Please read before...

[miron_lang]

I would like to see Tommy Hearns fight at LW/LWW.

No way he can be that light at the pros.


I saw Aaron Pryor-Thomas Hearns Amateur fight @140. Hearns looks like a stick.


147 is definately he's starting weight class and 154 is his Best fighting weight(Duran KO)

[tyson]

You cant measure that though.. I mean it has a lot to do with a person's upbringing and how much of a drive they have. Such as, how can you say Edison Miranda doesnt have a "driving force" after his life story, same with Kassim Ouma and those are just two extreme cases.

I dont think fighters back then had more of a drive just because they were older or in a different time period, of course some did, but its not something that applies to all where you can make a blanket statement, in my eyes.

I don't agree completely with you here.

I do think the old-timers had more drive in them. Not everyone of course, but the best then vs the best now, certainly I believe so.

Most of the reason IMO lies in the society and it's differences now and then.

See, nowadays people doesn't recognize honor and pride no more.
Very few people leave their heart and soul in that ring anymore. It's a business-minded world now, and winning is just not THAT important as it was 50 years ago.

I think what separates the good from the best is the mentality, the power of the mind and the person's willingness to inflict his will over another person.
Very rarely we see the most gifted person become the best fighter.
I might go as far as to say that being the most gifted can actually be a bad thing, as you never have to work as hard to get what you want.

That's why people like Bernard Hopkins become successful.

Bernard is a real throwback.

A person's upbringing certainly has alot to do with this, as you point out.
But more people back then had a rough time growing up, hence more people with tougher minds= the toughest would probably be tougher than the toughest of a small group.

If you follow me?

That and the fact that they fought absolutely the best many times, way more frequently than they do now.
When the top dog of our time goes 3,4 maybe 5 years between fighting others they even consider a threat, I say that would be a disadvantage compared to a SRR.

[raysan]

I don't agree completely with you here.

I do think the old-timers had more drive in them. Not everyone of course, but the best then vs the best now, certainly I believe so.

Most of the reason IMO lies in the society and it's differences now and then.

See, nowadays people doesn't recognize honor and pride no more.
Very few people leave their heart and soul in that ring anymore. It's a business-minded world now, and winning is just not THAT important as it was 50 years ago.

I think what separates the good from the best is the mentality, the power of the mind and the person's willingness to inflict his will over another person.
Very rarely we see the most gifted person become the best fighter.
I might go as far as to say that being the most gifted can actually be a bad thing, as you never have to work as hard to get what you want.

That's why people like Bernard Hopkins become successful.

Bernard is a real throwback.

A person's upbringing certainly has alot to do with this, as you point out.
But more people back then had a rough time growing up, hence more people with tougher minds= the toughest would probably be tougher than the toughest of a small group.

If you follow me?

That and the fact that they fought absolutely the best many times, way more frequently than they do now.
When the top dog of our time goes 3,4 maybe 5 years between fighting others they even consider a threat, I say that would be a disadvantage compared to a SRR.

I see what youre saying but I still dont think thats all the way true. Maybe so, for American fighters to an extent, but the fighters that come from 3rd world countries have it worse than even fighters in the fifties, Id say. I mean at least their rise to the top, maybe they lose their hunger later on but on the rise its there. When you hear stories of Manny Pac having to eat the family dog for food, I dont think it gets much worse than that.

Fighters from Mexico, the Phillipines, South America, Puerto Rico, the struggle is still there and probably harder than for lets say a throw back fighter from the fifties. And in the States there are still ******s too same in Europe, so i guess well just agree to disagree, haha.

[tyson]

I see what youre saying but I still dont think thats all the way true. Maybe so, for American fighters to an extent, but the fighters that come from 3rd world countries have it worse than even fighters in the fifties, Id say. I mean at least their rise to the top, maybe they lose their hunger later on but on the rise its there. When you hear stories of Manny Pac having to eat the family dog for food, I dont think it gets much worse than that.

Fighters from Mexico, the Phillipines, South America, Puerto Rico, the struggle is still there and probably harder than for lets say a throw back fighter from the fifties. And in the States there are still ******s too same in Europe, so i guess well just agree to disagree, haha.

Most definitely, I agree with this.
However, I would say that boxing was a bigger sport back then, at least professional boxing.
And the largest group of pro's have always come from the US.
That's why most of the greatest have come from there, because it's a bigger chance with a bigger group of people.

While countries all over the world may have it worse than US back in the
50's, it still won't matter as long as they don't come up with a larger amount of fighters.

Man, I wonder if I'm just pushing the envelope just because I'm bored.

I can dig that you agree with me, even if you're afraid to admit it!