If Boxing Was Like The Old Days??

[GJC]

Good point, losses can be a valuable education, preserving the all important 0 can detract from a fighters learning curve.

[portuge puncher]

the old days were bomb. fights were better. most boxers back then fought like 100 or more fights in there career, not like today. not to mention there records wern't as protected as today, back then if you had a record of 8-0, you would fight someone with 9-1 or something, istead of today were undefeated boxers with records of 8-0 fight guys that are like 3-7 lol. and for watever reason when i watch an old fight it seems like they had alot more heart then today, even guys who had no chance of winning, they at least tryed. plus they went 15 rounds, and only had ONE belt for a division. and sometimes guys from smaller wieghts would take on guys that were much bigger, like harry greb vs. gene tunny, or jake lamotta vs. bob satterfield, middlewieghts takeing on heavywieghts, and winning. do you think floyd mayweather would be willing to fight chris arreola for only like only 20,000 dollers, lol, cuz i dont think so lol.

[P.WILL]

lots of more deaths...........

[Thread Stealer]

Did you ever hear people ducking someone as much in the old days compared to today?

Of course not.

The media gets all over everything. A fighter mentions a possible opponent in an interview and the fight never materializes, and message boards are filled with "so and so ducked so and so" comments.

We know a lot more about today's fighters, who's around, fights falling apart, so naturally people are going to accuse fighters of avoiding others.

But it happened in the past. Fighters priced themselves out of fights, avoided opponents because of the risk/reward factor, etc...

[Thread Stealer]

The "good old days" also had the wonderful involvement of the IBC and Jim Norris (1950s), a HW champ being inactive for three years and a fight never materializing due to racial fears (1920s), a HW champ not making his first defense until 2 years after winning the belt (1930s), no TV (pre-1950s) so it's not like we'd be able to have seen these fights anyway, a whole boatload of terrific fighters not getting one title shot (or until they were old) despite having HOF careers, a champ buying out another fighters' contract so that guy ends up moving up in weight to look for a title shot that never comes, etc...

There's good points and bad points to all eras.

Ducking has always gone on unfortunately. Lots of very good fighters never got their shot back in the day, I think today with the alphabet titles they might have got a title.

Yeah, that's one good thing I like about the alphabet mess. A number of excellent fighters in the past never got title shots (Burley, Langford, Wills, Charles @ 175, Chase, Marshall, etc...), and others had to wait a long time for them (SRR, LaMotta, Moore, etc..).

At least nowadays, there's more titles to choose from, and that can help as a negotiations tool to at least have a belt.

[elfag]

I would like to have only 1 title again.

Also 12 rounds is ******, 15 was better but atleast 13 or an odd number of rounds is better to reduce the number of draws.

Latter on my list would be changing the weight classes back to the main 8.

I dont even mind the extra weight classes but all these ****ing catchweights are getting rediculous. What is all this 170 ****. Just fight at ****ing 168 its 2 pounds. Or fight at 175 cause you know both guys are going to be 180 on fight night anyway. Its just plain silly all these special catch weights.

But really what all the catch weight fights show is that the title belts have become meaningless these days. We need just 1 belt like the old days when it meant something.

[Sorbetero]

When everyone fought everyone, took risks and it wasn't all about $$$$$.


Would Mayweather be undefeated still?

Would Calzaghe?

Would Bernard have less smaller people to pick on?

Would Pac still pick on out of prime boxers?

Would Cotto take knees earlier in his career?

no mexicans?

[Thread Stealer]

To many weight classes, titles and day before weigh ins have brought the sport down a rung. Eliminate these things and competition becomes much tougher, in turn giving the fans better fights.

The day before weigh-ins sort of ruin the whole concept of weight divisions IMO. One guy enters the ring over a dozen pounds less than the other in what is supposed to be a title fight between two guys on the same size.

In theory it's supposed to be safer, but I'd like to see some evidence or statistics showing that it is safer. I'm not sure it was actually taken into action for safety reasons anyway, despite the public claims of it being so.

[The Gambler1981]

The day before weigh-ins sort of ruin the whole concept of weight divisions IMO. One guy enters the ring over a dozen pounds less than the other in what is supposed to be a title fight between two guys on the same size.

In theory it's supposed to be safer, but I'd like to see some evidence or statistics showing that it is safer. I'm not sure it was actually taken into action for safety reasons anyway, despite the public claims of it being so.

It is kind of amazing that there is no decent solution for this problem. Guys are still getting killed and badly injured in the ring, it is probably a little better now, but I think that has more to do with overall safety concerns as opposed to the weigh in thing.

If a fighter is writing crazy ranting on lamp shades about how he is prepared to die in the ring, I doubt that a day before weigh in is saving him.

[JACK D. RIPPER]

When everyone fought everyone, took risks and it wasn't all about $$$$$.


Would Mayweather be undefeated still?

Would Calzaghe?

Would Bernard have less smaller people to pick on?

Would Pac still pick on out of prime boxers?

Would Cotto take knees earlier in his career?

No, No, No, No, No.

and p.s Megan Fox is overrated.