Hypothetical: Floyd dominates DLH enroute to a wide UD...

[ThaHorseman]

If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have posted it. Nostaligia has very little to do with my opinions as I am not a sentimentalist and learned about these fighters soley in the last 15 years of my life. If anything, I had to swallow my prided in regards to these "older fighters" and how great they were....and time truly has nothing to do with it. It's about technique and while some technique seems better, that solely depends on the fighter using it. In many regards, modern fighters don't pay as much attention to the "little things", which is why James Toney, who hasn't enough power to bust a g**** in a heavyweight food fight, was able to beat the heavies he did; they weren't as well schooled. Same with Roy Jones Jr. and John Ruiz. While Jones wasn't the best technically, the fact that Ruiz was woefully skilled enabled Jones talents to overwhelm him, whereas if Ruiz had honed his skills to the point of actually mastering his craft, the smaller man should never have beaten him.

Mayweather, actually, is one of the few modern fighters who has masted his craft, and I applaud him for it. I think he is a tremendous fighter; but just because he is a tremendous fighter in 2007, I"m not going to automatically give him the nod over a tremendous fighter in 1907. Time is abstract and obscures the vision and the logic of many; and it is not a contributing factor in the least for every thing balances out. Fighters today have more high-tech training techniques. Fine; but fighters then fought more often, which helped them really refine their abilities and also due to the hard life many lived, they were naturally "tougher" men because they had to be to survive, whereas today's athletes are comparitively pampered....which makes them "weaker" on the "inside".

Whatever you believe, in the end, it is ONLY your opinion as mine is ONLY mine. None of this can be proved. Perhaps Mayweather could have beaten Gans and Leonard; but then again, perhaps not. The truth is we'll never know and you will Never be "more right" than me or I you.

Take it as you wish. I know what I know and I think what I think....and Mayweather, talented as he is, has yet to really have his mettle tested; and UNTIL THAT HAPPENS.....we're never going to really know how "Great" Floyd is, for that is the area where "Greatness" is judged.

If you would have said this right from the beginning there would have been little argument at all. There are two things that I don't agree with. One is your opinion that fighters today are weaker "on the inside" than fighters of the past. In an era when champions were fighting guys with losing records, there was always another fight for a guy. That is a greater incentive to "lie down" than a guy today who goes from potential millionaire to "regular joe" if he stays down. Fighters today have something to fight for which would seem to make them more motivated than a guy fighting for one meal. Put it this way, if you're fighting for a months worth of meals you'll fight a lot harder than if you're fighting for one nights meal. The other thing is the fighting more often. Yes, fighters in the past fought more "boxing matches", but did they really fight more? Like I said above, Champions were fighting guys with losing records. Today we call that sparring. Give some of todays fighters wins for their sparring and you'll have just as many total fights as guys in the past.

[K-DOGG]

I have benny somewhere between #11-20, i can make a case for julio cesar chavez being better than him and pernell beat chavez.

When chavez fought camacho, meldrick and edwin rosario, they were damn good fighters. Camacho was truly done after he lost to chavez, not before.

Even if meldrick didnt reach his proper potential, hes better than half of the jokes that are in the hall of fame.

Chavez and Whitaker are both great. No arguement. Better than Leonard?

Well, it's really hard to say from the footage I've seen because I have tremendous respect for both Whitaker and Chavez, for the reasons you outlined. However, I can't dismiss the opinions of those more knowledgeable than myself out of hand....not without proper scrutiny. It's just not fair to Leonard. I ask myself would I want people to dismiss Whitaker out of hand 100 years from now just because they feel their fighters (if boxing's still around then) are better than him? No.

So, I have to give him his just due. He earned it. Now, granted, at some point, when I've got the time, I'm going to put Leonard and his opponents under the microscope with Chavez, Whitaker, Duran, Williams, Gans, etc. and come to a "solid"...or "More solid" opinion than I have now....which is relatively in flux. I try to be open-minded, if not a tad bit stubborn.

