Why are the fighters from the first half othe 1900s looked as Gods

[Fulcrum29]

considering robinson at his peak was something like 132-2 and went 90-0 and that's while fighting other ATG's and not ducking like floyd and others do today, then I would say people like robinson sure as hell are not over rated

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

It's not about compairing them to tdays fighters, it's more about giving them their just due.

Fighters back then fought and trained under terrible circumstances. They got paid nothing and had to fight 2-3 times a month, sometimes more.

The gloves were like nothing we would ever see today, these guys were real tough men.

There were no standing 8, no neutral corner rule. Respect is what is due to the old timers because they did it first and if it wasn't for them, boxing wouldn't be what it is today.

[BattlingNelson]

It's not about compairing them to tdays fighters, it's more about giving them their just due.

Fighters back then fought and trained under terrible circumstances. They got paid nothing and had to fight 2-3 times a month, sometimes more.

The gloves were like nothing we would ever see today, these guys were real tough men.

There were no standing 8, no neutral corner rule. Respect is what is due to the old timers because they did it first and if it wasn't for them, boxing wouldn't be what it is today.

A quick glance at Battling Nelsons record shows me that he in the 4 quarter of 1908fought:

Oct.3 1908, 12 rounds
8 days later, 10 rounds
6 days later, 12 rounds
2 days later, 6 rounds
6 days later, 15 rounds
12 days later, 10 rounds
4 days later, 9 rounds
15 days later, 10 rounds
5 days later, 6 rounds
4 days later, 10 rounds
11 days later, 10 rounds
3 days later, 10 rounds
4 days later, 10 rounds
and on new years eve (just to round of the year...) 20 rounds.

That's 150 professional rounds in one quarter year!

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

A quick glance at Battling Nelsons record shows me that he in the 4 quarter of 1908fought:

Oct.3 1908, 12 rounds
8 days later, 10 rounds
6 days later, 12 rounds
2 days later, 6 rounds
6 days later, 15 rounds
12 days later, 10 rounds
4 days later, 9 rounds
15 days later, 10 rounds
5 days later, 6 rounds
4 days later, 10 rounds
11 days later, 10 rounds
3 days later, 10 rounds
4 days later, 10 rounds
and on new years eve (just to round of the year...) 20 rounds.

That's 150 professional rounds in one quarter year!

Wow, that's incredible. How can you not see these dudes as immortal.

[TheGreatA]

Rating old timers against current fighters is always tricky. One thing you can't do is simply look at numbers and decide who is or isn't a great fighter. Henry Armstrong lost over 20 fights as did Archie Moore. Willie Pep lost 11 Sugar Ray Robinson lost 19 etc etc. They all lost fights in their peak so does that make them bad fighters or the people who beat them greater? Of course not. They fought in the era where fighters kept busy and fought everyone and hopefully got a shot at holding the one title which was on offer. Generally they could realistically only fight for 2 or 3 titles.

You do have to take into account that at his peak Robinson went 128-1, being 40-0 as a lightweight and a welterweight when he lost to middleweight Jake LaMotta whom he beat 5 out of 6 times, and going another 90 fights unbeaten until the loss to Randy Turpin which he avenged.

Archie Moore went 53-2 from 1952 to 1960, losing only to two heavyweight champions Marciano and Patterson.

Pep started out his career by being undefeated for 62 fights until losing a close decision to the lightweight champion. He then went 70+ fights unbeaten until losing to Sandy Saddler.

Armstrong went 59-1 from 1936-1940, losing only once controversially to the lightweight champion Lou Ambers.

You can't ignore the losses these men had while past their prime or starting out but you also can't ignore the work they got done while at their best.

[AztecWanker]

Boxing History = Boxing Scene's elite forum. NSB = the place where demented fan-bois go to drool over their favs while telling us how Superman couldn't possibly beat them.

Poet

Both forums are filled with delusional people.

[Squabbles94806]

Cus they were super duper tough back then. Boxing's tough nowadays, but back in the back in the days, they didn't have half of the saftey rules they have now.

They fought bareknuckles and went hundreds of rounds. That's pretty tough. They old ass boxers gots my respects most definitely.

[Miburo]

By the 40s and 50s technique began to take on its current form and many skilled, modern fighters appeared on the scene. Dempsey up through the late 30s can perhaps be seen as the "formative" years. Prior to that things were quite a bit different with the incredible number of rounds and altered fight conditions.

[Smokin'J]

When there were no tv's and radios all you could do was either watch it or read it in the newspaper and the journalists well...

[Poet682006]

It's not about compairing them to tdays fighters, it's more about giving them their just due.

Fighters back then fought and trained under terrible circumstances. They got paid nothing and had to fight 2-3 times a month, sometimes more.

The gloves were like nothing we would ever see today, these guys were real tough men.

There were no standing 8, no neutral corner rule. Respect is what is due to the old timers because they did it first and if it wasn't for them, boxing wouldn't be what it is today.

Amen mi compadre! I couldn't have said it better!

Poet