WHY is this??

[Technical_Skill]

Maybe your our right. Atleast I verified your Marciano record questions. Thanks for noticing.lol

No problem, i didnt dispute what you said about his record, so i didnt quote you.

Maybe when i have time i shall find out for myself.

laters.

[KETCHEL]

This is a quality thread.

Boxing has come on a long way since guys like SRR fought, the fighters now are better prepared, due advances in healthcare, more money to spend on training equipment, advances in boxing gear such as gloves, boots etc.

I dont believe the best fighters of our era are inferior to those in the past,

People are often quick to talk about past fighters, simply out of nostaliga, when the truth is, boxing is techinally much more sound now than it was in the past.

Obivously there are a few exceptions, some fighters now are less techincally sound then some fighters in the past, but i think the best of this era, are perhaps more skilled than the best of past eras.

I mean, Jack Johnson couldnt fight, he would just club and swarm, put hin in the ring with proper boxing rules against someone like Klitchko (nowhere near the best HW of our era) he would most likely get beat IMO.

Archie Moore, Supposeldy the greatest Lightheavy ever? he was defensively skilled, but got beat up by ordinary guys, a guy like RJJ would decisivley beat Archie Moore IMO.

As a whole with the increasing amount of money in boxing now compared to then, boxing now is far more modernised and fighters as a result are better trained, better conditioned, faster (on the whole), healthier.

People simply assume fighters from the past are the best, simply out of Nostaligia, it's done in all sports.

A major example of this is Bert Sugar and his top 100 of time.

Marciano was way above tyson.

Rediculous, Marciano was nowehere near the fighter tyson was, Mariciano beat a very old Joe Lewis and his first Heavyweight title fight he was being comprehensively outboxed before he landed a lucky home run punch and won by KO, Tyson would knock Marciano out stone clold.

Alot of people assume the past was better than the present.

This is not always the case.

In My Opinion.

Boxing may have come on a long way since in terms of healthcare, nutrition
and equipment etc. but a lot of top fighters today are missing one ingredient: hunger. Top Fighters from yesteryear were not multi millionaires early in their careers and therefore fought often just to keep food on the table. And who could forget Big George Foreman giving the supremely conditioned modern Heavyweight Champ Evander Holyfield all he could handle before going on to defeat Michael Moorer? Does nobody wonder what a young Foreman would have done to those guys?

Another point being missed was that fighters of yesteryear in weightclasses below heavyweight actually fought guys close to their own weight thus making for more even contests. Today by fight time some guys can be bigger than their opponents by sometimes near a stone. Fair fight! Give me old timers.

[The Wire]

Wilfred BENITEZ fought Sugar Ray, not GOMEZ..and if u saw that fight then you certainly can say the guy was good because he fought very well that night. People say SRR was the best, they fawn over him, they talk about his awesome skills and they have never seen him and it is definitely based on what they have heard so many times from so many people..my only point is that people dont make up their own minds about the guy based on what they see because most of them have never seen him....THINK ABOUT IT, it is ridiculous.

Lol - kind of owned myself there didn't I....

I see what you mean but I don't think it's possible to see every fighter and decide whether they're the best on their skills alone. However, I do think that certain fighters mythology does get built up to such an extent that it will never be broken down and that that mythology in itself becomes the fighter's legacy. For example, if Ali didn't tell everyone he was the greatest would he in fact have been regarded as the greatest? Quite possibly but who knows? I think it certainly had a lot to do with it.

When it comes to Robinson, it's generally regarded he is the greatest of all times based on what he did in his career which was phenomenal as well as his skills which most boxing fans would have seen on tape.

[Technical_Skill]

hunger. Top Fighters from yesteryear were not multi millionaires early in their careers and therefore fought often just to keep food on the table.

Lets see if anyone can spot the problem with this.

lol.

Top fighters struggling to put food on the table?

Please give some examples, cos i dont buy this.

The rest of your post was perfectly valid.

[Zeroflip1]

WHY...do boxing experts 40 years old and under INSIST that Sugar Ray Robinson was hands down the best fighter ever.... "Ray was the best bar none"...."everybody knows Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest ever"..........(he may have been but this is not my point)....why do they say this when all they have ever seen of him is films of him as a middleweight when his record was kind of average..... we've all seen the films of him with Lamotta, Basilio, Fullmer, etc....THAT wasn't the best boxer ever, it was before that where he made his mark.... and all the old time guys say so and that's great...but now u have boxing guys who are 26 years old who discuss the man and it's like "Oh, hey, sheesh, man. That's no-brainer. Sugar Ray Robinson, best fighter ever. Period, end of story." They have never even really seen the guy and if they are only going by what the read or by what bert Sugar says or by the fights they have seen on ESPN classic, well, I don't watch THAT GUY and say he is the best ever..... Ray Robinson may have been the best fighter ever but that version of him wasn't. I don't know, it just kind of makes me laugh when I see these guys who get so serious when they talk about Ray when all they know about him is what they have heard. You cannot say that Stevie Ray Vaughn or Hendrix or Clapton whoever is "the best ever" if you never heard the guy play, can you???

Come on man, this is an easy one... Stevie Ray Vaughn hands down

[The Wire]

Come on man, this is an easy one... Stevie Ray Vaughn hands down

Over Hendrix?! Be serious now...

[Zeroflip1]

Over Hendrix?! Be serious now...

Jimmy got songs from bob dylan and he was in an acid haze all the time- thats probabaly why he was soo good =X- But in his credit he was one of the best guitarists in a long time. I'll still take Stevie Ray Vaughn though, I think a lot of his licks on some songs are just way more complicated.

[Phantasm]

Wilfred BENITEZ fought Sugar Ray, not GOMEZ..and if u saw that fight then you certainly can say the guy was good because he fought very well that night. People say SRR was the best, they fawn over him, they talk about his awesome skills and they have never seen him and it is definitely based on what they have heard so many times from so many people..my only point is that people dont make up their own minds about the guy based on what they see because most of them have never seen him....THINK ABOUT IT, it is ridiculous.

I dunno Ice...I got some 50+ fights of Ray Robinson and the guy was unbeleivable. Though I feel that you dont need to see what he's done on tape; just look at the statistics.

[ICEMAN JOHN SCULLY]

well, for that matter WILLIE PEP'S stats are more impressive that SRR's

[siablo14]

Even if you have seen the guy fight, boxing is such a complex sport. There are so many factors that can't be measured in any way. It's like Calzaghe-Lacy. Most of the "experts" picked Lacy to destroy Calzaghe and were horribly wrong. Why? Because the ONLY way to know who is the best of two fighters, is to let them fight. There are so many intangibles that you just cannot predict what's going to happen.

Therefore, claiming that whoever was the best ever is pure bull, IMO

so true so this p4p thing is bull****.