Old Fighters vs Modern Fighters

[Andrew Cuff V2]

I know this topic has been covered before, but it'll be nice to talk about something other than the Pac/May affair....

Disregarding modern training methods and nutrition, how do you compare old fighters to more modern fighters (not sure where the line is drawn - draw your own conclusion!).

I personally feel fighters these days are far more one dimensional and lack many of the talents of older guys. E.g. JCC was, primarily, an offensive fighter, yet the guy was old-skool with regard to his defensive abilities, which were very good. They're very underrated and people who've only seen the Taylor I / Whitaker fights would not have witnessed them. "Come forward" fighters these days lack the defence he had.

Older fighters had more "tricks" in their arsenal, IMO. I'm sure the greater ring experience had a huge effect though!

[Andrew Cuff V2]

Bumpage people...

[Mr. Philadel]

I think if you matched the old fighters against the fighters of today.....there will be more old fighters winning than losing!!!....Hagler, the former MW king would beat the hell outta today's king of the division, Pavlik......the WW version of Tommy Hearns would beat Shane, Floyd, Cotto, and Clottey in the same year!!!......no top HW from this day and time would beat ANY of those top HW's of the Jack Johnson, or Jack Dempsey eras.....those were some tough SOB's back then.....today's HW's wouldn't stand a chance in those days.....as you can see, I like the old-school more than the new school!!!......

[sonnyboyx2]

i agree with both posters before me.. The pre 1995 fighters was far superior in every way to todays fighters... Boxing has taken a backward step in terms of skill, conditioning, ring-smarts etc.. other than Pacquiao and Mayweather, there is no fighter who springs to mind whom i think is worthy of being called a great fighter pre 1995.. yet each decade you go back from 95, 85, 75 etc the list of great fighters get bigger and bigger.. IMO it is down to the loss of great american trainers like Futch, Arcel, Dundee, Brown etc

[Andrew Cuff V2]

I think if you matched the old fighters against the fighters of today.....there will be more old fighters winning than losing!!!....Hagler, the former MW king would beat the hell outta today's king of the division, Pavlik......the WW version of Tommy Hearns would beat Shane, Floyd, Cotto, and Clottey in the same year!!!......no top HW from this day and time would beat ANY of those top HW's of the Jack Johnson, or Jack Dempsey eras.....those were some tough SOB's back then.....today's HW's wouldn't stand a chance in those days.....as you can see, I like the old-school more than the new school!!!......

Yep! Boxing these days is much more one-dimensional. Back in the day, aggressive fighters such as Duran, Chavez etc were well-rounded individuals who could do it all, unlike todays fighters who seem incapable of displaying such balanced skills!

i agree with both posters before me.. The pre 1995 fighters was far superior in every way to todays fighters... Boxing has taken a backward step in terms of skill, conditioning, ring-smarts etc.. other than Pacquiao and Mayweather, there is no fighter who springs to mind whom i think is worthy of being called a great fighter pre 1995.. yet each decade you go back from 95, 85, 75 etc the list of great fighters get bigger and bigger.. IMO it is down to the loss of great american trainers like Futch, Arcel, Dundee, Brown etc

Excellent point. It is certainly true about more greater fighters from each decade you go back.

[SplitSecond]

I think if you matched the old fighters against the fighters of today.....there will be more old fighters winning than losing!!!....Hagler, the former MW king would beat the hell outta today's king of the division, Pavlik......the WW version of Tommy Hearns would beat Shane, Floyd, Cotto, and Clottey in the same year!!!......no top HW from this day and time would beat ANY of those top HW's of the Jack Johnson, or Jack Dempsey eras.....those were some tough SOB's back then.....today's HW's wouldn't stand a chance in those days.....as you can see, I like the old-school more than the new school!!!......

tommy hearns would not beat shane mosley, what kind of crack are you smokin?

[Suckmedry]

Yep! Boxing these days is much more one-dimensional. Back in the day, aggressive fighters such as Duran, Chavez etc were well-rounded individuals who could do it all, unlike todays fighters who seem incapable of displaying such balanced skills!




Excellent point. It is certainly true about more greater fighters from each decade you go back.

Not necessarily true, just because there aren't any notable pros today with a style like Duran's, doesn't mean the whole sport has taken a backward step.


Miguel Cotto and Manny Pacquiao are both aggressive fighters with good skill bases and decent defence. Floyd can do it all when he chooses. Bradley puts on pressure combined with excellent headmovement, Winky of a few years ago combined excellent defence with the ability to swap punches at a high workrate, Kostya Tszyu was a power puncher but also a thinker with a good skillbase.

That's because there was more fighters each decade you go back, in say the 1920's there were many, many fighters fighting all over the United States, and even the top ones were fighting each other every month or two.

[Andrew Cuff V2]

Not necessarily true, just because there aren't any notable pros today with a style like Duran's, doesn't mean the whole sport has taken a backward step.


Miguel Cotto and Manny Pacquiao are both aggressive fighters with good skill bases and decent defence. Floyd can do it all when he chooses. Bradley puts on pressure combined with excellent headmovement, Winky of a few years ago combined excellent defence with the ability to swap punches at a high workrate, Kostya Tszyu was a power puncher but also a thinker with a good skillbase.

That's because there was more fighters each decade you go back, in say the 1920's there were many, many fighters fighting all over the United States, and even the top ones were fighting each other every month or two.

You've unwittingly demonstrated my point. You've only named a handful of fighters there, but going back each decade the number of quality fighters increases greatly.

When I mentioned "older fighters" I wasn't just thinking of those from the 1920s, but also those from the 1970s.

[Andrew Cuff V2]

tommy hearns would not beat shane mosley, what kind of crack are you smokin?

Why not?

Mosley has struggled with boxers with a great jab, which Tommy certainly had. Also, Forrest dropped Mosley and Hearns punched far harder.

Hearns was a magnificent boxer and could punch like a cruiserweight. He had all of the tools! As long as he'd use his physical advantages to stay away from Mosley's straight right, he'd be the favourite.

[The_Demon]

old fighters

they had more heart,they had too work hard to even get a title shot instead of these days where titles are just given away.
it actually use to mean something to be the no.1 contender,and fighters use to give it their all,not knowing if they would get another shot or even another big payday