Why is it that the past > present?

[Banderivets]

Not to start a dumb flame war, but to hear peoples honest opinions.


My take:

Humans evolve. Todays food supply is better and richer, todays cars are 10x faster, todays computers are 1 000 000 000 000x quicker, todays atheletes jump higher, go longer, and run faster.

Todays bombs are more efficient, space travel is possible for anyone with enough $$$, and we can fly strategic nuclear bombers from Moscow to Washington @ Mach 2.05

Yet todays boxers would get sliced and diced by those of the past?

I dont see it.

I think that its just the fact that boxing used to be on the front pages of news papers and todays its in the shadow of MMA(at least here in north america), hence you have to find someone to blame for it.


So why do you think that the fighters of the past would beat those of today?

[me2007]

because living standards have increased and there are many more sports to choose from, the pool of people who box, and have a reason to really want to fight, is probably a lot smaller than it was.

Most of todays fighters seem to me, to be packaged products rather than fighters.

The old time fighters were real fighting men, who fought because they had to.

I dont think that the old timers would win in most cases though, not with todays training and nutrition and knowledge about boxing in general.

Plus fighters are just much bigger and faster now, what with roids and such.

I'd give the edge to the old timers if there were two fighters who were the same size, trained the same, ate the same, simply because people weren`t such ******* back then like they are today,

[EMPOROAR]

because living standards have increased and there are many more sports to choose from, the pool of people who box, and have a reason to really want to fight, is probably a lot smaller than it was.

Most of todays fighters seem to me, to be packaged products rather than fighters.

The old time fighters were real fighting men, who fought because they had to.

I dont think that the old timers would win in most cases though, not with todays training and nutrition and knowledge about boxing in general.

Plus fighters are just much bigger and faster now, what with roids and such.

I'd give the edge to the old timers if there were two fighters who were the same size, trained the same, ate the same, simply because people weren`t such ******* back then like they are today,

What he said. You just cannot judge the two era's. It's impossible. Beside's the greatness of a fighter has nothing to do with what era they fought in and who can beat who in a matchup...it has EVERYTHING to do with what you did when you were champ, how you beat your opponents, and who you fought.

[Banderivets]

Most of todays fighters seem to me, to be packaged products rather than fighters.

Whats a fighter to you then?

Today the fighters are deffinetly a lot more "packaged", meaning they are very professional, there to do a job, not to make rent money and feed their children.

THe fighter of the old is done with. You will never see the "out of the ****** he came and made his way to the top so he can buy his children bread", story.

While the old fighter might appeal to many, and everyone loves a great story, you cant hold it against todays guys that most of them arent some James Braddock story.

You can do a million other things these days, and for one to choose the brutal sport of boxing, one must want to fight with all his heart.

[Banderivets]

What he said. You just cannot judge the two era's. It's impossible. Beside's the greatness of a fighter has nothing to do with what era they fought in and who can beat who in a matchup...it has EVERYTHING to do with what you did when you were champ, how you beat your opponents, and who you fought.

I agree with you man. But the problem is that people keep comparing different eras.

[warp1432]

I think it had to do with that it's so "easy" to become a champion nowadays. Back then they're was pretty much one sanactiong body/one champion. The guy had to fight his ass off to prove he was a champion. It made their fights more meaningful. Showing that they could beat more people.

Maybe physical wise people might be more stronger today, but I don't think anyone can question the heart fighters had back then which I perfer a lot more then physical strength.

[aljon]

Not to start a dumb flame war, but to hear peoples honest opinions.


My take:

Humans evolve. Todays food supply is better and richer, todays cars are 10x faster, todays computers are 1 000 000 000 000x quicker, todays atheletes jump higher, go longer, and run faster.

Todays bombs are more efficient, space travel is possible for anyone with enough $$$, and we can fly strategic nuclear bombers from Moscow to Washington @ Mach 2.05

Yet todays boxers would get sliced and diced by those of the past?

I dont see it.

I think that its just the fact that boxing used to be on the front pages of news papers and todays its in the shadow of MMA(at least here in north america), hence you have to find someone to blame for it.


So why do you think that the fighters of the past would beat those of today?

I 100% agree with you, in my opinion today's fighters would demolish the past ones, their training methods are wicked and like you said humans evolve for the better, they're bigger stronger faster, I've seen vids of past fighters and they're pretty much just street fighters, no technique, no defensive skills or anything, there might be exceptions of course but todays average fighters are much better than the ones in the past.. Past fighters might be entertaining and all but that doesn't mean they're better.. Gatti is more entertaining than Floyd but who's better? Plus someone mentioned past fighters fought real men and todays fighters are *****s? What the **** does that mean? That's ******ed, you try getting on top in today's boxing scene...
Most of you need a reality check, most of you mistake the greatest fighter with the best fighter, there's a huge difference there... Guys like Tyson and Lewis would demolish past heavyweights like Dempsey, Marciano, Johnson you name it.. Guys like Floyd would embarrass most of the past great fighters in his weight division...

[EMPOROAR]

I think it had to do with that it's so "easy" to become a champion nowadays. Back then they're was pretty much one sanactiong body/one champion. The guy had to fight his ass off to prove he was a champion. It made their fights more meaningful. Showing that they could beat more people.

Maybe physical wise people might be more stronger today, but I don't think anyone can question the heart fighters had back then which I perfer a lot more then physical strength.

You are right. It was incredibly hard to be champ back in the day. You couldn't be too good, where no one would fight you, or you couldnt be boring or no one would still fight you. Had to be in that happy little medium.

[EMPOROAR]

I 100% agree with you, in my opinion today's fighters would demolish the past ones, their training methods are wicked and like you said humans evolve for the better, they're bigger stronger faster, I've seen vids of past fighters and they're pretty much just street fighters, no technique, no defensive skills or anything, there might be exceptions of course but todays average fighters are much better than the ones in the past.. Past fighters might be entertaining and all but that doesn't mean they're better.. Gatti is more entertaining than Floyd but who's better? Plus someone mentioned past fighters fought real men and todays fighters are *****s? What the **** does that mean? That's ******ed, you try getting on top in today's boxing scene...
Most of you need a reality check, most of you mistake the greatest fighter with the best fighter, there's a huge difference there... Guys like Tyson and Lewis would demolish past heavyweights like Dempsey, Marciano, Johnson you name it.. Guys like Floyd would embarrass most of the past great fighters in his weight division...

There are fighters that can compete in ANY era. Guys like Basilio, Robinson, Duran, Chavez, Arguello, etc. These guys would be world class in ANY era. It doesn't matter. And to think that Robinson was weighing in at 158 for alot of his fights. Imagine if he had the training techniques that today's fighters used.

All things being equal, past fighters are better. That is fact. These guys studied there craft. Alot of these no hopers today dont do that. They are just in for the quick buck.

[Steelhammer86]

It's mainly because the sportswriters and broadcasters are mostly older, from the "baby boom" generation, and people have a tendency to believe athletes were better in the days of their youth. I'm that age too, and I've seen the Ali and Frazier fights in live broadcasts and I've attended fights of other ATG's. But I don't fool myself - athletes, including boxers, are better today.

The funniest thing I ever heard was someone saying George Chuvalo was better than the heavyweights today. I've sat near ringside and watched him fight, and I tell you, he had less boxing skill than Lamon Brewster.

That being said, I believe there were great boxers before my time that would have been dominant in any era, such as Sugar Ray Robinson.