How do you judge what is historic?

[ßringer]

Another excellent opinion. Everybody who has posted has made good points backed with sound logic. Nice to see intelligent opinions on this board without the flames or biased attitudes.

It happens very rarely around these parts.

Is it a full moon tonight?

Also, just wanted to say a little more on the "old vs. new" debate that has sprung up in here.

A lot of posters around here seem to apply to Bert Sugar's school of logic that all of the best fighters have already lived and died during the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's. And they seem to especially dislike fighters from the 90's and onward.

While the latter part seems to apply to the NSB school of logic that fighters back in the day were all overrated bums who had blown up records facing other overrated bums, and that modern fighters are far superior in terms of training and nutrition as well as physical fitness and overall ability.

Nothing is ever straight up black and white, and the truth on this matter (as in all matters) is somewhere in the middle.

This place would be a lot more tolerable if some of the uneducated around here would simply watch some of the older fighters do their thing in the grainy films that are available, rather than rely on boxrec to back up their arguments.

I can't count the number of times people still spout Bert Sugar lines like the one where Willie Pep won a round without ever throwing a punch, or that Robinson knocked out Fullmer going backwards, as if it were scripture.

And the rest of them would be greatly benefitted by casting aside useless cliches spouted by the HBO screw such as "styles make fights", or other such utter nonsense.

It sounds good to the uninformed but the rest of us are just shaking our heads.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Jab there is alot of things I question. For example, we all saw how easy Pacquiao had it against both Hatton/ DLH. Pacquiao beat the so called best at Jr WW, while that is a great accomplishment, I've seen Ali, SRR, Leonard & etc face regular opponents who've put up a way better challenge and weren't hyped as much. Ya feel me? I'm talking opponents who they should get more credit for then beating Hatton but probably won't.

I question a whole lot of things, I understand that back then there weren't this many belts/ divisions and most faught 15 rounds. Fighters are no longer allowed to push (I don't know if they ever were), I do know Big George was a pusher, remember watching him push Frazier and then landing bombs. I also remember watching a Jack Dempsey fight, he faught a guy much bigger then him and Dempsey didn't let him get up, looked more like a street fight. I'm going off topic, anyway, things have changed. Hard to compare things.

[Doctor_Tenma]

You have to judge todays fighters w/ todays standards. If henry armstrong, robinson, or any old time great fought today would they have the same records & fights? I dont think so.

What's really bothersome is i think the modern fighters (70s, 80s& present) get a bad end of the stick when it comes to talk of greatness. Its as if something magical happened physically, athletically, & skillwise that happend in the old school years that the new school fighters in their time could not compete.

I beg to ****ing differ.

Athletic evolution. Every old school boxing talking head always forgets this.

In every single sport, the greatest players of their positions have come in modern times.


nba-mikan,cousy,robertson,wilt,russell,kareem,drj, to magic,bird,isiah,hakeem,
shaq,jordan,

nfl-otto graham,bart starr,johnny unitas,to dan marino, joe montana, brady to manning

track & field usain bolt, golf tiger, tennis roger, baseball ruth,tcobb, willie mays to barry, ken griffey, arod, pujols etc, etc.

but only boxing seems immune to this?

why?

i respect the old timers & what they did, but a lot of disrespect to the modern all time greats when compared to old school greats.

athletic evolution. It cannot be denied.

Ill take prime duran,leonard, hagler, hearns, pernell, roy jr, hopkins, pacquiao, tyson over any ballyhooed 20s,30s,40s,50s, great.

Man, that is a load of bull. Just imagine how active old timers would be, had they faught 12 rounds.

[baracuda]

I disagree with this. There were many more professional fighters during the 20's, 30's 40's and 50's. I don't know if the number is correct, but I read in Barney Ross' biography that there were 60,000 registered pro's back in his day, and that didn't include guys who fought in mostly smokers. Many many more gyms (at least in the US). That in my opinion would make for much tougher competition.

