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

[RL_GMA]

Henry Armstrong
Willie Pep

[AztecWanker]

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.

Giving old fighters their due and respect is one thing, putting them on a pedestal and making them out to be invincible is another. It's as if there's some unwritten rule where people aren't allowed to talk bad about them. That's what irritates the **** out of me.

[Benny Leonard]

Giving old fighters their due and respect is one thing, putting them on a pedestal and making them out to be invincible is another. It's as if there's some unwritten rule where people aren't allowed to talk bad about them. That's what irritates the **** out of me.

Speak your mind.

It's the same about not speaking badly about your elders. Forget that. Say what you have to say.


That said, there is also this newbie view that everything today is better...everything. I disagree.

[Poet682006]

Giving old fighters their due and respect is one thing, putting them on a pedestal and making them out to be invincible is another. It's as if there's some unwritten rule where people aren't allowed to talk bad about them. That's what irritates the **** out of me.

Why do WANT to talk bad about them? Talk smack in the Thunderdome, if that's what get's your dlck hard; but why come onto a boxing forum and bad-mouth great fighters of the past? Why is it nessecary to tear down old-timers to try and make the guys you like look good?

Poet

[AztecWanker]

Why do WANT to talk bad about them? Talk smack in the Thunderdome, if that's what get's your dlck hard; but why come onto a boxing forum and bad-mouth great fighters of the past? Why is it nessecary to tear down old-timers to try and make the guys you like look good?

Poet

Did I say that I wanted to? I was speaking in general.

[MonsieurGeorges]

Go back and really watch all those fights and then tell us what you think. Some of these guys went 40 rounds with tiny gloves without all the information we have about sport science today. You can say guys today are more technical or whatever but the old school fighters had serious huevos, don't doubt it.

[pigdestroyer]

Can someone explain some things to me?
I currently just started to box, but have learned a crap load. Haven't learned anything about the weight of gloves; which this question concerns.

You know the dude with the hat and the cigar, usually on ESPN, think he was a writer at some point. Guys like him and other fans of old, older fighters usually comment on the skill and POWER of the guys back in the early 1900's.

If a guy back then, with their ridiculous KO power, put on todays gloves... would that still happen? I know that their gloves were barley anything then. Probably why there was so many KO's

Is the power hugely over rated for older fighters due to the gloves?

[talip bin osman]

Giving old fighters their due and respect is one thing, putting them on a pedestal and making them out to be invincible is another. It's as if there's some unwritten rule where people aren't allowed to talk bad about them. That's what irritates the **** out of me.

G,

how r u doin man?

the fighters u listed on ur list, ur all time faves & ur current ones are relatively contemporary fighters....

when u talk boxing to ur children, or even grandchildren, im pretty sure u will bring ur all-time/current faves into the discussion as well & perhaps hold them in higher regard than ur kids' would be faves... i wonder how would u feel if one of ur kids bash james toney in favor of the current great...

[AztecWanker]

Hold on now, I made a general statement regarding old school fighters, never did I once bash them. I love and acknowledge what they did for the sport. But I don't hug their nuts nor borderline worship them. Not even Toney or Hopkins. This is Boxing, anyone can lose at any given day and that's what makes the sport so great.

I'll list a couple of my favorite old school boxers just for kicks...

Kid Gavilan
Emile Griffith
Tony Zale
Henry Armstrong
Ezzard Charles
Luis Rodriguez
Jersey Joe Walcott

The list goes on and on....

[GJC]

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.

We're singing the same song machine