film a fight, unless they were fighting a high profile action fighter. Boxers always knew how to run, and many actually fought that way, but running and tapping is seen as the way to success now, it is the pervading philosophy.

[Anthony342]

Must be why there's no Harry Greb footage. Maybe he wasn't considered exciting enough to film or any old film of him might have deteriorated and gotten destroyed, like the classic lost Lon Chaney movie London After Midnight, which to this day, still hasn't been found.

[New England]

Well the deck is stacked against the old-timers if they are forced to fight under modern rules ie only 12 rounds, bigger gloves, stricter referees etc.

Imagine how it would be if it was the opposite. 45 rounds, 4 ounce gloves etc.

ray robinson still stretches keith thurman out neatly and you know it. he'd hit him so hard his lisp would dissapear.


i was going to make a joke about shawn porter's horse teeth, but those things aren't going anywhere.

[Joe Beamish]

Well the deck is stacked against the old-timers if they are forced to fight under modern rules ie only 12 rounds, bigger gloves, stricter referees etc.

Imagine how it would be if it was the opposite. 45 rounds, 4 ounce gloves etc.

This is the truth. Every time this question comes up -- this is the only true response. Old rules were so vastly different that you HAVE to specify the rules that the hypothetical contestants are fighting under.

[MelvinWin]

How old boxers? 1920s or the golden age? Also depending on the rules,glove sizes and etc. Still though I think the new age boxers would dominate most of the older ones. We have technology to review old fighters, we have internet to talk about stuff like this on forums like this. We're younger,stronger,faster. If champs from back in the day fought new boxers I think they would have to use their brains more.

[Anthony342]

ray robinson still stretches keith thurman out neatly and you know it. he'd hit him so hard his lisp would dissapear.


i was going to make a joke about shawn porter's horse teeth, but those things aren't going anywhere.

Exactly. In the old vs. new debate, it depends on what particular boxers someone is talking about. Robinson could beat a lot of current guys, but someone like Conn or Galento is probably toast. Mayweather or Jones could beat a lot of fighters from the past.

[The Old LefHook]

Exactly. In the old vs. new debate, it depends on what particular boxers someone is talking about. Robinson could beat a lot of current guys, but someone like Conn or Galento is probably toast. Mayweather or Jones could beat a lot of fighters from the past.

I have grown to expect more insight from you, Tony. Billy Conn is a master ATG pure boxer. Galento was a strong bum like you find in any era. Billy Conn was no slouch, my boy. In truth, he would probably work Golovkin over good, since GGG would likely have a very difficult time finding him. Billy is consistently overlooked in ATG lists for no good reason except he was fleet footed.

[Anthony342]

I'm not overlooking Conn. I'm not saying he doesn't beat anyone today, just that he would probably lose a few as well.