The Past vs the Present - different arguments

[aboutfkntime]

back in the day, Charlie Burley never won a title

how many titles would Burley have won had he been fighting today?

* he would have got those names
* he would have got those opportunities, regardless

[TBear]

I understand the nature of this debate. When I first got into boxing(a thousand years ago lol), I read every publication and watched every fight. At the time I believed the current fighters were better than the fighters that lined the walls of history. It is natural for new fans the believe this. Fifteen years ago I seen a new group of fans do the same, ten years ago and five years ago, of course the process repeated. There will always be a debate where fans put up the best fighters of their one era against the best of many era's. Modern fans should see this and realize they will be debating with a new fan some day that thinks his undefeated fighter is better than these guys favorites.

It is a never ending process and at one time we will all be part of it, probably on both sides eventually. Time is relative.

[JAB5239]

By God, let's set the eras straight, then, with regards to their boxing customs and techniques.

I believe going back 30 years is enough to fix as the modern era. If people want 40, OK. I say fighters pre 1977 were superior 'in many ways' to moderns. There are two sides to that coin.

Fighters became quite experienced while still in their physical primes. This can happen when you have already boxed and trained for ten years before you even reach your physical prime, as Ray has sagaciously pointed out. Lots of amateur fights and then lots of pro fights, all in a hurry. Joshua would be laugable to men of old as a champ, he has no experience. I see clearly that a good fighter will knock him off sooner rather than later, unless management protects him via paper mandatories.

The other side of the coin. Fighters wore out faster in the older era. You can't have that many fights without the wear and tear that goes with them. That is why all the longevity records have been crushed in the modern era. Customs are now much easier on fighters' bodies, so their (successful) careers last accordingly longer.

In mythical matchups it is simply necessary to put the modern with 30 fights into the ring with the ancient who has had 60-75 fights, to ensure they are both in their physical primes and therefore theoretically at their mutual best.

As for the equipment used in mythical matchups, that is for the sporting individual to decide, but I always prefer going back to the tougher times for my fighting conditions, i.e., 15 rounds, smaller gloves, less sensitive referees, same day weigh-ins and no standing eight count. I would keep the rule that a fighter must go to a neutral corner during a knockdown count.

We cannot put a Robinson who has been fighting every two weeks into the ring with a Leonard who is well rested between bouts and trained to a peak. Robinson gets a nice rest, too, only if he prefers it. Robinson of about 1946, against the Leonard in the Duran II or first Hearns fight. Why would we want to speculate on anything less than two opponents at their very best? We wouldn't, would we?

First you must decide the rules, equipment and conditions. Then the boys are ready to go. Now we can argue about something.

Good all around post.

Who wins, Leonard or Robinson?

[JAB5239]

I understand the nature of this debate. When I first got into boxing(a thousand years ago lol), I read every publication and watched every fight. At the time I believed the current fighters were better than the fighters that lined the walls of history. It is natural for new fans the believe this. Fifteen years ago I seen a new group of fans do the same, ten years ago and five years ago, of course the process repeated. There will always be a debate where fans put up the best fighters of their one era against the best of many era's. Modern fans should see this and realize they will be debating with a new fan some day that thinks his undefeated fighter is better than these guys favorites.

It is a never ending process and at one time we will all be part of it, probably on both sides eventually. Time is relative.

I love these debates, but at the end of the day they go no where. He said, she said, it's simply not probable. Still a lot of fun though.

[TBear]

I love these debates, but at the end of the day they go no where. He said, she said, it's simply not probable. Still a lot of fun though.

True and I have enjoyed them once, and maybe, possibly, kind of, sort of.. from both sides, but now I tend to realize it is kinda fruitless. They come and they go. What I mean is that in time they will be fighting new fans about the same thing they were for fighting against. I understand the thrill of the age old battle. I don't know if this makes sense but the battle is everlasting and maybe like fighting a wall. But not as reasonable.

[JAB5239]

True and I have enjoyed them once, and maybe, possibly, kind of, sort of.. from both sides, but now I tend to realize it is kinda fruitless. They come and they go. What I mean is that in time they will be fighting new fans about the same thing they were for fighting against. I understand the thrill of the age old battle. I don't know if this makes sense but the battle is everlasting and maybe like fighting a wall. But not as reasonable.

A vicious circle.

[The Old LefHook]

Well, gentlemen, it is not so much about convincing others but getting one's own opinion on more solid ground. Even one's own opinion requires constant reevaluation and tweaking. One adds new layers of understanding on an old subject. My mind wants to know for itself who wins these mythical contests. Only hard deliberation can untangle the true winner in a particular mind. We can do this for ourselves, but not to others. They must do it for themselves as well.

I do not want the winner to be Robinson when he fights Leonard or another in mythland. Rather, I feel that he does beat Leonard. That fight would be close as long as it lasted. Leonard holds edges in some categories. Yet despite his speed of foot, he will not be able to avoid exchanges with Robinson, which should prove deadly.

These are possibly the two greatest welterweights ever. No one is breezing by them. There will be plenty of hitting from both sides. Leonard could win. I feel Robinson's edge in power will probably give him the victory.

I am not suggesting Leonard was a weak hitter, because he was not.

[aboutfkntime]

Well, gentlemen, it is not so much about convincing others but getting one's own opinion on more solid ground. Even one's own opinion requires constant reevaluation and tweaking. One adds new layers of understanding on an old subject. My mind wants to know for itself who wins these mythical contests. Only hard deliberation can untangle the true winner in a particular mind. We can do this for ourselves, but not to others. They must do it for themselves as well.

I do not want the winner to be Robinson when he fights Leonard or another in mythland. Rather, I feel that he does beat Leonard. That fight would be close as long as it lasted. Leonard holds edges in some categories. Yet despite his speed of foot, he will not be able to avoid exchanges with Robinson, which should prove deadly.

These are possibly the two greatest welterweights ever. No one is breezing by them. There will be plenty of hitting from both sides. Leonard could win. I feel Robinson's edge in power will probably give him the victory.

I am not suggesting Leonard was a weak hitter, because he was not.

good post !

just to cloud the waters.....

Mayweather is not as great as either of those guys, but he could have lived with both of them, because of his style

picking the order of greatness (judging by achievements) is way easier than picking a head-to-head winner

I'm not gonna try..... that would likely come down to specifics on how the styles mesh/play out, and intangibles

better to leave that as a what-if.....

not gonna pick a winner between Robinson and Leonard either

but yea, good call

[aboutfkntime]

back to the subject of whether boxing is easier today.....


when Burley fought back in the day, he never won a title

if Burley fought today..... he would likely be a 3-div champ and possibly a long-standing divisional kingpin

it is much easier today..... there are more titles, more TV networks, more opportunities, more exposure..... many young prospects today, are very well-groomed and the road to a title is clearly paved for them..... not saying that some of them don't justify that attention

[aboutfkntime]

not sure if other sports measure up the same as boxing ?

I saw an old clip of Christian Cullen the other day, not sure if I will EVER see a better running fullback..... the guy was an absolute freak

for those who are interested.....





in saying that, I said the same thing about Andrew Mehrtens..... that we will not find a better first-five for quite some time..... then along came Daniel Carter, and I said the same thing about him..... then along came Beauden Barrett..... so?

the game of rugby is growing, and the players are growing with it..... other than Cullen, it seems

I will never forget Colin Meads, All Black great..... that old black n white video of him tearing up the field holding the ball in one hand..... fkn awesome stuff

he was a monster, who terrorized the opposition..... but now forwards are 6'5-120kg, and fast as hell

not sure ?