As far as all the belts today and are they necessary? No, they are not. Only one fighter can be the best in his division. Only one deserves to be called champion. Everything else was spawned as a way to make more money.

although i wanna take your word for it,id be very surprised to know that there were more boxers in those decades than the last ones.... because of the growth of population is why we have more doctors,engineers,lawyers ,..boxers...thers also more money now in boxing unlike those times where even after along pro career they end being broke after retirement....this is also why i think more pursue that carreer than the early decades....

it would be nice to have only one champ in each division but i really think its not practical with todays standards.....lets say 10 guys are all ready for a title fight vs the champ who only fights 3x ayear,that would mean 1 of them would have to wait 3 years to get his chance for the title.....he would have to fight somebody else while waiting.......which is to me unfair for a guy whos just as ready....

[popeyes]

It's too damn hard to compare fighters back then who fought every month and ended up with 150-200 fights to today's fighters. History for me is judged by competition. Moving up and winning belts in different divisions is a factor, but much less so these days where a fighter can pick weak the weakest champion and claim they were at one point champ of a division.

Guys who fight the best go down highest in history.

this pretty much sums it up

[bojangles1987]

quantity doesn't necessarily mean better.

mayweather could fight 200 guys right now and be 200-0.

do you honestly think the guys fighting 1-2 times a month are fighting top 10 , elite competition?

I know they aren't fighting elite competition, and no one should think they were. What makes a great fighter has evolved along with the sport, but because of that those fighters at the top of ATG lists like Armstrong and Ray Robinson will be damn near impossible to knock from the top by any fighter from this point on. I think ATG lists are becoming near meaningless because there are so many fighters you can put in certain spots. Unless a person has a typed out or written down list of their top fighters that they constantly monitor and update, how can you have a full, accurate list? I prefer to separate it into two separate eras, with the modern era starting around the 70's when Ali came around or maybe a little before. That's about when fighters changed from the fighting every month to ending up with only 50 or 60 fights.

[GJC]

You have to judge todays fighters w/ todays standards. If henry armstrong, robinson, or any old time great fought today would they have the same records & fights? I dont think so.

What's really bothersome is i think the modern fighters (70s, 80s& present) get a bad end of the stick when it comes to talk of greatness. Its as if something magical happened physically, athletically, & skillwise that happend in the old school years that the new school fighters in their time could not compete.

I beg to ****ing differ.

Athletic evolution. Every old school boxing talking head always forgets this.

In every single sport, the greatest players of their positions have come in modern times.


nba-mikan,cousy,robertson,wilt,russell,kareem,drj, to magic,bird,isiah,hakeem,
shaq,jordan,

nfl-otto graham,bart starr,johnny unitas,to dan marino, joe montana, brady to manning

track & field usain bolt, golf tiger, tennis roger, baseball ruth,tcobb, willie mays to barry, ken griffey, arod, pujols etc, etc.

but only boxing seems immune to this?

why?

i respect the old timers & what they did, but a lot of disrespect to the modern all time greats when compared to old school greats.

athletic evolution. It cannot be denied.

Ill take prime duran,leonard, hagler, hearns, pernell, roy jr, hopkins, pacquiao, tyson over any ballyhooed 20s,30s,40s,50s, great.

Some good points there, I would make one point though. If someone like Henry Armstrong fought now who is to say that his potential would not be spotted and he would have established his rep via the amateurs and in his 1st 20 pro fights had some carefully selected opponents served up until he was ready to challenge for one of the titles. What wouldn't have happened is that he would have lost 3 out of his 1st 4 fights.
The old timers would have had less fights but probably less losses on their records, in those days they had to eat.
But there have been good posts either way, yours amongst them, we can agree on one thing though that the world has changed.

[GJC]

like pink already pointed out boxing was not as global as it is now so less competition.... and imagine how many boxers then and now?...we can rightly say more and that is why more belts in each division is necessary dont you think ?......wed be lucky to see champions defend their titles 3x a year now so imagine how many fighters wont be getting a shot if theres only one belt.......

I agree thats why I made the point about the diminishing of the quality of non title fights. In the old days you used to have some great fighters having great fights in non title fights in the hope of getting their shot against the champion. Its why you used to quite often find that by the time a boxer was the champ he was on the way down. Jake La Motta would be a well known and classic case, by the time he won the title his best days were behind him

[JmH Reborn]

For me, like others in this good thread, I just solely based on the level of competition.