[K-DOGG]

If you would have said this right from the beginning there would have been little argument at all. There are two things that I don't agree with. One is your opinion that fighters today are weaker "on the inside" than fighters of the past. In an era when champions were fighting guys with losing records, there was always another fight for a guy. That is a greater incentive to "lie down" than a guy today who goes from potential millionaire to "regular joe" if he stays down. Fighters today have something to fight for which would seem to make them more motivated than a guy fighting for one meal. Put it this way, if you're fighting for a months worth of meals you'll fight a lot harder than if you're fighting for one nights meal. The other thing is the fighting more often. Yes, fighters in the past fought more "boxing matches", but did they really fight more? Like I said above, Champions were fighting guys with losing records. Today we call that sparring. Give some of todays fighters wins for their sparring and you'll have just as many total fights as guys in the past.

Ahhh, that's a bit shaky to me; but it's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[brownpimp88]

Chavez and Whitaker are both great. No arguement. Better than Leonard?

Well, it's really hard to say from the footage I've seen because I have tremendous respect for both Whitaker and Chavez, for the reasons you outlined. However, I can't dismiss the opinions of those more knowledgeable than myself out of hand....not without proper scrutiny. It's just not fair to Leonard. I ask myself would I want people to dismiss Whitaker out of hand 100 years from now just because they feel their fighters (if boxing's still around then) are better than him? No.

So, I have to give him his just due. He earned it. Now, granted, at some point, when I've got the time, I'm going to put Leonard and his opponents under the microscope with Chavez, Whitaker, Duran, Williams, Gans, etc. and come to a "solid"...or "More solid" opinion than I have now....which is relatively in flux. I try to be open-minded, if not a tad bit stubborn.

I would definetly say you are one of the objective guys on this forum, thats why i ask for your opinion on it.

[Sin City]

Being undefeated doesn't mean much when you haven't really fought anyone. I think 5 years after he retires and the hype settles down then you can compare his record to other fighters and see how he ranks. His record is not really impressive considering the opposition he has fought. I remember someone said if you want to be the best you have to fight the best.... Since when is Baldomir, Gatti, Mitchelle, Corley, Judah are those the best of our era?

[K-DOGG]

I would definetly say you are one of the objective guys on this forum, thats why i ask for your opinion on it.

Thanks pimp. I really do appreciate that.

[wmute]

If you would have said this right from the beginning there would have been little argument at all. There are two things that I don't agree with. One is your opinion that fighters today are weaker "on the inside" than fighters of the past. In an era when champions were fighting guys with losing records, there was always another fight for a guy. That is a greater incentive to "lie down" than a guy today who goes from potential millionaire to "regular joe" if he stays down. Fighters today have something to fight for which would seem to make them more motivated than a guy fighting for one meal. Put it this way, if you're fighting for a months worth of meals you'll fight a lot harder than if you're fighting for one nights meal. The other thing is the fighting more often. Yes, fighters in the past fought more "boxing matches", but did they really fight more? Like I said above, Champions were fighting guys with losing records. Today we call that sparring. Give some of todays fighters wins for their sparring and you'll have just as many total fights as guys in the past.

I am a big advocate of "equal opportunities between boxing eras", but sparring is sparring and fighting is fighting. headgear, number of rounds, intensity, and so on

also sometimes great fighters fought each other twice in a month.

as for the motivation in terms of number of meals and incentives, I can tell you what an economist would tell you: there is no clear cut answer empirically or theoretically (based on what you mention) on who would be "hungrier" between past and future fighters.

I personally want to add my 2 cent:

PRO-oldtimers: the talent pool was immense, the number of ppl who tried to become fighters was just huge compared to today. statistically, you will get a lot of untalented people (possibly more than now, given the current selection processes), but also the best example from the larger sample are going to be better.

PRO-modern: 100 years if traning and nutrition do not go wasted. so today's training and nutrition should be waaaay better than the ones form the past.

[K-DOGG]

I am a big advocate of "equal opportunities between boxing eras", but sparring is sparring and fighting is fighting. headgear, number of rounds, intensity, and so on

also sometimes great fighters fought each other twice in a month.

as for the motivation in terms of number of meals and incentives, I can tell you what an economist would tell you: there is no clear cut answer empirically or theoretically (based on what you mention) on who would be "hungrier" between past and future fighters.

I personally want to add my 2 cent:

PRO-oldtimers: the talent pool was immense, the number of ppl who tried to become fighters was just huge compared to today. statistically, you will get a lot of untalented people (possibly more than now, given the current selection processes), but also the best example from the larger sample are going to be better.

PRO-modern: 100 years if traning and nutrition do not go wasted. so today's training and nutrition should be waaaay better than the ones form the past.

Well said, bro.