I tend to think that today's fighters are severely undervalued while the older guys are over rated. Not in a bad sense per se, since overrated seems to be a taboo word in some circles.

The older generations had alot of fights, but the caliber of fighters they were fighting were just walk overs, to hold them over until a better fight came on, which could take months or longer. So it's hard to say what is a better accomplishment. I think there are too many weight classes, but I also think the amount of belts are fine, due to boxing being on a global scale and the schedule of fighting, guys would be waiting for years for a shot and will most likely be out of his prime by the time an opportunity came along.

However orgs like the WBA are getting out of hand with their "interim", "regular", "super" classifications. If there were 4 main titles that would be fine, based on the fact that the elites don't fight all but 3x a year if we are lucky. But in a sense that is fine, because if SRR fought in this era, he would do the same. The guys here are stronger, faster and more skilled.

Think about it, all you hear are stories about dudes who were gardeners, truck drivers, florists or whatever who laced em' up and took an ass whupping for a hundred bucks.

For me, an ATG is a fighter that can fight in any decade and be successful. I also tend to think that its more the modern fighters that can make up an ATG. I have no reason to believe that if I put Floyd Mayweather into the 30s, 40s, and so forth that he wouldn't make them silly as well. I can put Miguel Cotto or Manny Pacman, Oscar De La Hoya, Bernard Hop into any decade and they would handle an overwhelming majority there as well.

Break down boxing eras like comic books do (FYI, I believe a Bronze Age will be classified): It helps me better identify key players. All I know is that as the years go by, natural evolution takes over and everybody is better.

Golden age 1900s-1940s
Silver Age 1950s-1980s
Modern Age 1990s-Present

All I know is that, like stated earlier, if the fighter goes out fighting the very best, while winning a majority, he will most likely be remembered just as highly as some other percieved greats that fought 150 times, but encountered maybe 10 elites.

[GJC]

For me, like others in this good thread, I just solely based on the level of competition.

I tend to think that today's fighters are severely undervalued while the older guys are over rated. Not in a bad sense per se, since overrated seems to be a taboo word in some circles.

The older generations had alot of fights, but the caliber of fighters they were fighting were just walk overs, to hold them over until a better fight came on, which could take months or longer. So it's hard to say what is a better accomplishment. I think there are too many weight classes, but I also think the amount of belts are fine, due to boxing being on a global scale and the schedule of fighting, guys would be waiting for years for a shot and will most likely be out of his prime by the time an opportunity came along.

However orgs like the WBA are getting out of hand with their "interim", "regular", "super" classifications. If there were 4 main titles that would be fine, based on the fact that the elites don't fight all but 3x a year if we are lucky. But in a sense that is fine, because if SRR fought in this era, he would do the same. The guys here are stronger, faster and more skilled.

Think about it, all you hear are stories about dudes who were gardeners, truck drivers, florists or whatever who laced em' up and took an ass whupping for a hundred bucks.

For me, an ATG is a fighter that can fight in any decade and be successful. I also tend to think that its more the modern fighters that can make up an ATG. I have no reason to believe that if I put Floyd Mayweather into the 30s, 40s, and so forth that he wouldn't make them silly as well. I can put Miguel Cotto or Manny Pacman, Oscar De La Hoya, Bernard Hop into any decade and they would handle an overwhelming majority there as well.

Break down boxing eras like comic books do (FYI, I believe a Bronze Age will be classified): It helps me better identify key players. All I know is that as the years go by, natural evolution takes over and everybody is better.

Golden age 1900s-1940s
Silver Age 1950s-1980s
Modern Age 1990s-Present

All I know is that, like stated earlier, if the fighter goes out fighting the very best, while winning a majority, he will most likely be remembered just as highly as some other percieved greats that fought 150 times, but encountered maybe 10 elites.

You have a point but to look at someone like Zivic's record which statistically is a nightmare because of all the losses but then look at the opposition. Younger boxing fans probably haven't heard of him and if they look would just flick past and think bum but his record is a who's who of fighters.